Educational Action Research

ISSN: 0965-0792 (Print) 1747-5074 (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/reac20

[1]
A guide to ethical issues and action research

Jane Zeni

[1]
To cite this article: Jane Zeni (1998) A guide to ethical issues and action research , Educational
Action Research, 6:1, 9-19, DOI: 10.1080/09650799800200053

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/09650799800200053

Published online: 20 Dec 2006.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 52341

View related articles

Citing articles: 7 View citing articles

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=reac20
 ETHICAL ISSUES AND ACTION RESEARCH
Educational Action Research, Volume 6, No. 1, 1998

A Guide to Ethical Issues

and Action Research [1]

JANE ZENI
University of Missouri–St Louis, USA

ABSTRACT Traditional ‘human subjects’ reviews may not address the ethical
issues that arise when practitioners study their own contexts. Guidelines for the
outsider doing a classic experiment (random selection, control groups, removing
the personal influence of the researcher) are either irrelevant or problematic for
the teacher investigating her own classroom. In the same way, guidelines for the
outsider doing qualitative research (anonymous informants, disguised settings)
may subvert the value placed by ‘insider’ research on open communication with
colleagues, students, and parents. Working with faculty at several universities
and the area Writing Project, the author developed an alternative guide with
questions suited to action research. The guide is intended as a heuristic rather
than a document for institutional review. It can be discussed in teacher research
groups or thesis advisory committees as a basis for ethical decision-making by
people studying their own practice in K-12 or university settings.

Introduction
Action research has become a major mode of inquiry in American education.
However, as classroom teachers discover the intellectual excitement of
studying their own practice and the power of collaboration on an action
research team, many decide to pursue their work in a formal graduate
programme, culminating, perhaps, in a dissertation.
Most universities and school districts conduct a review of research
proposals using questionnaires designed for traditional scientific
experiments. Researchers are asked if their tests are dangerous, if their
subjects will be given drugs, etc. They are asked to spell out precisely which
data they will collect. However, in action research – as in most qualitative
inquiry – we pursue a question through an often-meandering route, finding
appropriate data sources as we go along. When a teacher is studying his or
her own practice, many of the traditional guidelines collapse. Yet action
research raises its own, often sticky, ethical issues which may never be
addressed.

9
JANE ZENI

In my graduate classes, where many of the participants are doing

classroom inquiries, I find it helps teachers to locate action research In the
whole array of research methods (see Table I).

Quantitative Qualitative
TRADITIONAL RESEARCH
Outsider: researcher investigating a teacher’s practice
Classic experiment Classic ethnography or case study
(techniques of natural science, (techniques of anthropology)
agriculture)
Goal: To change/improve To document
someone else’s teaching/learning

ACTION RESEARCH
Insider: teachers documenting their own practice
‘Small-n’ statistics Classroom ethnography;
(test scores; surveys; word counts; case study; autobiography;
syntax measures) curriculum development and field testing
Goal: To change/improve one’s own teaching/learning
Table I. Educational research: a methodological matrix. NB Most, but not all,
classroom action research is qualitative.

Action research draws on the qualitative methods and multiple perspectives

of educational ethnography. When challenged, we take pains to distinguish
our work from traditional quantitative research: We explain that we don’t
deal with big numbers, random samples or manipulated variables, but with
the human drama as lived by self-conscious actors. Perhaps it is just as
important to distinguish action research from traditional qualitative
research: We aren’t outsiders peering from the shadows into the classroom,
but insiders responsible to the students whose learning we document.
Table I illustrates modes of research across two dimensions:
qualitative/quantitative and insider/outsider. Action research usually falls
in the lower-right quadrant of the matrix: qualitative research by insiders.
Such ‘insiders’ may be primary literacy teachers, assistant principals, high
school math teachers, curriculum coordinators, coaches – any of us who
study our own practice as educators. We find the ethical safeguards of the
outsider doing a classic experiment (random selection, control groups,
removing the personal influence of the researcher) either irrelevant or
problematic for us as insiders. In the same way, the ethical safeguards of the
outsider doing qualitative research (anonymous informants, disguised
settings) may defeat the action researcher’s goal of open communication and
dialogue with colleagues, students and parents.
When does good teaching become research? The line may be hard to
draw until a study is well underway. Action research tends to involve:
1. more systematic documentation and data gathering;

10
 ETHICAL ISSUES AND ACTION RESEARCH

2. more self-reflection in writing;

3. a wider audience (collaboration, presentation, publication).
It is this third feature that most often leads to ethical dilemmas. If our
journals remain private and our videotapes aren’t played, we can inquire
with equanimity. However, in action research, though we document our own
practice, we rarely work in isolation. We need the support and collaboration
of a colleague, a seminar group or an outside researcher. Often this
partnership creates an opportunity for sharing the work with a still larger
audience at conferences or in print. Dilemmas of ownership and
responsibility arise, and our academic codes of conduct are silent.
This Guide emerged from discussions in the Teacher Educator Seminar
of the Action Research Collaborative. Monthly, a dozen or more faculty from
several colleges and the Writing Project meet to share our own action
research and to discuss issues in facilitating teachers’ work. As some
teacher inquiries led to proposals for academic theses and school district
grants, I found myself struggling with the language and assumptions of the
mandated ‘human subjects’ review, the HSR. (For an enlightening history of
institutional reviews and their roots in medical research, see Anderson,
1996.) I raised the issue of ethics and teacher inquiry at the Seminar and
found that others had similar concerns.
When a dissertation proposal I had advised was rejected by the HSR
committee at my university, I protested to the Dean of our Graduate School.
Most of the HSR’s questions, I explained, did not fit research by teachers in
their own workplace. To make matters worse, some important ethical issues
were not addressed at all. The Dean agreed that the HSR form was less than
ideal, and made the obvious suggestion: “Why don’t you revise the HSR to
make it appropriate for your work?” I accepted the challenge, hoping to use
the ARC Seminar as a sounding board.
After examining questionnaires, ethical reviews and policy documents
from local universities and from the American Anthropological Association,
the Oral History Association, and the American Educational Research
Association, I began drafting the Guide. Drafts were discussed by ARC
teacher educators at four seminar meetings. Feedback came from a wider
audience of teachers and administrators at several conferences, and in my
own graduate courses.
What at first seemed a rather straightforward exercise in translation
proved a formidable task. The more I tried to account for the different
contexts and communities in which action researchers pursue their
inquiries, the more complicated and muddled our ethical guidelines became.
As teacher educators, we began to see that a “new paradigm code of ethics”
would itself become “procrustean” (Gregory, 1990, p. 166). At last, I
abandoned the goal of an alternative ‘human subjects review’. Even if an
adequate HSR could be designed, putting such decisions in the hands of
administrators who were not grounded in action research might do more
harm than good.
Instead, the following document provides a set of more-or-less
provocative questions as a heuristic for reflection. An action research team

11
JANE ZENI

or university thesis advisor can work through the Guide with a practitioner
developing a plan for research. Most of the questions ask the researcher to
discuss a potential ethical problem, to consider alternative actions and to
explain his or her choices.
The Guide to Ethical Issues and Action Research uses the categories of
a traditional ‘human subjects’ review only as a point of departure. Part I
requests an overview of the project. Part II asks whether the activities fall
within the everyday decision-making of a teacher or whether there is some
further intervention. Part III examines the ‘subjects’ and the notion of
subjectivity in action research. Part IV considers ways to reduce risks to
participants – either through informed consent and anonymity, or through
openness, dialogue and acknowledgement. Parts V and VI pose questions
which, though generally ignored in an HSR, have been especially
problematic for action researchers.

Guide to Ethical Issues and Action Research

Questions for Review and Reflection
Part I: overview
1. Briefly describe your project as you see it today.
2. What is the time frame of your project? Is it a one-shot enterprise or does
it involve several cycles? Have you already done a pilot study?
3. What problem does your research address? What (initial) action will you
take? What do you hope to accomplish?
4. List the research questions as they appear at this time.
(Questions will be revised or refocused during your project.)

Part II: methods and setting

1. Are you, the researcher, also a participant in the setting where this
research will take place? Specify your role (teacher, supervisor, principal,
counsellor, social worker, etc.)
2. For this research, will you gather data on your normal educational
practice and on changes in curriculum, instruction and assessment that you
could make in your role (above) according to your own professional
judgement? Explain briefly.
3. What kinds of data will you collect (e.g. field notes, taped interviews,
writing samples)? Explain any changes from the way you normally document
your practice. Consider how else you could get data on your question. (Can
you discuss three alternatives?)
4. What does your research aim to understand? What does your research
aim to change?
Comments on Part II. Traditional academic research in education is
conducted by outsiders who intervene in the instructional process to answer
questions that may benefit themselves or the profession in general. While

12
 ETHICAL ISSUES AND ACTION RESEARCH

there is often a goal of improving teaching, rarely do the teachers or students

under investigation benefit directly from the findings.
Action research involves practitioners studying their own professional
practice and framing their own questions. Their research has the immediate
goal to assess, develop or improve their practice. Such research activities
belong to the daily process of good teaching, to what has been called the
“zone of accepted practice”.
The concept of a zone of accepted practice is often used to determine
whether research is exempt from formal review. If a researcher answers ‘yes’
to questions 1 and 2, the project does not need a full review by a university
or district research board. Most educational action research would thus
seem to be exempt.
We urge academic institutions to support reflective teaching and to minimise
the bureaucratic hurdles that discourage research by teachers to improve
their own practice. However, research in the “zone of accepted practice” may
still involve risks to participants. As a precaution, we suggest grappling with
question 3 and consulting people who can speak from a variety of
perspectives:
x An action research project must conform to local school policy; discuss
any troubling issues in this Guide with a principal, supervisor or district
director of research.
x Action research is best developed through collaboration; review the
questions with a team leader, professor or consultant.
Question 4 begins a closer look at how we choose to change our own
practice. According to many reviews, ‘subjects’ are ‘not at risk’ if the
research is merely ‘unobtrusive observation’ of behaviour not ‘caused’ by the
researcher. However, action research is never detached; a teacher inevitably
causes things to happen. (The classic ethnographer observes change, but
does not usually try to cause it. On the other hand, the action researcher
consciously tries to change and improve his or her own teaching.)

Part III: ‘subjects’ and subjectivity

1. Describe the individuals, groups or communities you plan at this point in
the research to study. Estimate the ages of the people involved.
2. Analyse the power relations in this group. Which people (e.g. students,
parents) do you have some power over? Which people (e.g. principals,
professors) have some power over you?
3. What shared understandings do you have with these people? Do you have
personal bonds, professional commitments? Will your research strengthen
this trust or perhaps abuse it?
4. Will your study attempt to read and interpret the experience of people who
differ from you in race, class, gender, ethnicity, sexual orientation or other
cultural dimensions? How have you prepared yourself to share the
perspective of the ‘other’ (coursework, experiences, other sources of insight)?

13
JANE ZENI

5. Will an ‘insider’ review your questionnaires or teaching materials for

cultural bias? Have you provided for consultation by adult members of the
community? How will you reduce or correct for your misreading of
populations who differ from you?
6. Does your inquiry focus on people with less power than you? Children in
classrooms are always vulnerable – especially if their families have little
money or education. (“Where are the ethnographies of corporate
boardrooms?” asks House, 1990, p.162.) How does your project demonstrate
mutual respect and justice?
7. What negative or embarrassing data can you anticipate emerging from
this research? Who might be harmed (personally, professionally,
financially)? What precautions have you taken to protect the participants?
8. Might your research lead to knowledge of sensitive matters such as illegal
activities, drug/alcohol use or sexual behaviour of participants? How do you
plan to handle such information?
Comments on Part III. We must examine the impact of our research on the
people whose lives we document. A classroom teacher may write field notes
in order to improve her own practice. However, what if her notes focus on
certain members of the class (‘at-risk’/’Black male’/’learning disabled’)? Our
students and colleagues are more than ‘subjects’. The following distinctions
are useful:

Subject: Observed by researcher; no active participation. (Not applicable to

action research.)
Informant: Knowingly gives information to researcher.
Participant: More involved; perspective considered in research.
Collaborator: Fully involved in planning and interpretation.

Perhaps most of all, we need to examine our own subjectivity as researchers.

Since I cannot be a fly on the wall in my own classroom, I must deal with my
own emotional and interpersonal responses as part of my data. Hammersly
& Atkinson (1983) call this the principle of ‘reflexivity’. Sullivan (1996) writes
of the “problem of the ‘other’.” Teacher research is engaged and committed.
It is appropriate – essential – for our discussions and writing to look at
ourselves in relationship with other participants.

Part IV: risks and benefits

How can we protect K-12 students but not inhibit teachers’ right to gather
and reflect on data from their own teaching?
1. Describe the possible benefits of your research – to students, teachers or
other participants; to society or to the profession.
2. Describe any risks to people participating in this study. For example, will
your current students be disadvantaged for the possible benefit of future
students? What steps are you taking to minimise risks?

14
 ETHICAL ISSUES AND ACTION RESEARCH

3. Show how you will protect the people from whom you collect data through
surveys, interviews or observations. For example, participants are usually
considered free from risk IF:
a. they are first informed; they must know the general nature of the
study and what is expected of them;
b. they give informed consent;
c. they can refuse to participate and they can withdraw without penalty
after beginning the research;
d. anonymity of persons and/or confidentiality of data are protected if
appropriate.
4. Describe your method of obtaining informed consent. Who will explain the
consent document to the participants? How?
5. Are different kinds of consent needed at different stages in the project?
For example, many teachers use two consent forms:
a. a blanket consent to be in the study; if you regard classroom inquiry
as part of your regular practice, this blanket consent form may be
given to all students at the start of each year;
b. a special consent to eventual publication; this will be needed when
you prepare to publish student writing samples, taped discussions,
photographs, or field notes that focus on a recognisable student.
6. Do you wish to protect the anonymity of students, teachers, parents and
other participants? If so, it is wise to use pseudonyms even in your field
notes. If your report is eventually published, you can also interchange
physical description, grade level, gender, etc., or develop composite rather
than individual portraits. What are the gains and losses of anonymity?
7. On the other hand, instead of anonymity, it may be wiser to seek full
participation and credit for students and colleagues. Research by an
educator in his or her own classroom is rarely anonymous. Even if names
are changed, students will be recognised in a well-written case study or
classroom scene. What are the gains and losses of open acknowledgement?
Comments on Part IV. These questions deal with the welfare of students and
colleagues. Most university definitions of ‘informed consent’ resemble this
one from the AERA’s Qualitative Research SIG:
a decision made free of coercion and with full knowledge [of]
possible effects of their participation, their role in reviewing written
accounts ..., an understanding that the researcher will protect
them from potential harm, and that there will be a mutually
respectful relationship. Informed consent is granted at the
initiation of the study and codified in signed consent forms.
Because informants may withdraw at any time, informed consent
is ongoing, continual negotiation. (Mathison et al, 1993, p. 3)
How informed is ‘informed consent?’ Lou Smith argues that “field research is
so different from the usual experimental approaches that many individuals,
even responsible professional educators, do not understand what ... they are
getting themselves into” (Smith, 1990, p. 151). He stresses the need for

15
JANE ZENI

‘dialog’, moving beyond ‘contract’ relationships to ‘covenants’of trust (p.

150).
As teacher researchers, our primary responsibility is to our students.
We need to balance the demands of our research with our other professional
demands. This issue becomes far less troublesome when classroom inquiry
becomes an intrinsic part of how we teach, and when students take an
active role in our research – and their own.

Part V: ethical questions specific to ‘insider’ research

These questions don’t appear on most ‘human subjects’, reviews, but they
are central to research by K-12 and college teachers. Yvonna Lincoln (1990)
says, “privacy, confidentiality, and anonymity regulations were written
under assumptions that are ill suited” to action research. Our colleagues,
administrators, and parents might better participate “as full, cooperative
agents,” our co-researchers (pp. 279 – 280).
1. Which of the research participants at your school/college have read your
proposal? Which ones have been informed of the research orally in some
detail? Which ones know little or nothing of this project? Explain and justify
the decisions behind your answers.
2. What do your students know of this project? Who told them? What are the
risks to them or their families of their knowing (or not knowing) what you
write or collect? Explain your decisions.
3. Who else will read your field notes or dialogue with you to provide
‘multiple perspectives? Lather describes “the submission of a preliminary
description of the data to the scrutiny of the researched” (p.53) as an
emancipatory approach to inquiry and also as a way to establish ‘face
validity’ (p. 67). Incorporating quotes from other participants, especially
when their views differ from yours, can make your work richer, more
nuanced.
4. You will inevitably gather more data than you ‘need’. Consider why you
choose to report some data to a wider audience and why you choose to keep
some for your colleagues, your students or yourself. (What do you tell and
what do you store?) Consider the political implications of the way you focus
your story.
5. How will you store and catalogue your data during and after the study?
(File cabinets? Computer, tapes, transcripts?) Who will have access? Should
you take special precautions with your notes and other data?
6. Will this study evaluate your own effectiveness or a method to which you
are committed? Will your findings be confirmed by observers who do not
share your assumptions? How will you protect yourself from the temptation
to see what you hope to see?
7. Who is sponsoring this research through grants, contracts, released time,
course credit, etc.? Will you evaluate the sponsor’s programme, textbook,
method, etc.? Can you protect yourself from pressure to report favourably on
the sponsors?

16
 ETHICAL ISSUES AND ACTION RESEARCH

8. How do your school administrators see your work? Is action research

under suspicion or is it mandated from the top in a drive for organisational
quality control? Is there protection for your own thoughts, feelings,
interpretations? How safe do you feel in this institutional environment
pursuing this research? Reporting what you learn to a wider audience?
9. What data will be contributed by others? Will you be recording case
studies, oral histories or other stories that may be considered the property of
others? How have you arranged with colleagues or other participants for:
x credit in your manuscript?
x publication rights?
x royalties?
x other recognition?
10. If your study is collaborative, how are you negotiating authorship and
ownership? University researchers, colleagues, students and parents are
likely to interpret their stake in the research in quite different ways. Who
owns the videotape of a classroom writing group, the dialogue journal
between teacher and mentor, the transcription of talk by teacher researchers
in a college seminar?
11. Who is responsible for the final report? Will other stakeholders (teacher?
principal? school board?) review your report in draft? Will this:
(a) improve your accuracy?
(b) compromise your candor?
Participants may not agree with part or all of your interpretation. If so, you
may revise your views; quote their objections and tell why you maintain your
original view; or invite them to state alternative views in an appendix.
12. Have you decided on anonymity or on full acknowledgement if your
study is eventually published? Perhaps you will identify teachers, but use
pseudonyms for students. How and when have you negotiated these issues?

Part VI: The Golden Rule

At the most basic level, (Smith, 1990, p. 149) suggests that we, as
class-room researchers, ask ourselves these questions:
x What are the likely consequences of this research? How well do they fit
with my own values and priorities?
x If I were a participant, would I want this research to be done? What
changes might I want to make me feel comfortable?
Teacher-researcher Marian Mohr states it this way: “Teacher researchers are
teachers first. They respect those with whom they work, openly sharing
information about their research. While they seek knowledge, they also
nurture the well-being of others, both students and professional colleagues”
(Monr, 1996).
Action researchers need to discuss with their constituencies the role of
classroom inquiry in their professional lives. For example, some teachers
display for parents their own publications as well as the writing of their
students informally printed, illustrated and bound. Teacher-researcher

17
JANE ZENI

Kathryn Mitchell Pierce asks at an ‘open house’ for parents’ support in

gathering data for professional development. She adds, “I’ll come back to you
again for more specific permission if your child appears in anything I plan to
publish.”
In this way, parents and students are knowingly involved in the work
from the beginning, with time to ask their own questions and make
thoughtful suggestions. Open communication is the key to overcoming the
split between researcher and researched, between theory and practice.

Correspondence
Professor J. Zeni, Department of English and Division of Teaching and
Learning, Lucas Hall 441, University of Missouri–St Louis, 8001 Natural
Bridge Road, St Louis, MO 63121, USA.

Note
[1] This guide was prepared for the St Louis Action Research Collaborative (ARC) and
the Gateway Writing Project, the local site of the National Writing Project. The
topics addressed in the guide reflect the suggestions and experiences of the
ARC’s Teacher Educators’ Seminar, especially Lou Smith (Washington
University), Sharon Lee (Webster University), Kathryn Mitchell Pierce (Clayton
Public Schools), Sunny Pervil (Maryville University), Owen van den Berg (St Louis
University), and Mike McGrath and Jori Martinez (National Louis University) and
Owen van den Berg (National-Louis University). Douglas Wartzok (University of
Missouri–St Louis) also gave helpful feedback. The Guide to Ethical Issues and
Action Research has been field-tested by teachers in the Gateway Writing Project
and in my graduate courses at the University of Missouri–St Louis.

References
Anderson, P. V. (1996) Ethics, institutional review boards, and the involvement of
human participants in composition research, in P. Mortensen & G. E. Kirsch (Eds)
Ethics and Representation in Qualitative Studies of Literacy. Urbana: National
Council of Teachers of English.
Gregory, T. B. (1990) Discussion on ethics, in E. Guba (Ed.) The Paradigm Dialog,
pp. 165–166. Newbury Park: Sage.
Hammersley, M. & Atkinson, P. (1983) Ethnography: principles in practice. London:
Routledge.
House, E. R. (1990) An ethics of qualitative field studies, in E. Guba (Ed.) The
Paradigm Dialog. Newbury Park: Sage.
Lather, P. (1991) Getting Smart: feminist research and pedagogy with in the
postmodern. New York: Routledge.
Lincoln, Y. (1990). Toward a categorical imperative for qualitative research, in
E. Eisner & A. Peshkin (Eds) Qualitative Inquiry in Education. New York: Teachers
College Press.

18
 ETHICAL ISSUES AND ACTION RESEARCH

Mathison, S., Ross, E. W., & Cornell, J. (Eds) (1993) Casebook for Teaching about
Ethical Issues in Qualitative Research. Washington: Qualitative Research SIG,
American Educational Research Association.
Mohr, M. (1996) Ethics and standards for teacher research: drafts and decisions, in
Research in Language and Learning: reports from a teacher research seminar.
Fairfax: Northern Virginia Writing Project, George Mason University. (Informal
publication distributed by the Writing Project.).
Mortensen, P. & Kirsch, G. E. (1996) Ethics and Representation in Qualitative Studies
of Literacy. Urbana: National Council of Teachers of English.
Pierce, K. M. (1997) Presentation at seminar on ethical issues in action research,
Clayton (MO) Public Schools.
Smith, L. (1990) Ethics, field studies, and the paradigm crisis, in E. Guba (Ed.) The
Paradigm Dialog. Newbury Park: Sage.
Sullivan, P. (1996) Ethnography and the problem of the ‘Other’, in P. Mortensen &
G. E. Kirsch (Eds) Ethics and Representation in Qualitative Studies of Literacy.
Urbana: National Council of Teachers of English.
Zeni, J. (1996) A picaresque tale from the land of kidwatching: teacher research and
ethical dilemmas, Quarterly of the National Writing Project and the Center for the
Study of Writing, 18(1), pp. 30– 35.

19