Autocorrelaci´on Espacial

This research adhered to the Massey University Code of Ethical Conduct for Teaching and Research involving Human Subjects Guidelines (Massey University, 2004). All material related to ethical practice was presented for approval to the supervisors and a low risk notification was granted. Potential ethical dilemmas were also discussed with the supervisors.

Informed consent was gained from all participants. The Information Sheets were tailored for the different groups of participants, but met the criteria that each group of participants would be informed about the nature of the research, their commitments, and the right to withdraw at any time. The initial contact was with school principals by phone and this was followed (in the pilot study, all Phase One schools, and some of the Phase Two schools) by personal visits. It was not feasible to make preliminary visits to some of the Phase Two schools because of geographic location. The purpose was to address any questions about the study and to impress upon principals that teachers were not to be coerced or put under pressure to participate.

Once the school principals and Boards of Trustees had granted permission, an invitation was extended to the teachers of the gifted students in the targeted groups. It was made clear that no commitment was expected from the teachers until they had met with the researcher and all questions had been answered. After this approval and written consent (Appendix G), the researcher spoke to the group of students that the teachers had identified as mathematically gifted and talented in their special programme or class. Each student was given a full description of the research aims and objectives, the research process, and what their commitment involved. They were given a research pack to take home that contained a Student Information Sheet, Parent Information Sheet, and Consent Forms (Appendices H and I).

All participants signed consent forms and prior to each interview they were reminded of their rights, including the request to turn the tape off at any time during the interview. The issue of anonymity was discussed especially given the limitations posed by others knowing who was participating in the study. For example, teachers within the school, students withdrawing from class for an interview, and parents talking among themselves. However, one strategy to protect participants’ anonymity was to not include transcripts in the Appendices. At all times the raw interview data was treated as confidential to the researcher and the transcribers. Other material such as teachers’ plans and students’ workbooks were only viewed by the researcher. In the reported findings no identifiable names or complete descriptions of schools are used that could potentially lead to recognition.

Every effort was made in classroom observations to protect the anonymity of participants. The researcher focused observations on the whole class rather than on the research participants in particular. Provision was made to interview students at a time deemed suitable by both the student and his/her teacher so that there was minimal disruption.

Newkirk (1996) says, in referring to ethical challenges, that “every qualitative researcher I know has a story to tell” (p. 3). What follows are brief descriptions of situations that presented ethical challenges. The fundamental ethic of caring underpinned the researcher’s actions when presented with these ethical dilemmas. There was a conflict of interest between the role of researcher and that of carer. For example, a participant made a request for advice. Caring meant a response was needed because it was in the best interests of the participant. Actions were taken, not because the researcher was seeking gratitude from the student and parents, but to enhance the educational welfare of the student and to bring about a favourable outcome. Newkirk (1996) warned that such activism is an ethical responsibility and could be perceived as a payoff for those volunteering to participate in the study. This instance will be described in the findings.

When asked for assistance on another occasion, the following ‘story’ evolved. This situation involved a principal who keenly welcomed the researcher into the school to conduct the research. However, it turned out the principal had his own agenda which

opinion as to what was going on in that particular classroom. The researcher firmly restated the research objectives and refuted any notion of an evaluative role except in relation to the research questions. There was no intention of reporting anything back to the principal except as it related in general terms to the study. This would have threatened the willingness of the participants (teacher and students), the researcher’s integrity, and ethical practice.

Another ethical challenge is faced when findings bring to light aspects that may be viewed by stakeholders as negative. Educational researchers may not always give indications of this possibility from the outset; despite well-meaning intentions, findings may be viewed negatively or as judgemental. An attempt was made to address this dilemma by sharing findings in general terms with the principal and teacher, and then supplying a summary sheet which concluded with considerations that applied to addressing some of the negative outcomes such as perceived poor home-school communications. For schools that did not have policies on gifted and talented education, but expressed interest in developing one, the researcher supplied resources and provided the names of contacts for developing these documents.