Advertisement

The “Wicked Problem” of Ethics in Self-Study Research: Dominant, Silent and Marginalised Discourses

  • Sharon McDonoughEmail author
  • Robyn Brandenburg
Chapter
Part of the Self-Study of Teaching and Teacher Education Practices book series (STEP, volume 20)

Abstract

While Nash (2004) was writing about the ethics of scholarly personal narrative (SPN), his argument that ethics is lived “mostly backward, not forward” (p. 135) highlights the inherent challenges when considering issues of ethics in self-study research. While we might seek to identify ethical tensions, issues and dilemmas in advance, as we see from the contributions in this volume, the consideration of ethics is a dynamic, emergent and reflective process. In this chapter, we frame ethics in self-study research as a “wicked problem” (Rittel & Webber, 1973), and we draw on the international perspectives in this book to present a thematic analysis of the contributions within the volume. In doing so, we identify the concepts and discourses associated with ethics in self-study that are dominant, present those that are silent or marginalised and offer suggestions for future research.

References

  1. Blair, N., & Collins-Gearin, B. (2017). Reflective practice: Ancient wisdom and practice – Australian indigenous reflections in teacher education through shared storying. In R. Brandenburg, K. Glasswell, M. Jones & J. Ryan (Eds.), Reflective theory and practice in teacher education (Self-study of teaching and teacher education practices 17, pp. 63–83). Singapore, Singapore: Springer.  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-10-3431-2_4 Google Scholar
  2. Brooks, R., te Riele, K., & Maguire, M. (2014). Ethics and education research. Los Angeles: Sage.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Clandinin, D. J., & Connelly, F. M. (1995). Teachers’ professional knowledge landscapes. New York: Teachers College Press.Google Scholar
  4. Clandinin, D. J., & Connelly, F. M. (1996). Teacher stories – Stories of teachers – School stories – Stories of schools. Educational Researcher, 25(3), 24–30.Google Scholar
  5. Eakin, J. P. (2004). The ethics of life writing. London, UK: Cornell University Press.Google Scholar
  6. Garbett, D., & Ovens, A. (2017). Being self-study researchers in a digital world: An introduction. In D. Garbett & A. Ovens (Eds.), Being self-study researchers in a digital world (Self-study of teaching and teacher education practices, 16, pp. 3–10). Singapore, Singapore: Springer.Google Scholar
  7. Halse, C. (2011). Confessions of an ethics committee chair. Ethics and Education, 6(3), 293–251.  https://doi.org/10.1080/17449642.2011.632718 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Hamilton, M. L., & Pinnegar, S. (2017). Self-study of teaching and teacher education practices: Methodology and the digital turn. In D. Garbett & A. Ovens (Eds.), Being self-study researchers in a digital world (Self-study of teaching and teacher education practices, 16, pp. 11–29). Singapore, Singapore: SpringerGoogle Scholar
  9. Honan, E., Hambid, M. O., Alhamdan, B., Phommalangsy, P., & Lingard, B. (2012). Ethical issues in cross-cultural research. International Journal of Research & Method in Education, 36(4), 386–399.  https://doi.org/10.1080/1743727X.2012.705275 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. LaBoskey, V. K. (2004). The methodology of self-study and its theoretical underpinnings. In J. J. Loughran, M. L. Hamilton, V. K. LaBoskey, & T. Russell (Eds.), International handbook of self-study of teaching and teacher education practices (pp. 817–869). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer.Google Scholar
  11. Mitchell, I. (2004). Identifying ethical issues in self-study proposals. In J. J. Loughran, M. L. Hamilton, V. K. LaBoskey, & T. Russell (Eds.), International handbook of self-study of teaching and teacher education practices (pp. 1393–1442). Dordrecht, the Netherlands: Kluwer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Mockler, N. (2014). When ‘research ethics’ become ‘everyday ethics’: The intersection of inquiry and practice in practitioner research. Educational Action Research, 22(2), 146–158.  https://doi.org/10.1080/09650792.2013.856771 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Nash, R. J. (2004). Liberating scholarly writing: The power of personal narrative. New York: Teachers College Press.Google Scholar
  14. Pickering, L., & Kara, H. (2017). Presenting and representing others: Towards an ethics of engagement. International Journal of Social Research Methodology, 20(3), 299–309.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Rittel, H. W. J., & Webber, M. M. (1973). Dilemmas in a general theory of planning. Policy Sciences, 4, 155–169.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Zeni, J. (2001). Ethical issues in teacher research. New York: Teachers College Press.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.School of EducationFederation University AustraliaBallaratAustralia

Personalised recommendations