Our Framework

The framework developed to ensure various ethical considerations of this study were adhered to consists of four main stages (see Figure 9). First,

1931 1964 1975 1977 1979 2010 2011 2015

Reich Circular

Declaration of Helsinki Declaration of Helsinki II

National Commission for the Protection of Human Subjects of Biomedical and Behavioral

Research Report

Belmont Report

Wendler review

Singer review

Our Framework on Research Ethics

Study design: It is the first step of any research examination, and researchers working with special user groups such as young children and adolescents should pay attention to the various ethical considerations from this phase onwards. In order to address the three important principles of Farrell (Justice, respect for participants, beneficence and non-maleficence), steps were initiated during the instrument design phase to address the safety of the participants (e.g., reducing any risk and avoidable harm). In the designed survey, no personally identifiable information (except age and gender) was requested from the study participants. The entire process of research collection, including survey design, data processing, and analysis was designed in such a way that it was made impossible for the involved researchers (including myself) to associate the findings of the research with any specific participant. The study participation was kept voluntary, i.e. there were no negative consequences for those who did not wish to participate or who withdrew their participation while answering the survey questionnaire.

In addition, participation was confidential and anonymous. During the survey answering exercise, the participants were clearly instructed to avoid writing their name or other identifying information (except gender and age) such as phone number, email address, or other information that could be used to identify the participant. Finally, the designed instrument was cross-examined by three professors to ensure that participation in the study would not put the study participants at risk in any way.

Second, contacting schools: This is considered the first point of contact between the external researcher and the school. Therefore, it is very important that the invited schools should be provided with all the information related to the proposed research study and related setup in a lucid, clear, and transparent manner. Based on my own experience, I found that it is likely that schools will deny participation if the research process, expected outcome, and school’s role in the research are unclear. I started by first contacting the schools via email and/or a phone call (depending on availability), and later followed up by submitting a formal written request to each of the selected schools. These requests were issued by one of the supervising Professors and invited schools to participate in our research.

This written request contained information about our research process, aims and objectives, research questions, and other practical information. Later, a face-to-face meeting was agreed with the school principals or management to present information on the proposed research and related practicalities (e.g., various ethical considerations and norms followed in this research, and written assurance protecting the privacy and anonymity of the participants and the school identity). Such initiatives helped to build confidence and establish trust with the schools. A copy of the survey instrument was also submitted to the participating schools for the necessary study approvals.

Based on this formal request, approval was granted by the participating schools.

Third, school friendly research: I consider this one of the most important aspects of any research examination involving schools. I define school-friendly research as an investigation that causes minimum disruption to the normal functioning of the schools. During my extensive field studies with schools, I directly observed some of the obvious concerns among the schools including: What is the overall impact of this research on the wellbeing of the students? Is the proposed research school friendly? Does it disturb the normal school functioning? Do external researchers challenge the authority of the teachers? What sort of message does this research study give to the students? What is the positive impact of the research? I believe that if researchers address these genuine concerns, then schools will be more willing to participate in and contribute to research investigations. To address these concerns, I have the following recommendations for researchers and practitioners interested in working with children. One, schools are keener to conduct survey-answering sessions in the first half of the school day (early morning) than in the middle of the day, or at the end of the school day. The morning session is less intrusive and does not disturb the normal functioning of the school. Two, researchers must plan the study well in advance, e.g. prior meetings with the school and teachers so that the survey-answering session is completed in the stipulated time period (i.e., the time permitted or reserved by the school for the research exercise). This becomes even more important since schools have tight schedules, teachers often complain of running behind schedule, and have trouble meeting course work and examination deadlines. Three, one or two meetings with those teachers who are going to assist the researcher during the evaluation are essential to break the ice and build a level of trust. I observed that teachers might feel that the external researchers are challenging their authority; therefore, the researcher should make them realize their importance, and that they are needed in the research evaluation. Fourth, researchers must detach themselves from how the proposed research benefits their own research and instead focus on how this research or related process can benefit the participating students. What kind of incentives can be provided to the participants so that they feel encouraged to participate? I observed that recognition of participants’ effort and resulting self-esteem serves as good motivation for them, e.g. in the information sessions, I made the study participants aware of why their participation was needed, how they could contribute to critical and useful research examining the “nature of IA”, and what kind of objectives this research was likely to achieve. In addition, after the data collection, the study results were either shared or presented to those participants, so as to make them realize that the time they spent answering the survey had resulted in a positive change. Other researchers can innovate other creative means of addressing similar needs of students and schools.

Fourth, student welfare: During the face-to-face meeting, interested schools were asked to inform the researchers what issues or concerns the external researcher can address while conducting the research. It was noticed

that most schools in India do not have an active interface with researchers, and thus Indian schools work mostly in an isolated or even closed space.

Therefore, external researchers can provide new insights and knowledge, not only to students, but also to teachers and school management. In this way, a symbiotic relationship could be established between researchers and schools.

In May 2012 (first research study), I organized informational workshops with the interested students and teachers of the participating schools. Students were given first-hand information on what research is, what public universities perform research, and what our research, process, and related practicalities were. Later, in December 2012, a workshop on “teachers’

technology acceptance” was organized with all the teachers of the participating schools. This workshop made teachers aware of the recent research investigations on the use of computers, the Internet, and mobile phones for learning purposes. Similarly, in 2013, a three-day training program (total duration three hours) entitled the ‘Hi-Tech student connect program’ was designed and carried out for students of the participating schools. The content of this interactive program was IA, creative use of ICT, and open educational resources. More than 2,000 students participated in the program, and successful completion earned a certificate of participation from Aalto University, Finland. Later, in 2014, a similar program entitled

“Preparing students for tomorrow” was organized with the participating schools with various content from the previous year. The feedback from the students, teachers, and later, schools revealed that such interactive workshop programs provide exposure to the latest knowledge from the technology domain to the students. These initiatives are consistent with the recommendations of Farrell (2005), Singer (2011) and Wendler (2010).

Figure 9 Our Framework of Research Ethics