Three cross-cutting issues—bias and objectivity in social science research, normative standards to guide policy development, and subjectivity applied within moral contexts—are examined in relation to 2 research studies conducted in school and community settings. In each case, the focus of the study (health services in schools, teen pregnancy prevention programs) raised complex ethical and political concerns in designing and conducting research on topics that were highly contested and emotionally charged. Successful resolution of these issues depends upon the development of a new framework that allows researchers and policy makers to balance ethical, political, and scientific concerns in ways that do not privilege one over the other.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Apple, M. W.
(1998).How the conservative restoration is justified: Leadership and subordination in educational policy. International Journal of Leadership in Education, 1(1), 3-18.
2.
Aronowitz, S.
, & Giroux, H. (1992). Postmodern education: Politics, culture, and social criticism. Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press.
3.
Barnes,J.A.
(1977). The ethics of inquiry in social science. Bombay, India: Oxford University Press.
4.
Bernstein, R.
(1988). The rage against reason. In E. McMullin (Ed.), Construction and constraint: The shaping of scientific rationality (pp. 189-212). Notre Dame, IN: University of Notre Dame Press.
5.
Connelly, M.
, & Clandinin, J. (1990).Stories of experience and narrative inquiry. Educational Researcher, 19(5), 2-14.
6.
Constas, M.
(1998).The changing nature of educational research and a critique of postmodernism. Educational Researcher, 27(2), 26-33.
7.
Cooper, H.
(1996) Speaking truth to power: Reflections of an educational researcher after four years of school board service. Educational Researcher, 25(1), 29-34.
8.
Eisner, E. W.
(1993).Forms of understanding and the future of educational research. Educational Researcher, 22(7), 5-11.
9.
Emihovich, C.
(1993). An evaluation study of Brighter Futures. Report submitted to Gadsden Citizens for Healthy Babies, Quincy, FL.
10.
Emihovich, C.
, & Davis, T. (1994). Brighter Futures revisited: A longitudinal evaluation of the Brighter Futures program. Final report submitted to Gadsden Citizens for Healthy Babies, Quincy, FL.
11.
Emihovich, C.
, & Hardy-Blake, B. (1992, April). Evaluators as moral agents: Risks and responsibilities in a new role. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, San Francisco.
12.
Emihovich, C.
, & Herrington, C. (1993). An evaluation study of the Supplemental School Health Program. Report submitted to the Florida Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services/Department of Education, Tallahassee, FL.
13.
Emihovich, C.
, & Herrington, C. D. (1997). Sex, kids and politics: Health services in schools. New York: Teachers College Press.
14.
Geertz, C.
(1995). After the fact. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
15.
Greene, M.
(1988). What happened to imagination? In K. Egan & D. Nadaner (Eds.), Imagination and education (pp. 45-56). New York: Teachers College Press.
16.
Hargreaves, A.
(1996).Transforming knowledge: Blurring boundaries between research, policy, and practice. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 18(2), 105-122.
17.
Haraway, D.
(1988). Situated knowledges: The science question in feminism and the privilege of partial perspective. Feminist Studies,14(3), 575-599.
18.
Havel,V.
(1995,June22). The responsibility of intellectuals. New York Review of Books, pp. 36-37.
19.
Kinchloe, J.
(1993). Toward a critical politics of teacher thinking: Mapping the postmodern. London: Bergin & Garvey.
20.
Lather, P.
(1991). Getting smart: Feminist research and pedagogy with/in the postmodern. New York: Routledge.
21.
Marshall, M. J.
, & Barritt, L. S. (1990).Choices made, worlds created: The rhetoric of AERJ. American Educational Research Journal, 27(4), 589-609.
22.
Noddings, N.
(1986).Fidelity in teaching, teacher education, and research for teaching. Harvard Educational Review, 56(4), 496-510.
23.
Pritchard, I.
(1990). Looking out for Eliza Doolittle: The ethical treatment of education research subjects. Working Paper #OR 91-505. Washington, DC: Office of Research, OERI, US Department of Education.
24.
Roty, R.
(April 3, 1998). The dark side of the academic left. Chronicle of Higher Education, B6-B6.
25.
Seller, A.
(1988). Realism vs. relativism: Toward a politically active epistemology. In M. Griffiths & M. Whitford (Eds.), Feminist perspectives in philosophy (pp. 169-186). Bloomington: Indiana University Press.
26.
Slater, P.
(1974). Earthwalk. New York: Doubleday.
27.
Tanner, D.
(1998).The social consequences of bad research. Phi Delta Kappan, 79(5), 344-349.
28.
Witt, P. L.
, Bauerle, C., Derouen, D., Kamel, F., Kelleher, P., McCarthy, M., Namenwirth, M., Sabatinia, L., & Voytovich, M. (1989) The October 29th Group: Defining a feminist science. Women’s Studies International Forum, 12(3), 253-259.
29.
Zagarell, S. A.
(1988).Narrative of community: The identification of a genre. Signs: Journal of Women in Culture and Society, 13(3), 498-527.
