Advertisement

Research in Science Education

, Volume 35, Issue 1, pp 123–135 | Cite as

Managing Endings in a Longitudinal Study: Respect for Persons

  • Michael J. Reiss
Article

Abstract

In this paper I describe and discuss the way that a book I had written on a five-year longitudinal study of school science teaching was received by the pupils and teachers it featured. By and large the pupils’ reception was positive. However, one group of teachers was deeply hurt by the book. I trace this mainly to my failure to consider adequately their fears of the consequences of the book’s publication and possibly to my failure to consider with them the psychological significance of my withdrawing from the school after five years of regular study. I hope that there are lessons not only for myself but also for others considering longitudinal and ethnographic research in science education and more broadly.

Keywords

pupil views research ethics respect 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Ball, S. J. (1984). Beachside reconsidered: Reflections on a methodological apprenticeship. In R. G. Burgess (Ed.), The research process in educational settings: Ten case studies (pp. 69–96). London: Falmer. Google Scholar
  2. Delamont, S. (2002). Fieldwork in educational settings: Methods, pitfalls and perspectives (2nd ed.). London: Routledge. Google Scholar
  3. Gardner, J., Pring, R., & Lewis, A. (2003). Ethical guidelines for educational research: Draft for consultation among members. Research Intelligence, 82, 2–9. Google Scholar
  4. Murdin, L. (2000). How much is enough? Endings in psychotherapy and counselling. London: Routledge. Google Scholar
  5. Obholzer, A., & Roberts, V. Z. (Eds.). (1994). The unconscious at work: Individual and organizational stress in the human services. London: Routledge. Google Scholar
  6. Phillips, N., & Hardy, C. (2002). Discourse analysis: Investigating processes of social construction. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Google Scholar
  7. Reiss, M. J. (2000). Understanding science lessons: Five years of science teaching. Buckingham, UK: Open University Press. Google Scholar
  8. Rhedding-Jones, J. (1997). The writing on the wall: Doing a feminist post-structural doctorate. Gender and Education, 9, 193–206. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Wetherell, M., Taylor, S., & Yates, S. J. (Eds). (2001). Discourse theory and practice: A reader. London: Sage. Google Scholar
  10. Whittier, D. K., & Simon, W. (2001). The fuzzy matrix of ‘Ms Type’ in intrapsychic sexual scripting. Sexualities, 4, 139–165. Google Scholar
  11. Wolcott, H. F. (1977). Teachers versus technocrats. Unpublished manuscript, Centre for Educational Policy and Management, University of Oregon, Eugene, OR. Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer 2005

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Institute of EducationUniversity of LondonLondonUK

Personalised recommendations