2. Las virtudes dianoéticas y las ciencias
2.3 El intelecto
78 Table 5
Summary of Ethical Principles for Research Involving Human Participants (continued). 7. Ethical Principles of Professional Bodies: This set of principles is generic and not exhaustive of considerations which apply in all disciplines. Where relevant professional bodies have published their own guidelines and principles, these must be followed and the current principles interpreted and extended as necessary in this context.
Retrieved January 22, 2009 from, http://www.edu.plymouth.ac.uk/resined/beginning/begresed.htm#Ethics.
Beyond the purview of the actual data collection in a research study, the American Educational Research Association (AERA) describes ethical procedures for researchers, in general. The following is a list of excerpts from the AREA‘s Ethical Standards (n.d.) that are specific to a research study:
Educational researchers must not fabricate, falsify, or misrepresent authorship, evidence, data, findings, or conclusions.
Educational researchers should attempt to report their findings to all relevant stakeholders, and should refrain from keeping secret or selectively
communicating their findings.
Educational researchers should report research conceptions, procedures, results, and analyses accurately and sufficiently in detail to allow knowledgeable, trained researchers to understand and interpret them.
Educational researchers' reports to the public should be written straightforwardly to communicate the practical significance for policy, including limits in
effectiveness and in generalizability to situations, problems, and contexts. In writing for or communicating with non-researchers, educational researchers must
79
take care not to misrepresent the practical or policy implications of their research or the research of others.
As the researcher, I endeavored to conduct the research in an ethical manner, being respectful of the participants in the study. Kvale (1996) designates three general areas for consideration when conducting a study involving interviews: informed consent,
confidentiality, and consequences. What follows is a brief discussion of each of these issues, as it relates to my study.
Informed Consent: As part of my research design, I applied to the Institutional Review Board (IRB) for permission to conduct this research. Besides participating in mandatory research ethics training, I was required to provide an informed consent letter to each of the graduates and faculty-mentors I asked to participate in my study. This informed consent letter explained the overall purpose and design of my investigation, as well described any possible risks or benefits to subjects as a result of their participation. It also explained that their participation in the study was voluntary, and that they could withdraw from the study at any time, should they wish to, with no repercussions. Since the subjects in this study were neither minors, nor did they belong to any vulnerable populations, each participant was asked to sign and return the informed consent statement to me as a requirement for participation in the interviews.
Confidentiality: As an ethical consideration, the names of the institution and the mentors interviewed remained confidential and anonymous. The names of the graduates also remained confidential, unless they agreed on the informed consent statement to allow me to notify the faculty-mentor of their name. In my research report, I provide enough basic demographic information about the institution and the mentors, but not
80
enough information as to make identification of the institution and participants possible. Under the protection of confidentiality and anonymity, it was my hope that the mentors would feel safe disclosing any negative experiences they may have had as mentors, thus further illustrating their experiences as mentors. If a mentor did discuss a negative experience I reacted in a non-judgmental way in an effort to build trust and create an environment of security so that the mentor would feel safe discussing something that may be a very important aspect to the mentoring experience. Regarding the transcribing of the interview recording, I also made sure that pseudonyms of the interviewees were used in the interview, thereby further protecting confidentiality.
Consequences: This refers to the notion that participation in an investigation should not only have minimal-to-no risk of harm to the subject, but that participation should also provide some sort of benefit to the participant. Various benefits that a researcher may offer an interviewee are: a copy of the interview tape and transcript, a copy of the final research report, or even a modest gift after the completion of the interviews (Janesick, 2004), such as a $10.00 gift certificate to a local coffee shop. I offered all these benefits to the faculty-mentors who participated in this study.
Assumptions
In reference to the domain of research, Leedy & Ormrod (2001) define an assumption as: ―a condition that is taken for granted, without which the research project would be pointless‖ (p. 7). For example, within the quantitative paradigm the concept that reality is a fixed singularity that exists apart from the existence of the researcher/subject is so self-evident to quantitative researchers that we rarely find any statement of the nature of reality in quantitative research reports (that is, excluding quantum physics).
81
However, qualitative researchers approach research from a different worldview that may be described as a different perspective—a perpendicular or orthogonal perspective—and therefore presume very different (perpendicular or orthogonal) assumptions. Since assumptions influence methodology (how evidence is gathered) and epistemology (what is knowledge and how it is created), a discussion of the assumptions of qualitative inquiry is in order.
Assumptions of the Qualitative Paradigm
Creswell (1998) describes five philosophical assumptions that undergird the qualitative research paradigm. In the section above labeled Qualitative Research I have discussed four of these assumptions: the ontological, the epistemological, the axiological and the methodological. Creswell labels the fifth assumption of the qualitative paradigm the rhetorical; this indicates that the style of language and the research terminology may differ and are particular to each paradigm. Since I have already discussed these
assumptions, in Table 6, I provide Creswell‘s (1998, p. 75) chart as a review and summary.
The philosophical underpinnings (assumptions) of a paradigm ultimately delimits the type of research questions formulated, how evidence is gathered and analyzed, and what may be concluded as knowledge, or, as Eisner (1994) states, it ―biases the evidence one is able to take into account‖ (p. 97). Therefore it is important that researchers be aware of the assumptions and limitations of their research paradigm. When researchers understand the delimitations of one research paradigm, then the utility and importance of having another research paradigm is evident as another complimentary or orthogonal
82 Table 6
Philosophical Assumptions of the Qualitative Paradigm with Implications for Practice
Assumption Question Characteristics Implications for Practice (examples)
Ontological What is the nature of reality?
Reality is subjective and multiple, as seen by participants in the study.
Researcher uses quotes and themes in words of participants and provides evidence of different perspectives.
Epistemological What is the relationship between the researcher and that being researched? Researcher attempts to lessen distance between himself or herself and that being researched.
Researcher collaborates, spends time in the field with participants, and becomes an ―insider‖.
Axiological What is the role of values?
Researcher
acknowledges that research is value laden and that biases are present.
Researcher openly
discusses values that shape the narrative and includes own interpretation in conjunction with interpretations of participants.
83 Table 6
Philosophical Assumptions of the Qualitative Paradigm with Implications for Practice (continued).
Rhetorical What is the language of research?
Researcher writes in a literary, informal style using the personal voice and uses qualitative terms and limited definitions.
Researcher uses an engaging style of narrative, may use first- person pronoun, and employs the language of qualitative research.
Methodological What is the process of research?
Researcher uses inductive logic, studies the topic within its context, and uses an emerging design.
Researcher works with particulars (details) before generalizations, describes in detail the context of the study, and continually revises questions from experience in the field.
From Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing from the five traditions, by J.W. Creswell, 1998, p.75, Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
perspective for gaining knowledge, as it addresses different research questions, evidence, and understandings.
Assumptions of Phenomenology
Since phenomenology is a subset of the qualitative paradigm, the aforementioned assumptions of qualitative research are also assumptions of phenomenology.
84
within the multifarious details of the daily lived-experience of, for example, a mentor, lies essential elements (meanings, experiences or structures) that are common between all mentors (Merriam & Associates, 2002). Thus, the aim of this phenomenological study is to identify the basic elements (essences or structures) of the experience of being a faculty-mentor that are common among faculty-mentors, thereby rendering a description of the experience and the meaning faculty-mentors make of the experience (Leedy & Ormrod, 2001).
Personal Assumptions of the Researcher
In previous sections of this chapter I have explored various perspectives on the importance of uncovering assumptions and consciously examining how assumptions frame the worldview of the researcher. Concerning my own presence in the study in the formal role of self-as-researcher, I concur with the aforementioned assumptions of the qualitative and phenomenological research perspectives. I have also reflected upon my own assumptions regarding mentoring, which are based on 12 years of experience in various higher education academic mentorships. What follows here are my personal assumptions based on this experience. Since I have never been a mentor, but rather always the protégé, my personal assumptions about mentoring are informed by the experiences of a protégé.
1. Mentoring is a developmental relationship wherein the protégé seeks guidance and support from the mentor, to assist in actualizing certain professional academic goals.
2. Since mentoring is a developmental relationship, the protégé typically experiences personal growth along with professional growth. I believe this
85
is facilitated due to an unspecified minimum degree of quality of
interaction and quantity of contact time that is shared. The degree of quality and quantity of contact time may be highly variable, and yet still constitute a quality mentorship.
3. A developmental relationship indicates that the protégé will be gaining new experience and knowledge that is guided by the mentor‘s expert experience and knowledge. As such, undoubtedly the protégé will make mistakes. The mentor may make mistakes, as well, as relationships contain the opportunity for miscommunications and misunderstandings. Both parties would benefit from overt articulation of a mutual understanding to the effect that innocent mistakes might occur and will be forgiven in the interest of preserving a positive and productive working relationship.
4. A mentorship is like any other relationship: the longer it continues, the more opportunity there is to discover things about each other that can potentially lead to interpersonal conflict or divergent perspectives.This is normal. If a protégé trait or behavior needs correction, a mentor may try to address the issue in the most proactive, positive and constructive way possible; the protégé should remain open and responsive to positive, constructive criticism.
5. Relationships require time and effort, which at times may be in short supply. Both protégés and mentors would benefit from mutually respectful planning conversations where each is apprised of the other‘s time
86
mutual understanding of realistic expectations about work aspects such as time estimates for document production and turnaround times for feedback. 6. The mentor and protégé have similar goals: the development of a student
into a professional colleague. The protégé should be happy to serve the mentor, just as the mentor serves the protégé.
7. The obvious beneficiary of a mentorship is the protégé; however, mentors can and should benefit from the mentorship, as well.
As an experienced protégé, I found that the reflective exercise of articulating my personal assumptions provided me with an informed context for the investigation of the
phenomenon of being a mentor; I am very curious about what it might be like to ―walk a mile in the mentors‘ shoes‖ and to gain insight into their world.
Reliability, Validity, Generalizabilty, Bias
As might be expected, just as the qualitative paradigm addresses research questions, methods and assumptions that differ from the quantitative paradigm, the qualitative research approach to criteria for evaluating a study also differs from the quantitative approach (validity and reliability). In the quantitative paradigm, reliability refers to consistent results from multiple trials of the same experiment (Leedy & Ormrod, 2001); however, in the qualitative paradigm, exact replication of results is not expected between cases (Merriam & Associates, 2002). Rather, reliability is regarded as other researchers ―concurring that given the data collected, the results make sense—they are consistent and dependable‖ (Merriam & Associates, 2002, p. 27) with the design and execution of the study. In the qualitative paradigm, then, reliability addresses each and every component part of the research design (research question, methods, analysis,
87
interpretation, and conclusion) as each part builds upon the next in an appropriate and logical manner. Ultimately, the researcher must provide ample evidence to convince the reader that a ―logic of justification‖ (Piantanida & Garman, 1999, p. 105) has been demonstrated throughout the inquiry.
External validity is the term that is used in the quantitative paradigm to describe generalizeability, which is the ability to infer that the results of an experiment done on a randomly selected, small, but representative sample of subjects is also true for the larger population out of which the sample was drawn (Leedy & Ormrod, 2001). Since
participants in qualitative studies are usually not randomly selected, in the qualitative paradigm it is more appropriate to expect reader or user generalizeability. In this case, readers or users of the research, or persons who participate in a situation similar to the phenomenon under investigation, determine to what extent and degree the research findings apply to their own situation (Merriam & Associates, 2002). In this study, findings might generalize to other professors who mentor doctoral students, master‘s students, or even undergraduate students, or mentors involved in adult education in general.
In the quantitative paradigm, internal validity refers to the condition where the experiment is designed well enough (variables are controlled and appropriate instruments are used to measure variables) to actually measure what is claimed to be measured so that conclusions regarding cause-and-effect may be accurate (Leedy & Ormrod, 2001). Although qualitative researchers do not use the term internal validity, there are numerous criteria for evaluating the efficacy of a qualitative study. First, I present here in Table 7 several criteria used to evaluate qualitative research; then I will discuss the ones that
88
apply to this study. Creswell (1998) recommends that qualitative researchers engage in at least two of these procedures of verification in a qualitative study.
Table 7
Criteria for Evaluating Qualitative Research
Purposefulness: The research question drives the methods used to collect and analyze
data, rather than the other way around.
Explicitness of assumptions and biases: The researcher identifies and communicates
any assumptions, beliefs, values and biases [See also: Creswell, 1998; Merriam, 1998; Merriam & Associates, 2002] that may influence data collection and interpretation.
Rigor: The researcher uses rigorous, precise, and thorough methods to collect, record,
and analyze data (see also audit trail: Creswell, 1998; Merriam & Associates, 2002). The researcher also takes steps to remain as objective as possible throughout the project.
Completeness: The researcher depicts the object of the study in all its complexity….and
gives readers a total, multifaceted picture of the phenomenon (i.e., thick description: See also: Creswell, 1998; Merriam & Associates, 2002).
Coherence: The data yield consistent findings, such that the researchers can present a
portrait the ―hangs together.‖ Multiple data sources converge onto consistent conclusions (triangulation: See also: Creswell, 1998; Merriam, 1998; Merriam & Associates, 2002), and any contradictions within the data art reconciled (See also: Creswell, 1998).
Persuasiveness: The researcher presents logical arguments, and the weight of the
89 Table 7
Criteria for Evaluating Qualitative Research (continued).
Consensus: Other individuals, including the participants in the study (member checks:
See also: Creswell, 1998; Merriam, 1998; Merriam & Associates, 2002) and other scholars in the discipline (inter-rater reliability / peer review See also: Creswell, 1998; Merriam, 1998; Merriam & Associates, 2002), agree with the researcher‘s interpretations and explanations.
Usefulness: The project yields conclusions that promote better understanding of the
phenomenon, enable more accurate predictions about future events, or lead to interventions that enhance the quality of life.
From: Practical Research: Planning and Design, by P.D. Leedy & J.E. Ormrod, 2001, p. 164-165, Upper Saddle River, NJ: Merrill Prentice Hall.
Specific Techniques of Verification Within This Study
I have explicitly discussed my assumptions and biases in the aforementioned respective sections. As discussed earlier, in the qualitative paradigm the researcher‘s biases are explicitly stated and monitored throughout the research process (Creswell, 1998). I engaged in ongoing monitoring of my bias throughout the study by means of my researcher reflective journaling, as well as the process of bracketing (revealing and setting aside of my personal prejudgments) as part of the phenomenological analysis process. In order to achieve consensus of findings, I engaged in member checks with the interviewees after each interview, including transparency of my analysis findings with each participant. As a further validity check, a peer reviewer reviewed the transcripts and my concomitant analysis of the pilot interview and we then ascertained our consensus.
90
Additionally, I rigorously used transparent and established methods to collect and analyze the data, and report a thorough portrayal of the mentors. I applied triangulation between data sources to arrive at coherent and persuasive conclusions. I constructed a research design that is purposeful and appropriate for the investigation of the research questions; if greater understanding of the experience of being a mentor is gained, this should prove useful in designing better support for mentors, better mentor training programs, and better mentoring incentives. Figure 2 summarizes all the steps in my data collection, analysis, and verification procedures.
Hardware and Software
The recording device I used to record the interviews is an Olympus Digital Voice Recorder (DVR) model WS-300M. I acquired this particular model three years ago, after discussing interview data collection in our Qualitative Research Methods class. This DVR has 35 hours of recording time in the highest sound quality mode and can store up to 995 digital voice files. The small, handheld device plugs directly into a computer USB port so I can easily download the files and email the interview file to the transcriber for transcription. I have made it a point to practice using the DVR in order to familiarize myself with the processes of recording, saving and storing different audio files. I also carried back-up batteries to every interview, just in case one was needed (Janesick, 2004). For ease of data management, I used the computer program ATLAS.ti (qualitative analysis software) after I identified the initial meaning units from the transcripts in my