1

Waking Action Research Ethics. Conversation with Stu(dent)

Hilary: So we’re picking up on our earlier blog with Stu on liberating the Ivory Tower. Our focus is on how (post)graduate students can be supported to do good action research. “Stu” (not his real name, to preserve confidentiality for all involved), is a student in Northern Europe. Stu has been thinking about the ethics approval process he’ll need to do to get his action research dissertation up and running (which he is also struggling a bit with). O no…

Stu: Hilary, last time we talked, I went away and thought for a bit. You know, I’m not getting the full spectrum support I need to do high quality action research at my university. Though my supervisor is at least writing comments on my work. This is good news right? He’s engaging. I’ve heard a few horror stories about students just being cast off, with little explanation.

Hilary: Sounds like you have adequate conditions. Could be worse. I’m wondering how to simply appreciate what you have right now? What if you simply decide, with a cheer to Pragmatism, that these are the perfect conditions for what you want to do — after all you are about transforming the experience of learning especially for marginalized students in mainstream education, right?

Stu. OK then. So I’m wondering how to appreciate what I have [laugher]. And also to be discerning about what’s possible and what I need. There do seem to be some ingredients missing… we’re not explicitly working openly with a clear purpose to make the world of education better – which is how I think about what I am up to. Plus, I get really triggered by my advisor’s experty comments on my work because it tells me he isn’t appreciating my need to experiment and search widely in tension with being able to show focus. You know, we may need to re-find each other (I like that term I have heard you use about redefining things and then turning back to see what can be recovered, or found anew, together). So it’s a practice of valuing receiving feedback on mistakes with deep curiosity and inquiry in service of my stakeholders…then I can see his expert comments as a positive demonstration of a willingness to develop.

Hilary: Sounds likes you’re part saint! But if you can manage to adopt that perspective,  at least some of the time, it would be an excellent “learning identity” to experiment with. That’s Cheryl Dweck’s term by the way. I sense you’re simply running into “expert mode” – that is the dominant mode in conventional academia. Your advisor is a good role model. The problem is that it is limited when it comes to permitting any particular purpose or values orientation, there is a fear of experimentation with stakeholders that runs deep. But as long as the work is rigorous, by expert standards, there can also be space for a bigger conversation. You’ve got this.  Rigor doesn’t necessarily preclude a values orientation. As I understand it it’s a way to free us from what used to be the theological dogmas that inhibited inquiry.  And for sure we don’t want religious fundamentalists in charge of scholarship. So we can appreciate where that aversion came from.  And I am glad you’re in touch with your own intention here – to help your stakeholders – the students who work with educational psychologists.

Stu: Well that’s a relief. I was only worried about my advisor’s opinion. A big part of what I’m hoping to do during my PhD, put simply, is to have Big Conversations. But Expert academia is not about that. Bob Kegan explains why most people are in “over our heads.” We’re taught to be expert, but it is not enough. The world has become too complex. We need more than insights on what is right and wrong. More than answers with a critical detachment.

Hilary: Yep. Juanita Brown who developed theWorld Cafe, speaks of Conversations that Matter.  Somehow we’re seeing that this “expert stage” – which means having the answer is not always enough for being even a good citizen nowadays, much less a good scholar. We need spaces for bigger conversations.  Life has become too complex for individuals to have “the” answer. We have endlessly complex questions inside our postmodern society. If we care about change – which action researchers do – then to do good action research means going through and beyond expert logic. Having those conversations. Your methods can start to link with co-inquiry with your stakeholders. And by the way, we must have rigorous methods – and we need to be very rigorous about ethics with our stakeholders. Yay for rigor.

Stu: Yep, so important. Framing, re-framing, co-inquiry and co-design. I’m struck by the truth in this from my own experience. Okay, so post-expert we start to work with the notion that more than one way of thinking and acting is possible and desirable right? Action research, complexity and systemic thinking seem to be so closely related in this. Developing the skills and practices needed for transformative change. Co-inquiry into mutual purposes. And if we want to move past expert, black and white, monological, diagnostic thinking we might just need a sprinkling of intuition, creativity, and vitality. What that baldy integral guy calls ‘vision logic.’

Hilary: You mean Ken Wilber, right. Bill Torbert is also bald! You might want to think about your own hair Stu! Also I believe we’re talking about Mode 2 science or call it second order science. Science that begins to take the researcher’s positionally into account. Our reflexivity.

Stu: Yes but getting through ethics approval with all that is worrying me. Second order science seems to come alive in the quality criteria used in action research, but the ethical approval committee will not like it. Radical empiricism, experiential learning and the like. Oh boy, I just can’t imagine wanting to put all this stuff in my ethics application. Action research seems to be post-conventional, not at all like conventional social science. Is it okay to creep under the ethics radar?

Hilary: Well start by avoiding the big words. No one likes to start with a vocabulary lesson.  And to be practical some people apply for exemption from formal ethics approval processes (we call them IRB in the USA). Honestly I think it’s a mistake as then you can’t publish anything you’ve learned. I bet you’re going to want to publish. You’ll be proud of what you’re up to and want to share it. So keeping it above board is best. Writing your application is the first opportunity to explain what you are up to in so called “lay” terms. To do action research is to engage honestly and creatively with the participants of your study. And it will help you start things on a strong footing. In a way the ethics board are your second key stakeholder. Your first may be your advisor.

Stu: I’m interested in this point you make Hilary. Being clear about the aim of mutual benefit and co-inquiry with stakeholders. I’ve noticed that my supervisor can get a bit anxious if I don’t say exactly what I am going to do. But I’ve been resisting being specific with the aim of outlining the need for curiosity, alertness to power and what I might need to be paying attention to as things unfold. I’m resisting this pull to act like I know exactly what I am going to do and that I know exactly what I’m doing. Some of the questions in the ethics form want me to be exact: “Will you be asking professionals, non-sensitive questions, strictly within their professional competence?” Where is the room for the political? I could say “no” but the thought of spending the next 3 years of my life just getting through ethics seems a little farcical considering my liberationist purposes? Perhaps I’m feeling anxious myself.

Hilary: Based on my own experience the ethics committee is not much interested in epistemology per se. They are, however, very interested in exactly whom you’ll talk to, what exactly you will say and how you will protect their right to bow out of your study. And most important how you’ll preserve their confidentiality. That sort of thing. You can answer all these simply. And if things change dramatically you create an addendum. They will explain that. It’s truly not a big deal. My own experience with the this has been very positive. Believe it or not. The first thing they had to understand however – cause action research is a different way of doing things than normal – is that participants in my study were not only giving information. I needed to explain that participants would derive benefit for themselves in our work. Hence their participation. Once that was clear we could focus on how to make sure they felt entirely comfortable with the process.

Stu: Well, I’m encouraged by your experiences with IRB in the USA. Maybe there is hope?

Hilary: Start from where you are. May I suggest you draft your materials for the ethics board. Run them by your advisor and then get ready to submit them. I have always found it useful to call the ethics board first, if I have never worked with them. I have usually worked at places that have big medical schools, so the ethics board process is both well funded and therefore quite bureaucratic. But – like so much in life – it is run by real people, some of whom even have a sense of humor. When I was introducing the last study I needed approval for – which involved patients on their death bed (you can believe that caused all sorts of red alerts for the ethics committee as those are super vulnerable people – or human subjects as the conventional jargon goes!). I used words like “participative methods,” human subjects as “partners” etc. In the end it all came down to my writing up the proposal in a way they could see I would care for the stakeholders’ safety. We did have a couple rounds on that as I recall. That’s not unusual. Well dying patients, you can’t be too careful!  Se there is another thing to appreciate.  Your research partners are alive and kicking.

Stu: Talking with you Hilary is so calming. I’m realizing I had a few unmet needs in all of this. I realize I don’t like being told what to do. I’m a professional, credentialed psychologist in my spare time you know! I notice part of me really wants to fight the system, to rebel in the name of liberation. But, I’m hearing you wisely point out an alternative stance, one that seeks to balance transformation with also being open to the benefits of the system as it is. I feel humbled. Maybe this is a good lesson to take with me on my PhD journey. You know, turning what might seem like oppression or stifling of creativity by the mean old patriarchal system, into the seeds of clarity and refinement.

Hilary: Shucks.  When I was a PhD student, I found the ethics approval board to be well, legalistic and entirely “power over.” Actually I found the early experience of being a PhD student infantilizing. In a way I simply did what I was told till I could find my voice. I went a bit underground.  And in time I came to see that discipline was helpful. Maybe. It forced a level of clarity that I would not have easily found myself. With regard to IRB, for example, I first hated having to ask my stakeholders to sign a confidentiality contract. I realized I feared that IRB documents would spoil the participative “mood.” So I had argued against it. But yea, that went over like a lead balloon. Over all the years with stakeholders, however, I never actually saw any stakeholder get upset with the initial “contract.” Most just sign –  we are all fatigued by red tape! I even imagine it’s helped some to feel safer in the process.  I also learned to be super duper careful about stakeholder confidentiality. Even today in more informal conversations. I find I often share my notes (or transcripts, like we’re doing in writing this blog). So we get to turn a legal requirement into a participative repertoire.

Stu: Who knew ethics could be so awesome?! I’m imagining my supervisor might be surprised when he next sees me all going with the flow. Alright, where’s that ethics form?!

Hilary: Go draft your ethics approval proposal Stu, good luck! You’re awesome. Keep us in the loop with your findings.