Teacher and leader research: The ethics of researching your own practice

THERESE ANDREWS, THOMAS’S LONDON DAY SCHOOLS, UK 

Abstract

This paper explores the ethics of teachers and leaders researching their own workplaces and practice. Much has been written about bridging the gap between research and practice, particularly in England since the Department for EducationThe ministerial department responsible for children’s services and education in England commissioned a 2014 study to assess progress towards an evidence-informed teaching system (Coldwell et al., 2017). As a result, evidence-informed practice has become a popular phrase in the UK’s education sector, with it now being commonplace for schools and teachers to be referred to as ‘research-engaged’.

While there are many benefits to engaging teachers and leaders in research, there are also ethical implications to consider when research is undertaken, either in a researcher’s own workplace or using their own practice. This can be the case when teachers and leaders complete case study and action research for many higher degree programmes or practitioner qualifications. The implications for consideration include researcher bias, anonymity, the possibility of coercion, issues of permission and consent, and the power relations between the researcher and the participants. Possible efforts to mitigate these risks to ensure a collaborative culture of research within educational institutions are explored.

Introduction

An evidence-informed approach to education is currently receiving global interest, with multiple governments (including England’s) recognising the importance of research-informed efforts at improvement (Brown and Zhang, 2016). England’s Department for Education undertook a 2014 study on assessing progress towards evidence-informed practice. It was found that most teachers valued research evidence and are willing to engage with it (Walker et al., 2019), influenced by both the value that senior leaders placed upon it and the need for the evidence to be focused on problems and practice (Coldwell et al., 2017). This study used the term ‘evidence’ to mean:

seeking out and using: quantitative and qualitative researchQualitative research usually emphasises words rather than quantification in the collection and analysis of data. findings generated by external researchers; evidence reviews such as those produced by the Sutton Trust, EEF and John Hattie; external evaluations; and/or research produced by teachers/schools that is underpinned by rigorous and systematic enquiry

Coldwell et al., 2017, p. 10

The practice–theory gap has become a commonly accepted phenomenon in education (Ferguson, 2021). In the UK, this emerged after the publication of John Hattie’s Visible Learning in 2008 and the establishment of the Education Endowment Foundation in 2010. Further, the National Foundation for Educational Research (NFER) launched a self-review tool in 2015, which supports schools interested in assessing their level of engagement with research, where research is used as a whole-school approach to improvement through action (Nelson, 2015).

There are numerous barriers to educational research in practice, which include teachers’ time constraints, access to high-quality journals, the perceived failure of research to elicit clear outcomes and research that fails to account for the contextual reality of schools (Ferguson, 2021). This has led to the movement away from the phrase ‘evidence-based’ and towards the terms ‘evidence-informed’ and ‘research-engaged school’, which are how evidence-informed communities have started to describe themselves in the effort to address the practice–theory gap (Coldwell et al., 2017, p. 5).

As well as in-service training, there are many options available for teachers and leaders who are interested in further developing their knowledge, skills and understanding through externally accredited courses. These include Master’s and Doctoral degrees, as well as National Professional Qualifications (NPQs) and advanced teacher certification, such as obtaining Chartered Teacher Status. To gain these qualifications, some form of research is usually required. Researchers must follow the ethical guidelines of the institution that they are associated with, and in the absence of such a code, the British Educational Research Association’s (BERA) ethical guidelines are a good starting point (2018).

Ethical implications and potential mitigation

While an engaged and solution-focused teaching profession is an indisputably positive development, researching one’s own context and practice should not be undertaken without cognisance of the ethical implications that may arise. Ethics have been defined as ‘a matter of principled sensitivity to the rights of others’ (Cavan, 1977, p. 810). Such sensitivities can include, although are not limited to, the following:

1. Researcher bias

Researcher bias can exist in many forms and can be particularly pertinent when one is researching their own context, idea or innovation or is even part of the study themselves. Bias can lead to inaccurate or misleading conclusions, and researchers should develop safeguards against this as part of a transparent research plan.

The mitigation of researcher bias could include:

• the use of pre-prepared interview questions
• asking someone else to lead interviews or focus groups following an agreed protocol
• using anonymous questionnaires
• sampling a population in a strategic way
• asking participants a question about whether they believe that the researcher demonstrates bias
• triangulating data with another source where possible (Chapman, 2014).

2. Anonymity

Anonymity of research participants is standard ethical practice in educational research, embodied in guidelines and codes of practice produced by numerous professional associations (Walford, 2006). While this can be easily achieved through anonymous online questionnaires, which might elicit mainly quantitative data, the use of qualitative methods, including participant observation, focus groups and interviews, makes anonymity more challenging. This is particularly true in action research that takes place in the researcher’s place of work, where the identification of certain participant characteristics might make them easily identifiable. For example, there might only be one colleague who is male and an art teacher. This could limit the goodwill of colleagues, to the detriment of the research that would benefit from their participation.

The anonymity of research participants can be maintained by:

• the use of questionnaires that do not contain any identifying information
• the use of aliases and pseudonyms
• renaming places, such as the school 
• using password-protected files 
• not promising anonymity if it cannot be guaranteed.

3. Coercion

The possibility of coercion in educational research is very much a reality, particularly when researching one’s own context. Where middle or senior leaders are undertaking postgraduate study or NPQs, it is likely that they will need to undertake research around an intervention or innovation that they have implemented. Subsequently, they will require colleagues and students to participate in the research, which can lead to participation under duress, particularly where the researcher is a more senior member of staff who might be keen to prove that the intervention or innovation under investigation is successful.

Actions that could be taken to reduce the risk of coercion could include:

• ensuring that you have permission from your institution(s) before starting any research, potentially including a university ethics committee if the research is for a Master’s or Doctoral programme and the school’s trust or local authority; it is important to note that this is essential if you are conducting research through a university
• offering a full explanation of the research to be undertaken before asking participants to sign up
• providing an information sheet containing relevant information and who to contact with any questions or concerns
• ensuring that the research has a large potential pool of participants, rather than relying on a small number of teachers or students who might feel pressure to participate and provide certain responses
• obtaining the appropriate consent and permission 
• making it clear that participants are free to withdraw at any time during the research process without the need to provide an explanation; this is likely to be an essential part of a university’s ethical approval for research to take place
• providing a debriefing document that can signpost further information about your area of research.

4. Issues of permission and consent

Obtaining voluntary informed consent from research participants (and their parents if under the age of 18) is part of the ethical guidelines of most universities and of BERA (2018). Where research involves students, it is important to ensure that parents give permission for their children to participate, even if students are keen to give their own consent. There also may be occasions where parents give permission but the students are not keen to participate. There are some ways in which participation can be encouraged, such as the use of focus groups rather than one-on-one interviews, but ultimately you must have permission from parents and consent from participants and the school or institution where the research is taking place before proceeding.

The mitigation of issues surrounding permission and consent could include:

• ensuring that your school and/or institution supports your research
• ensuring that all relevant ethical guidelines are followed
• sharing your research as part of a parent information morning/evening, where you can speak to parents face to face and obtain their permission to involve their children
• sharing your research to staff in a whole-staff briefing or meeting
• sharing your research with students in an assembly
• using digital consent forms that can be sent online rather than relying on signed paper slips
• considering how to share the digital consent form and not overwhelming participants with email requests.

5. Power relations between the researcher and the participants

The power relations between researcher and participants is closely linked to the issues of coercion outlined previously. Where there are middle and senior leaders researching their own context, there will undoubtedly be pressure for students and teachers to participate in research through fear that non-participation could impact their grades, jobs, performance management or even salary. Qualitative research particularly relies on understanding people’s world views, and this requires developing relationships underpinned by trust (Batlle and Carr, 2021). Managerialism can be a barrier to the development of trust, as well as the power differential between students and teachers, so it is important to address these issues before recruiting participants.

Potential mitigation strategies could include:

• receiving approval from an ethics committee if the researcher is enrolled at a university
• seeking permission from the school or institution where the research will take place
• considering the extent to which you involve participants in the research design so that they feel at ease with their involvement
• emphasising the need for honest responses when sharing information about your research and emphasising that participation is not connected to grades, jobs, performance management or salary
• asking someone else to conduct interviews/focus groups on your behalf, following a protocol
• using anonymous surveys instead of interviews.

Conclusion

There is much to consider when planning research in your own school. While the suggestions above are mostly a starting point and a checklist (with the exception of going through a university’s ethics committee if the researcher is enrolled at a university – this is essential), they are not exhaustive and it’s important to adhere to recommended ethical guidelines.

With a developing culture of practitioner research in schools, provided such research is conducted appropriately, closing the practice–theory gap could be within reach to support school improvement further.