Reminder: both a hard copy and electronic copy of all assignments should be turned in. If you haven’t done so already, leave a printout of your bibliography in the box outside Lourdes’ office door.
Class discussion on readings:
Ethics and the IRB: Mackey & Gass (2005)
A debriefing session should take place between researcher and participants to discuss research findings.
The research objectives should be discussed vaguely with participants before they consent. But don’t reveal too much information—it could affect participants’ behavior and skew the results. Never lie to participants about how the knowledge will be used.
Consider the language proficiency level of the participants when designing a consent form.
IRB approval is also required when carrying out research in other countries because the research is nevertheless affiliated with the university.
Recorded verbal consent in adequate, for example when conducting qualitative interview research.
If the IRB denies an application, they will explain what needs to be changed in order to obtain approval.
Always consider the anonymity of participants and be certain that the reader is not able to figure out the identity of the participants. If necessary, change inconsequential details to protect the participants. Consent is not enough, anonymity is essential too.
If you choose to obtain IRB approval, acknowledge it in your paper.
SLS research is usually exempted, but still must be granted by the IRB.
Sometimes proposals are denied due to lack of scientific merit—that is, to be ethical, research projects must be worth participants’ time.
TBLT: Skehan (2003)
Although difficult to define, TBLT can be thought of in terms of the “learning by doing” or “learning by using” principle of language learning.
There are many different versions of TBLT—from weak to radical forms.
The example of cooking in English was used to illustrate the idea that doing/using fuels learning.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
3 comments:
Thanks a lot, Anne, for the review. Talking about research ethics, I think among various factors that affect the researcher-researched relationship, participants' comprehension of the consent form is very important. Unfortunately, some (student) researchers have failed to observe this rule and give participants consent forms that are written in a language far beyond their ability to comprehend, as was the case with some of my students at HELP last semester. After signing the forms, they were confused and still didn't know what they were expected to do, and why they had to do it. On being asked why they agreed to sign in a form which they did not understand, some students said they did that merely because they did not want to hurt the researcher :) In this situation, I really don't know how solid the data could be! Do you guys think the above example is just a rare case, or does that happen on a regular basis in L2 research?
Good point, Ky! I suspect this happens a lot when novice researchers carry out research for the first time. They may rush through the steps, and they may not stop to think of participants as precisely the most central part of their research. Not thinking of the participants, what they can understand, their levels, their psychologies and expectations when asked "are you willing to participate in my study" is a sign that they haven't thought much of the CONTEXT and the bigger purpose of their research. Seasoned researchers have more space to think through this details and contextualize what they are doing better, making finer decisions along the way.
That's why thinking hard of ethical issues is so important, particularly as you embark on your first few research projects and everything is new.
A couple of points in response to Ky:
1. Maybe the (newbie) researcher had intended it??? Just playing the devil's advocate.
Seriously, I know there are people who really don't realize they're writing in difficult English/can't write in simple(r) English. It's hard to believe, I know, but for some strange reason, they actually find it easier to write sentences with at least half of the words you have never come across in your life, even as a very proficient user of English, and/or which extend beyond 3-4 lines (ie, 30-50 words), each!
To be quite honest, writing simply is an art, believe it or not!
Also, bear in mind that translation into the participants' first language is always a good idea, esp where feasible (ie, if they all have one L1, and the researcher can get the translation done efficiently and effectively). In this case, don't forget to state that in case of any discrepancy/conflict, it is the English version that shall prevail, and make sure the participants sign on the English version (as well).
Sometimes, we need to realize that just bec we've been to school doesn't mean that our participants have been to college, quite independent of their proficiency in the English language. Therefore, simplicity does not just extend to the language used (ie, what language is used, whether English or otherwise), but indeed, (how) the language (is) used.
2. I don't necessarily see why/how just bec the participants failed to give "informed" consent so to speak, the data collected would therefore be biased. The latter might be more relevant if the participants failed to understand the instructions in the first place, or misconceive them, and that failure or misconception is material to the veracity and/or (un)reliability of the data collected.
As for Dr Ortega's point that such omission is an indication that the researcher(s) might not have thought much about the overall/bigger picture of their research, including their participants, but are just going through the motions, that is a truism that bears repeating.
Post a Comment