3.3 Validity and 3.4 Ethics
3.3 Validity = Credibility + Trustworthiness
“One must be able to use language to reveal what, paradoxically, words can never say. This means that voice must be heard in the text, alliteration allowed, and cadences encouraged. Relevant allusions should be employed, and metaphor that adumbrates by suggestion used. All of these devices and more are as much a part of the tool kit of those conducting qualitative inquiry as analysis of variance is for those working in conventional quantitative research modes” (Eisner, 2017).
Eisener’s quote reminds me of the importance of metaphor within my research. There will be times when words will fail or be insufficient; when alliteration, cadence, allusions, metaphor and images may stand proxy to the true meanings in what needs to be communicated. These meaning making devices will become part of the research variance expected in such P-IP frameworks. I need to emphasize that notions of validity and reliability are inconsistent with a social-constructivist epistemology and the interpretivist research design applied to this proposed research, since it comes from a positivistic perspective. The nature of P-IP research is “creative, inventive, emotionally charged, and uneasy. “Good enough” researchers find ways to sustain all these aspects” (Luttrell, 2000, p. 8). Trustworthiness, rather than validity, will emerge as one criteria for quality research, “rooted in the epistemological/ethics nexus” of standards such as positionality, discourse communities, voice, critical subjectivity, reciprocity, sacredness, and privilege (Guba & Lincoln, 2005, p. 209). I will explicitly consider the impact of the big-tent criteria for qualitative research (Tracy, 2010) – worthy topic, rich data, rigor, sincerity, credibility, resonance, significant contribution, ethics, and meaningful coherence. In the research results, the claims, warrants and justifications will be explored and explicitly revealed (Carter & Little, 2007; Hart, 1998).
In order for this research to be perceived as having value and merit, I will frame my research in terms of trustworthiness, credibility, and transparency. From an interpretivist stance, research should include clarifying positionality, ontological authenticity, fairness, and voice; from a critical theory approach this is seen in researcher reflexivity (Guba & Lincoln, 2005). To increase research authenticity and trustworthiness (Guba & Lincoln, 2005), once the transcripts, reflective artifacts, and stories are graphically rendered, visualized, thematically coded, and analyzed, results will be returned to participants for review. This emulates the member checking processes of positivistic research techniques.
By applying a crystallizing methodology, credibility and trustworthiness develops over time, through the creation of many diffuse reflections and refractions within the data engagements, data analysis, and data representations (Guba & Lincoln, 2005).
Crystals are prisms that reflect externalities and refract within themselves, creating different colors, patterns, arrays, casting off in different directions, what we see depends upon our angle of repose. Not triangulation, crystallization … crystallization provides us with a deepened, complex, thoroughly partial understanding of the topic” (Guba & Lincoln, 2005, p. 208).
Further to this, Ellingson (2009) described crystallization as a research process that “turns back upon itself, highlighting its own construction by showing that no one genre offers truth. By making and problematizing claims, crystallized texts gain a level of reflexive validity” (Ellingson, 2009, p. 15). In this way, the research validity will be revealed through new understandings as the crystallization methods are applied to the research artifacts.
Trustworthiness and credibility of the research findings will become evident in the depth, complexity, and rigour evidenced in the constructions created (Stewart et al., 2017). Authenticity and dependability are revealed, not as an absolute truth, but in the reported reflexivity and interactions between researcher, researched, and research data re-visualization techniques (Stewart et al., 2017). Providing a trusted and reliable representation of the research data will come from consistently comparing, reporting, sharing thick, rich descriptions of the data, and providing a chain of evidence for all field notes, memos, member reviews, debriefs, engagements, observations, frameworks, typologies and recreations (Stewart et al., 2017). By preserving links and threads through the research process, readers will recognize the logical paths and recursive steps I have taken, in ways that are methodical, transparent, and adhere to best practices for data management (Stewart et al., 2017). As an example, by providing a word cloud visualization from a participant’s video interview transcript as an alternative presentation for the coded data collection, the readability of resulting analysis will improve. In this way, researched and reader can recognize how I, as the researcher, has dependably managed the alchemic and crystallizing data analysis strategies.
3.4 Ethics
“Data are never neutral, but always already imbued with discourses of power within local, national, and global contexts that perpetuate massive and tenacious social, economic, and political inequities. For these reasons, data engagement must entail ethical choices in the context of research trajectories. We advocate for three commitments, or underlying ethical sensibilities, to infuse the making, assembling, and becoming of data: pragmatism, compassion, and joy.” (Ellingson & Sotirin, 2020, p. 11).
The basic tenets of ethical research include the “fundamental rights of human dignity, autonomy, protection, safety, maximization of benefits and minimization of harms, or, in the most recent accepted phrasing, respect for persons, justice, and beneficence” (Markham & Buchanan, 2012, p. 4). Using and referring to the Tri-Council Policy Statement (TCPS-2) on the Ethical Conduct for Research with Humans (Research Council of Canada, 2014) and the Association of Internet Researchers (AoIR) recommendations (franzke et al., 2020; Markham & Buchanan, 2012) will ensure that I demonstrate awareness and compliance with current recommended ethical guidelines. The ethical considerations for this proposed research are premised on my beliefs about respect and relationship. While doing no harm is implied when following the TCPS-2 guidelines, it is important to be explicit to participants and readers that care and respectful practices are foremost considerations, while allowing for participant agency and voice through open sharing with informed consent (Moore, 2012).
Ethical decisions are based on “norms, values, principles and usual practices” (Markham & Buchanan, 2012, p. 4). Privacy and confidentiality of web-based information such as social media accounts, course syllabi, and university specific data available on the internet is considered non-intrusive, since there is no direct interaction with the researched individuals. Such data gathering does not require research ethics board (REB) approval (Research Council of Canada, 2014). These digital artifacts can reveal the participant’s openly available OEPr and MDL as revealed in their internet related “documents, records, performances, online archival materials or published third party interviews” (Research Council of Canada, 2014, p. 16). This initial examination of participants’ open and online digital artifacts can be conducted prior to REB approval, but will be held in confidence pending the signed consent form. Data from these sources can be assembled and analyzed.
While being vigilant to data engagements as being “inevitably cultivated and curated by serendipitous algorithms and other computational logics” (Ellingson & Sotirin, 2020, p. 75), these early data making explorations will assist in the formulation of points of conversation for the semi-structured interviews that follow the REB approval and receiving the signatures for informed consent. While examining participants’ web-based information, there may be content that reveals an individual’s identity, or specific text from blog posts that may be searchable and relevant to this research. While this type of data can be crystallized into other genres to anonymize the data e.g. creating a word cloud from a participant’s blog post, I will err on the side of caution, and only use this information once REB approval and informed consent has been acquired (Seko & Lewis, 2017).
As I shift into subsequent data entanglements while applying interactive online research methods, I will ensure that participants are treated fairly, equitably, and justly (Gupta, 2017). The research ethics approval and informed consent will ensure participants know that: a) data will be treated anonymously by default but will provide opportunities to de-anonymize; b) that information will not be share openly without informed consent; c) that the data will only be used for scientific and non-commercial purposes; and that d) they can withdraw their consent to access the data at any point during the research (Caliandro & Gandini, 2017; Saunders et al., 2015). I will verify and make explicit the procedures for privacy, informed consent, anonymity, confidentiality, security of data, and transparency. These will be reviewed and enacted, as I initiate direct contact with the research participants during interviews and story-telling reflections. With internet-based research, participants will be made aware of cookie policies, terms of service, and privacy statements of the web-based services being used throughout the research.
Prior to beginning to collect participants’ demographic data or interviewing them for their stories of OEPr and MDL, I will ensure transparency and autonomy in my recruitment of participants by clearly describing the research purpose, details, and any perceived risks and benefits (Gupta, 2017). This will not only be provided in text based documentation and an informed consent letter, that applies readability designs (Gupta, 2017), but also in a pre-recorded video message which will allow participants this first opportunity to see me as the researcher. I will pilot the semi-structured interview questions with two teacher educators whom I consider critical colleagues, and who meet the selected criteria, prior to using the interview protocol for this research. While I don’t perceive this will be a primary concern, but in order to manage potential identity fraud (Gupta, 2017), I will use multiple means of contact such as email, direct message in Twitter, instant message in What’s App, and consistently use an identifying secure-code, such as those used by Captcha.
To address potential concerns of internet breaches of data, I will maintain an external data storage device such as a dedicated USB drive which will be locked in a secure location. This will be used for the storage of all research data such as video interviews, data analysis, and media creations and act as backup files for this research. I will ensure privacy and anonymity by asking participants for a suggested pseudonym and a graphic avatar representation to be used when recording and reporting the results. The anonymity of web-based data (e.g. blog sites, tweets, posts) will be ensured through the use of this pseudonym as an identifier. Since the research summary will be shared in an Alt-Diss format such as Scalar, one that is openly available within an online location, when screen images or other recognizable information is captured, all identifying details and meta-data will be pixelated or removed prior to being used in the research report. Direct hypertext links to participants’ web-based data will not be included in the research report or the Alt-Diss location without full informed consent.
In summary, “ethical decision-making is best approached through the application of practical judgment attentive to the specific context (what Aristotle identified as phronesis)” (Markham & Buchanan, 2012, p. 4). All potential ethical guidelines for the context of this online and web-based research will be reviewed and enacted, with a consistent schedule throughout the research project and within five years of completing the project when data management and storage will be maintained in secure, private and confidential locations. While the purpose and intention of this research is for opening discourse and research results using an accessible web-based portal, the Alt-Diss format of reporting research results will require continual vigilance to maintain anonymity, privacy, security, and autonomy of participants’ data.
