WEBVTT 00:00:07.879 --> 00:00:10.400 Hello and welcome to a special episode to conclude 00:00:10.400 --> 00:00:13.160 season one of our Methods mini -series at LITE. 00:00:13.839 --> 00:00:16.460 Politics, lifestyle, entertainment, history, 00:00:16.699 --> 00:00:19.579 you name it. There's a podcast Q &A for it, so 00:00:19.579 --> 00:00:23.280 we thought, why not us too? I'm Robert Averies 00:00:23.280 --> 00:00:25.179 and I've recruited the help of some members of 00:00:25.179 --> 00:00:27.219 the LITEResearch team to answer your questions. 00:00:27.920 --> 00:00:29.980 Thank you for submitting your questions. Let's 00:00:29.980 --> 00:00:31.960 start with the first one, which is for Izzy. 00:00:38.759 --> 00:00:42.079 Thank you, Robert. So when each participant is 00:00:42.079 --> 00:00:44.479 a co -researcher and co -author, it's important 00:00:44.479 --> 00:00:47.039 to begin to develop ethical protocols together 00:00:47.039 --> 00:00:49.880 with all participants from the outset. This includes 00:00:49.880 --> 00:00:52.240 things like informed consent, confidentiality 00:00:52.240 --> 00:00:55.399 and data privacy. It's important that you maintain 00:00:55.399 --> 00:00:57.780 an ongoing dialogue with the participants you 00:00:57.780 --> 00:01:01.549 have as co -researchers. To include them as co 00:01:01.549 --> 00:01:03.710 -researchers, their voices need to be considered 00:01:03.710 --> 00:01:06.469 of equal value and they must be involved in decision 00:01:06.469 --> 00:01:09.530 making at all stages of the project. Setting 00:01:09.530 --> 00:01:11.689 time aside for formal meetings, regular check 00:01:11.689 --> 00:01:15.370 -ins can help facilitate this. Other things you 00:01:15.370 --> 00:01:17.189 may want to consider are the different views, 00:01:17.469 --> 00:01:19.930 backgrounds, knowledge of each participant in 00:01:19.930 --> 00:01:22.709 the group and what this may bring and how this 00:01:22.709 --> 00:01:24.609 could influence the research and the group members. 00:01:25.370 --> 00:01:27.230 For example, there may be power dynamics that 00:01:27.230 --> 00:01:29.510 you need to navigate and overcome. It may also 00:01:29.510 --> 00:01:32.290 be important to consider epistemologies and positionality 00:01:32.290 --> 00:01:36.269 of each of the researchers. In relation to the 00:01:36.269 --> 00:01:38.609 epistemologies that collaboration involves, it's 00:01:38.609 --> 00:01:40.909 useful to remember the reasons why we're collaborating 00:01:40.909 --> 00:01:43.450 and inviting people into these projects. There 00:01:43.450 --> 00:01:45.670 are good epistemic reasons to invite collaborators 00:01:45.670 --> 00:01:48.430 into our projects. They bring new perspectives 00:01:48.430 --> 00:01:52.129 and fresh eyes. challenge myths or preconceptions 00:01:52.129 --> 00:01:54.689 we might have. So ethically considering these 00:01:54.689 --> 00:01:57.250 epistemic consequences of collaboration should 00:01:57.250 --> 00:01:59.870 be as much about actively pursuing these epistemic 00:01:59.870 --> 00:02:02.049 reasons that drive us to collaborate in the first 00:02:02.049 --> 00:02:05.989 place as it is about minimizing harms. Yeah, 00:02:06.010 --> 00:02:07.790 I agree there, Matthew. I think that's really 00:02:07.790 --> 00:02:09.789 important. And I think it speaks to the wider 00:02:09.789 --> 00:02:13.949 point that, and this has been occurring throughout 00:02:13.949 --> 00:02:17.710 this series, methods that you use and ethical 00:02:17.710 --> 00:02:20.900 considerations. are so closely connected and 00:02:20.900 --> 00:02:24.340 woven together. And it's not just about emphasising 00:02:24.340 --> 00:02:25.860 them and making sure they fit, but it's about 00:02:25.860 --> 00:02:27.879 making sure one informs and improves the other. 00:02:29.939 --> 00:02:32.520 Fantastic. Brilliant. We'll move on to the second 00:02:32.520 --> 00:02:34.419 question, which I believe you're going to be 00:02:34.419 --> 00:02:37.719 answering, Lucy, which is how do I create a safe 00:02:37.719 --> 00:02:40.960 space for participants? Yeah, I think this is 00:02:40.960 --> 00:02:43.460 quite a broad question. So I think it's worth 00:02:43.460 --> 00:02:46.400 breaking down. But it is quite relevant at the 00:02:46.400 --> 00:02:50.139 minute because just this week, some institutional 00:02:50.139 --> 00:02:53.180 priorities for inclusive inclusivity and accessibility 00:02:53.180 --> 00:02:56.099 have been published and one of them is create 00:02:56.099 --> 00:02:59.500 psychologically safe spaces so it's it's quite 00:02:59.500 --> 00:03:02.699 important at the university at the minute This 00:03:02.699 --> 00:03:07.020 is defined as creating learning spaces where 00:03:07.020 --> 00:03:09.300 students feel safe to be themselves during classroom 00:03:09.300 --> 00:03:12.539 conversations. But this question, I think, is 00:03:12.539 --> 00:03:16.659 referring to participatory research, which can 00:03:16.659 --> 00:03:19.439 be defined as the practice of establishing ground 00:03:19.439 --> 00:03:22.360 rules and guidelines for conversations and behaviours, 00:03:22.479 --> 00:03:25.379 which it's useful to think about that in relation 00:03:25.379 --> 00:03:29.400 to broader inclusive by design arguments and 00:03:29.400 --> 00:03:32.430 inclusive environments more generally. I think 00:03:32.430 --> 00:03:35.090 it's just good to flag that there are tensions 00:03:35.090 --> 00:03:39.550 with this term, safe spaces. I think that we 00:03:39.550 --> 00:03:43.750 might argue that space is never truly safe because 00:03:43.750 --> 00:03:47.389 it's complex. It's not a neutral kind of container. 00:03:47.770 --> 00:03:51.849 There's a lot of negotiable, contested relations 00:03:51.849 --> 00:03:55.289 that build up space. And naturally, that is going 00:03:55.289 --> 00:03:58.759 to lead to conflict, right? Conflict is okay 00:03:58.759 --> 00:04:02.280 in situations like participatory research if 00:04:02.280 --> 00:04:04.979 managed with care. It actually means that new 00:04:04.979 --> 00:04:08.500 shared meanings can be developed and new ways 00:04:08.500 --> 00:04:13.939 of being can emerge. I think one of our fellows, 00:04:14.159 --> 00:04:16.639 Barbara Kempf, has kind of... acknowledge this 00:04:16.639 --> 00:04:20.319 in her work she's got a padlet on her fellowship 00:04:20.319 --> 00:04:23.360 about group work where she highlighted resources 00:04:23.360 --> 00:04:27.500 on managing conflict and advice to reframe conflict 00:04:27.500 --> 00:04:32.620 and normalise it as something in research I think 00:04:32.620 --> 00:04:36.720 that in this case it's okay to say safe space 00:04:36.720 --> 00:04:40.899 I would maybe advise aiming for safer space or 00:04:40.899 --> 00:04:44.500 braver space because actually the binary of safe 00:04:44.500 --> 00:04:47.899 and unsafe is probably unhelpful um we can't 00:04:47.899 --> 00:04:51.680 guarantee it as researchers uh we we can aim 00:04:51.680 --> 00:04:56.480 towards it but in promising safety that there's 00:04:56.480 --> 00:04:58.560 a bit of an ethical consideration to be made 00:04:58.560 --> 00:05:03.259 there however it's still important to maybe aim 00:05:03.259 --> 00:05:07.259 towards safer spaces so i think A good place 00:05:07.259 --> 00:05:10.939 to start is maybe building trust. That's kind 00:05:10.939 --> 00:05:15.279 of the big thing to aim towards. It's kind of 00:05:15.279 --> 00:05:18.779 looking at the vulnerability that comes from 00:05:18.779 --> 00:05:21.920 situations where participants are sharing parts 00:05:21.920 --> 00:05:24.279 of themselves for the research and harnessing 00:05:24.279 --> 00:05:29.779 that. So without overstepping. So I'd probably 00:05:29.779 --> 00:05:32.759 take story circles as a good example of this. 00:05:33.790 --> 00:05:38.069 participatory method where a small group creates 00:05:38.069 --> 00:05:39.970 space for sharing and learning from different 00:05:39.970 --> 00:05:44.269 people's perspectives and one of our previous 00:05:44.269 --> 00:05:48.449 fellows Jenna Isherwood she has a toolkit about 00:05:48.449 --> 00:05:54.259 this and she goes into principles that create 00:05:54.259 --> 00:05:56.980 a safer space in my opinion a lot of them align 00:05:56.980 --> 00:05:59.259 with the things that Izzy was saying before that's 00:05:59.259 --> 00:06:01.819 just good ethical practice but one of the main 00:06:01.819 --> 00:06:03.660 things that she did and I'd probably recommend 00:06:03.660 --> 00:06:07.160 as a starting point is to maybe co -create guidelines 00:06:07.160 --> 00:06:09.480 with participants at the start of the research 00:06:09.480 --> 00:06:12.800 whatever that method may be so this might look 00:06:12.800 --> 00:06:16.560 like speaking from your own experience participating 00:06:16.560 --> 00:06:20.300 at your own comfort level listening for understanding 00:06:20.300 --> 00:06:25.680 and not judging and maybe making that or allowing 00:06:25.680 --> 00:06:27.779 that to be recorded in a way that participants 00:06:27.779 --> 00:06:31.500 can access it throughout the exercise, whatever 00:06:31.500 --> 00:06:35.720 method it may be. And importantly, it's up to 00:06:35.720 --> 00:06:38.199 the participant to hold themselves accountable, 00:06:38.339 --> 00:06:42.160 but also everybody else in the room. So I would 00:06:42.160 --> 00:06:45.019 say that. Thank you. A couple of quick reflections 00:06:45.019 --> 00:06:48.250 from me, Lucy. I really like that you... You 00:06:48.250 --> 00:06:50.569 tried to normalise that it doesn't have to be 00:06:50.569 --> 00:06:52.629 considered, it can't be considered fully safe. 00:06:52.769 --> 00:06:54.829 It's about being safer and addressing those tensions 00:06:54.829 --> 00:06:57.029 and being transparent with yourself and with 00:06:57.029 --> 00:07:00.009 participants. I also like that you mentioned 00:07:00.009 --> 00:07:02.170 story circles because that's a nice synergy with 00:07:02.170 --> 00:07:05.949 the first episode from this series. What you 00:07:05.949 --> 00:07:09.670 were saying about creating trust with participants 00:07:09.670 --> 00:07:13.709 or with students really resonates with what Rachel 00:07:13.709 --> 00:07:16.360 was talking about in her... episode but also 00:07:16.360 --> 00:07:19.800 in her on reflective blogs but also her wider 00:07:19.800 --> 00:07:22.839 fellowship on building trust with students in 00:07:22.839 --> 00:07:25.500 reverse mentoring and more generally in staff 00:07:25.500 --> 00:07:28.100 student partnerships and there are loads of ways 00:07:28.100 --> 00:07:29.699 you can do that I'd really recommend listeners 00:07:29.699 --> 00:07:31.980 check out Rachel's work for ways of building 00:07:31.980 --> 00:07:35.120 that rapport with students whether that's in 00:07:35.120 --> 00:07:37.040 a piece of pedagogical research as we're discussing 00:07:37.040 --> 00:07:40.579 today or more generally when working in partnership 00:07:40.579 --> 00:07:46.050 yeah I mean I think it's It's important to also 00:07:46.050 --> 00:07:49.230 acknowledge that there is an intersectional element 00:07:49.230 --> 00:07:51.689 as well. And for some people, achieving safety 00:07:51.689 --> 00:07:55.089 is going to be a lot different depending on where 00:07:55.089 --> 00:07:56.430 you're from, background, that kind of thing. 00:07:56.790 --> 00:08:00.750 But actually, the facilitator has quite an important 00:08:00.750 --> 00:08:05.589 role there in managing the guidelines and making 00:08:05.589 --> 00:08:10.850 sure that people feel comfortable. Okay, thank 00:08:10.850 --> 00:08:14.449 you very much. Let's move on to the next question. 00:08:14.509 --> 00:08:16.850 And this is a really, really interesting and 00:08:16.850 --> 00:08:18.769 relevant question that we've been talking about 00:08:18.769 --> 00:08:22.009 a lot recently. The question is, I'm about to 00:08:22.009 --> 00:08:24.350 conduct some pedagogical research and plan to 00:08:24.350 --> 00:08:27.769 gather data by an in -person workshop. But I'd 00:08:27.769 --> 00:08:30.129 like to expand my data set with a broader survey. 00:08:30.389 --> 00:08:32.830 What generalisation factors do I need to consider? 00:08:33.210 --> 00:08:35.509 And Matthew, I believe you're going to pick up 00:08:35.509 --> 00:08:37.809 this answer. Thanks, Robert. So I think this 00:08:37.809 --> 00:08:39.210 draws together some of what we've already been 00:08:39.210 --> 00:08:42.220 talking about in these questions. Generalisability 00:08:42.220 --> 00:08:44.559 is how well our current research equips us to 00:08:44.559 --> 00:08:47.240 talk about new situations where some part of 00:08:47.240 --> 00:08:49.740 the experiment or circumstances have changed. 00:08:50.419 --> 00:08:53.000 We can think about this in terms of how representative 00:08:53.000 --> 00:08:55.620 different aspects of the experiment are of some 00:08:55.620 --> 00:08:58.600 broader group and what might change when the 00:08:58.600 --> 00:09:02.000 situation changes. One approach to this is to 00:09:02.000 --> 00:09:03.879 break it down into questions about the setting, 00:09:04.039 --> 00:09:07.440 the treatment, the sample and the measure. The 00:09:07.440 --> 00:09:09.860 setting is the context. context the experiment 00:09:09.860 --> 00:09:12.259 is happening in and all the extraneous factors 00:09:12.259 --> 00:09:14.639 that might be affecting our results. In this 00:09:14.639 --> 00:09:16.460 case they're both happening in the same year 00:09:16.460 --> 00:09:18.919 at the same university perhaps at different times 00:09:18.919 --> 00:09:21.320 of the year and one online and one in person. 00:09:21.779 --> 00:09:24.679 So we might expect very broad external factors 00:09:24.679 --> 00:09:27.279 are probably relatively similar but timing in 00:09:27.279 --> 00:09:30.320 the academic year and online in person might 00:09:30.320 --> 00:09:33.460 affect the students responses. The treatment 00:09:33.460 --> 00:09:36.340 is what we actually do in the method. In this 00:09:36.340 --> 00:09:39.490 case What does the workshop or the survey offer 00:09:39.490 --> 00:09:41.669 in terms of the data? Will the workshop make 00:09:41.669 --> 00:09:44.330 people feel more comfortable? Or will the lack 00:09:44.330 --> 00:09:46.809 of anonymity affect the responses I get, which 00:09:46.809 --> 00:09:49.629 the survey might preserve? So for some topics, 00:09:49.669 --> 00:09:52.190 anonymity is going to matter a lot, while for 00:09:52.190 --> 00:09:54.230 others, the timescale to build trust will matter 00:09:54.230 --> 00:09:58.169 much more. So the sample asks how we might understand 00:09:58.169 --> 00:10:00.549 the population of respondents and the ways these 00:10:00.549 --> 00:10:02.429 may or may not matter for the questions we're 00:10:02.429 --> 00:10:05.029 interested in. Are these populations representative 00:10:05.029 --> 00:10:08.519 of other... broader populations, all their responses 00:10:08.519 --> 00:10:11.240 represent something a bit more unique or idiosyncratic. 00:10:12.419 --> 00:10:15.620 While numbers of responses can offer some security 00:10:15.620 --> 00:10:17.700 here, it's important to still be careful about 00:10:17.700 --> 00:10:19.700 asking these questions because not all effects 00:10:19.700 --> 00:10:21.759 are going to be distributed in a way that's easily 00:10:21.759 --> 00:10:24.399 addressed by simply increasing the sample size. 00:10:26.080 --> 00:10:28.059 Measurement generalizability tends to look at 00:10:28.059 --> 00:10:30.279 the type of data you've gathered and the ways 00:10:30.279 --> 00:10:33.700 that data gets packaged or coded. Here we should 00:10:33.700 --> 00:10:36.559 be asking if you've got good reasons to generalize 00:10:36.559 --> 00:10:40.120 from like a high Likert score in our survey to 00:10:40.120 --> 00:10:43.240 a positive discussion in a workshop. How neatly 00:10:43.240 --> 00:10:45.940 do these different types of measure capture the 00:10:45.940 --> 00:10:49.460 same underlying phenomenon? So in terms of what 00:10:49.460 --> 00:10:51.860 this looks like in practice, we look at our research 00:10:51.860 --> 00:10:54.600 through each of these different lenses and then 00:10:54.600 --> 00:10:57.500 do good transparent research as we would whenever 00:10:57.500 --> 00:11:00.019 any other questions come up. What can we find 00:11:00.019 --> 00:11:01.700 in the literature about the relevant effects 00:11:01.700 --> 00:11:04.830 here? In what ways is this research tapping into 00:11:04.830 --> 00:11:07.370 something being representative of broader effects? 00:11:08.230 --> 00:11:10.730 And then give evidence to justify our levels 00:11:10.730 --> 00:11:12.909 of confidence in the generalisations we draw 00:11:12.909 --> 00:11:14.909 when we arrive at conclusions from our data. 00:11:15.409 --> 00:11:18.690 So we find data about the effects of timing in 00:11:18.690 --> 00:11:21.230 the academic year, the importance of trust building 00:11:21.230 --> 00:11:24.250 in workshops, the effect that having, say, mostly 00:11:24.250 --> 00:11:28.210 first years respond as participants, and the 00:11:28.210 --> 00:11:30.850 reliability of, say, Likert scores relative to 00:11:30.850 --> 00:11:33.899 a long -form discussion. and we justify some 00:11:33.899 --> 00:11:37.259 of the generalisation moves we make. In all these 00:11:37.259 --> 00:11:40.059 cases, it should be emphasised that what we're 00:11:40.059 --> 00:11:42.740 doing is making these moves explicit so that 00:11:42.740 --> 00:11:44.620 we can see our research as part of an ongoing, 00:11:44.779 --> 00:11:47.860 broader conversation. Thinking about what will 00:11:47.860 --> 00:11:51.240 or might or should matter in other contexts will 00:11:51.240 --> 00:11:52.940 help us respond to the fact that our classrooms 00:11:52.940 --> 00:11:56.200 are not universal, they're not homogenous, they're 00:11:56.200 --> 00:11:58.000 not always predictable, and they're part of a 00:11:58.000 --> 00:12:02.679 global learning experience. Thanks very much 00:12:02.679 --> 00:12:04.820 for that answer, Matthew. And I think those four 00:12:04.820 --> 00:12:08.620 lenses are a really helpful way to take a step 00:12:08.620 --> 00:12:11.500 back and reflect on why you're expanding the 00:12:11.500 --> 00:12:14.519 data set. My second reflection is towards the 00:12:14.519 --> 00:12:16.679 end when you were talking about the wider context 00:12:16.679 --> 00:12:20.980 of your research and that it's not about seeing 00:12:20.980 --> 00:12:22.980 your research in isolation, it's part of a wider 00:12:22.980 --> 00:12:25.179 conversation. a particular place, a particular 00:12:25.179 --> 00:12:27.860 moment in time. That made me think of, and this 00:12:27.860 --> 00:12:29.659 is going back a little bit, but to Paul Ashwin's 00:12:29.659 --> 00:12:31.759 keynote in 2020, Student Education Conference 00:12:31.759 --> 00:12:34.720 2024, when he spoke about these collective bodies 00:12:34.720 --> 00:12:39.240 of knowledge and trying to see yourself as someone 00:12:39.240 --> 00:12:42.080 playing a really important educational role, 00:12:42.159 --> 00:12:44.399 but an educational role that is embedded within 00:12:44.399 --> 00:12:47.779 wider communities of practice. So that, for me, 00:12:47.799 --> 00:12:51.070 is a really helpful reminder. to place your research 00:12:51.070 --> 00:12:52.990 in that wider context, which we obviously do 00:12:52.990 --> 00:12:54.669 when we think about literature, we think about 00:12:54.669 --> 00:12:57.509 what the issue is, but on an ongoing basis, as 00:12:57.509 --> 00:13:01.129 you continue to carry out your research, to keep 00:13:01.129 --> 00:13:04.629 that at the forefront of your mind? Absolutely. 00:13:04.730 --> 00:13:09.629 It also ties together some of the community considerations 00:13:09.629 --> 00:13:14.850 we have when we're conducting research and the 00:13:14.850 --> 00:13:20.120 good epistemology. really considering those questions 00:13:20.120 --> 00:13:24.639 seriously and like they matter. They're bigger 00:13:24.639 --> 00:13:26.519 than just what will happen in my classroom this 00:13:26.519 --> 00:13:29.820 year. It's asking something about how this is 00:13:29.820 --> 00:13:33.080 tying into something larger that's going to affect 00:13:33.080 --> 00:13:35.279 the students for a lot longer, that's going to 00:13:35.279 --> 00:13:37.240 affect the life of the university for much longer 00:13:37.240 --> 00:13:40.700 as well. Great. And further to that, Matthew, 00:13:40.840 --> 00:13:44.299 we recently held a workshop with New Light Fellows 00:13:44.299 --> 00:13:48.100 where we explored both generalisability and reflexivity. 00:13:48.240 --> 00:13:51.440 Could you tell listeners a little bit about how 00:13:51.440 --> 00:13:55.179 you consider the two to work in tandem? Is that 00:13:55.179 --> 00:13:58.379 the right way of putting it? Sort of, yeah. I 00:13:58.379 --> 00:14:04.179 think they're closely related concepts or approaches 00:14:04.179 --> 00:14:07.679 in research. I think they're sometimes seen as 00:14:07.679 --> 00:14:11.279 being in tension because the more reflexive you 00:14:11.279 --> 00:14:12.779 are in your practice, the more you're considering 00:14:12.779 --> 00:14:16.500 yourself a participant in that research, the 00:14:16.500 --> 00:14:20.940 more involved you are in it, the less someone 00:14:20.940 --> 00:14:23.720 else is able to come in and sort of go, OK, I 00:14:23.720 --> 00:14:26.620 can pick up your piece of research and stretch 00:14:26.620 --> 00:14:32.100 it to this new circumstance or understand it 00:14:32.100 --> 00:14:37.330 in this new context. I think that's really a 00:14:37.330 --> 00:14:39.929 benefit of thinking about generalizability in 00:14:39.929 --> 00:14:42.269 terms of these lenses. It means we can then start 00:14:42.269 --> 00:14:45.190 asking, OK, but are we really getting at an underlying 00:14:45.190 --> 00:14:48.090 phenomenon here, which might only be accessible 00:14:48.090 --> 00:14:50.769 if I'm being properly reflexive in my practice? 00:14:51.649 --> 00:14:54.049 If that's the case, then what we might say is 00:14:54.049 --> 00:14:55.730 that actually it's going to be more generalizable 00:14:55.730 --> 00:15:02.309 by being reflexive. And what we then encourage 00:15:02.309 --> 00:15:05.169 is that if someone else is trying to do something 00:15:05.169 --> 00:15:07.830 that's going to generalise this piece of research 00:15:07.830 --> 00:15:09.970 to a new context, that we might encourage them 00:15:09.970 --> 00:15:13.710 to take up that reflexive practice in their own 00:15:13.710 --> 00:15:19.529 approach, because that's where the method is 00:15:19.529 --> 00:15:21.710 going to link into the underlying phenomenon 00:15:21.710 --> 00:15:24.129 that we're trying to get at. Brilliant. That's 00:15:24.129 --> 00:15:27.649 a really nice way of getting us to think about... 00:15:27.820 --> 00:15:30.120 these two things reflexivity and generalizability 00:15:30.120 --> 00:15:32.799 that are often seen as at odds with one another 00:15:32.799 --> 00:15:34.679 but actually to take a step back and consider 00:15:34.679 --> 00:15:38.120 talking about tensions earlier Lucy and how they 00:15:38.120 --> 00:15:41.639 might interact in a more positive sense and probably 00:15:41.639 --> 00:15:43.139 should probably give a little bit of background 00:15:43.139 --> 00:15:45.259 briefly to reflexivity this is something that 00:15:45.259 --> 00:15:47.519 came up in a couple of our previous episodes 00:15:47.519 --> 00:15:50.610 and Lucy you've created a resource on it Yeah, 00:15:50.610 --> 00:15:53.549 I created a resource just to help researchers 00:15:53.549 --> 00:15:56.129 really understand more about what reflexivity 00:15:56.129 --> 00:15:59.009 is and kind of just to think about themselves 00:15:59.009 --> 00:16:01.690 and what they bring to the research more centrally 00:16:01.690 --> 00:16:06.960 in the resource I define. reflexivity is the 00:16:06.960 --> 00:16:11.120 continuous collaborative multifaceted processes 00:16:11.120 --> 00:16:14.360 through which the researcher self -consciously 00:16:14.360 --> 00:16:17.539 evaluates how their subjectivity and their context 00:16:17.539 --> 00:16:21.419 influence the research so it takes a position 00:16:21.419 --> 00:16:24.500 of subjectivity being inherently involved and 00:16:24.500 --> 00:16:29.179 I can see how that's a big consideration when 00:16:29.179 --> 00:16:31.039 we're thinking about generalizability as well 00:16:31.039 --> 00:16:34.659 but yeah my research it's kind of a brief overview 00:16:34.659 --> 00:16:38.240 of what reflexivity is it goes into how it differs 00:16:38.240 --> 00:16:42.480 from reflection and there's also like thinking 00:16:42.480 --> 00:16:45.720 prompts and different types of reflexivity such 00:16:45.720 --> 00:16:49.659 as methodological reflexivity and ethical reflexivity 00:16:49.659 --> 00:16:52.299 for people to consider and then there's also 00:16:52.299 --> 00:16:57.990 some practical steps to actually use resources 00:16:57.990 --> 00:17:00.490 to help you embed it within your day -to -day 00:17:00.490 --> 00:17:02.789 because I think that's really important rather 00:17:02.789 --> 00:17:04.910 than just sort of thinking about it after the 00:17:04.910 --> 00:17:08.470 research project has happened starting from the 00:17:08.470 --> 00:17:11.049 beginning and making it kind of a thorough and 00:17:11.049 --> 00:17:15.009 pervasive feature of all the research. Fantastic 00:17:15.009 --> 00:17:17.650 thank you and we'll provide links to that resource 00:17:17.650 --> 00:17:20.589 and any other resources we draw upon today in 00:17:20.589 --> 00:17:26.210 the show notes. Fantastic. Let's move on to our 00:17:26.210 --> 00:17:28.009 final question then, and we're circling back 00:17:28.009 --> 00:17:31.029 round to Izzy. Are there any methods or advice 00:17:31.029 --> 00:17:33.829 around interviewing pre -university students? 00:17:34.130 --> 00:17:36.869 Are there any resources created by others who 00:17:36.869 --> 00:17:40.490 have done this? Thank you, Robert. So the first 00:17:40.490 --> 00:17:42.529 place to start will be to navigate the ethical 00:17:42.529 --> 00:17:44.930 issues surrounding this age group. I know we've 00:17:44.930 --> 00:17:47.349 talked about ethics a bit already in this podcast, 00:17:47.589 --> 00:17:49.970 but here the students are much more likely to 00:17:49.970 --> 00:17:52.349 be under the age of 18, and therefore you'll 00:17:52.349 --> 00:17:55.500 need to... have a lot more considerations they 00:17:55.500 --> 00:17:58.079 will be considered potentially a more vulnerable 00:17:58.079 --> 00:18:01.000 group you'll need to gain consent not only from 00:18:01.000 --> 00:18:02.720 the participant themselves but from a parent 00:18:02.720 --> 00:18:05.579 or guardian and there may be some safeguarding 00:18:05.579 --> 00:18:08.240 protocols that you may need to need to adhere 00:18:08.240 --> 00:18:11.160 to as well as all the usual ethical considerations 00:18:11.160 --> 00:18:15.380 anonymity the power dynamics data use etc so 00:18:15.380 --> 00:18:18.319 it's really important that you spend lots of 00:18:18.319 --> 00:18:20.859 time going through that ethics gaining that ethical 00:18:20.859 --> 00:18:25.160 approval as the first step In terms of considerations 00:18:25.160 --> 00:18:28.119 around methods, certainly more creative methods 00:18:28.119 --> 00:18:30.859 can work well with this age group, such as interviewing 00:18:30.859 --> 00:18:34.059 using photo elicitation, drawings, crafting, 00:18:34.400 --> 00:18:37.460 constructing with Lego. There's resources on 00:18:37.460 --> 00:18:39.480 the internet around Lego serious play that you 00:18:39.480 --> 00:18:41.859 could incorporate to make the interview more 00:18:41.859 --> 00:18:45.579 engaging and less intimidating. You may also 00:18:45.579 --> 00:18:47.720 wish to consider how you can make the students 00:18:47.720 --> 00:18:49.900 feel more comfortable. Obviously, the creative 00:18:49.900 --> 00:18:52.430 methods is one way. You might want to interview 00:18:52.430 --> 00:18:56.369 in pairs or small focus groups. This can be particularly 00:18:56.369 --> 00:18:58.390 helpful in some circumstances if students already 00:18:58.390 --> 00:19:00.809 know each other. When planning the interview 00:19:00.809 --> 00:19:03.069 protocol and the questions, you'll consider the 00:19:03.069 --> 00:19:06.269 language materials carefully. You don't want 00:19:06.269 --> 00:19:08.789 to have anything overly academic or abstract. 00:19:08.869 --> 00:19:12.339 Really try to speak in their terms. It could 00:19:12.339 --> 00:19:14.279 be helpful if you could speak to maybe their 00:19:14.279 --> 00:19:17.220 teachers, run some ideas by them, gain ideas 00:19:17.220 --> 00:19:19.720 and advice that may help facilitate these things. 00:19:19.859 --> 00:19:21.940 A discussion with the teacher or someone that 00:19:21.940 --> 00:19:25.099 knows them better could give you an idea of what 00:19:25.099 --> 00:19:26.940 would and wouldn't be suitable in certain situations. 00:19:28.039 --> 00:19:31.160 In terms of resources, there isn't specifically 00:19:31.160 --> 00:19:34.359 anything that's been created by others from light, 00:19:34.500 --> 00:19:36.980 but there's a couple of websites we'll link in 00:19:36.980 --> 00:19:40.289 the show notes. that you may be interested in 00:19:40.289 --> 00:19:43.630 browsing. So we've got the ERIC project, which 00:19:43.630 --> 00:19:46.470 is ethical research involving children. Further 00:19:46.470 --> 00:19:49.430 links for the university's website at Leeds, 00:19:49.450 --> 00:19:51.569 which has got a lot of different links around 00:19:51.569 --> 00:19:54.789 research integrity. And then in terms of methods, 00:19:54.910 --> 00:19:57.269 we'll link up the National Centre for Research 00:19:57.269 --> 00:19:59.930 Methods, which has got lots of videos and advice 00:19:59.930 --> 00:20:02.569 on creative participatory methods with young 00:20:02.569 --> 00:20:06.589 people specifically. Thank you very much for 00:20:06.589 --> 00:20:09.630 that really comprehensive overview, Izzy. Really, 00:20:09.730 --> 00:20:12.490 really helpful, I'm sure, to listeners. To add 00:20:12.490 --> 00:20:15.130 to the first section of your answer, talking 00:20:15.130 --> 00:20:17.609 about informed consent, and this is an additional 00:20:17.609 --> 00:20:20.829 link I can share in the show notes, some Gov 00:20:20.829 --> 00:20:23.190 .uk guidance on firstly informed consent more 00:20:23.190 --> 00:20:25.029 generally, but then also in particular relation 00:20:25.029 --> 00:20:28.150 to working with under -18s. And what struck me 00:20:28.150 --> 00:20:31.230 was that how we think about informed consent 00:20:31.230 --> 00:20:33.849 on a basic level is the same whether we're talking 00:20:33.849 --> 00:20:36.789 about... under 18s or adults, but then there 00:20:36.789 --> 00:20:39.089 are specific considerations, ways of adapting 00:20:39.089 --> 00:20:42.170 the core tenets of informed consent to under 00:20:42.170 --> 00:20:45.650 18s, for example. You would always ask in a consent 00:20:45.650 --> 00:20:48.789 form whether your recruitment materials and information 00:20:48.789 --> 00:20:52.549 documents make the reason for the project and 00:20:52.549 --> 00:20:54.670 the reason for the participant to be invited 00:20:54.670 --> 00:20:58.230 to the research clear and digestible, and there 00:20:58.230 --> 00:21:00.029 are particular considerations you want to... 00:21:00.519 --> 00:21:02.519 you'll want to bear in mind when you're aiming 00:21:02.519 --> 00:21:05.519 that towards under 18s. So using potentially 00:21:05.519 --> 00:21:09.140 pictures or digestible language. And again, in 00:21:09.140 --> 00:21:11.619 any informed consent process, you'd want to ensure 00:21:11.619 --> 00:21:14.119 that participants know they can withdraw. Whereas 00:21:14.119 --> 00:21:16.079 with under 18s, you might want to check in more 00:21:16.079 --> 00:21:18.019 regularly than you would with an adult to ensure 00:21:18.019 --> 00:21:20.859 that they know they can withdraw during the research 00:21:20.859 --> 00:21:23.319 process, where those power dynamics may prevent 00:21:23.319 --> 00:21:27.220 that from occurring. So there are those core 00:21:27.220 --> 00:21:29.559 tenets, as I say, that... need to be applied 00:21:29.559 --> 00:21:32.440 and adapted to under 18s but then there are also 00:21:32.440 --> 00:21:34.740 additional safeguards like you say with gatekeepers 00:21:34.740 --> 00:21:37.519 guardians and also ensuring the consent form 00:21:37.519 --> 00:21:39.799 is written not for the person who's potentially 00:21:39.799 --> 00:21:44.299 signing the document. Yeah and I think it's really 00:21:44.299 --> 00:21:47.039 important that although you have to gain some 00:21:47.039 --> 00:21:49.839 consent from a guardian or a parent or someone 00:21:49.839 --> 00:21:53.200 it's like you said it's always important to consider 00:21:53.200 --> 00:21:55.579 that the actual participant is the student or 00:21:55.579 --> 00:21:58.180 the young person and they need to have all those 00:21:58.180 --> 00:22:01.880 rights as well. Brilliant. Thank you very much. 00:22:01.920 --> 00:22:05.319 And thanks, Lucy, Izzy, Matthew. We've reached 00:22:05.319 --> 00:22:09.180 the end of our methods Q &A. And thank you, listeners, 00:22:09.279 --> 00:22:11.940 for following our methods miniseries. We hope 00:22:11.940 --> 00:22:14.380 you enjoyed it and learned something new about 00:22:14.380 --> 00:22:17.410 pedagogical research methods. We're back with 00:22:17.410 --> 00:22:20.369 season two at some point. I said it. In the meantime, 00:22:20.569 --> 00:22:22.930 hit subscribe to ensure you don't miss out on 00:22:22.930 --> 00:22:25.869 upcoming Light Bites or Enlightening Dialogues 00:22:25.869 --> 00:22:29.509 episodes. Please send any additional pun -related 00:22:29.509 --> 00:22:32.750 ideas to the Light inbox. Take care and see you 00:22:32.750 --> 00:22:33.130 next time.