Fundamentals of Education Research

Introduction

Welcome to Week Three!  This week, we will explore a variety of data collection techniques while differentiating between qualitative and quantitative data.

Before moving any further, please take a moment to review and reflect on our learning expectations  for the week:

Weekly Learning Outcomes

1. Justify action research plan steps one through four in depth.
2. Differentiate between qualitative and quantitative data collection techniques.
3. Construct triangulation matrix for proposed mixed-methods data collection.
4. Apply ethical guidelines to proposed action research plan.
   

   ---

   
   Week Three Overview

   In Week Three, we will evaluate the value of implementing a mixed-methods approach in an effort to answer your proposed research questions. Now that your review of literature is complete, you will make necessary adjustments to the first four steps of your action research plan based on your new learning from sound scholarship. As we begin thinking about actual research design and data collection, you will also be exploring in more depth the key ethical considerations you must address whenever you are engaging in research with human subjects.

   • • Discussion 1: Triangulation. You will complete the Data Collection Worksheet provided in the online classroom to include the following:
     • Area of focus statement
     • Brief description of proposed intervention
     • Table
     • • Discuss how using a mixed-methods data collection approach will lead you to understand and explain more fully what is discovered during the research, as opposed to using one approach over the other.
   • • Discussion 2: Ethics in Research. Briefly describe the population you would intend to collect data from were you to actually conduct an action research study. Be sure to view the Belmont Report and watch all the videos.
   • Assignment: Draft Action Research Plan. Your three- to five-page Action Research Introduction paper needs to contain the following items: a. Area of focus statement b. Explanation of the problem c. Description and justification of participants and d. research question/s (one to three sentences).

   
   MAED Self-Check: Continue the approval process by discussing your developing ideas with your employer or manager so as to complete the Informed Consent requirement by the end of Week 4. This week, you will be accountable in the Assignment for reporting on this process up to this stage of your planning.  It is however advised you wait to complete the actual Informed Consent form until after your instructor has worked with you throughout the instructional weeks to solidify your action research plan.

   ---

   
   Intellectual Elaboration

   Introduction

   Expertise has become suspect in our Post-Modern age. We no longer have the level of trust that we once had for expertise.  The presence of the internet, of course, contributes to this.  On the internet, “expertise” can be cheaply manufactured and displayed. As David Weinberger (2011, p. xii) has colorfully noted, “Everyone with any stupid idea has a megaphone as big as that of educated, trained people.” While internet claims of expertise can be often easily dismissed, it is more challenging to do so in the scientific world.  After all, scientists and other formal researchers are the ‘educated, trained people’ Weinberger was referring to. We have a high level of trust in their work—or we used to.  Lapses in research ethics contribute to this erosion.

   There are, sadly, many different ways to commit ethical lapses in research, and there are several very famous cases of these ethical lapses. Your video listing this week contains information about three of the most egregious instances.  This essay, however, discusses three other aspects of ethical research lapses: 1. Misuse of statistical data; 2. The rush to publish; and 3. Creating panic.  Each aspect offers a challenge to researchers who want to “get it right.”

   
   Misuse of Statistical Data

   Statistics, of course, are widely viewed as highly trustworthy—the folk wisdom that “The numbers don’t lie” is often heard in connection with discussions about numbers and what they mean. While the numbers may not lie, they can certainly be manipulated.  Darryl Huff wrote the humorous, even “pleasantly subversive,” (in the words of the Atlantic Monthly), How to Lie with Statistics (1954, 1993) that is a classic of its kind.

   Huff noted that “There is terror in numbers,” (p.62), then set out to demonstrate it.

   While many of his examples are aimed at Madison Avenue and Wall Street, Huff does remind us that while statistics may not lie, in the hands of a less-than-ethical practitioner, they are surely subject to manipulation and falsehood.  Sometimes those less-than-ethical practitioners are, sadly professional researchers who clearly should know better:  “In June, a survey of 3,427 scientists by the University of Minnesota and the HealthPartners Research Foundation reported that up to a third of the respondents had engaged in ethically questionable practices, from ignoring contradictory facts to falsifying data.”  (New York Times, December 20, 2005, para 11).

   This manipulation and falsehood can occur in many forms—sampling techniques that drive survey research to a particular conclusion, or accepting some statistical analysis while rejecting other, less favorable analysis, or, as in this famous case, even outright fabrication of research data—terror, indeed. These types of ethical lapses erode public confidence.

   
   The Rush to Publish

   A second type of ethical lapse is the rush to publish.  The scientific research world is largely supported by grant funding. For example, in the US in 2011 there were over $400 billion in public and private Research and Development funding up for grabs (battelle.org, December, 2011, p. 2)—a powerful incentive for doing research. But this ocean of funding does have limits, and so competition for grant funding is highly competitive.  And this makes results, particularly if they are potentially “game-changing,” highly sought after.

   A famous example can be found in the case of cold fusion.  In essence, cold fusion is a theory of energy generation that would theoretically produce virtually unlimited energy. The advantages of this are obvious, as are the resultant fame and fortune that would occur with the discovery of a viable cold fusion process.

   In 1989, chemists Stanley Pons and Martin Fleischmann of the University of Utah announced with great fanfare that they had achieved viable cold fusion.  They had done so, however, by ignoring several key science tenets in rushing to publish—they were aware of a rival researcher at a nearby university, and were in a hurry to publish their results in advance of their rival.  Their announcement, naturally enough, led other scientists to attempt to replicate their results. They could not, leading to plenty of scientific controversy. This excellent case study tells the story—What happened, why it happened and how it impacted the worlds of science and research.

   
   Creating Panic

   Turning to our last example of scientific/research misconduct, there are few conditions that have caused more fear in recent years than autism. Autism is a largely mysterious condition, and the numbers of identified cases are growing. No one can identify a cause for this, and rumor and speculation abounds.  Therefore, when a widely respected scientific journal reports that there is a connection between childhood vaccinations (specifically for Measles, Mumps, and Rubella—MMR) and autism, people take notice.

   This was the case in 1998. The highly respected British medical journal Lancet carried a study that demonstrated this linkage between MMR vaccines and autism.  The problem here was that the science was deeply flawed. The lead scientist Andrew Wakefield, as an example, had served as a paid consultant to a law firm that intended to sue vaccine manufacturers.  Moreover, Wakefield (nor any other scientist) could not replicate his results (Miller, February 4, 2010). Lancet later retracted the study in 2010.

   All of this created panic—parents around the world began to reconsider  vaccinating their children, and many did not. The long term health consequences of this are going to take time to emerge, but are likely to be devastating. More to the point, the perception has been created that vaccines are bad—and there are people who should know better still repeating this misinformation.  While Autism causation is a significant concern, eliminating a proven preventative to disease in the wake of a false finding seems a pretty high price to pay.

   ---

   Conclusion

   Research is a human enterprise, and as such is subject to the same flaws as all other human enterprises. As in these human enterprises, most of us act in a responsible manner, and try to do the right thing. However, as is illustrated by both this week’s videos and the examples here, ethical lapses do occur. When these lapses become public, they further erode confidence in science and in research.

   We can do our part in combating this. When we conduct research, we need to make sure that we are conducting the research project ethically and ‘by the book’. This ensures that our work can be viewed with confidence.

   ---

   
   References Advantage Business Media. (2011, December). 2012 Global R&D funding forecast. Battelle. Retrieved from http://battelle.org/docs/default-document-library/2012_global_forecast.pdf

   Aylesworth, G. (2005, September 30). Postmodernism. Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Retrieved from http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/sum2013/entries/postmodernism/

   Broad, W. (1983, June 14). Notorious Darsee case shakes assumptions about science. New York Times. Retrieved from http://www.nytimes.com/1983/06/14/science/notorious-darsee-case-shakes-assumptions-about-science.html

   Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. (2013). Autism Spectrum Disorders (ASDs). Retrieved from http://www.cdc.gov/ncbddd/autism/data.html

   Huff, D. and Geis, I. (1993). How to lie with statistics. New York: W.W. Norton

   The Lancet. (1998). RETRACTED: Ileal-lymphoid-nodular hyperplasia, non-specific colitis, and pervasive developmental disorder in children. Retrieved from http://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736%2897%2911096-0/abstract

   The New York Times. (2005, December 20). Global trend: More science, more fraud. Retrieved fromhttp://www.nytimes.com/2005/12/20/science/20rese.html?pagewant   ed=1&_r=2&ei=5070&en=99ae85a0f20ed40f&ex=1175572800

   Miller, T. (2010, Feb. 4). Journal retracts study backing vaccine – Autism link. PBS Newshour. Retrieved from http://www.pbs.org/newshour/updates/europe/jan-june10/lancet_0204.html

   Understanding Science Team. (n.d.). Cold fusion: A case study for scientific behavior. Understanding Science. Retrieved from http://undsci.berkeley.edu/article/0_0_0/cold_fusion_01

   Weinberger, D. (2011). Too big to know. Rethinking knowledge now that the facts aren’t the facts, experts are everywhere, and the smartest person in the room is the room. New York: Basic Books

    

   ---

   
   Additional Resource
   YaleUniversity. (2011, Aug. 16). Research ethics [Video file]. Retrieved from http://www.youtube.com/wa

Overview

Note: The online classroom is designed to time students out after 90 minutes of inactivity. Because of this, we strongly suggest that you compose your work in a word processing program and copy and paste it into the discussion post when you are ready to submit it.

Weekly Learning Outcomes

This week students will:

1. Justify action research plan steps one through four in depth.
2. Differentiate between qualitative and quantitative data collection techniques.
3. Construct triangulation matrix for proposed mixed-methods data collection.
4. Apply ethical guidelines to proposed action research plan.

Introduction: Fundamental Practice Collection & the Issue of Ethics

This week, we will explore a variety of data collection techniques while differentiating between qualitative and quantitative data.  We will evaluate the value of implementing a mixed-methods approach in an effort to answer your proposed research questions.  Now that your review of literature is complete, you will make necessary adjustments to the first four steps of your action research plan based on your new learning from sound scholarship.  As we begin thinking about actual research design and data collection, you will also be exploring in more depth the key ethical considerations you must address whenever you are engaging in research with human subjects.

Required Resources

Texts

1. Action Research: A Guide for the Teacher Researcher (5th ed.)
   1. Chapter 2: Ethics
   2. Chapter 4: Data Collection Techniques
2. Research Design for Educators: Real-World Connections and Applications
   1. Chapter 4: Preparations for Data Analysis

Articles

1. U.S. Department of Health & Human Services. (1979). Ethical principles and guidelines for the protection of human subjects of research. The Belmont Report. Retrieved from http://www.hhs.gov/ohrp/humansubjects/guidance/belmont.html
   1. • Government report that governs the ethics of all federally funded research involving human subjects.

Multimedia

1. AnotherBoringWeek. (2013, January 4). Feature film – The Stanford prison experiment (documentary) [Video file]. Retrieved from http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L_LKzEqlPto
   1. • Documentary of the Stanford Prison Experiment and the controversy surrounding Zimbardo’s famous study.
        Accessibility Statement 
        Privacy Policy 
2. Clinton Presidential Library [clintonlibrary42].  (2014, May 27). Apology to survivors of the Tuskegee syphilis experiment [Video file]. Retrieved from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F8Kr-0ZE1XY
   1. • Video of President Bill Clinton apologizing to the remaining victims of the Tuskeegee Experiment.
        Accessibility Statement 
        Privacy Policy 
3. Socialontology. (n.d.). Obedience to authority_Stanley Milgram experiment [Video file]. Retrieved from http://www.dailymotion.com/video/xb8dmu
   1. • Video footage of Milgram’s study.
        Accessibility Statement does not exist.
        Privacy Policy 

Supplemental Resource

1. Gray, A. (2013). Data collection worksheet. College of Education, Ashford University, Clinton, IA.
   1. • Available in the online class.

Recommended Resources

Article

1. Smith, L.  (2008).  Ethical principles of practice: Evidence from participatory action research. Kairaranga, 9, 16-21. Retrieved from http://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ908179.pdf
   1. • This study shares the challenges associated with conducting action research pertaining to a lack of availability of a single ethics approval process. The article shares what participants followed and practiced when ethical dilemmas arose.

Multimedia

1. Missmelissa73.  (2009, November 7). Action research in the classroom part 2 [Video file]. Retrieved from http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZZHvpgU7pc8
   1. • Part 2 of this video series takes you through the steps of intervention/innovation to reporting and sharing your research.

Discussions
To participate in the following discussions, go to this week’s Discussion link in the left navigation.
Triangulation

In Chapter 4 of Action Research: A Guide for the Teacher Researcher, Mills (2014) shares that “ the strength of educational research lies in its triangulation, collecting information in many ways rather than relying solely on one” (p. 104).

Complete the Data Collection Worksheet to include the following: