Nov 24th 09 Posted by justin in CCR601

CCR601 – FP – 3rd Gen – Lather

Lather, Patti. “Research as Praxis.” Harvard Education Review 56 (1986): 257-77.

• The primary goal of this essay is to involve researchers in the democratized process of research that emphasizes negotiation, reciprocity, and empowerment in the interest of the researched subjects – something of a Frierian emancipatory research as practice.
• The writer draws on feminist, neo-Marxist critical ethnography, and Frierian participatory research to create her research as praxis.
• Postpostitivist research is marked by approaches to inquiry which recognize that knowledge is ‘socially constituted, historically embedded, and  valuationally based.  Theory serves an agentic function and research illustrates, rather than provides a truth test” (259).
• The author wants to create an empirical research that can be used to change the world to the better.  A large portion of the essay (258-61) is used to describe studies where this sort of work was done in the late 70s and early 80s.
• This article champions the feminist research ethical moves of reciprocity and self-reflection (262).
• To make theory tenable and usable, a reciprocal relationship between theory and data must emerge.  Theory must be supported by data and data collected in the future must revise theory in light of new turns.  This is critical reflection that allows us to move beyond simply assigning theoretical positions to things that are complex and difficult to understand.
• Triangulation is crucial for creating valid data (270).  Also, construct validity must be present to ground studies in theoretical constructs (Latour is spinning at his desk on this assumption/claim).  The systematized reflexivity of theory and data is crucial in maintaining validity of data.
• According to the author, “This essay has one essential argument: a more collaborative approach to critical inquiry is needed to empower the researched, to build emancipatory theory, and to move toward the establishment of data credibility within praxis oriented, advocacy research” (272).

Nov 24th 09 Posted by justin in CCR601

CCR601 – FP – 3rd Gen – Kirsch and Mortensen

Kirsch, Gesa E., and Peter Mortensen. “Toward an Ethics of Research.” Ethical Dilemmas in Feminist Research: The Politics of Location, Interpretation, and Publication. Ed. Gesa E. Kirsch. Albany: State U of New York P, 1999. 87-103.

• The authors aim is to “map out significant problems and opportunities that await researchers who want their inquiries to be a resource for individual and group expressions of self-determination” (87).
• The authors claim there are a couple of benefits to feminist research.  1) critical reflection tends to refine the translation of theory into practice, 2) reflection also makes the research process more accountable by exposing it to colleagues, and participants; 3) the conclusion that making knowledge in research is not epistemologically different from its construction in other parts of our lives is also key.
• The authors discuss ethics in terms of 1) collaborative work with others, 2) work within institutions, 3) work within the profession, 4) work that entails multiple roles (researcher, teacher, learner), and 5) work toward sharing what we know with our various publics (89).
• Collaboration – The inclusion of all stakeholders – teachers, parents, admins, community members, etc., – in the case of an education study – must be identified and included in all stages of inquiry.
• Institutions – This is where feminist research ethics intersects with the institution via places/forums like the IRBs and federal legislation on human subject research.
• Paul Anderson – you’ve already read for this assignment – is identified for bringing IRBs into the composition discussion.
• Privacy is considered in the context of consent in this section.  The conversation on consent and privacy should answer some fundamental questions: 1) consent should be renegotiated if a research project changes dramatically, 2) consent should be recognized if participants or researchers feel uncomfortable with relations or arrangements as they evolve, 3) the task of securing participants’ informed consent, should be handled by a third party, 4) the status of participants’ consent, should not be disclosed to teacher-researchers as long as students are no longer subject to teacher evaluation, and 5) information collected from consenting participants should be scrutinized for its potential to humiliate, embarrass or otherwise harm participants if published (92).
• Alcoff is a big source here.
• The national organizations (CCCC, NTCE) need to also articulate a ethical research framework.
• The authors hope that folks can respect one another’s ideological and methodological differences within the discipline cordially.
• For the authors, critical reflection is central to the researcher/teacher position.  In fact, “critical reflection monitors research and teaching and learning as they evolve, opening new paths of inquiry as needed” 9607).  Reciprocity is also key for the researcher/teacher – student relationship.  Both have a lot to learn from one another.
• The authors are really adamant that “qualitative research on literacy provide ample reflection on all significant ethical dilemmas encountered in the field and at the desk” (99).  These reflections should be a central feature of the text.

Nov 23rd 09 Posted by justin in CCR601

CCR601 – FP – 3rd Gen – Frankel & Siang

Mark S. Frankel and Sanyin Siang.  Ethical and Legal Aspects of Human Subjects Research on the Internet:  A Report of a Workshop June 10-11, 1999.  American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS), November, 1999 – www.aaas.org/ssp/dspp/sfrl/projects/intres/report.pdf

• Internet research has ranged widely from naturalistic observation to surveys.  Some difficulties in this sort of research include: anonymity, pseudonym use, informed consent in online contexts, supposed privacy in cyberspace, and the tensions between private and public spaces online.
• IRBs are still grappling with the net as a research forum because of the ethical, legal, and technical issues surrounding online research.
• Human subject research takes into account the following: autonomy of the subject in the research area, beneficence for the researched subject (minimize harm and maximize benefits of research subjects).
• Benefits are defined as “gain to society or science through contribution to knowledge base, gain to the individual through improved well being, or empowerment of the individual by giving voice” (5).
• Internet research can lead to confusion about one’s geographic location, race, and gender.
• Email can be problematic because: who owns the computer, who owns the servers, who has access to the servers files, etc.  This could raise issues of possible harm.
• Vulnerable populations like children or mentally handicapped folks are exposed to risk because of the pseudonymity of many online transactions.  The researcher has a difficult time discovering the “real” identities of people studied.
• Privacy in public spaces – through shared forums – creates a problem as the space is thought of as private, but is accessible as public.
• Questions about informed consent online:  When is it required?  How can it be obtained?  How can it be validated? (9).
• Informed consent considers the following things: relate the information to the subjects, ensure the subjects comprehend the information, and obtain the voluntary agreement from the subjects to participate.
• Deception on both the part of the researcher and the researched creates an interesting question for online research.  This can be as a “lurking” researcher or someone who makes up an identity to participate in the community.
• The debriefing process post-study is difficult for the online researcher because of anonymity.
• There is a technical (is the data accessible) and a psychological (how private is the internet space thought to be) aspect to privacy online.
• The technical “know-how” of the researched online can further complicate notions of privacy and confidentiality. (15)
• The authors give a great “action agenda” to determine how to answer some of the questions I’ve created in this blog post on pgs. 17-19.

Important Sources:

• Herring, S. “Linguistic and Critical Analysis of Computer-Mediated Communication: Some Ethical and Scholarly Considerations.” The Information Society 1996. 12:153-168.
• Kelman, HC. “Privacy and Research with Human Beings.” Journal of Social Issues 1977 33(3):169.
• Reid, E. “Informed Consent in the Study of On-line Communities: A reflection on the Effects of Computer-Mediated Social Research.” The Information Society. 1996 12:169-174.
• Childress, CA and Asamen, JK. “The Emerging Relationship of Psychology and the Internet: Proposed Guidelines for Conducting Research.” Ethics and Behavio.r 1998 8(1):19-35.

Nov 23rd 09 Posted by justin in CCR601

CCR601 – FP – 3rd Gen – Fluehr

Fluehr-Lobban, Carolyn. “Informed Consent in Anthropological Research: We are Not Exempt.” Human Organization 53 (1994): 1–10.

• The article investigates the history of the idea of informed consent and attempts to articulate why anthropology has not incorporated it into their research methods.
• The idea of “Informed Consent without Forms” is used to show that the “spirit of informed consent can be fulfilled without the intrusive and unnecessarily legalistic use of a signed form” (1).
• Informed consent is ultimately viewed as a process that “encourages greater openness and disclosure on the part of researchers, empowers voluntary participants in social research, and engenders a more collaborative relationship between researcher and researched” (1).
• Informed consent grew out of the 1972 supreme court case Cantebury v. Spence.
• The question of harm motivated “informed consent” studies.  The harm could be psychological or physical.
• This piece also traces consent to the Nazi experiements in WWII.
• Milgram’s electroshock experiments dealing with authority began the discussion of consent in the social sciences.
• Some interesting tensions are discussed considering social science research in places where the “outing” of the research would get the researcher in trouble – Communist China for example.
• Social science research is often not consented because “it is either unobtrusive, face-to-face participant observation, where voluntary consent is presumed by the open nature of the research situation” (4).
• The issue of IRB’s suitability when dealing with non-biomedical/experimental research is a real issue.
• Informed consent is protested by social scientists because: it difficult to obtain, it affects subjects behavior, it is obtuse/obtrusive, cannot be explained in non-literate societies, is an impediment to finding out info about illegal activities, It is impractical to obtain consent to every newcomer in a research situation.

Important Sources:

• Wax, Murray Lionel, and Joan Cassell. Federal Regulations : Ethical Issues and Social Research. Aaas Selected Symposium. Boulder, Colo.: Published by Westview Press for the American Association for the Advancement of Science, 1979. Print.
• Fluehr-Lobban, Carolyn. Ethics and the Profession of Anthropology : Dialogue for a New Era. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 1991. Print.
• Faden, Ruth R. Beauchamp Tom L. King Nancy M. P. A History and Theory of Informed Consent. 1986. 

Nov 23rd 09 Posted by justin in CCR601

CCR601 – FP – 3rd Gen – Cushman

Cushman, Ellen, and Terese Guinsatao Monberg. “Building Bridges: Reflexivity and Composition Re-search.” Under Construction: Working at the Intersections of Composition Research, Theory, and Practice. Eds. Chris Anson and Christine Farris. Logan : Utah State UP, 1998. 166-80.

• C&M identify a main problem in composition research:  we are often socially distanced from the cultures we study.
• Socially reflexive scholarship “is one that does not assume authority in representing others but negotiatites that authority by creating ‘a different sort of social space where people have reason to come into contact with each other because they have claims and interests that extend beyond the borders of their own safe houses, neighborhoods, disciplines, or communities’” (Harris 1995, 39 / Cushman 166).
• We need to continually ask ourselves, “What kind of work are we here to do and who are we serving with it?” (167).
• In the essay, the authors argue that “we must adopt a responsible, socially reflexive approach to negotiating our authority in composition research, one that truly facilitates the kinds of boundary/border crossings that begin to reduce social distance” (ibid.).
• This article takes Cushman’s experience as an ethnographer to demonstrate how authority isn’t automatically granted an academic; rather, reciprocal and dialogic relations between herself, the community and scholars created this authority.
• Nice meditations on the new ethnography and its attendant genres – subject’s voices, personal reflections, difficulties, researcher encounters, etc.
• The dangers of new ethnography are highlighted on 169 – most notably, they can be incoherent, elitist, and exoticistic.
• A bit of voyeurism associated with Denny Taylor’s use of the homeless, et.al. at conferences on 169.
• Reflexive ethnographies eventually become autobiographies.
• Self-reflexivity and polyvocalist ethnography often account for power in a hierarchical fashion.  This is problematic – recall discussions of ethnography from the top.  C&M argue that power “that sees the fluidity of power relations, as opposed to bloodless, static, heartless, uni-dimensional way of seeing positionality”
• Social reflexivity is earned through reciprocity with the researched subject.
• Social reflexivity is established through “shared histories, reciprocal relationships, and continual negotiation of their interdependencies”
• The authors are arguing for social integration of academics into the communities they study and live in “all directions” (177).
• Comfort zones are merely places where folks with money isolate themselves from contact zones.
• The authors are arguing for a more “complicated definition of authority, one that acknowledges more complicated definitions of social identity, social reflexivity, and social positioning.  Rather than viewing identity as one-dimensional, negotiated authority and reflexive identification see identity as a complicated web with multiple layers or dimensions that are not always visible or readily apparent.  With this view, authority no longer arises de facto  out of some one dimension of our social position, but is carefully and actively negotiated through reflexive identification and social re-positioning” (179).