A key theme that ran through the readings of this week was the ethical responsibilities of researchers in areas that could be used for informing the public and policymakers. Amy argues that researchers need to be objective, consider ethics and not let their professional power struggles interfere with good research. Patton and Sawicki argue that most research is value-laden and that researchers need to be responsible for the information they put into the public sphere. These interpretations of the necessity of ethics in social science research seems applicable when considering the implications of testing as evaluation and the value placed on it, in public school provision.
Douglas Amy suggests that policy analysts and researchers should attempt to be objective and acknowledge the normative issues around ones research so their values do not ‘creep’ in (p.578). When an analyst does not consider ethical values, the author argues, it is more often because, “it frequently threatens the professional and political interests of both analysts and policymakers” and is rarely that ethical considerations do not play a part of the issue at hand (p.587).
Patton and Sawicki argue that the claim that researchers and advisors are able to be completely objective and are not contributors to the policy process because they are not the decision makers is false: “Our position is that analysts and advisers influence policy in many ways, including how they define the problem, specify alternatives, present data, select examples, and frame recommendations” (p.43). The authors argue that although information presented to decision makers is merely information and not policies that researchers need to take responsibility for the consequences of the information they produced.
This line of logic follows the role of researchers as Warwick and Pettigrew describes as “knowledge generators” rather than consumers of knowledge or “knowledge brokers” (p.338). Since social scientists are aware that the information they produce is going to either be used by a) the public or b) policy makers to inform their decision-making process, then researchers have an obligation to that information. The authors point to education as a key issue area that research and information provided to policymakers strong impacts perceptions and preferences citing the Education Opportunity Survey conducted by James Coleman as a punctuated event that marks social science entrance into the public sphere as an informer, or knowledge generator.
It is often a concern in the education field that the evaluative measurements provided by standardized testing is not aligned with the other goals and values of mass public education. Even this past week, Pearson, the largest standardized testing producer and corporation, wrongly calculated the amount of students who qualify for gifted and talented programs in New York City. Although the evaluation arm of Pearson are not “researchers” or are they “advisors” to public policy, the accuracy of evaluation and consequent interpretations of student’s achievements, advancements and in this specific case- a child’s “giftedness” or - intelligence is insurmountable. The companies policy is to provide the scores, be accountable and transparent as possible which led to parent inquiries, and Pearson’s reevaluation of their data to conclude that several mathematical errors disqualified 2700 students who have since shown to have qualify for gifted and talented seats.
Although this information is not directly imparted to policy makers, the fact that there are now thousand students more than seats available is a testament to needing more gifted schools, or a different evaluation measure. It is also a perfect example of how social scientists, or monitoring and evaluators, or mathematicians in the social sphere need to be accountable and responsible for the information they put out there.
In conclusion, it seems that in the very least the objectivity of the tests is important, the interpretation of the scores are very important, the availability of the data used to score and evaluate the tests is important and what impact that has on school is important, and these are all issues that the authors this week discussed as ethical considerations that social scientists need to be aware of when developing research.
Resources Cited
Patton, Carl V. and David S. Sawicki, Chapter 2: “The Policy Analysis Process”, pp. 30-46, in Basic Methods of Policy Analysis and Planning, Prentice Hall, 1993.
Amy, Douglas J., “Why Policy Analysis and Ethics are Incompatible,” Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, 3(4), 1984.
Warwick, Donald P. and Thomas F. Pettigrew, “Toward Ethical Guidelines for Social Science Research in Public Policy,” In Daniel Callahan and Bruce Jennings Eds., Ethics, The Social Sciences and Policy Analysis, Plenum Press, 1983.
Rotherhan, A. “The Illusion of the Gifted Child”. Time Managine. April 25, 2013. http://ideas.time.com/2013/04/25/the-illusion-of-the-gifted-child/
Douglas Amy suggests that policy analysts and researchers should attempt to be objective and acknowledge the normative issues around ones research so their values do not ‘creep’ in (p.578). When an analyst does not consider ethical values, the author argues, it is more often because, “it frequently threatens the professional and political interests of both analysts and policymakers” and is rarely that ethical considerations do not play a part of the issue at hand (p.587).
Patton and Sawicki argue that the claim that researchers and advisors are able to be completely objective and are not contributors to the policy process because they are not the decision makers is false: “Our position is that analysts and advisers influence policy in many ways, including how they define the problem, specify alternatives, present data, select examples, and frame recommendations” (p.43). The authors argue that although information presented to decision makers is merely information and not policies that researchers need to take responsibility for the consequences of the information they produced.
This line of logic follows the role of researchers as Warwick and Pettigrew describes as “knowledge generators” rather than consumers of knowledge or “knowledge brokers” (p.338). Since social scientists are aware that the information they produce is going to either be used by a) the public or b) policy makers to inform their decision-making process, then researchers have an obligation to that information. The authors point to education as a key issue area that research and information provided to policymakers strong impacts perceptions and preferences citing the Education Opportunity Survey conducted by James Coleman as a punctuated event that marks social science entrance into the public sphere as an informer, or knowledge generator.
It is often a concern in the education field that the evaluative measurements provided by standardized testing is not aligned with the other goals and values of mass public education. Even this past week, Pearson, the largest standardized testing producer and corporation, wrongly calculated the amount of students who qualify for gifted and talented programs in New York City. Although the evaluation arm of Pearson are not “researchers” or are they “advisors” to public policy, the accuracy of evaluation and consequent interpretations of student’s achievements, advancements and in this specific case- a child’s “giftedness” or - intelligence is insurmountable. The companies policy is to provide the scores, be accountable and transparent as possible which led to parent inquiries, and Pearson’s reevaluation of their data to conclude that several mathematical errors disqualified 2700 students who have since shown to have qualify for gifted and talented seats.
Although this information is not directly imparted to policy makers, the fact that there are now thousand students more than seats available is a testament to needing more gifted schools, or a different evaluation measure. It is also a perfect example of how social scientists, or monitoring and evaluators, or mathematicians in the social sphere need to be accountable and responsible for the information they put out there.
In conclusion, it seems that in the very least the objectivity of the tests is important, the interpretation of the scores are very important, the availability of the data used to score and evaluate the tests is important and what impact that has on school is important, and these are all issues that the authors this week discussed as ethical considerations that social scientists need to be aware of when developing research.
Resources Cited
Patton, Carl V. and David S. Sawicki, Chapter 2: “The Policy Analysis Process”, pp. 30-46, in Basic Methods of Policy Analysis and Planning, Prentice Hall, 1993.
Amy, Douglas J., “Why Policy Analysis and Ethics are Incompatible,” Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, 3(4), 1984.
Warwick, Donald P. and Thomas F. Pettigrew, “Toward Ethical Guidelines for Social Science Research in Public Policy,” In Daniel Callahan and Bruce Jennings Eds., Ethics, The Social Sciences and Policy Analysis, Plenum Press, 1983.
Rotherhan, A. “The Illusion of the Gifted Child”. Time Managine. April 25, 2013. http://ideas.time.com/2013/04/25/the-illusion-of-the-gifted-child/
RSS Feed