This article was downloaded by: [University Library Technische Universität München]On: 27 September 2014, At: 08:14Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registeredoffice: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Scandinavian Journal of EducationalResearchPublication details, including instructions for authors andsubscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/csje20

Balancing Ethics and Quality inEducational Research—the EthicalMatrix MethodReidun Tangena

a University of OsloPublished online: 06 Aug 2013.

To cite this article: Reidun Tangen (2014) Balancing Ethics and Quality in Educational Research—theEthical Matrix Method, Scandinavian Journal of Educational Research, 58:6, 678-694, DOI:10.1080/00313831.2013.821089

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00313831.2013.821089

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the“Content”) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis,our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as tothe accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinionsand views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors,and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Contentshould not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sourcesof information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims,proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever orhowsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arisingout of the use of the Content.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Anysubstantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing,systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms &Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

Balancing Ethics and Quality in Educational Research—the EthicalMatrix Method

Reidun TangenUniversity of Oslo

This paper addresses ethical issues in educational research with a focus on the interplaybetween research ethics and both internal and external quality of research. Researchethics is divided into three domains: (1) ethics within the research community; (2)ethics concerning relationships with individuals and groups directly affected by theresearch, and (3) ethics related to the external value and role of educational researchfor various user groups and for the quality of education. The three domains representdifferent stakeholders and interests. The paper presents an ethical matrix methodincluding three types of matrices. The method combines a systematic and a case-basedapproach to ethical problems and possibilities. The purpose of the matrices is to serveas a framework for identifying, reflecting, analyzing, and discussing ethical issues andbalancing ethical dilemmas in educational research and development.

Keywords: research ethics, ethical standards, quality of research, protection of researchparticipants

Research ethics refers to a complex set of values, standards, and institutional schemes thatregulate scientific activity (NESH, 2006, p. 5). Educational and social researchers sometimesface complex challenges stemming from the conflict between the legally and morally bindingprinciples of protection of participants on the one hand, and the standards and criteria ofquality and relevance of research on the other. However, ethical principles do not necessarilyconstrain or weaken the design and results of research. Sometimes ethics contributes tostrengthening the quality of research, and vice versa. The interplay between ethics andquality of research may therefore be both risky and beneficial. This is typically the casefor socially sensitive research—that is, “studies in which there are potential social conse-quences or implications, either directly for the participants in the research or for the classof individuals represented by the research” (Sieber & Stanley, 1988, p. 49). Since the goalof much educational research is to promote children’s and young people’s learning, and toprevent school failure, it is necessarily socially sensitive. According to ethical guidelinesin many countries, children as a group are entitled to special protection in research (see forexample NESH, 2006, section 12). In addition, researchers “bear a special responsibilityfor protecting the interests of vulnerable groups throughout the research process (NESH,2006, section 22). At the same time, there is a great need for increased research effortsand research-based knowledge of vulnerable groups, such as pupils with special educationalneeds—see for example the Norwegian Government’s Report to the Storting (White Paper)

© 2013 Scandinavian Journal of Educational Research

Reidun Tangen, Department of Special Needs Education, University of Oslo.Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Professor Reidun Tangen, University

of Oslo, Dept of Special Needs Education, Oslo, Norway. Email:reidun.tangen@isp.uio.no

Scandinavian Journal of Educational Research, 2014Vol. 58, No. 6, 678–694, http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00313831.2013.821089

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity L

ibra

ry T

echn

isch

e U

nive

rsitä

t Mün

chen

] at

08:

14 2

7 Se

ptem

ber

2014

Learning Together (Kunnskapsdepartementet, 2011). The dilemma is that research can entailboth risks and benefits for those who are directly or indirectly affected by it. The paper dis-cusses the complex interplay between ethics and the need for research-based knowledge, andproposes a method for balancing or integrating ethical principles and quality of research.Quality of research here refers to both internal criteria such as validity, reliability, and trust-worthiness and external criteria such as the relevance and usefulness of research-basedknowledge for practice and policy-making. Standards and criteria of research quality areunderpinned by ontological, epistemological and methodological aspects. The scope ofthis paper does not permit a discussion of such issues, but some aspects of epistemologyand methodology will be touched upon where relevant.

The constant interplay approach (CIA) and the ethical matrix method are intended toserve as a frame of reference and as a tool for identifying ethical issues and for reflection,discussion, and decision-making in individual research projects, as well as for developingethical sensitivity among researchers and research students.

The internal versions of thematrices are primarily (but not exclusively) intended to be usedby researchers and research students. Through the extended version of thematrixmethod, usersof research-based knowledge, such as practitioners and policymakers, are invited to participatein ethical discussions. Last but not least, this dialogue method may serve as a framework forlistening to the voices of groups who are perhaps most affected by educational research—that is, children and young people. The extended ethical matrix presented at the end of thepaper thus intends to help elicit the views and ideas of different interest groups.

Educational practitioners have probably at all times realized that education is value-laden, and that the quality of education depends on high ethical standards (Burgess, 1989).Educational researchers have also become increasingly conscious of the ethical dimensionsof their research (Bredo, 2009; Howe, 2009; Pring, 2002). Research ethics and standards ofresearch are based on wider social values and therefore include not only internal issues in thescientific community, such as quality and validity of research and the obligation to protectresearch participants, but also external issues, such as the relevance of research for practiceand policy-making. The role of the researcher is not isolated from political and practical con-texts, nor is the researcher free from general ethical responsibility.

Three Domains of Research Ethics

The ethical responsibilities of researchers are related partly to the research communityand partly to the individuals or institutions being studied, including responsibility for the dis-semination and use of the research (NESH, 2006). The latter refers to the societal role andvalue of research. Thus, research ethics may be divided into three domains (Figure 1): (1)ethics within the research community; (2) protection of research participants; and (3) therole and value of educational research in society.

The three domains correspond to the three main categories of ethical standards (NESH,2006).

Important standards in domain A are freedom of research, independence, professionalintegrity, and good research practice, including respect for colleagues and students. Thesestandards may be summarized as quality of the research process and results. The complexityof standards within domain A may be demanding because of the inseparability of ontologyand epistemology, theory and research methodology, and the significance of these complexinterrelations for the quality of research.

THE ETHICAL MATRIX MODEL 679

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity L

ibra

ry T

echn

isch

e U

nive

rsitä

t Mün

chen

] at

08:

14 2

7 Se

ptem

ber

2014

The dominant standard of domain B is the obligation to protect individuals from harm andrespect their human dignity, integrity, and freedom—that is, their well-being and autonomy.This includes concern for the potential risk of harm, but also for potential benefits to partici-pants and/or the group(s) to which they belong. Ethical conduct often also necessitates listen-ing to the participants’ voices. In addition, researchers are obliged to have regard for thereputation of groups and organizations and to respect their interests.

Domain C includes the relevance of research for educational practice and policy-makingand the value of educational research for various groups, typically children and young people.The social value of research may be instrumental, which refers to the direct or indirect appli-cability of research for practitioners and policy makers and other user groups; relevance mayalso be defined as the research’s potential for independent systemic critique.

The Interplay Between Protection of Participants and Quality of Research

Ethical dilemmas or conflicts in research most often arise in the interplay between theethical responsibility to protect participants and the need for research-based knowledgefounded on the best possible data. For example, research with vulnerable groups, such as chil-dren who face serious learning problems in school, is rife with ethical dilemmas. On the otherhand, the relationship between the researcher and the participants also offers a range of pos-sibilities to ensure both ethical conduct and quality of research. Again, research with vulner-able children may serve as an example. Listening to the voices of these children is importantboth for ethical reasons and in order to develop new knowledge that can serve as a source toimprove learning, mastery, and quality of life for individuals and groups of learners. Thespecific matrix presented later in this paper (Table 2) illustrates how research with vulnerablechildren can be challenging, but also how protection of participants and internal and externalquality of research can be mutually strengthening.

Reflections on ethical challenges may be supported by different knowledge resourcessuch as theory of ethics, legal and professional guidelines, research methodology, and empiri-cally based knowledge of ethical problems. Last but not least, individual cases are importantsources for identifying and discussing the interplay between ethics and quality of research.

Figure 1. Three domains of research ethics.

680 TANGEN

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity L

ibra

ry T

echn

isch

e U

nive

rsitä

t Mün

chen

] at

08:

14 2

7 Se

ptem

ber

2014

However, rich knowledge resources related to the domains of research ethics are not suffi-cient to ensure systematic and ethical considerations and sound solutions. Systematicapproaches and appropriate methods are also needed.

The Ethical Matrix Method

The ethical matrix method presented below represents a dialogue approach to ethicalissues in educational research, but it may also be used as a framework for reflection by indi-vidual researchers and research students. The method is inspired by frameworks for ethicaldeliberation in bioethics and in psychology, and combines a systematic and a case-basedapproach. The internal versions of the matrices are intended primarily to be tools forresearchers and research students in their work with ethical issues in educational researchin general (Table 1) and in individual projects in particular (Table 2). The term “internal ver-sions” refers to the intention that these matrices be used primarily within the research com-munity and in research education, e.g., in masters’ and doctoral programs.

The external or extended version of the matrix presented at the end of the paper intends togive a voice to groups directly or indirectly affected by the research, and help representativesof those groups discuss relevant ethical issues from varying viewpoints (Table 3). The ethicalprinciples expressed in the matrices, and the corresponding discussion of ethical problemsand possibilities, are based on national ethical guidelines such as NESH (2006), relevantlegal acts, and regulations. Other sources include ethical theory, research methodology, lit-erature on research ethics, including empirical studies of concrete ethical problems, andthe author’s research and experience of teaching ethics to research students for many years.

Generic Ethical Matrix—Internal Version

The purpose of the generic matrix is primarily to serve as a tool for mapping the terrain ofethical issues in different types of educational research with human subjects, for example inresearch with a common group of participants (such as children or various minority groups),or in evaluation research, contract research, researcher–practitioner cooperation, or in othertypes of research representing some common ethical challenges and possibilities. In orderto use the matrix at this general level, the users (that is, the researcher or research students)should start by selecting an area or type of research with some common characteristics thatare perceived as interesting from an ethical point of view. The matrix can then serve as a fra-mework for reflection and as a “checklist” or guide for identifying and systematizing issues tobe dealt with in the type of research selected. However, the matrix does not prescribe anyconcrete solutions to ethical problems. Different ways of using the matrix will be describedlater in the paper.

It has been stressed in this paper that ethical dilemmas often arise in the interplay betweenthe need to protect individuals, groups, and institutions directly or indirectly affected by theresearch and the need for research-based knowledge that can serve as a source for improvinglearning, mastery, and quality of life for individuals and different groups of learners. In thematrix below (Table 1), the columns on the left (1) represent the need for protection (domainA), while the columns on the right (2) represent the need for research-based knowledge. Thelatter includes both internal criteria of research quality (domain B) and external relevance(domain C), including both applicability of research and independent critique of systemsand practices respectively. As indicated by the word “versus” in the column headings,

THE ETHICAL MATRIX MODEL 681

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity L

ibra

ry T

echn

isch

e U

nive

rsitä

t Mün

chen

] at

08:

14 2

7 Se

ptem

ber

2014

Table 1General Ethical Matrix

Stages in the researchprocess

1) Protection of participants(domain B) versus ….

2) …the need for knowledge(domains A and C)

Individuals and…groups andinstitutions

Internal criteria ofresearch

quality (domain A)versus …

…external relevance (domain C)

Applicabilityversus…

…independentcritique of policy and

practice

Planning projects Ethical considerations—discussion ofprospectiveproblems

Ethical considerations—discussion ofprospectiveproblems

(Well-founded) researchproblems; epistemologicaland ethicalconsiderations; suitablemethodology

Consider how theresearch may berelevant for users.Listen to users’ voices?

Study relationsbetween livedexperience andsystems or practices

Collecting data, analyzingand reporting theproject

Dignity; respect forprivacy, autonomy,voice.Confidentiality.

Respect for theirreputation andinterests.Confidentiality.

Good research practice.Validity, reliability,trustworthiness.Transparency inreporting.

Consider the need for andpossible value ofpreliminarypresentations anddiscussions with users.

Listening to the voicesof the dis-empowered andthose who areseldom listened to.

Information,dissemination andpublic discussion ofresearch problems,methods, results andconsequences

Dignity; respect forprivacy, autonomy,voice.Anonymity.

Respect for theirreputation andinterests.Anonymitynecessary?

Transparency. User-friendlydissemination.Willingness to discussinterpretations and use ofthe research.

User-adapteddissemination.

Alternativeperspectives onsystems andpractices.

682TANGEN

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity L

ibra

ry T

echn

isch

e U

nive

rsitä

t Mün

chen

] at

08:

14 2

7 Se

ptem

ber

2014

conflicts may arise not only between protection and the need for knowledge; in practice-near,applied research, there may also be a conflict between the internal criteria of research qualityand the external demands for relevance. For instance, a conflict may occur between internalpurposes and external expectations. Policy makers and educational practitioners tend toexpress a need for instrumental knowledge—that is, knowledge that can be applied as pol-itical, organizational, or pedagogical “instruments” for improving the quality of education.See for instance the Programme for Practice-based Educational Research in Norway(RCN, 2011). In this perspective, research is expected to contribute more or less directlyto solving current problems (for instance the drop-out problem in upper secondary education).However, from an internal research perspective, an important purpose of educational researchis to unveil the complexity of problems in the field of education. Educational research doesnot typically offer instruments or tools to policy makers or practitioners. Instead, researchoften reveals limitations and unintended consequences related to ongoing or recommendededucational change. There may also be a conflict between the need for applicability ofresearch results (that is, instrumental use of research) and research-based critique ofsystems and practices (Hagen, 2009; Holst, 2009; Tangen, 2010; Winch, 2002).

The rows of the matrix represent the various stages of the research process. In each cell ofthe matrix, general principles, relevant criteria, or concerns are proposed. In some of the cells,relevant tasks are mentioned instead (especially at the planning stage of the research process).The principles are not exhaustive. Other researchers may propose other or additionalprinciples.

The matrix below is primarily relevant for empirical research with children and adults.For analyses and dialogues about specific problems in, for example, researcher–practitionercollaborative research, or in evaluative research, some additional and/or alternative principleswould be important, especially in the columns representing external relevance and critique(domain C, on the right of the matrix).

Using the matrix means discussing or reflecting on how the principles indicated in each ofthe cells can be operationalized and put into practice in the (type of) research that has beenselected for ethical scrutiny. This is a top-down approach (TDA) to using the ethical matrices,which means that the principles (the cell contents) have been decided by the matrix developeror by other experts, for example by the organizers of workshops (see Kaiser, Millar, Thor-stensen, & Tomkins, 2007). If the matrix had been presented with empty cells, the userswould have to start by discussing and formulating the principles, standards, and tasks thatwould be most relevant in each of the cells (bottom-up approach; BUA. For a discussionof the strengths and weaknesses of each of the approaches, see Kaiser et al., 2007.)

As indicated by the matrix, the ethical landscape of educational research is complex;therefore a “map” or framework may be useful in order to systematically identify andaddress issues arising in the interplay between protection of participants and concerns forquality and relevance of research.

The scope of this paper does not permit a discussion of the principles or tasks in each ofthe cells. There are, however, some general questions related to the basic dimension of pro-tection versus quality and relevance of research, some of which will be briefly commentedupon here.

Research questions do not emerge from nothing; in education they are often grounded insome aspect of educational practice that calls for research-based knowledge. Because anoverall purpose of educational research is to contribute to improving education, ethicalissues arise as early as in the process of formulating research questions—for example:

THE ETHICAL MATRIX MODEL 683

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity L

ibra

ry T

echn

isch

e U

nive

rsitä

t Mün

chen

] at

08:

14 2

7 Se

ptem

ber

2014

What practices and problems should be studied, and whose voices should be heard? Havingstated the research problems, at least preliminarily, several questions arise that have ethicalimplications, such as:

What kinds of informants/participants/sources are needed for the project? Children and/oradults? Powerful or disempowered? Belonging to a majority or a minority?

How can ethical principles such as autonomy, beneficence, non-maleficence and justicebe put into practice through the research process?

Is there a risk that the group(s) to which the participants belong, or the organizations thathave been studied, may be hurt (“labeled,” stigmatized) through the publication and dis-semination of results?

In recent years there has been growing research interest in children’s experiences and per-spectives, and in children’s participation (Alderson & Morrow, 2004; Clark, 2009, Tangen,2008). However, the relationship between children and researchers is extremely asymmetric.In addition, some children are vulnerable to stigmatization. Permission from parents or guar-dians to include children in research is not enough. Legal regulations and codes of ethics inmany countries now seem to require that children themselves actively agree to participate. InNorway, the national ethical guidelines state that in addition to parental consent, “children’sown consent is required from the time they are old enough to express an opinion” (NESH,2006, section 12). In a similar way, according to the US Code of Federal Regulations (para-graph 46.408), the Institutional Review Board (IRB) “shall determine that adequate pro-visions are made for soliciting the assent of the children, when in the judgment of the IRBthe children are capable of providing assent” (Office of Human Subjects Research, 2005).However, it should be stressed here that assent from children is not a “technical” questionthat can be decided before the project starts. It is a continual challenge throughout theresearch process (Alderson & Morrow, 2004; Ulvik, 2005). Generally, informed consent isoften mistakenly treated merely as a legal procedure rather than as a communication thatis integral to the research design and process (Stanley, Sieber, & Melton, 1996). It is anissue of respect for the autonomy of research participants. Thus, in research with children,guidelines, regulatory institutions, and formal procedures cannot absolve researchers of theresponsibility to ensure that the children do assent to their participation, from the start tofinish of the project.

External relevance and potential for systemic critique (domain C) is evaluated in terms ofrelevance and usefulness for practice, policy-making and public debate. The overriding ques-tion and the real test of the value of educational research is whether, and how, it contributes toimproving learning and mastery for those who are the primary users of educational provision,e.g. children and young people.

Systemic critique may be expressed indirectly by presenting research findings and con-clusions that unveil basic problems in systems and practices. This seems to happen relativelyoften in educational research, for example in research designed to study the relations betweenpolitical ideals and practice in schools (“the rhetoric–reality gap”). Directly expressing sys-temic critique is a risky endeavor for researchers, especially if it makes certain policies orauthorities responsible for the problems. Although freedom of research and the autonomyof researchers is a classical and common standard of research, there are many obstacles to

684 TANGEN

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity L

ibra

ry T

echn

isch

e U

nive

rsitä

t Mün

chen

] at

08:

14 2

7 Se

ptem

ber

2014

realizing this ideal, especially when it comes to expressing critique of established systems andpractices. (For a discussion of these problems, see for example Hagen, 2009; Holst, 2009;Tangen, 2010; Winch, 2002.)

As a whole, the generic matrix in Table 1 sums up some of the main challenges that arisefrom the interplay between ethics and quality/relevance of research. Although it is notdirectly expressed in the matrix, it is clear that some of these challenges are related to the con-flicting expectations that educational researchers are met with. For example, teachers partici-pating in research may ask for advice, or they may want to discuss their practice with theresearcher. This does not always fit with the purpose and methodology of the research.The most challenging ethical dilemma probably arises in cases where degrading or highlyunprofessional practices are observed. For a discussion of alternative approaches to thisdilemma, see Taylor’s (1987) classic study of abusive practices in an institution for peoplewith developmental disabilities.

Based on the above general matrix, specified matrices may be developed to guide reflec-tion, discussion and decision-making in individual research projects. An example is presentedbelow.

Specific Ethical Matrix—An Example

As in the generic matrix, the left side of the matrix represents the protection and benefit ofparticipants, while the right side refers to both internal quality of research and external rel-evance and critique. To simplify the matrix and strengthen the focus on the interplaybetween protection of participants and quality of research, the number of columns has there-fore been reduced to two. The rows of the matrix address the stages in the research process, asin the generic matrix, but since this matrix refers to a concrete project, each stage is discussedin more detail than in the generic version. In addition, challenges to the role of the researcherare included. The matrix is based on a research project on pupils’ experiences of planned dia-logues (“elevsamtaler”) with their contact teacher (mentor) in upper secondary schools inNorway. All pupils in 13 classes in five schools participated. The contact teachers(mentors) also participated. The purpose of the project is to develop empirical and theoreticalknowledge of: (1) students’ experiences of and perspectives on planned, confidential dialo-gues with their contact teacher; and (2) how dialogues can promote learning, pupil partici-pation, and quality of school life for students generally, and especially for pupils whoseldom participate in classroom discussions or ask for support. The project’s focus is onthe experiences and perspectives of the “silent,” or “silenced,” pupils.

The ethical matrix presented in Table 2 illustrates some of the problems that are discussedat different stages of this project, based on the standards and concerns formulated in thegeneric matrix (Table 1).

In the following, some of the questions raised in the matrix will be commented upon anddiscussed in terms of risks and benefits related to the interplay between ethics and quality ofresearch.

Concerning the research purpose and problem, why should students’ experiences beresearched, and what is the relevance of the research problem from a scientific point ofview? What are the possible benefits of the results for practice and/or for policy makers?It is argued that there is a great need for research-based knowledge of how pupil–teacher dia-logues may promote learning and pupil participation and prevent school failure, especially forsilent pupils. There is therefore a beneficial interplay between ethics (the voices of the

THE ETHICAL MATRIX MODEL 685

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity L

ibra

ry T

echn

isch

e U

nive

rsitä

t Mün

chen

] at

08:

14 2

7 Se

ptem

ber

2014

Table 2Specific Ethical Matrix (example): Project: “Pupil-teacher dialogues and ‘silent’ pupils in uppersecondary schools”

Values

Stages in the process1) Protection and benefit of participants

(domain B), versus …..2) … internal and external quality of

research (domains A and C)

Planning the project

The researchpurpose andproblem

- Why should silent pupils be researched?- Is there a risk that the research can giveimpetus to processes of marginalization orother types of degrading behaviourtowards silent pupils?- How can the risk be reduced or avoided?- How can the research contribute toidentifying pupil resources andempowering practices?

What is the relevance of the researchproblem- scientifically?- for practice?- for policy-making?- for other relevant interest groups?

Perspectives andparticipants

-The pupils’ perspectives are central to theproject. Should other perspectives beincluded (parents’, teachers’, otherprofessionals’ perspectives)?

Are the differences between variousperspectives, e.g. those of the pupils andthe teachers, and the consequences ofincluding or not including conflictingperspectives, taken into account?

Methodology - What ethical risks are implied in therelevant methodology?- What method(s) is/are suitable forcapturing the perspective(s) of pupils (andothers)?

What methodology is best suited for theresearch purpose and questions, i.e., tocapture the perspectives of pupils (andothers)?

Recruitingparticipants

-What information should be given aboutthe project, and how can the informationbe made clear and understandable forparticipants?- How can informed consent and/or assentbe gained?

- What information should be givenabout the project, and how, taking intoconsideration the research purpose andproblem?

Collecting andanalyzing data

Collecting data - How can informed consent be continuedduring the process?- Are the participants’ autonomy, privacy,and well-being at risk? What steps shouldbe taken to secure autonomy, privacy, andwell-being and minimize risk?- How can the participants’ perspectivesbe kept in focus?

-How can data be collected in order toobtain the best possible material,considering the research purpose and theproblem?- Is there a risk of “going native”?

Analyzing data - How can the emic (participant)perspectives be analysed and validated?

- What analytic tools and methods aresuitable for developing the best possibleempirical and theoretical understandingof the phenomena that are being studied?- How can the empirical and theoreticalinterpretations and conclusions bevalidated?

(Continued.)

686 TANGEN

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity L

ibra

ry T

echn

isch

e U

nive

rsitä

t Mün

chen

] at

08:

14 2

7 Se

ptem

ber

2014

students) and the external relevance of the study. However, focusing on silent students inresearch may also be risky, for at least two reasons: First, research that focuses on studentsfacing difficulties in school runs the risk of reproducing certain stereotypes and reinforcingstigmatizing or marginalizing processes; second, research that focuses on students who arefacing special problems tends to deflect attention from wider contextual factors that havean impact on their learning and lives in school (Tangen, 2008). This is an ethical as wellas a methodological challenge in this project. However, individual students were notfocused upon during the data collection, since data were collected from all students in theselected classes. The data from the pupils consist of anonymously written answers toopen-ended questions combined with a self-report scale on social–emotional problems.

One of the elements to be considered in the planning of the project is termed perspectivesand participants. The question of whose perspectives are to be included in the research isethically relevant; it would be ethically problematic not to listen to voices that are seldomheard, and silent students’ experiences are seldom listened to by researchers (or teachers).Second, since there is a need for knowledge about the experiences and perspectives ofsilent pupils, it is important to consult the experts in this field: The pupils themselves.Thus, choosing perspective(s) is also a methodological question with consequences for the

Table 2(Continued.)

Values

Stages in the process1) Protection and benefit of participants

(domain B), versus …..2) … internal and external quality of

research (domains A and C)

Reporting theproject,publication

- Is the anonymity of the participantspreserved?- Is the participants’ dignity beingrespected in the presentation?- How can potentially negativeconsequences of the publication (e.g.labelling, marginalization) for groups ofpupils in school be prevented orminimized?

- How can the presentation be madetransparent, precise, systematic andcreative?- How can the results be discussed in thecontext of relevant research?- How can the results be related tocontexts of practice and policy- making?

Challenges to therole of theresearcher

- What do the participants, gatekeepersand others in the field expect from theresearch and from the researcher? Do theywant to discuss problems with theresearcher? Do they express a need foradvice or support? Do they expect somepositive outcomes from the research?- How can their expectations be handledwith due respect?- What can or should be done if degradingor abusive practices are discovered?

- What do the participants and potentialusers of the research expect from theresearch and from the researcher? Dothey want to discuss problems with theresearcher? Do they express a need forhelp or advice? Do they expect somepositive outcomes from the research?- How can their expectations be handledin a way that does not disturb theresearch process?- What can or should be done ifdegrading or abusive practices arediscovered?

THE ETHICAL MATRIX MODEL 687

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity L

ibra

ry T

echn

isch

e U

nive

rsitä

t Mün

chen

] at

08:

14 2

7 Se

ptem

ber

2014

validity and quality of research. In this case, there is a positive interplay between ethical andmethodological concerns.

During the period of data collection, direct contact between the researcher and the pupils(classes) was established, as well as between the researcher and the contact teachers. Asexpected, some of the pupils had problems answering the questions in written form; thereforesome of them were interviewed instead of, or in addition to, writing their answers. Ethicalconduct includes sensitivity to the participants’ dignity and integrity. Sensitivity also pro-motes validity and quality, since the project aims at understanding the students’ experiencesand perspectives. As a consequence of both concerns, i.e., ethics and validity, methodologi-cal flexibility is needed. In this case flexibility meant offering the pupils the possibility ofexpressing themselves orally instead of (or in addition to) through written texts.

Although it was not a problem in this project, some pupils in cases such as this seek help,advice, or even advocacy from the researcher. Thus, the researcher must cope with conflictingexpectations of his/her role (see the category Challenges to the role of the researcher at theend of the matrix). Sometimes the expectations of the students may be met by simply talkingwith them about relevant information resources. The “advisor” and “advocate” expectationsare more difficult to handle, especially in cases where they are related to problems in the stu-dents’ relationship with their teachers, or teaching practices and/or classroom communi-cation. An alternative is to abstain from any kind of intervention on behalf of the pupils(for example talking with the relevant teachers about the problems) if this has not beenplanned from the beginning. From an ethical point of view, intervention may be beneficial,but the risk of the data being affected in undesirable ways must be thoroughly considered. Atleast for inexperienced researchers, there is a risk that close relationships and empathy withparticipants may result in the researcher being “blind” to certain relevant data and to perspec-tives that go beyond the conceptual world of the participants (the “going native” problem).The problem relates to both collecting and analyzing data, and to both the internal and exter-nal quality of the research.

As the example matrix above indicates, protection of participants and assuring quality ofresearch requires both sensitivity to the agency of participants and methodological rigor andflexibility. Even though it may be a challenge to balance the two sides of the matrix, i.e. theethical values and quality of research, it should be clear that the two are inseparable, and thatthey may sometimes strengthen each other.

Ethical Matrix—Extended Version

The general and specific matrices presented above are intended to help researchers andresearch students to systematically identify and discuss ethical problems in various typesof educational research and in individual projects. These matrices are not intended to beused in dialogue with interest groups outside the research community who are directly orindirectly affected by educational research, although this would be possible. The purposeof the extended matrix presented below is to serve as a tool for eliciting the voices of suchgroups and discussing ethical issues related to the value, or quality, of educational research.

Dialogues between researchers and users of educational research take place in many set-tings, and are recommended in research policies and by strategic agencies such as theResearch Council of Norway (RCN). The council encourages and regularly initiates dialo-gues between researchers, policy makers, and various user groups. Some research programsare exclusively practice-based, such as the Programme for Practice-based Educational

688 TANGEN

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity L

ibra

ry T

echn

isch

e U

nive

rsitä

t Mün

chen

] at

08:

14 2

7 Se

ptem

ber

2014

Table 3Ethical Matrix—Extended Version: Educational Research and Development

Values

Ethicaldomains Stakeholders Well-being Autonomy Justice

A The researchcommunity

Acceptable workingconditions. Scientificintegrity.

Freedom of research.Scientific integrity;independence ofauthorities andprincipals.

Innovativeness.

Equitable fundingsystems.

Objective andprofessionalpublishing agencies.

Equal opportunities ofaccessing relevantpolitical forums.

B Researchparticipants

Protection from harm;privacy; anonymity

Informed consent.Being heard—

participant voice

Equal opportunities ofbeing listened to andconsulted

C Users ofeducationalservices(children/pupils,parents)

Quality of (pre-) schoollife.

Adapted educationalprovision; positivelearning, participation,inclusion

AgencyTheir voices being

heard.Participation.Relevant choices.

Equal educationalopportunities—School for All.

Pupil-adaptededucationalprovision.

B/C Students inteachertraining andspecialeducationtraining

Quality of education—integrated theory andpractice.

Quality of student life.

Their voices beingheard; participation.

Relevant choices ofeducationalprogrammes andsubjects.

Equal opportunities forresearch and practice-based education ofhigh quality.

C Practitioners Acceptable workingconditions.Professional integrity.

Quality of working life.

Having a voice indefining researchproblems. Access toknowledge andcompetencedevelopment.

R&D promoting agencyand reflectivepractice.

Having a voice indefining researchproblems;

Equal opportunities forcompetencedevelopment.

User-friendlydissemination ofresearch.

C Policy makers R&D useful for planningand promoting qualityof education andquality of life for pupilsand practitioners.

R&D promotingparticipation anddemocracy withinand througheducation.

Dialogue withresearchers onresearch problemsand findings.

R&D promoting equaleducationalopportunities andadapted educationalprovision.

THE ETHICAL MATRIX MODEL 689

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity L

ibra

ry T

echn

isch

e U

nive

rsitä

t Mün

chen

] at

08:

14 2

7 Se

ptem

ber

2014

Research (PRAKUT) in Norway. The primary objective of this program is “to enhance thequality of early childhood education and care (ECEC), basic education (primary and second-ary education) and teacher education” (RCN, 2011). Similar objectives pertain to educationalresearch in general, although the research–practice link may be less pronounced. Therefore itis important to systematically inquire into and discuss ethical issues with various interestgroups. “Ethical issues” here refers to the wide understanding of research ethics, includingthe constant interplay between ethics and quality and relevance, that is the social value, ofeducational research and development. The ethical matrix method may serve as a tool for sys-tematizing such discussions and learning from them. In developing the extended, externalversion of the matrix, the author has been inspired by the ethical matrix method introducedin bioethics by Ben Mepham (2000) and further developed as a decision support frameworkin bioethics and technology (Kaiser, Millar, Thorstensen, & Tomkins, 2007). Evaluations ofthe method resulted in the development of the Ethical Matrix User Manual (Mepham, Kaiser,Thorstensen, Tomkins, & Millar, 2006). The method was developed as a tool to ensure thatbasic values, such as well-being, autonomy and fairness, are considered with respect to allrelevant stakeholders. The basic dimensions of the matrix are: (1) common values (thecolumns of the matrix); and (2) stakeholder or interest groups (the rows of the matrix).1

The matrix presented in Table 3 is partly adapted from matrices used in bioethics. Thebasic dimensions are the same: Moral values and interest groups. However, since it isintended to be used in discussions of ethical issues in educational research and development,the interest groups are different from those in the original matrix, and the contents of the cells—that is, the concrete ethical standards and challenges—are almost entirely different.

The basic values in ethical matrices must be common values—that is, values that are com-monly accepted as important in our society generally, and in education and educationalresearch in particular. The ethical values selected for this matrix are well-being, autonomy,and justice (the columns of the matrix), which are similar to those used in the originalmatrix in bioethics. Other values and other words could have been chosen: “dignity” as analternative to “well-being,” for example, and “fairness” instead of “justice”. Other interestgroups/stakeholders (the rows in the matrix) could have been added, such as “the learningenvironment”.2

The overall question that users of the matrix should try to answer is:How can educationalresearch contribute to well-being, autonomy and justice? “Users” means representatives ofdifferent stakeholder or interest groups. Using the matrix means reflecting on, discussing,and hopefully to some extent reaching agreement on how educational research and develop-ment can meet the standards formulated in the cells of the matrix that are relevant to eachstakeholder group.

Like the two preceding matrices, this extended matrix has been developed for a top-downapproach (TDA), since the cells are not empty, but contain standards and values. It may beargued that since the matrix has hitherto not been used by interest groups outside the researchcommunity, their voices should have been heard before the “their” cells were filled in. On theother hand, using a “blank” matrix with empty cells would probably be difficult, especially

1“Interest groups” are not only people alive today, but also future generations. Since this matrix isdeveloped within bioethics, the environment is also defined as a stakeholder, as are animals affected byvarious branches of biotechnology.

2See Note 1.

690 TANGEN

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity L

ibra

ry T

echn

isch

e U

nive

rsitä

t Mün

chen

] at

08:

14 2

7 Se

ptem

ber

2014

for groups who do not know much about research activities and research ethics. The contentsof the cells are, however, only preliminary proposals.

Discussion

The paper has taken as its point of departure an overall picture of research ethics asdivided into three interrelated domains: (1) ethics within the research community; (2)ethical responsibilities towards research participants; and (3) ethics related to the value ofeducational research for policy-making and practice, and for the quality of education. Thepaper focuses on the interplay between standards related to these domains, and especiallyon the interplay— and possible conflicts—between protection of research participants andquality of research. Handling such conflicts may be challenging. Systematic and concreteanalyses and discussion of a range of legitimate needs and values are necessary in order tomake responsible and sound ethical decisions. The paper proposes an ethical matrixmethod as a framework for identifying and discussing ethical issues. The method combinesa systematic and a case-based approach to ethical problems.

Three types of matrices are presented. The generic matrix is intended to serve as a tool for“mapping” ethical issues and possible dilemmas in various types of educational research.Based on the generic matrix, a specified matrix exemplifies howmatrices may be used in indi-vidual research projects as a decision-making support framework. Specified matrices mayalso be used as tools for ethical reflection and discussion in case-based research trainingcourses. Case-based approaches to research ethics are highly recommended in research train-ing programs.3 A framework for systematic analyses is also needed. The constant interplayapproach (CIA) and the matrix method presented in this paper may hopefully serve astools for ethical reflection and discussion among research students and researchers generally,and for making responsible decisions in individual projects in particular.

The third matrix is different from the two others in that it is intended to be used not onlyby researchers and research students, but in a broader context. The purpose of the extendedmatrix is to serve as a tool for listening to and dialogue with various interest groups outsidethe research community. The ideal behind the matrix is to integrate different values, view-points, and concerns and serve as a support for decision-making. This ideal is hard toachieve. Evaluations of the matrix method within biotechnology indicate that eliciting stake-holder voices and values is a strength of the method; a weakness is that it does not provideany clear guidelines for how to move towards a consensus on the values and viewpointsidentified (McDonald, Bammer, & Deane, 2009).

Various knowledge resources may guide educational researchers and relevant interestgroups in ethical reflection and problem-solving. Ethical guidelines and legal regulationscan be helpful, although it is sometimes argued that widespread regulations in the humanitiesand social sciences can also have negative consequences (American Association of Univer-sity Professors, 2006; Dingwall, 2008). Detailed regulations and time-consuming proceduresmay be experienced as obstacles in the research process, and some potentially valuable andethically responsible research may be halted. Moreover, as Bredo (2009, p. 447) states,

3Casebooks and other learning and teaching materials for case-based training in research ethics aredeveloped by many universities and organizations. An example is the World Health Organization’s(2009) Casebook on Ethical Issues in International Health Research.

THE ETHICAL MATRIX MODEL 691

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity L

ibra

ry T

echn

isch

e U

nive

rsitä

t Mün

chen

] at

08:

14 2

7 Se

ptem

ber

2014

research standards “are hints for how to do things well, not rules to follow slavishly.” Thisalso pertains to ethical standards; they are guiding standards (NESH, 2006). Regulations,guidelines, and formal procedures do not exempt individual researchers from making inde-pendent ethical judgments throughout the research process. Finally, research ethics cannotbe isolated from the ethics of everyday life, nor from wider social values.

It is likely that most researchers agree with Shavelson and Towne’s comment (2002,p. 93) in their influential book Scientific Research in Education that the need to ensureethical research conduct may “weaken the strength of the research designs that can beused.” However, what seems to be under-communicated in the book is that children andother vulnerable participants can give highly important contributions and new insights,and that ethically responsible conduct, including respect, openness, and flexibility, is apremise for and strengthens the validity and quality of much research. It may be challengingto balance differing ethical concerns and internal and external research quality. However, asthe specific ethical matrix presented in this paper illustrates, it should be clear that these con-cerns are inseparable, and that they sometimes strengthen each other. Therefore, systematicattention to value questions should be an accepted component of methodological rigor(Gewirtz & Cribb, 2006). This author also agrees with Johnson (2009) that the workinggoal of educational research “is to provide pragmatic ethical solutions to local and societalproblems.”4 In order to do so, dialogue methods for integrating values in research on real-world problems are needed. This often implies that knowledge from different disciplinesand research fields needs to be integrated (McDonald, Bammer, & Deane, 2009). Researchintegration is also needed to solve many problems in education: Suffice it to mention, asan example, the drop-out problem in upper secondary school, which is a serious issue inmany countries—for politicians, for practitioners, and primarily for the young peopleinvolved. This problem is rife with ethics. The ethical matrix proposed here could possiblyserve as a framework and a dialogue method eliciting and, at least to some extent, integratingvalues in research with relevance for the drop-out problem.

Conclusion

The paper has presented an ethical matrix method including three types of matrices. Thepurpose of the matrices is to serve as a framework for identifying, analyzing, and discussingethical issues with a focus on the interplay between ethics and internal and external quality ofresearch.

It should be stressed that the matrices, especially the extended version, are merely propo-sals which need to be evaluated and further developed. This especially pertains to the criteriaand standards in the cells of the matrices. Other researchers and relevant user groups (researchparticipants, teachers, pupils, policy makers, and others) may arrive at different criteria andvalues in “their” cells, and they may also have conflicting views on the importance of variouscriteria.

Some preliminary versions of the generic ethical matrix have been used in teaching ethicsto research students, but the method needs to be systematically tested and evaluated by

4Johnson refers here to the goal of a mixed methods approach to educational research. However, hisstatement is probably also valid for many educational researchers who do not necessarily embrace themixed methods methodology.

692 TANGEN

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity L

ibra

ry T

echn

isch

e U

nive

rsitä

t Mün

chen

] at

08:

14 2

7 Se

ptem

ber

2014

different users. Although tentative, the matrices may hopefully contribute to ethical reflectionand discussion.

References

Alderson, P., & Morrow, V. (2004). Ethics, social research and consulting with children and youngpeople. Ilford: Barnados.

American Association of University Professors (2006). Research on human subjects: Academicfreedom and the Institutional Review Board. Retrieved 10 December, 2010 from http://www.aaup.org/AAUP/comm/rep/A/humansubs.htm

Bredo, E. (2009). Comments on Howe: Getting over the methodology wars. Educational Researcher,38(6), 441–448.

Burgess, R.G. (Ed.). (1989). The ethics of educational research. New York: The Falmer Press.Clark, A. (2009). Transforming children’s spaces. Children’s and adults’ participation in designing

learning environments. London: Routledge.Dingwall, R. (2008). The ethical case against ethical regulation in humanities and social; science

research. 21st Century Society, 3(1), 1–12.Gewirtz, S., & Cribb, A. (2006). What to do about values in social research: The case for ethical reflex-

ivity in the sociology of education. British Journal of Sociology of Education, 27(2), 141–155.Hagen, K. (2009). Er en politikkrelevant velferdsforskning egentlig mulig? [Is policy-relevant welfare

research really possible?]. In B.R. Nuland, B.S. Tranøy, & J. Christensen (Eds.), Hjernen eralene. Institusjonalisering, kvalitet og relevans i norsk velferdsforskning [‘The brain is alone’.Institutionalizing, quality and relevance of Norwegian welfare research] (pp. 69–86). Oslo:Universitetsforlaget.

Holst, C. (2009). I beste mening. Opposisjonsvitenskapens fallgruver [With the best intention. The pit-falls of oppositional research]. In B.R. Nuland, B.S. Tranøy, & J. Christensen (Eds.), Hjernen eralene. Institusjonalisering, kvalitet og relevans i norsk velferdsforskning. [‘The brain is alone’.Institutionalizing, quality and relevance of Norwegian welfare research] (pp. 159–175). Oslo:Universitetsforlaget.

Howe, K.R. (2009). Positivist dogmas, rhetoric, and the education science question. EducationalResearcher, 38(6), 418–440.

Johnson, R.B. (2009). Comments on Howe: Toward a more inclusive ‘scientific research in education’.Educational Researcher, 38(6), 449–457.

Kaiser, M., Millar, K. Thorstensen, E., & Tomkins, S. (2007). Developing the ethical matrix as adecision support framework: GM fish as a case study. Journal of Agricultural andEnvironmental Ethics, 20, 65–80. doi: 10.1007/s10806-006-9023-8

Kunnskapsdepartementet. (2011). Meld St. 18 (2010–2011). Learning Together. Norway: White Paperfrom the Ministry of Education and Research.

McDonald, D., Bammer, G., & Deane, P. (2009). Research integration using dialogue methods. TheAustralian National University: ANU E Press. Retrieved 12 May 2012 from http://epress.anu.edu.au/dialogue_methods_citation.html

Mepham, B. (2000). A framework for the ethical analyses of novel foods: The ethical matrix. Journalof Agricultural and Environmental Ethics, 12, 300–313.

Mepham, B., Kaiser, M., Thorstensen, E., Tomkins, S., & Millar, K. (2006). Ethical matrix usermanual. The Netherlands: Agricultural Economics Research Institute.

NESH (National Committee for Research Ethics in the Social Sciences and the Humanities, Norway).(2006).Guidelines for research ethics in the social science law and the humanities. Oslo: NESH.

Office of Human Subjects Research. (2005). Code of Federal Regulations. Title 45 Public Welfare.Department of Health and Human Services Part 46 Protection of Human Subjects. Retrieved14 January 2011 from http://ohsr.od.nih.gov/guidelines/45cfr46.html

THE ETHICAL MATRIX MODEL 693

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity L

ibra

ry T

echn

isch

e U

nive

rsitä

t Mün

chen

] at

08:

14 2

7 Se

ptem

ber

2014

Pring, R. (2002). The virtues and vices of an educational researcher. In M. McNamee & D. Bridges(Eds.), The Ethics of Educational Research (pp. 111–127). Oxford: Blackwell.

RCN (The Research Council of Norway). (2011). The programme for practice-based educationalresearch (PRAKUT). Retrieved 22 June 2012 from http://www.forskningsradet.no/prognett-praksisfou/Home_page/1224697992303

Shavelson, R.J., & Towne, L. (Eds.). (2004). Scientific research in education Committee on ScientificPrinciples for Education Research. Center for Education, Division of Behavioral and SocialSciences and Education, National Research Council. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.

Sieber, J.E., & Stanley, B. (1988). Ethical and professional dimensions of socially sensitive research.American Psychologist, 43(1), 49–55.

Stanley, B.H., Sieber, J.E., & Melton, G.B. (1996). Research ethics. A psychological approach.Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press.

Tangen, R. (2008). Listening to children’s voices in educational research: Some theoretical and meth-odological problems. European Journal of Special Needs Education, 23(2), 157–166.

Tangen, R. (2010). ‘Beretninger om beskyttelse’. Etiske dilemmaer i forskning med sårbare grupper –barn og ungdom [‘Stories about protection’. Ethical dilemmas in research with vulnerable groups– children and young people]. Norsk Pedagogisk Tidsskrift, 4(4), 318–329.

Taylor, S. (1987). Observing abuse: Professional ethics and personal morality in field research.Qualitative Sociology, 10(3), 288–302.

Ulvik, O.S. (2005). Fosterfamilie som seinmoderne omsorgsarrangement. En kulturpsykologisk studieav fosterbarn og fosterforeldres fortelling [The foster family as a late modern care arrangement].Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Psykologisk institutt, Universitetet i Oslo.

Winch, P. (2002). Accountability and relevance in educational research. In M. McNamee & D. Bridges(Eds.), The ethics of educational research (pp. 151–169). Oxford: Blackwell.

World Health Organization. (2009). Casebook on Ethical Issues in International Health Research.Geneva: World Health Organization.

694 TANGEN

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity L

ibra

ry T

echn

isch

e U

nive

rsitä

t Mün

chen

] at

08:

14 2

7 Se

ptem

ber

2014