Action research, grounded theory
and the ethical approval of projects
with evolving methods
George Ellison
Research and Graduate School
g.ellison@londonmet.ac.uk
Klaus Fischer
Faculty of Humanities, Arts, Languages and Education
k.fischer@londonmet.ac.uk
Context
Most research ethics committees will only approve detailed
and specific research proposals and require that applicants
re-apply for ethics approval if their proposal changes:
•
•
“When conducting research the principal investigator must ensure that
the agreed protocol is adhered to. Any changes to the protocol must be
agreed with the research sponsor and, where appropriate, the research
ethics committee.” UK NHS Research Governance framework
“Normally projects would be expected to start no sooner than three
months after the formal notification of funding from the ESRC, to allow
for recruitment of staff and ethics approval within the RO. Initial
payment of grant will only be made once any necessary REC approval is
secured. Approval for minor changes to a project following REC review
is delegated to the RO, though the ESRC needs to be informed of any
changes made and of the final decision to approve or not.” ESRC
Research Ethics Framework 2005
None of these guidelines specify what are ‘minor’ or ‘major’
protocol changes, or what types of changes are ‘appropriate’
to refer back to a research ethics committee for re-approval
Case study - background
Seminar participants are asked to consider the following case study:
Maria, a TESOL specialist and English teacher, is in the midst of a PhD exploring the
effectiveness of English teaching in her home country of Caldovia. Her hypothesis is that
the poor performance of Caldovian secondary school children in English, despite strong
institutional support (ca. 6 periods @ 45 minutes per week from age 10), is a result of the
traditional teaching methods used (teacher-centred, abstract rule learning) rather than
other factors such as lack of motivation or the linguistic distance between the Caldovian
and English.
Maria’s research aims to test this hypothesis and to improve Caldovian teaching practice in the
process. She identified “Action Research” as the methodological approach that best suits
her needs, and this will involve carrying out her full professional role and researching the
impact of her performance and any changes/innovations she introduces. As the research
progresses, its findings will be feed back into her teaching, leading to a successive
alteration of her teaching method (e.g. the proportion of interactive and student-led
activities) and her teaching environment to identify the most appropriate teaching
approach for the Caldovian context.
The effect of these changes in practice will be measured and documented using a variety of
methods including interviews, questionnaires and end of year examination results, with
comparisons drawn with a traditionally-taught control group in the same school.
Although the relevant Research Ethics Review Panel initially had reservations about Maria’s
dual role as teacher and researcher, approval was granted on the basis of her detailed
Case study – scenario I
Seminar participants are asked to consider the following scenario:
After one year of research, the end of year examinations show a much
better performance for Maria’s class than the traditionally taught
parallel class. While Maria is initially very pleased, a careful analysis
of student and parent questionnaires suggests that other factors,
namely her own enthusiastic approach, dynamic teacher personality
and superior command of English in comparison to the somewhat
lacklustre approach and performance of her colleague might play a
bigger role than her methodological innovations. To isolate
teaching style as a factor, Maria suggests to the school that she
should teach two parallel classes, applying a traditional teaching
style in one and interactive teaching in the other.
Does Maria need to apply again to the Research Ethics Review Panel
for approval to conduct this comparison? Under what
circumstances should the project receive ethics approval?
Case study – scenario II
Seminar participants are asked to consider the following scenario:
While Maria’s interactive teaching leads to a better overall result of her
class in the end of year examinations, individual students of the
traditionally taught class outperform the best students in her form.
Knowing all the students personally, Maria suspects that the
students’ personalities play a greater role in their reaction to the
different teaching styles than she had estimated. In particular, more
extrovert students seem to thrive on interactive teaching, while this
approach seemed to work less well with more introvert students
than traditional teacher-centred teaching. To test her new
hypothesis, Maria decides to apply a personality test to all the
students.
Does Maria need to apply again to the Research Ethics Review Panel
for approval to conduct these additional measurements? Under
what circumstances should the project receive ethics approval?
Key ethical concerns
Research projects in which the methods evolve in response
to the project’s findings (such as those involving ‘action
research’ or ‘grounded theory’) raise a two key challenges
for research ethics committees:
1. Proposed methods are open-ended – applications to
research ethics committees usually require applicants to
specify methods in advance and in some detail
2. Proposed interventions are initially unknown – any
experimental or quasi-experimental interventions need to
be specified in advance and in some detail
Potential solutions
1. When proposed methods are open-ended
(i) Can all potential methods and tools be specified in
advance? If YES do so and okay; if NO (ii)
(ii) Do the revised methods constitute a new research
project? If NO okay; if YES (iii)
(iii) Do the revised methods change the actual or
potential
risks to participant(s) or researcher(s)? If NO okay; if
YES reapply
2. When proposed interventions are initially unknown
(i) Can all potential interventions be specified in
advance? If YES do so and okay; if NO (ii)
(ii) Does the new intervention constitute a new research
project? If NO okay; if YES (iii)
(iii) Does the new intervention change the actual or
potential risks to participant(s) or researcher(s)?
If NO okay; if YES reapply