Ensuring research integrity during data collection in a .... Wednesday May 31, 201… · Ensuring...
Transcript of Ensuring research integrity during data collection in a .... Wednesday May 31, 201… · Ensuring...
Ensuring research integrity during data collection in a
closed context – Vietnam case
5th WCRI 2017
Faculty of Education
The University of Hong Kong
Supervisors: Dr. Anatoly OLEKSIYENKO
Professor YANG Rui
Presenter: Hy T. QUACH-HOANG
Email: [email protected]
31st May 2017
Content • Vietnam as a closed context
• Challenges of the closed context
• Focus of the inquiry
• Concept of research integrity
• Reflexivity based on relational ethics
• Strategy: Be firm, not fearful
• Strategy: Be honest, not deceptive
• Strategy: Be understanding, not judging
• Conclusion
• References
• “a very act of conducting research, aside from its purposes or focuses, is itself a sensitive matter” (Morrison, 2006; Scott, Miller & Lloyd, 2006; Turner, 2010)
Vietnam as a closed context
Vietnam as a closed context
- Government tightened the
control grip on freedom of speech
- Lecturers exerted great fear,
doubt, anger, discrimination,
hatred and self-censorship
Asia Times, 2016; D.N. Pham, 2016; H. Pham & T.V. Vo, 2016
2016 Vietnam Marine Life Disaster
Challenges of a closed context
Gain access
Recruit participants
Conduct interviews
Methodological
challenges
Ethical challenges
Deficits of the system and
“tainted” norms (i.e. corruption)
Fear, doubt, hatred, silent
refusal
Emotional outburst (i.e.
discomfort and anger)
Focus of the inquiry • How to ensure research integrity in a closed context?
• How to gain trust in a closed context to have access and participants for the study?
Concept of research integrity
• Integrity means honesty, truthfulness and sincerity … The root of ‘integrity’ in English derives from the Latin words ‘integer’ and ‘integeritas’ meaning whole or entire, integrating different parts of one’s true self.” (Macfarlane, Zhang & Pun, 2014, pp. 340)
• “Academic integrity … is on values, behaviour and conduct of academics in all aspects of their practice …” (Macfarlane, Zhang & Pun, 2014, pp. 340)
• “… the greatest reponsibility for maintaining high standards of conduct – the working of scientists themselves.” (Alberts & Shine, 1994, p. 1660)
Reflexivity – “Metaphysical analysis”
Epistemological reflexivity
Emotional enmeshment
Technical strategy: writing
research diary, do no harm
Ethical strategy: Relational ethics/
Ethics of care
Barnbaum & Byron, 2001; Bloor, Fincham & Sampson, 2007; Ellis, 2007
Reflexivity based on relational ethics
Acknowledge our
interpersonal bonds to others
Take responsibility for
thoughts, speech and actions
and their consequences Act from our hearts and minds
Strategy: Be firm, not fearful
Be firm with my ethical values, not fearful of being unable to gain
access, and explaining things in a clear and gentle way or suggesting
an ethical alternative
Strategy: Be firm, not fearful
Reach out to other people in the field. There are
many good people around
Strategy: Be honest, not deceptive
• Access negotiation and participant recruitment
“Friendship as
method”
Neither a program nor a guise
strategically aimed at gaining
further access
A level of investment in
participants’ lives that puts
fieldwork relationships on
par with the project
“Radical reciprocal”
A move from
studying them to
studying “us”
Tillmann-Healy, 2003, pp. 735-741
Strategy: Be honest, not deceptive
TRANSPARENT OPEN
Researchers should be the one to be open, honest and transparent first,
to gain trust
Strategy: Be honest, not deceptive
Political
disturbances
Great doubt and
discrimination
Research topic:
“post-colonial”
The genuine of
my Vietnamese
nationality
My
supervisors’
nationality
L1SS: “Is it related
to any political
issues?”
R1MS: “I would
participate if you
prove that you are
100% Vietnamese,
and not Chinese.”
L7MS: “Are your
supervisors Chinese?
What can you learn
from a Chinese?”
TRUTH
Strategy: Be understanding, not judging
Be aware
my own hegemonic
assumptions from the
standard research norms
Anger
Hurt
Humiliation
Sadness
Offendedness
Violations of ethics
Emotional outburst
Strategy: Be understanding, not judging
Hear, see and understand from the “others’” perspectives and their
contexts, and help them
Conclusion
Be firm, not fearful
Be honest, not
deceptive
Be understanding,
not judging
Reflexivity based
on relational
ethics/ ethics of
care
Gain TRUST
Ensure research
integrity
in a closed
context
Conclusion
• Research integrity is also the integrity of a human being
• Only ethical research can make a difference
(Ellis, 2007)
References • Al-Natour, J.R. (2011) The Impact of the Researcher on the Researched. M/C Journal, 14(6),
Retrieved from http://journal.mediaculture.org.au/index.php/mcjournal/article/view/428
• Barnbaum, R. D. & Byron, M. (2001) Research Ethics: Text and Readings. New Jersey: Prentice Hall, Inc.
• Ellis, C. (2007) Telling Secrets, Revealing Lives. Qualitative Inquiry, 13(1), pp. 3-29.
• Johnson, B. & Clarke, M.J. (2003) Collecting Sensitive Data: The Impact on Researchers. Qualitative Health Research, 13(3), pp. 421-434.
• Institute of Medicine, National Research Council of the National Academies (2002) Integrity in Scientific Research: Creating an Environment that Promotes Responsible Conduct. Washington, D.C.: The National Academies Press.
• Mack, N., Woodsong, C., MacQueen, M.K., Guest, G. & Namey, E. (2005) Qualitative Research Methods: A Data Collector’s Field Guide. North Carolina: USAID.
• Malacrida, C. (2007) Reflexive Journaling on Emotional Research Topics: Ethical Issues for Team Researchers. Qualitative Health Research, 17(10), pp. 1329 – 1339.
• Mauthner, S.N. & Doucet, A. (2003) Reflexive Accounts and Accounts of Reflexivity in Qualitative Data Analysis. Sociology, 37(3), pp. 413 – 431.
References • McCosker, H., Barnard, A. & Gerber, R. (2001) Undertaking Sensitive Research:
Issues and Strategies for Meeting the Safety Needs of All Participants. Forum Qualitative Sozialforschung/ Forum: Qualitative Social Research, 2(1), Art. 22, Retrieved: http://www.qualitative-research.net/index.php/fqs/article/view/983
• Midgley, W., Danaher, A.P. & Baguley, M. (2013) The Role of Participants in Educational Research. New York and London: Routledge.
• Nunes, B.M., Martins, T.J., Zhou, L., Alajamy, M. & Al-Mamari, S. (2010) Contextual Sensitivity in Grounded Theory: The Role of Pilot Studies. The Electronic Journal of Business Research Methods, 8(2), pp. 73-84.
• Renzetti, M.C. & Lee, M.R. (eds.) (1993) Researching Sensitive Topics. Newbury Park, London and New Delhi: SAGE.
• Till-mann-Healy, L. (2003) Friendship as Method. Qualitative Inquiry, 9, pp. 729-749.
• Yang, R. (2016) Toxic Academic Culture in East Asia. International Higher Education, 84(Winter 2016), pp. 15-16.