Advertisement

Research Ethics Boards and the Gold Standard(s) in Literacy and Science Education Research

  • Robert J. AnthonyEmail author
  • Larry D. Yore
  • Richard K. Coll
  • Justin Dillon
  • Mei-Hung Chiu
  • Cynthia Fakudze
  • Irene Grimberg
  • Bing-Jyun Wang
Chapter

Curiosity-driven research has traditionally investigated problems, issues, and challenges through a variety of research designs to match the research foci without many formal constraints. The character of those designs has been the venue of the researchers, to some degree the funding agency, and the research setting. The creative challenge for the researcher has been consideration of the nature of the problem and research question, development of the problem space, and the monetary, instrumental, and contextual resources available. Increasingly over the last 10—15 years, another presence has joined the research team—the Research Ethics Board (REB), Research Ethics Committee (REC), or Institutional Review Board (IRB). REBs (we use REBS, RECs, and IRBs interchangeably in this chapter) play a mandatory role in reviewing and permitting research conducted under the agency of funding bodies and educational or research institutions in many countries. Over this same time, REBs have become widely accepted as a necessary and reasonable process to ensure that ethical standards of research are maintained and to avoid the potential for litigation resulting fromfaulty research designs and procedures. However, some researchers contend that the unified research ethics regulations, or common rule, for all disciplines overemphasize biomedical inquiries, risks, and norms—leaving much of the uniqueness of social sciences, education, and professional practices and their associated research methods lacking consideration. While the value of REBs is recognized, it is also evident that their procedures and practices are not stable or neutral in their impact on researchers, he potential research topics that are undertaken, and the research designs utilized. These effects and the array of differential influences can be seen on every campus and organization where research ethics reviews operate and, as described in this chapter, in Africa, Asia, Canada, Europe, New Zealand, and the United States.

Keywords

Educational Research Indigenous People Research Ethic Board Science Education Research Research Ethic Committee 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Alaska Federation of Natives. (1993). Alaska Federation of Natives guidelines for research.Retrieved June 8, 2008, from http://ankn.uaf.edu/IKS/afnguide.html
  2. Alaska Native Knowledge Network. (n.d.). Resources for compiling and exchanging information related to Alaska Native knowledge systems and ways of knowing. Retrieved June 8, 2008, from http://www.ankn.uaf.edu/
  3. American Educational Research Association. (1992). Ethical standards of the American Educational Research Association. Educational Researcher, 21(7), 23–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. American Indian Law Center Inc. (1999). Model tribal research code (3rd edn.). Albuquerque, NM: Author. Available from http://www.ihs.gov/MedicalPrograms/Research/pdf_files/mdl-code.pdfGoogle Scholar
  5. American Psychological Association. (2002). Ethical principles of psychologists and code of conduct. Retrieved May 31, 2008, from http://www.apa.org/ethics/code2002.html
  6. Amusan, O. O. G., Dlamini, P. S., Msonthi, J. D.,&Makhubu, L. P. (2002). Some herbal remedies from Manzini region of Swaziland. Journal of Ethnopharmacology, 79(1),109–112.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Anthony, R. J. (2004, October). Consistency of ethics review. Forum Qualitative Sozialforschung/Forum: Qualitative Social Research, 6(1), Art. 5. Retrieved from http://217.160.35.246/fqs-texte/1-05/05-1-5-e.htm
  8. Assembly of Alaska Native Educators. (2000). Guidelines for respecting cultural knowledge.Retrieved June 8, 2008, from http://ankn.uaf.edu/publications/knowledge.html
  9. Australian Institute of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Studies. (2000). Guidelines for ethical research in indigenous studies. Canberra, Australia: Author.Google Scholar
  10. Bannister, K. P. (2008). Ethical considerations in community-university research and learning collaborations for the University of Victoria. Unpublished discussion document for the Human Research Ethics Board, University of Victoria, British Columbia.Google Scholar
  11. Benatar, S. R. (2002). Reflections and recommendations on research ethics in developing countries. Social Science&Medicine, 54(7), 1131–1141.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Blackstone, M. A. (2007). Power dynamics and ethical practices governing artists and their research participants. NCEHR/CNERH Communiqué, 14(1), 11–16.Google Scholar
  13. British Educational Research Association. (1992). Ethical guidelines for educational research.Edinburgh, Scotland: British Educational Research Association/Scottish Council for Research in Education.Google Scholar
  14. British Educational Research Association. (2004). Revised ethical guidelines for educational research. Retrieved June 5, 2008, from http://www.bera.ac.uk/publications/pdfs/ETHICA1. PDF
  15. British Psychological Society. (2008). Generic professional practice guidelines. Retrieved June 9,2008, from http://www.bps.org.uk/publications/prof-pract/prof-pract_home.cfm
  16. British Sociological Association. (2002, March). Statement of ethical practice for the British Sociological Association Retrieved June 9, 2008, from http://www.britsoc.co.uk/equality/ Statement + Ethical + Practice.htm
  17. Brydon-Miller, M.,&Greenwood, D. (2006). A re-examination of the relationship between action research and human subjects review processes. Action Research, 4(1), 117–128.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Bryman, A. (2001). Ethics in social research. In A. Bryman (Ed.), Social research methods (pp. 475–486). London: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  19. Burgess, R. G. (Ed.). (1989). The ethics of educational research. London: Falmer.Google Scholar
  20. Cabana, M. D., Rand, C. S., Powe, N. R., Wu, A. W., Wilson, M. H., Abboud, P.-A. C., et al. (1999). Why don't physicians follow clinical practice guidelines?: A framework for improvement. Journal of the American Medical Association, 282(15), 1458–1465.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Canadian Institutes of Health Research. (2007, May). CIHR guidelines for health research involving Aboriginal people. Retrieved July 14, 2008, from http://www.cihr-irsc.gc.ca/e/29134. html
  22. Canadian Institutes of Health Research, Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada,&Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada. (1998). Tri-Council Policy Statement: Ethical conduct for research involving humans [with 2000, 2002, 2005 amendments]. Retrieved June 5, 2008, from http://www.pre.ethics.gc.ca/ english/policystatement/policystatement.cfm
  23. Canadian Institutes of Health Research, Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada,&Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada. (n.d.-a). Interagency advisory panel on research ethics. Retrieved June 6, 2008, from http://pre.ethics.gc.ca/ english/
  24. Canadian Institutes of Health Research, Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada,&Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada. (n.d.-b). TCPS: Section 6. Research involving Aboriginal Peoples. Retrieved June 9, 2008, from http://www. pre.ethics.gc.ca/english/policystatement/section6.cfm
  25. Canadian Interagency Advisory Panel on Research Ethics; Social Sciences and Humanities Research Ethics Special Working Committee. (2006, December). Qualitative research in the context of the TCPS: A follow-up to the Giving Voice to the Spectrum report and a discussion paper. Retrieved June 6, 2008, from http://www.pre.ethics.gc.ca/english/workgroups/sshwc/ consultation07.cfm
  26. Cohen, J. J. (2005). A word from the president: “Research integrity is job one”. AAMC Reporter, (September). Retrieved from http://www.aamc.org/newsroom/reporter/sept05/ word.htm
  27. Coupal, L. (2004, October). Practitioner-research and the regulation of research ethics: The challenge of individual, organizational, and social interests. Forum Qualitative Sozialforschung/ Forum: Qualitative Social Research, 6(1), Art. 6. Retrieved from http://217.160.35.246/fqs-texte/1-05/05-1-6-e.htm
  28. de Laine, M. (2000). Fieldwork, participation and practice: Ethics and dilemmas in qualitative research. London: Sage.Google Scholar
  29. de Vries, R., Anderson, M. S.,&Martinson, B. C. (2006). Normal misbehavior: Scientists talk about the ethics of research. Journal of Empirical Research on Human Research Ethics, 1(1), 43–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. di Norcia, V. (2006). The ethics in human research ethics [Guest editorial]. Journal of Empirical Research on Human Research Ethics, 1(2), 1–2.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Elliott, J. (1989). Towards a code of practice for funded educational research. Research Intelligence, 31, 14.Google Scholar
  32. Ells, C.,&Gutfreund, S. (2006). Myths about qualitative research and the Tri-Council Policy Statement. Canadian Journal of Sociology, 31(3), 361–373. Retrieved from http://www. cjsonline.ca/cjsindex/vol31.htmlCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Florence, M. K.,&Yore, L. D. (2004). Learning to write like a scientist: Coauthoring as an encul-turation task. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 41(6), 637–668.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Furlong, J. (2004, May). The 2008 RAE and beyond [From the President]. Research Intelligence, 87, 1–2. Retrieved from http://www.bera.ac.uk/pdfs/RI_87.pdf
  35. Gadicke, J. M. (2005). Integrating aboriginal knowledge into the elementary science curriculum.Unpublished master of education project, University of Victoria, Victoria, British Columbia,Canada.Google Scholar
  36. Glass, K. C.,&Kaufert, J. (2007). Research ethics review and aboriginal community values: Can the two be reconciled? Journal of Empirical Research on Human Research Ethics, 2(2), 25–40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Ham, V. (1999). Tracking the truth or selling one's soul? Reflections on the ethics of a piece of commissioned research. British Journal of Educational Studies, 47(3), 275–282.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Hoonaard, W. C., van den. (2006). Trends in Canadian sociology master's theses in relation to research ethics review, 1995–2004. Journal of Empirical Research on Human Research Ethics,1(4), 77–88.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. International Reading Association. (2008, March). Code of ethics. Retrieved May 31, 2008, from http://www.reading.org/association/about/code.html
  40. Johns Hopkins Berman Institute of Bioethics. (2007, January 23). NIH-funded case study: Research ethics committees in Africa report inadequate funding, staffing and training [Press release].Retrieved from http://www.bioethicsinstitute.org/web/module/press/pressid/91/interior.asp
  41. Keith-Spiegel, P., Koocher, G. P.,&Tabachnick, B. (2006). What scientists want from their research ethics committee. Journal of Empirical Research on Human Research Ethics, 1(1),67–82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Kennedy, D. (2006, January 20). Acts of God? [Editorial]. Science, 311(5759), 303.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. King's College London. (n.d.). Applying to the education and management panel. Retrieved June 6, 2008, from http://www.kcl.ac.uk/research/ethics/applicants/sshl/panels/em/
  44. Kuo, I. T. (2001). Introduction of human research committee in Taiwan [in Chinese]. Newsletter for Research of Applied Ethics, 7(19), 22–24.Google Scholar
  45. Landwirth, J. (2006). [Letter to the Editor]. Journal of Empirical Research on Human Research Ethics, 1(1), 3–4.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Leadbeater, B., Banister, E., Benoit, C., Jansson, M., Marshall, A.,&Riecken, T. (Eds.). (2006). Ethical issues in community-based research with children and youth. Toronto, Ontario,Canada: University of Toronto Press.Google Scholar
  47. Lee-Treweek, G.,&Linkogle, S. (Eds.). (2000). Danger in the field: Risk and ethics in social research. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  48. Levine, R. J. (2006). Empirical research to evaluate ethics committees' burdensome and perhaps unproductive policies and practices: A proposal. Journal of Empirical Research on Human Research Ethics, 1(3), 1–4.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Lopus, J. S., Grimes, P. W., Becker, W. E.,&Pearson, R. A. (2007). Effects of human subjects requirements on classroom research: Multidisciplinary evidence. Journal of Empirical Research on Human Research Ethics, 2(3), 69–78.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Louw, B.,&Delport, R. (2006). Contextual challenges in South Africa: The role of a research ethics committee. Journal of Academic Ethics, 4(1), 39–60.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Macauley, A. C., Delormier, T., McComber, A. M., Cross, E. J., Potvin, L. P., Paradis, G., et al.(1998). Participatory research with native community of Kahnawake creates innovative code of research ethics. Canadian Journal of Public Health, 89(2), 105–108.Google Scholar
  52. Maguire, M. H. (2004). Review of the book: Situated ethics in educational research. Science Education, 88(5), 813–816.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Makhubu, L. (1998). Bioprospecting in an African context [Essays on science and society] Science, 282(5386), 41–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. McDonald, M. (2004). [Review of the book: Danger in the field: Risk and ethics in social research]. Science Education, 88(5), 816–818.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. McGinn, M. K. (2005). Ethical and friendly researchers, but not insiders: A response to Blodgett, Boyer, and Turk. Forum Qualitative Sozialforschung/Forum: Qualitative Social Research,6(3), Art. 37. Retrieved from http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:0114-fqs0503375
  56. McKeever, M. (2000). Snakes and ladders: Ethical issues in conducting educational research in a post-colonial context. In H. Simons&R. Usher (Eds.), Situated ethics in educational research (pp. 101–115). London: Routledge/Falmer.Google Scholar
  57. Minkler, M. (2004). Ethical challenges for the “outside” researcher in community-based participatory research. Health Education&Behavior, 31(6), 684–697.Google Scholar
  58. Moretti, M., Leadbeater, B.,&Marshall, A. (2006). Stepping into community-based research: Preparing students to meet new ethics and professional challenges. In B. Leadbeater, E. Banister, C. Benoit, M. Jansson, A. Marshall,&T. Riecken (Eds.), Ethical issues in community-based research with children and youth (pp. 232–244). Toronto, Ontario,Canada: University of Toronto Press.Google Scholar
  59. National Science Teachers Association. (2007, June). NSTA position statement: Principles of professionalism for science educators. Retrieved May 31, 2008, from http://www.nsta.org/ about/positions/professionalism.aspx
  60. New Zealand Government. (1991). Resource Management Act. Wellington, NZ: Government Printer.Google Scholar
  61. New Zealand Government. (1992). Health and Safety in Employment Act. Wellington, NZ:Government Printer.Google Scholar
  62. New Zealand Government. (1993). Privacy Act. Wellington, NZ: Government Printer.Google Scholar
  63. New Zealand Government. (1994). Copyright Act. Wellington, NZ: Government Printer.Google Scholar
  64. New Zealand Ministry of Education. (1993a). National education guidelines. Wellington, NZ: Government Printer.Google Scholar
  65. New Zealand Ministry of Education. (1993b). The New Zealand curriculum framework. Wellington, NZ: Government Printer.Google Scholar
  66. New Zealand Ministry of Education. (1993c). Science in the national curriculum. Wellington, NZ: Learning Media.Google Scholar
  67. New Zealand Ministry of Education. (1996a). Biology in the New Zealand curriculum. Wellington,NZ: Learning Media.Google Scholar
  68. New Zealand Ministry of Education. (1996b). Chemistry in the New Zealand curriculum.Wellington, NZ: Learning Media.Google Scholar
  69. New Zealand Ministry of Education. (1996c). Physics in the New Zealand curriculum. Wellington,NZ: Learning Media.Google Scholar
  70. New Zealand Ministry of Education. (1996d). Technology in the New Zealand curriculum.Wellington, NZ: Learning Media.Google Scholar
  71. New Zealand Ministry of Education. (2002). Curriculum stocktake report to Minister of Education, September 2002. Wellington, NZ: Author.Google Scholar
  72. National Research Act of 1974. Pub. L. No. 93–348, 88 Stat. 342. (1974).Google Scholar
  73. Nuremburg Code. (1948). Retrieved June 7, 2008, from http://ohsr.od.nih.gov/guidelines/ nuremberg.html
  74. Plemmons, D. (2007). Studying IRB processes. Journal of Empirical Research on Human Research Ethics, 2(1), 71–72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  75. Pritchard, I. A. (2002). Travelers and trolls: Practitioner research and institutional review boards.Educational Researcher, 31(3), 3–13.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  76. Protection of human subjects, 45 CFR 46. (2005).Google Scholar
  77. Roberts, L. (2006). Current practice in research ethics: Global trends and new opportunities for African universities [Extended executive summary]. Retrieved June 9, 2008, from http://www. research-africa.net/media/pdf/EthicsExecSum.pdf
  78. Royal Society of New Zealand. (2005). 2005 Preliminary research proposal guidelines for applicants. Retrieved June 6, 2005, from http://www.rsnz.org/funding/marsden_fund/media/2005_ Prelim_Guidelines.doc
  79. Rubin, P.,&Sieber, J. E. (2006). Empirical research on IRBs and methodologies usually associated with minimal risk. Journal of Empirical Research on Human Research Ethics, 1(4), 1–4.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  80. Schnarch, B. (2004). Ownership, control, access, and possession (OCAP) or self-determination applied to research: A critical analysis of contemporary First Nations research and some options for First Nations communities. Journal of Aboriginal Health, 1(1), 80–95.Google Scholar
  81. Shih, Y.-T., Shih, S.-F., Chen, N.-S.,&Chen, C.-S. (2005). Human research protections: Current status in Taiwan and policy proposals [in Chinese]. Taiwan Journal of Public Health, 24(4),360–373.Google Scholar
  82. Shore, N. (2007). Community-based participatory research and the ethics review process. Journal of Empirical Research on Human Research Ethics, 2(1), 31–41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  83. Sieber, J. E. (2006). The evolution of best ethical practices in human research. Journal of Empirical Research on Human Research Ethics, 1(1), 1–2.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  84. Sieber, J. E. (2007). Respect for persons and informed consent—A moving target. Journal of Empirical Research on Human Research Ethics, 2(3), 1–2.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  85. Simons, H. (1989). Ethics of case study in educational research and evaluation. In R. G. Burgess (Ed.), The ethics of educational research (pp. 114–140). London: Falmer.Google Scholar
  86. Simons, H. (1995). The politics and ethics of educational research in England: Contemporary issues. British Educational Research Journal, 21(4), 435–449.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  87. Simons, H.,&Usher, R. (Eds.) (2000). Situated ethics in educational research. London:Routledge/Falmer.Google Scholar
  88. South Africa Department of Health. (2004). Ethics in health research: Principles, structures and processes [Research ethics guidelines — 2004]. Retrieved June 6, 2008, from http://www.doh.gov.za/docs/index.html [Documents > > Fact Sheets/Guidelines > > Norms, standards, instructions]Google Scholar
  89. South Africa Government. (2003). National Health Act, No. 61. Retrieved June 7, 2008, from http://www.doh.gov.za/docs/legislation-f.html
  90. South Africa Human Sciences Research Council. (n.d.). HSRC code of ethics. Retrieved June 6,2008, from http://www.hsrc.ac.za/Corporate_Information-8.phtml
  91. Strike, K. A., Anderson, M. S., Curren, R., van Geel, T., Pritchard, I.,&Robertson, E. (2002).Ethical standards of the American Educational Research Association: Cases and commentary.Washington, DC: American Educational Research Association.Google Scholar
  92. Swain, H. (2006, August 11). Protect yourself and the subjects. The Times Higher Education Supplement, p. 12. Available from http://www.timeshighereducation.co.uk/story.aspsectioncode = 26&storycode = 204808)
  93. Taiwan Academia Sinica. (2007). Homepage. Retrieved June 8, 2008, from http://www.sinica.edu.tw/main_e.shtml
  94. Taiwan Academia Sinica. (n.d.). Human subject research ethics committee/IRB. Retrieved July 16,2008, from http://proj1.sinica.edu.tw/̃irb/e-education-1.htm
  95. Treaty of Waitangi. (1840). Read the Treaty. Retrieved June 8, 2008, from http://www.nzhistory.net.nz/politics/treaty/read-the-treaty/english-text
  96. Truscott, D. (2004). Fieldwork, participation, and practice: Ethics and dilemmas in qualitative research [Book review]. Science Education, 88(5), 811–813.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  97. United Kingdom Economic and Social Research Council. (2006). Research ethics framework (REF). Retrieved June 5, 2008, from http://www.esrcsocietytoday.ac.uk/ESRCInfoCentre/ Images/ESRC_Re_Ethics_Frame_tcm6-11291.pdf
  98. United Kingdom Economic and Social Research Council. (n.d.-a). Homepage. Retrieved June 9, 2008, from http://www.esrcsocietytoday.ac.uk/ESRCInfoCentre/opportunities/ research_ethics_framework/
  99. United Kingdom Economic and Social Research Council. (n.d.-b). Research ethics framework:Homepage. Retrieved June 9, 2008, from http://www.esrcsocietytoday.ac.uk/ESRCInfoCentre/opportunities/research_ethics_framework/
  100. United Nations. (1990). Convention on the rights of the child. New York: UN High Commission for Human Rights Office. Available from http://www.unicef.org/crc/
  101. United States Department of Health and Human Services. (n.d.). Basic HHS policy for protection of human research subjects (45 CFR 46). Retrieved July 16, 2008, from http://www.hhs.gov/ ohrp/humansubjects/guidance/45cfr46.htm
  102. United States Interagency Arctic Research Policy Committee; Social Science Task Force. (1995).Principles for the conduct of research in the Arctic. Arctic Research of the United States,9(Spring), 56–57. Retrieved from http://arcticcircle.uconn.edu/SEEJ/ethics.html
  103. United States National Commission for the Protection of Human Subjects of Biomedical and Behavioral Research. (1979, April 18). The Belmont report: Ethical principles and guidelines for the protection of human subjects of research. Retrieved June 6, 2008, from http://ohsr. od.nih.gov/guidelines/belmont.html
  104. United States National Research Council. (2002). Scientific research in education. Committee on Scientific Principles for Education Research. R. J. Shavelson&L. Towne (Eds.). Center for Education, Division of Behavioral and Social Sciences and Education. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.Google Scholar
  105. United States National Research Council. (2004). Advancing scientific research in education.Committee on Research in Education. L. Towne, L. L. Wise,&T. M. Winters (Eds.). Center for Education, Division of Behavioral and Social Sciences and Education. Washington, DC:The National Academies Press.Google Scholar
  106. University of Botswana. (2004). Policy on ethics and ethical conduct in research. Retrieved June 6, 2008, from http://www.ub.bw/ord/r_documents.cfm?d = Ethics_Policy_ RD04_05H.pdf
  107. University of Cape Town. (2006). Faculty of Humanities guide to research ethics: Research on human subjects. Retrieved June 6, 2008, from http://www.humanities.uct.ac.za/research/ ethics/
  108. University of Pretoria. (n.d.). Code of ethics for research. Retrieved June 8, 2008, from http://web.up.ac.za/sitefiles/File/3653/Code%20of%20ethics%20for%20research(1).doc
  109. University of Victoria Human Research Ethics Board. (2008, June). Application for ethics approval for human participant research. Retrieved June 6, 2008, from http://www.research.uvic.ca/forms/index.htm#HREC [HREB > > Applications]
  110. University of Victoria Human Research Ethics Office. (2008, January). Guidelines for ethics in dual-role research for teachers and other practitioners. Retrieved June 5, 2008, from http:// www.research.uvic.ca/forms/hrec/geidrr.pdf [HREB > > Guidelines]
  111. World Medical Association. (2004). Declaration of Helsinki: Ethical principles for medical research involving human subjects. Retrieved June 6, 2008, from http://www.wma.net/e/ policy/b3.htm
  112. Yang, C. M., Kuo, N. W., Chen, C. S.,&Chou, C. Y. (2001). Situational analysis of research ethics review in Taiwan. Public Health Quarterly, 28(3), 177–187.Google Scholar
  113. Yore, L. D., Chinn, P. W. U.,&Hand, B. (Eds.). (2008). Science literacy for all: Influences of culture, language, and knowledge about nature and naturally occurring events [Special Issue].L1—Educational Studies of Language and Literacy, 8(1). Retrieved from http://l1.publication-archive.com/public?fn = enter&repository = 1
  114. Zeni, J. (Ed.). (2001). Ethical issues in practitioner research. New York: Teachers College Press.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science + Business Media B.V 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  • Robert J. Anthony
    • 1
    Email author
  • Larry D. Yore
    • Richard K. Coll
      • 2
    • Justin Dillon
      • 3
    • Mei-Hung Chiu
      • 4
    • Cynthia Fakudze
      • 5
    • Irene Grimberg
      • 6
    • Bing-Jyun Wang
      • 7
    1. 1.Department of Curriculum & InstructionUniversity of VictoriaBritish ColumbiaCanada
    2. 2.Centre for Science & Technology Education ResearchUniversity of WaikatoHamiltonNew Zealand
    3. 3.Science & Technology Education GroupKing's College LondonUK
    4. 4.Graduate Institute of Science EducationNational Taiwan Normal UniversityTaipei
    5. 5.Schools Development UnitUniversity of Cape TownSouth Africa
    6. 6.Science & Mathematics Resource CenterMontana State UniversityBozemanUSA
    7. 7.Department of Information ManagementYuan Ze UniversityChung-LiTaiwan

    Personalised recommendations

    Cite chapter

    Buy options