Methodologies and Research Methods Used in School Advisory Systems

Ethics comprises of an intricate set of principles, morals and institutional outlines that standardize scientific activity. Educational and social researchers face complex challenges occasionally, when they encounter the conflict of their legal and moral responsibility towards protection of their participants on one hand, and maintaining the standards, criteria of quality and significance of research on the other hand. Although, the research design or findings does not always restrained or deteriorated by ethical principles. At times, ethics are supportive in enhancing the quality of research, while some other times it's not.

Additionally, researchers "bear a special responsibility for protecting the interests of vulnerable groups throughout the research process" (Tangen, 2014, p. 678). At all times, educational practitioners have realized the weighed down value of education and that the quality of education rests on ethical standards. The consciousness of educational researchers regarding the ethical dimensions of their research is increasing day by day.

The standard of research and research ethics are grounded on extensive social values and hence contains not only internal concerns, like validity and quality of research as well as responsibility for participant's protection, in the scientific community, but also external matters like practical significance of research and its utility and relevance to policy-making. The researcher therefore is never out of the realms of political and practical contexts, nor from his overall ethical responsibility (Tangen, 2014, p. 679).

Research ethics, therefore, can be divided into three areas: (1) ethical codes practiced in the research community; (2) relevance and significance of educational research in society; and (3) responsibility towards protection of research partakers. Accordingly, key ethics like liberty to research, liberation, upright research practice, professional honesty, respect for students and coworkers, etc., which is often regarded as the quality of the research process and findings, lies in the area (1) of ethics. The duty towards the protection of participants from harm and respecting their human welfare and autonomy, i.e.

their self-esteem, honesty, and liberty, are the dominant values addressed under area (2). This includes apprehension of potential risk as well as of potential benefits for the participants and their group, if any. However, area (3) of ethics deals with the significance and scope of research for educational practice and policy making as well as importance of research for different groups, like youth and children, and thereby the future of country (Tangen, 2014, pp.

679-680) Purpose of Study The current study proposes to discuss the ethical behaviour that should be followed while conducting research on the implementation of school advisory program in middle and high schools, following a theory of Seedhouse's (1998a) ethical grid, and that by thinking through the ethical dimension of research in a logical and structured way, a level of clarity can be brought to this field.

A framework to study ethical analysis is introduced, based on the work of David Seedhouse (1998a) and present a methodology for its use in educational research. The usage of this framework is validated through two examples and the argument that effective ethical analysis requires such analytical tool. This framework is not just a set of guidelines or codes of practice, rather much more expansive and powerful than both are. It offers a precise analytical procedure to make sure that a quality research process is conducted with a moral framework.

This paper discusses the moral theory followed by the framework proposed by Seedhouse. it exhibits the limitations and study design and procedure of conventional approaches by other authors in the following sections (Stutchbury & Fox, 2009, p. 490). Literature Review A significant fact to consider is that following and adhering to ethics should not be limited to only the commencement phase of a study or investigation.

Rather it should be a consistent consideration throughout the process of investigation as the leading force of any research study, and accordingly ought to be sustained during the write-up and distribution stages (Abed, 2014-2015, p. 1-2). This section, therefore, discusses the procedure the previous studies followed, while collecting data, regarding the implementation of school advisory program to middle and high schools. It also explores the extent to which they abide by the norms of research ethics.

A study conducted by O'Dowd, A Mixed-Methods Study of Middle School Advisory Programs: Staff Experiences, Perspectives, and Implementation in Three Suburban Middle Schools specifically focussed on the manner of explanation, and identification of the role of participation of the staff of three schools of the advisory program in each school. It also focuses on recommendations they would make to administrators for its successful implementation. The study employs Creswell's mixed methods research as theoretical framework. A sequential research design, i.e.

quantitative and then qualitative stage, has been used for this research. Initially, an online survey has been conducted by providing a general set of outcomes on the staff's awareness and experiences with advisory programs for gathering quantitative data. The study then follows-up the exploration through interviews, document analysis, and non-participants' comments for gathering qualitative data, which reveals a thoughtful account and a deeper understanding of the topic (O'Dowd, 2012, p. 42).

The ethical concern in the study in discussion is that the researcher was the assistant principal in one of the participating middle schools. This familiarity and understanding with the staff and the advisory program posits the potential of a biased opinion. This acquaintance could have been both an advantage and a limitation for the outcome of the study.

The prior involvement of researcher in the process of planning and implementation of this program in the school she works could bias the findings in favor of middle school advisory programs (O'Dowd, 2012, pp. 13-14).

However, another study by Dooly, namely Academic Achievement in Arkansas High Schools Based on the Implementation Level of a Teacher Advisory Program, attempts to examine the influence of Teacher Advisory Programs (TAPS) on educational achievement and student motivation in Arkansas high schools grounded on their implementation level of the program by their comparison with similar non-TAPS schools. The researcher employs a quasi-experimental regression analysis to study the impact of TAPS on academic achievement. The data was gathered from the information site of Arkansas School and Arkansas Department of Education.

The school level information comprises of new Performance Report of year 2001 and 2004. The information and data are availed from the records of attendance rate, dropout rate, graduation rate, percent worked through free lunch, teacher salary, expense per pupil, scores of 8th Grade Literacy and Mathematics Benchmark, scores of End-result of Algebra, Geometry, and Literacy Exam, and composite ACT scores (Dooly, 2013, p. 48). However, the findings of this study were unfortunately not favourable.

No significant or reliable relationship could be found between the implementation of advisory program and higher academic accomplishment, after comparing 20 schools that implemented TAPS and 40 that were not implementing TAPS. The ethical concern here lies in this process of data collection, any leniency or carelessness in data handling might have skewed the results (Dooly, 2013, p. 61), A similar study by Stawick explores the advisory programs' impact on student learning and knowledge for three successive 8th grade classes at Main School.

The first 8th grade class of year 2005 with no advisory program; the second 8th grade of year 2006 with advisory for one year; and the third class of 2007 with two years of advisory program during their 7th and 8th grade. This research made a comparison of three classes, based on their academic performance, to study the impact of advisory program on the student learning. Creswell's quasi-experimental, ex-post facto model has been utilised for the comparison of two groups in the research design, i.e. the participants were not selected randomly.

The students were compared to each other in each group of race, income, and gender, exhausting each dependent variable (GPA, ISAT and NWEA). Such design has been deemed to be an authentic technique to examine the differences between groups and to determine its implications (Stawick, 2011, p. 57). The literature also maintains that advisory program, if carefully designed and well-employed, produces optimistic results in schools. The best measure to assess student learning is NWEA test, as it is the only customised measure to evaluate individual student growth.

However, the researcher ought to consider participant's comfort with technology and his familiarity of taking tests on computers, as the instrument is provided on computer, which belongs to the category of informed consent of research ethics. The participant's anonymity and his comfort is the main ethical concern in this study (Stawick, 2011, p. 70).

A similar study regarding school advisory program by James, Teacher's Perspectives of the Advisory Program: A Case Study of Curriculum and Implementation in an Urban Middle School examined several advisory classrooms for their curriculum work, through comments and interviews, to highlight the experiences of teachers, from different perspectives, following this curriculum. Fullan's (1991) theoretical framework regarding roles of teachers as conversion agents has been utilised to outline their experiences on implementation of advisory curriculum in classrooms in a large urban middle school (James, 2006, pp. 4-7).

However, the researcher specifically mentioned in the study that fictitious names have been used in place of school and teacher's names. Classroom observations and audio-taped interviews of participants have been the primary means for data collection. Information has been recorded as transcripts and field notes, member checks and observation has also been done. Moreover, all classrooms, times, dates, people, activities and researcher's reactions were also documented in a researcher's log to establish reliability (James, 2006, pp. 8-9).

Thus, he followed these research ethics of privacy and confidentiality, informed consent and careful data handling, thereby fulfilling and mentioning most of the norms of research ethics in his study and produced an ethically sound work. Another similar study by Julie Ann Moore, Principals' Perspectives on Middle School Advisory Programs, makes an effort to determine the perspectives' of middle school principals on advisory programs. As the study focuses on middle school model, this exclusive outlook provides a better clarity and understanding by considering principals' views regarding advisory programs.

Mac Iver's (1990) constructivist lens, practiced for a qualitative study, has been used as theoretical framework which supports presumed specialized ideas of life experiences. For design and methodology, the researcher carefully chose in-depth, formally structured interviews as the instrument for data collection, to explore their viewpoints about advisory program. The interviews, note taking and transcript of audiotapes provided unique insight of participants' perspectives. This study assessed the extent to which principals' views were connected, associated or drifted away from the actual purpose of advisory program (Moore, 2014, p. 117).

However, the in-depth interviews employed in this project were carried out on a comparatively small number of participants. Collective or individual issues depend upon the level of trust established and ensuring the participants' understanding of the implications of the interviews. The intention in this project, as well as others where interviews are involved, is "to access the private and make it public" (p. 499).

The deontological framework suggests that it carries the possibility to do harm with it, especially if the participants reproduced his past events, and which unearthed their uncomfortable memories. Additionally, publicizing personal information raises problems of reporting (Stutchbury & Fox, 2009, p. 499-500). Therefore, this paper will further reveal specific list of guidelines and procedures of ethical analysis, of the sort we are supporting, but the grid proposes more than just the guidelines (Stutchbury & Fox, 2009, p. 497).

Scope of Study The theory of ethical grid by Seedhouse is very practical for future researches on ethical grounds. The comprehensiveness of this grid allows the researcher to expect an ethically sound research project by analysing the project through this grid, as all noteworthy ethical issues are recognised. Such recognition is grounded on a moral basis, such that any subsequent decision-making procedure can stand ethical scrutiny.

In mental constructs such as these, it can be anticipated that it would evolve with time and grow to be directly pertinent to educational research to some degree (Stutchbury & Fox, 2009, p. 493). Significance of the Study This study is significant because it allows for and promotes the ethical aspect of educational research when research students apply this theory. Moreover, the other student affairs professionals who work with students can be educated by using this informative study, thereby improving overall quality of students' education.

Discussion It can be argued that the researchers need to understand the core values of moral reasoning and morality first, to act ethically. Western moral philosophy has two traditional theories, deontology and consequentialism. The basic tenet of deontology lies in 'doing your duty' anyway, irrespective of consequences. A deontologist would claim certain actions like 'always keeping promises' are right, irrespective of their consequences. On the other hand, the basic principle of Consequentialism or utilitarianism is to judge morality on grounds of intentional or anticipated outcomes, i.e.

a certain action is generating more benefit than drawbacks for maximum people. Accordingly, one is morally justified if his breaking a promise brings good for greater number of people (Stutchbury & Fox, 2009, p. 490). To enhance this moral reasoning, Seedhouse, a philosopher, designed an ethical grid, including these theories of western moral philosophy whereby he assures assimilation of a greater ethical awareness upon constant usage of this grid.

The grid is not designed to provide solutions to ethical issues as a tool, rather it offers a structure to user's thinking to guide and enable him to recognize the issues and react systematically. The decisions, then, would more likely be ethical and the process of decision-making transparent and open to reason, consideration and discussion.

The four layers of grid present four facets for complete ethical analysis, they are as follows: (1) Outer or External layer discusses external issues like rubrics of practice, law and usage of accessible resources (2) Consequential layer encourages the researchers to assess the possible consequences of their actions for society, for people or a group of persons. (3) Deontological layer is concerned with the 'duty' and the way things should be done without considering the consequences of those actions.

(4) Inner layer comprises of the 'core rationale' and covers the issues related to autonomy and respect for the individual (Stutchbury & Fox, 2009, pp. 490-492). Moreover, along with this theoretical framework, a researcher also needs to follow some critical ethical principles that have practical implications while conducting a research.

They are as follows: Plagiarism -- The words, records and ideas of others by writers with the indication that it belongs to them, without giving credit to the original author, in the appropriate format of presentation, is considered as theft of intellectual property and the person is guilty of plagiarism and thereby of research misconduct. Other's work, either published or not, a written work or an online material, needs to be cited or accredited (Merz, 2011, n.p.).

Risk assessment --The researcher should try to produce a work which is worthwhile and maximize the benefit, minimizing the risk of potential harm to participants, by taking healthy precautions. All information regarding purpose, methods, requirements of research, degree of their participation, benefits and risks should be conveyed to the research staff and participants beforehand. Ethics review should be in proportion with potential risk.

The likelihood and level of risks should be assessed during ethics review, by considering both the slight risk of severe harm and modest risk of negligible harm, as ethical concerns are different in each situation (ESRC, 2015, pp. 4-5). Informed consent -- The 'Informed Consent' proviso requires a document, i.e., a consent form that ought to be signed by respondents prior to research.

After giving consent, they become eligible to be informed of any potential risk or benefit of their participation, whenever any such information is gathered during the research, and that they can withdraw from the study at any time or stage of the study. Any future changes in the consent document or research procedure requires IRB approval prior to implementation, the Principal Investigator must convey all modifications to all co-investigators and research staff (Merz, 2011, n.p.).

Privacy and confidentiality -- The confidentiality of data about every subject ought to be valued and preserved. Any private information of subjects such as initials, names, study numbers, social security numbers and other private identifiers, are not permissible to collect without prior written approval by subjects and IRB. [Not just the concealment rather any meddling with, deliberate removal of, or damage to relevant property, tools etc. is inacceptable and categorized as research misconduct.

(Merz, 2011, n.p.) Data handling and reporting --Any distortion or misrepresentation of research findings are severe forms of misconduct. Avoiding any false statement or any exclusion that mislead the research record is the primary responsibility of the investigator. However, other circumstances such as deliberate destruction of records or failure to preserve and reproduce research records when required are considered as an evidence of research misconduct (Merz, 2011, n.p.).

Mistakes and negligence --The researchers should be acquainted with the available quantitative procedures such as data handling, including tabular and graphical ways of representation, error analysis, and reliability tests. Research integrity entails not just accurately recorded and reported data rather that all relevant information should be reported; and any deliberate or careless neglect of truth while reporting is considered as an example of research misconduct (Merz, 2011, n.p.).

Working with a Mentor -- Although mentor is often considered as foundation of a research, but a mentee is no less a strong pillar, and thereby, so is his responsibility. Everything in the study, from discussion to review, topic, place, publication should be with the consent of the mentor, although, at times, the mentor places the researcher in the first position whose contributions are extreme in the work.

A good mentor serves as an effective tool in encouraging ethical conduct in research; thus promoting a positive attitude and comprehending the responsible conduct of research (Gomes, Saha, Datta & Gomes, 2013). Northcentral University.