Common use of Problematising an ethical research agenda Clause in Contracts

Problematising an ethical research agenda. As a PhD student at King’s College, I had to obtain ethical approval from the ‘Education and Management Research Ethics Panel’ prior to the start of my research. This was a very worthwhile but time consuming process as I had to (1) give a detailed explanation of my intended research, draft (2) a letter and (3) a consent from to the head teacher, (4) write a letter to the parents, (5) prepare an information sheet, and (6) consent form for the parents, and (7) prepare an information sheet and (8) consent form for the young people, (9) prepare my language questionnaire, and (10) prepare the task sheet for the written account/ photo-essay (Pink, 2007). My research was categorised as ‘not high risk’ and I obtained ethical approval after making just a few amendments to my research proposal. Having been granted ethical approval, I did not envisage the problems that I would encounter. This was because my research was ‘initially formulated as a perfectly coherent research plan with 1). However, ‘the ‘field’ is a chaotic, hugely complex place. Fieldwork is the moment when the researcher climbs down to everyday reality and finds out that the rules of academia are not necessarily the same as those of everyday life’ (Xxxxxxxxx and Xxxx, 2010, p. 1). It is clear that the ethics committee at King’s college envisaged an idealised notion of the research process which uses ‘a set of guidelines that do not take ethnography into account’ (Agar, 1996, p. 108). I experienced the reality of ethnographic research practice, which is not ‘as clear-cut as the research proposal formats’ would suggest (Xxxxxxx, 1984, p. 140). This is because ethical codes were originally based on a ‘biomedical model’ (Xxxxxxx, 1984, p. 147). They cannot be ‘mechanically transposed to ethnographic research’ as such codes are not ‘method-sensitive’ and they may unnecessarily and inappropriately constrain ethnographic research (Gobo, 2008, p. 136). This is particularly true if an interpretative understanding of ethnography is assumed rather than a positivist one because the researcher aims to engage in the activities and the concerns of those studied in order to obtain a “deep understanding” (X’Xxxxxx, 2005) of the situated knowledge generated. Therefore, it is important to be sensitive to the values and concerns of everyone involved in the process.

Problematising an ethical research agenda. As a PhD student at King’s College, I had to obtain ethical approval from the ‘Education and Management Research Ethics Panel’ prior to the start of my research. This was a very worthwhile but time consuming process as I had to (1) give a detailed explanation of my intended research, draft (2) a letter and (3) a consent from to the head teacher, (4) write a letter to the parents, (5) prepare an information sheet, and (6) consent form for the parents, and (7) prepare an information sheet and (8) consent form for the young people, (9) prepare my language questionnaire, and (10) prepare the task sheet for the written account/ photo-essay (Pink, 2007). My research was categorised as ‘not high risk’ and I obtained ethical approval after making just a few amendments to my research proposal. Having been granted ethical approval, I did not envisage the problems that I would encounter. This was because my research was ‘initially formulated as a perfectly coherent research plan with 1). However, ‘the ‘field’ is a chaotic, hugely complex place. Fieldwork is the moment when the researcher climbs down to everyday reality and finds out that the rules of academia are not necessarily the same as those of everyday life’ (Xxxxxxxxx Blommaert and XxxxDong, 2010, p. 1). It is clear that the ethics committee at King’s college envisaged an idealised notion of the research process which uses ‘a set of guidelines that do not take ethnography into account’ (Agar, 1996, p. 108). I experienced the reality of ethnographic research practice, which is not ‘as clear-cut as the research proposal formats’ would suggest (Xxxxxxx, 1984, p. 140). This is because ethical codes were originally based on a ‘biomedical model’ (Xxxxxxx, 1984, p. 147). They cannot be ‘mechanically transposed to ethnographic research’ as such codes are not ‘method-sensitive’ and they may unnecessarily and inappropriately constrain ethnographic research (Gobo, 2008, p. 136). This is particularly true if an interpretative understanding of ethnography is assumed rather than a positivist one because the researcher aims to engage in the activities and the concerns of those studied in order to obtain a “deep understanding” (X’XxxxxxO’Reilly, 2005) of the situated knowledge generated. Therefore, it is important to be sensitive to the values and concerns of everyone involved in the process.

Problematising an ethical research agenda. As a PhD student at King’s College, I had to obtain ethical approval from the ‘Education and Management Research Ethics Panel’ prior to the start of my research. This was a very worthwhile but time consuming process as I had to (1) give a detailed explanation of my intended research, draft (2) a letter and (3) a consent from to the head teacher, (4) write a letter to the parents, (5) prepare an information sheet, and (6) consent form for the parents, and (7) prepare an information sheet and (8) consent form for the young people, (9) prepare my language questionnaire, and (10) prepare the task sheet for the written account/ photo-essay (Pink, 2007). My research was categorised as ‘not high risk’ and I obtained ethical approval after making just a few amendments to my research proposal. Having been granted ethical approval, I did not envisage the problems that I would encounter. This was because my research was ‘initially formulated as a perfectly coherent research plan with 1). However, ‘the ‘field’ is a chaotic, hugely complex place. Fieldwork is the moment when the researcher climbs down to everyday reality and finds out that the rules of academia are not necessarily the same as those of everyday life’ (Xxxxxxxxx and XxxxBlomxxxxx xxx Dong, 20100010, p. 1). It is clear that the ethics committee at King’s college envisaged an idealised notion of the research process which uses ‘a set of guidelines that do not take ethnography into account’ (Agar, 1996, p. 108). I experienced the reality of ethnographic research practice, which is not ‘as clear-cut as the research proposal formats’ would suggest (Xxxxxxx, 1984, p. 140). This is because ethical codes were originally based on a ‘biomedical model’ (Xxxxxxx, 1984, p. 147). They cannot be ‘mechanically transposed to ethnographic research’ as such codes are not ‘method-sensitive’ and they may unnecessarily and inappropriately constrain ethnographic research (Gobo, 2008, p. 136). This is particularly true if an interpretative understanding of ethnography is assumed rather than a positivist one because the researcher aims to engage in the activities and the concerns of those studied in order to obtain a “deep understanding” (X’XxxxxxO’Reilly, 2005) of the situated knowledge generated. Therefore, it is important to be sensitive to the values and concerns of everyone involved in the process.

Problematising an ethical research agenda. As a PhD student at King’s College, I had to obtain ethical approval from the ‘Education and Management Research Ethics Panel’ prior to the start of my research. This was a very worthwhile but time consuming process as I had to (1) give a detailed explanation of my intended research, draft (2) a letter and (3) a consent from to the head teacher, (4) write a letter to the parents, (5) prepare an information sheet, and (6) consent form for the parents, and (7) prepare an information sheet and (8) consent form for the young people, (9) prepare my language questionnaire, and (10) prepare the task sheet for the written account/ photo-essay (Pink, 2007). My research was categorised as ‘not high risk’ and I obtained ethical approval after making just a few amendments to my research proposal. Having been granted ethical approval, I did not envisage the problems that I would encounter. This was because my research was ‘initially formulated as a perfectly coherent research plan with 1). However, ‘the ‘field’ is a chaotic, hugely complex place. Fieldwork is the moment when the researcher climbs down to everyday reality and finds out that the rules of academia are not necessarily the same as those of everyday life’ (Xxxxxxxxx Blommaert and XxxxDong, 2010, p. 1). It is clear that the ethics committee at King’s college envisaged an idealised notion of the research process which uses ‘a set of guidelines that do not take ethnography into account’ (Agar, 1996, p. 108). I experienced the reality of ethnographic research practice, which is not ‘as clear-cut as the research proposal formats’ would suggest (XxxxxxxAkeroyd, 1984, p. 140). This is because ethical codes were originally based on a ‘biomedical model’ (XxxxxxxAkeroyd, 1984, p. 147). They cannot be ‘mechanically transposed to ethnographic research’ as such codes are not ‘method-sensitive’ and they may unnecessarily and inappropriately constrain ethnographic research (Gobo, 2008, p. 136). This is particularly true if an interpretative understanding of ethnography is assumed rather than a positivist one because the researcher aims to engage in the activities and the concerns of those studied in order to obtain a “deep understanding” (X’XxxxxxO’Reilly, 2005) of the situated knowledge generated. Therefore, it is important to be sensitive to the values and concerns of everyone involved in the process.