Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Tensions Between Practitioner Researchers and University Human Research Ethics Regulatory Boards

  • Chapter
Critical Issues in Higher Education

Part of the book series: Critical Issues in The Future of Learning and Teaching ((CIFL,volume 8))

Abstract

Practitioner research has gained prominence in the academic literature of educational research, and in university graduate programs, both at the Master’s level and the pre-service teacher education level. Practitioner research in education is research conducted by practicing teachers, administrators, and other professionals in the field based on their own lived realities as professionals including reflective practice, action research, teacher study groups, and teacher narratives. The defining feature of practitioner research is the teacher educator’s dual role as practitioner and researcher; instead of being conducted by an outside party, practitioner research is conducted by teachers and educational administrators on their own practice.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 49.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  • Anderson, G. L., & Herr, K. (1999). The new paradigm wars: Is there room for rigorous practitioner knowledge in schools and universities? Educational Researcher, 28(5), 12–21, 40.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bartlett, S., & Burton, D. (2006). Practitioner research or descriptions of classroom practice? A discussion of teachers investigating their classrooms. Educational Action Research, 14(3), 395-405.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Baumann, J. F. (1996). Conflict or compatibility in classroom inquiry? One teacher’s struggle to balance teaching and research. Educational Researcher, 25(7), 29–36.

    Google Scholar 

  • Code of Federal Regulations, Title 45: Public Welfare, Part 46: Protection of Human Subjects. Department of Health and Human Services. June 23, 2005. Accessed through Electronic code of Federal Regulations (e-cfr). National Archives and Records Administration on July 28, 2007.http://ecfr.gpoaccess.gov/cgi/t/text/text-idx?c=ecfr&tpl=/ecfrbrowse/title45/45cfr46_main_02.tpl

  • Cochran-Smith, M., & Lytle, S. (1999). The teacher research movement: A decade later. Educational Researcher, 28(7), 15–25.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cole, A. L., & Knowles, J. G. (2000). Researching teaching: Exploring teacher development through reflexive inquiry. Boston: Allyn and Bacon.

    Google Scholar 

  • Foster, P. (1999). ‘Never mind the quality, feel the impact’: A methodological assessment of teacher research sponsored by the Teacher Training Agency. British Journal of Educational Studies, 4, 380–398.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gorard, S. (2002). Political control: A way forward for educational research? British Journal of Educational Studies, 50(3), 378–389.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Howe, K., R., & Dougherty, K., C. (1993). Ethics, institutional review boards and the changing face of educational research. Educational Researcher, 26(5), 4–11.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hargreaves, A. (1996). Transforming knowledge: Blurring the boundaries between research, policy and practice. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 18(2), 105–122.

    Google Scholar 

  • Holland, K. (2007). The epistemological bias of ethics review: Constraining mental health research. Qualitative Enquiry, 13, 895–913.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Huberman, M. (1996). Focus on research moving mainstream: Taking a closer look at teacher research. Language Arts, 73, 124–140.

    Google Scholar 

  • McGinn, M. K., & Bosacki, S. L. (2004, March). Research Ethics and Practitioners: Concerns and Strategies for Novice Researchers Engaged in Graduate Education [52 paragraphs]. Forum Qualitative Sozialforschung/Forum: Qualitative Social Research [On-line Journal], 5(2), Art. 6. Available at: http://www.qualitative-research.net/fqs-texte/2-04/2-04mcginnbosacki-e.htm [Date of Access: May 3, 2005].

  • Medical Research Council of Canada, 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. Ottawa, ON: Public Works and Government Services Canada. Retrieved July 28, 2010, from, http://www.pre.ethics.gc.ca/eng/policy-politique/tcps-eptc/

  • National Commission for the Protection of Human Subjects of Biomedical and Behavioral Research. (1979). The Belmont report: Ethical principles and guidelines for the protection of human subjects of research. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. Retrieved August 16, 2010, from the National Institutes of Health, Office of Human Subjects Research Web site: http://ohsr.od.nih.gov/guidelines/belmont.html

  • Owen, M. (2004). Conflict and convergence: The ethics review of action research. The Journal of Research Administration, 35(2), 81–90.

    Google Scholar 

  • Paley, V. G. (1986). On listening to what the children say. Harvard Educational Review, 56(2), 122–131.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pritchard, I., A. (2002). Travelers and trolls: Practitioner research and institutional review boards. Educational Researcher, 31(3), 3–13.

    Google Scholar 

  • Shaw, I. (2005). Practitioner Research: Evidence or Critique? British Journal of Social Work, 35(8), 1231–1248.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Social Sciences and Humanities Special Working Committee (2004, June) Giving voice to the spectrum. Report to the Interagency Panel on Research Ethics, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tilley, S. A., Killins, J., & Van Oosten, D. (2005). Connections and tensions between university and school districts: Research review boards and school-based research. The Alberta Journal of Educational Research, 51(3), 277–292.

    Google Scholar 

  • Watkins, A. (2006). So what exactly do teacher-researchers think about doing research? Support for Learning, 21(1), 12–18.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wilson, S. M. (1995). Not tension but intention: A response to Wong’s analysis of the researcher/teacher. Educational Researcher, 24(8), 19–22.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wong, E. D. (1995 a). Challenges confronting the researcher/teacher: Conflicts of purpose and conduct. Educational Researcher, 24(3), 22–28.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wong, E. D. (1995 b). Challenges confronting the researcher/teacher: A rejoinder to Wilson. Educational Researcher, 24(8), 22–23.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Authors
  1. Lori Walker
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Brock University, Ontario, Canada

    Michael Kompf

  2. University of Surrey, UK

    Pamela M. Denicolo

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2013 Sense Publishers

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Walker, L. (2013). Tensions Between Practitioner Researchers and University Human Research Ethics Regulatory Boards. In: Kompf, M., Denicolo, P.M. (eds) Critical Issues in Higher Education. Critical Issues in The Future of Learning and Teaching, vol 8. SensePublishers, Rotterdam. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-6209-046-0_12

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Societies and partnerships

Search

Navigation