Regulatory practices and school-based research: Making sense of research ethics/review

Forum Qualitative Sozialforschung

Volumn 10, Issue 2, 2009, Pages

  Tilley, Susan A ^a   Powick Kumar, Kelly D ^b   Ratković, Snežana ^a  

^a BROCK UNIVERSITY   (Canada)

^b Niagara College (NOTL Campus)   (Canada)

Author keywords

Ethics and qualitative research; Research Ethics Boards; Research oversight; School based research review; Teacher research

Indexed keywords

EID: 67649588714     PISSN: None     EISSN: 14385627     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: None     Document Type: Article

References (40)

1. Anthony, Robert (2004). Consistency of ethics review. Forum Qualitative Sozialforschung / Forum: Qualitative Social Research, 6(1), Article 5. Retrieved April 5, 2009, from http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:0114-fqs050153.
2. Canadian Institutes of Health Research, Natural Sciences Research Council of Canada, Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada (1998). Tri-Council policy statement: Ethical conduct for research involving humans (with 2000, 2002, 2005 amendments). Ottawa, Ontario, Canada: Interagency Secretariat on Research Ethics.
3. Coffey, Amanda & Atkinson, Paul (1996). Making sense of qualitative data. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
4. Coupal, Linda (2005). Practitioner-research and the regulation of research ethics: The challenge of individual, organizational, and social interests. Forum Qualitative Sozialforschung / Forum: Qualitative Social Research, 6(1), Article 6. Retrieved April 5, 2009 from http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:0114-fqs050163.
5. Connolly, Kate & Reid, Adela (2007). Ethics review for qualitative research: Adopting a valuesbased, facilitative approach. Qualitative Inquiry, 13(7), 1031-1047.
6. Cuban, Larry (1992). Managing dilemmas while building professional communities. Educational Researcher, 21, 4-11.
7. Ezzy, Douglas (2002). Qualitative analysis: Practice and innovation. Sydney, Australia: Allen & Unwin.
8. Fitzgerald, Maureen H. & Phillips, Paul A. (2006). Centralized and non-centralized ethics review: A five nation study. Accountability in Research, 13, 47-74.
9. Fontana, Andrea & Frey, James H. (2005). The interview: From neutral stance to political involvement. In Norman K. Denzin & Yvonna S. Lincoln (Eds.), The handbook of qualitative research (3rd ed., pp.695-727). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
10. Guillemin, Mariyls & Gillam, Lynn (2004). Ethics, reflexivity, and "ethically important moments" in research. Qualitative Inquiry, 10, 261-280.
11. Haggerty, Kevin D. (2004). Ethics creep: Governing social science research in the name of ethics. Qualitative Sociology, 27, 391-414.
12. Hemmings, Annette (2006). Great ethical divides: Bridging the gap between institutional review boards and researchers. Educational Researcher, 35(4), 12-18.
13. Howe, Kenneth R. & Dougherty, Katharine C. (1993). Ethics, institutional review boards, and the changing face of educational research. Educational Researcher, 22(9), 16-21.
14. Justice for Children and Youth (2006). Summary of age-based legal milestones for youth in Ontario, Canada. Retrieved April 5, 2009, from http://www.jfcy.org/agebased.html.
15. Levine-Rasky, Cynthia (2008). Middle-classness and whiteness in parents' responses to multiculturalism: A study of one school. Canadian Journal of Education, 31(2), 459-490.
16. Lincoln, Yvonna S. & Tierney, William G. (2004). Qualitative research and institutional review boards. Qualitative Inquiry, 10, 219-234.
17. Louw, Brenda & Delport, Rina (2006). Contextual challenges in South Africa: The role of research ethics committees. Journal of Academic Ethics, 4, 39-60.
18. McGinn, Michelle K. & Bosacki, Sandra L. (2004). Research ethics and practitioners: Concerns and strategies for novice researchers engaged in graduate education. Forum Qualitative Sozialforschung / Forum: Qualitative Social Research, 5(2), Article 6. Retrieved April 5, 2009, from http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:0114-fqs040263.
19. Milne, Catherine (2005). Overseeing research: Ethics and the institutional review board. Forum Qualitative Sozialforschung / Forum: Qualitative Social Research, 6(1), Article 41. Retrieved April 5, 2009, from http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:0114-fqs0501412.
20. Mueller, John H. (2007). Ignorance is neither bliss nor ethical. Northwestern University Law Review, 101(2), 809-836.
21. Neito, Sonia (1994). Lessons from students on creating a chance to dream. Harvard Educational Review, 64(4), 392-426.
22. Patterson, Donna (2006). Research ethics boards as spaces of marginalization: A Canadian story. Qualitative Inquiry, 14(1), 18-27.
23. Pritchard, Ivor A. (2002). Travelers and trolls: Practitioner research and institutional review boards. Educational Researcher, 31(3), 3-13.
24. Roman, Leslie G. (1993). Double exposure: The politics of feminist materialist ethnography. Educational Theory, 43(3), 279-308.
25. Roth, Wolff-Michael (2005). Ethics as social practice: Introducing the debate on qualitative research and ethics. Forum Qualitative Sozialforschung / Forum: Qualitative Social Research, 6(1), Article 9. Retrieved April 5, 2009, from http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:0114-fqs050195.
26. Social Sciences and Humanities Research Ethics Special Working Committee (2004). Giving voice to the spectrum. Ottawa, Ontario, Canada: Interagency Advisory Panel and Secretariat on Research Ethics.
27. Social Sciences and Humanities Research Ethics Special Working Committee (2005). Refinements to the proportionate approach to research ethics review in the TCPS. Ottawa, Ontario, Canada: Interagency Advisory Panel and Secretariat on Research Ethics.
28. Social Sciences and Humanities Research Ethics Special Working Committee (2006). Qualitative research in the context of the TCPS: A follow-up to the giving voice to the spectrum report and discussion paper. Ottawa, Ontario, Canada: Interagency Advisory Panel and Secretariat on Research Ethics.
29. Social Sciences and Humanities Research Ethics Special Working Committee (2008a). Qualitative research: A chapter for inclusion in the TCPS. Ottawa, Ontario, Canada: Interagency Advisory Panel and Secretariat on Research Ethics.
30. Social Sciences and Humanities Research Ethics Special Working Committee (2008b). Proportionate approach to research ethics review in the TCPS: Proposed textural changes for concept of risk in the TCPS. Ottawa, Ontario, Canada: Interagency Advisory Panel and Secretariat on Research Ethics.
31. Tilley, Susan A. (1998). Conducting respectful research: A critique of practice. Canadian Journal of Education, 23(3), 316-328.
32. Tilley, Susan A. (2008). A troubled dance: Doing the work of research ethics review. Journal of Academic Ethics, 6(2), 91-104.
33. Tilley, Susan A. & Gormley, Louise (2007). Canadian university ethics review: Cultural complications translating principles into practice. Qualitative Inquiry, 13(3), 368-387.
34. Tilley, Susan & Ratković, Snežana (2006). District school boards and ethics review of school-based research: An Ontario perspective. Paper presented at the Canadian Society of Studies in Education, May 2006, York University, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.
35. Tilley, Susan A.; Killins, Janet & Van Oosten, Deborah (2005). Connections and tensions between university and school districts: Research review boards and school-based research. Alberta Journal of Education, 51(3), 277-292.
36. van den Hoonaard, Will C. (Ed.) (2002). Walking the tightrope: Ethical issues for qualitative researchers. Toronto, Ontario, Canada: University of Toronto Press.
37. van den Hoonaard, Will C. (2006). The ethics trapeze. Journal of Academic Ethics, 4, 1-10.
38. Wilson, Suzanne M. (1995). Not tension but intention: A response to Wong's analysis of the researcher/teacher. Educational Researcher, 24(8), 19-22.
39. Wong, E. David (1995). Challenges confronting the researcher/teacher: Conflicts of purpose and conduct. Educational Researcher, 24(3), 22-28.
40. Zeni, Jane (2001). A guide to ethical decision making for insider research. In Jane Zeni (Ed.), Ethical issues in practitioner research (pp.153-165). New York: Teachers College Press.