This research involved a number of school participants and teachers. As Hitchcock and Hughes (1995) state, the teacher-researcher is “a moral agent with views, opinions, values, and attitudes” and that is faced with “ethical and moral dilemmas” (p.45). They suggest a set of ethical rules for school-based research.
Professional integrity
1 Ensure that the research you propose is viable, that an adequate research design has been established, and appropriate data-collection techniques chosen. 2 Explain as clearly as possible the aims, objectives, and methods of the research
to all of the parties involved.
3 If using confidential documents ensure that anonymity is maintained by eliminating any kinds of material or information that could lead others to identify the subject or subjects involved.
Interests of the subjects
1 The researcher must allow subjects the right to refuse to take part in the research. 2 The researcher must demonstrate how confidentiality is to be built into the
research.
3 If any or part of the research is to be published the teacher may need to gain the permission of the parties involved.
4 If the teacher is involved in joint or collaborative research then it is important to ensure that all researchers adhere to the same set of ethical principles. Responsibilities and relationships with sponsors, outside agencies, academic institutions, or management
1 If the researcher is ‘sponsored’, the researcher must be clear on the terms of reference and their own and their subjects’ rights in relation to the finished research.
2 The teacher must be aware of the possible uses to which the research may be put.
(Hitchcock & Hughes, 1995: 51-52)
For professional integrity, I consulted the relevant literature and my supervisors before and during the research. I also explained the overall aim and plan of my research/teaching to the students; however, I did not explain this in detail as I assumed that they would engage in the process of knowledge building. I explained the details of my research clearly to teachers in order to gain their approval. (For the consent form for an interview, see Appendix 7). To the teachers that I interviewed, however, I only talked about the general topic of my research, so that their answers would remain un-affected by the details
of the research topic. When writing the thesis, I used pseudonyms not to reveal the participants’ identities.
As regards interests of the participants, I was aware that if any student did not allow me to use their written works or video and audio recordings for this research, I must accept their refusal. However, none of the students disagreed when I asked them to participate. One potential issue about action research is that students do not have the chance to refuse to take part, because their refusal would result in their absence from the classroom. In many cases, it is the teacher who designs a course or syllabus, and students do what the teachers tells them to do. In this sense, the teacher and students are not in an equal position. All the more for this, the potential educational impacts of action research on students need to be carefully considered.
As regards the confidentiality of participants’ data, I first sought permission from the principals of the schools to conduct interviews; I then sent them a letter in which the purpose of the research, data collection, anonymity and confidentiality was outlined. After I the teachers officially agreed to participate, they signed the consent forms in which the use of data for publication was mentioned. I also told the students that I would use their data for academic purposes only.
This action research involved other teachers as advisors or critics; however, they were not in a position where they could collect data from the student participants or use the data that I had collected.
This study was not sponsored by any outside organizations; however it was related to the ELT Study Group. Since my lesson demonstration was conducted as part of an annual event organized by the group, they had a close connection to this research. Nevertheless, members of the group did not have access the students’ personal data.
4.7 Metacommentary-4
Before my first panel, I wrote this methodology chapter and revised it a few times after the panel. Now I wonder to what extent I was honest in my teaching journal. I can say that I did not lie, but there were many things that I did not write about. I wrote about topics which I had an interest in. I also wrote the journal with the reader in mind; for example, I was aware that the journal would be read by my supervisors, teachers in the study group, and perhaps the students involved in this research. Therefore, I was somewhat cautious about the manner in which I expressed my feelings.
Writing a journal was not a straightforward process. I had several different identities, such as an English teacher, a researcher, a young member of the study group, a research student, and a college teacher. When writing the journal, I was not aware which “I” was writing. I think that in some respects there is some overlap among those identities and some identities are integrated, so it is impossible to distinguish those identities clearly. I can say that there were some feelings associated with those identities that I did not write about, as I was concerned about the reactions of those who would read the journal. I think, then, that my personal feelings affected this research but that this is not completely presented in my data.