Talk:Flipped classrooms meta-analysis
|Thread title||Replies||Last modified|
|Anonymity and small number of case studies||2||17:26, 28 November 2012|
There is an interesting dilema about how to handle anonymity for those meta-analyses where we only have one (or a very small number) of case studies.
Two options I can see (there may be others)
- We include the school name on the case study itself, but anonymise in the meta-analysis reporting
- We anonymise in both the case study and the meta-analysis
Option 1 really means that the school will not be anonymous - and even if we change respondent's names they are likely to be identifiable to people familiar with the school.
Option 2 guarantees a greater level of anonymity - but the case study may be less engaging by virtue of being anonymous.
What do you recon we should do about this?
I think this is one of the challenges of case study research. I also had this concern while writing up my PhD dissertation. As I was exploring a unique case ( or a 'bounded system'), a distance teacher education programme in a specific context, the ethical dilemma for me was concerning the protection of identity of my research participants as well as the college offering the programme. Finally, I decided to use pseudonyms for my research participants and the college. Although, outsiders may not be able to identify the college and my research participants,there is still a likelihood that, if some insiders in that particular research context try to be nosy, then they might identify the name of the college being researched.
I would rather go for option 1. Some scholars suggest assigning a code for each participant rather than using a pseudonym but, I think, in doing so might minimise the value of case study research - research report may sound too 'artificial/dry' and may not give reader a opportunity for 'vicarious experiences'.
I suggest that we use pseudonyms for all participants name and change the sex of the participants - and change geography of the school. In some cases, there might me a need to change some of the details of participating schools or details provided by research participants while presenting producing the final report - particularly if a participating school is going to receive a copy of the report or will have access to it, and if we report 'negative' aspects (for example, some schools may be very poor in terms of technological infrastructure, or although having been equipped with ICT infrastructure, they may not have explored its potentials - teachers are not trained adequately to use digital technology and so on), then the problems get complicated. Although it's our professional as well as ethical responsibility try not to 'harm' (physically or psychologically) our research participants, we should also recognise the fact that not all research will be seen in similar ways by all participants and every audience.