Common use of Ethical Issues Clause in Contracts

Ethical Issues. The study was done in accordance with NU GSE Ethical Guidelines for Educational Research. An oral and written permission was obtained from each of the participating schools prior to data collection procedures. All participants were selected on a voluntary basis and each of them was first acquainted with the research purpose and procedures. They were also informed about the potential risks and benefits and their rights to withdraw from the study at any time. A letter about the research and consent forms were sent via email to the principals and teachers beforehand. The participants of the qualitative part of the study benefited from the opportunity to self-reflect on their role in the educational system and to express their opinions about teacher autonomy. The participants’ perceptions and opinions about teacher autonomy and its effects on their practices will allow policy-makers and school administrators to understand what affects teachers’ motivation and job satisfaction. These reflections will help shape the new “Law on the Status of Teachers” so as to guarantee teachers more professional freedom, protection and autonomy. As for the risks, there were no sensitive questions that would put the participants in any danger. In all my records, all names were replaced with participant codes and the recorded interviews were kept in a separate folder with password protection. The participants were free to refuse to answer any of the questions, so there was no pressure on them in this regard. I also made sure that the participants were interviewed during their free time, so that they would not feel the stress of missing a class. To avoid unnecessary nervousness, the interviews were held in places selected by the participants themselves, which would usually be their own classroom. Thus, they would feel “at home” and be more relaxed and open during the interviews. Also, if any other teacher entered the room, there was no clear indication that the teacher was being interviewed for a study. As for the quantitative part of the study, the survey was done online and anonymously, so the participants did not have to identify themselves. To avoid multiple entries, the survey was set up so that each participant could only respond once. All questions were optional, so the participants had the freedom to skip any question they were not willing to answer, or to submit the whole survey without answering any questions. The data was recorded in a separate spreadsheet under a password.

Ethical Issues. Prior to data collection, the researcher obtained ethics clearance from the GSE Research Committee. The study data collection process did not started until ethics approval was done granted. Once approval was granted, and in accordance order to gain the access to the research site, the researcher organized an appointment with NU GSE Ethical Guidelines for Educational Research. An oral and written permission was obtained from each the school administration where a detailed description of the participating schools prior research project was provided to data collection procedurespromote the understanding of the nature of this qualitative interview study. All After getting access to the site, a gatekeeper forwarded an invitation letter (email) to all novice teachers at school inviting them to participate in the study and requesting them to contact the researcher if they were interested in being part of the study. Additionally, the information about the voluntary nature of their participation and the possibility to withdraw at any stage of the research process was emphasized in the invitation. If the participants were selected on interested in being part of this study, they were asked to write an email back to a voluntary basis and each of them was first acquainted gatekeeper telling about their affirmative decision. The consent forms were sent to volunteered participants along with the research purpose questions as when it was comfortable for them to meet for the interview and procedureswhat location they preferred for the interview (see Appendix 4). They were also informed about the potential risks and benefits and their rights welcomed to withdraw from ask any questions connected to the study via email or at any timethe beginning of the actual interview. A letter about The paper version of the research and consent forms were sent via email signed in two copies, for the participant and the researcher to be kept before the interview. The interview was conducted in a place suggested by the interviewee himself/ herself because their willingness and convenience were of primary importance in this study. When the interview was completed, the researcher thanked the participants and reassured that their identity would not be revealed to anyone external to the principals and teachers beforehandresearch study. Also, participants were offered the possibility to receive a summary with the research results if they were interested (▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇, 2014). At the beginning of the interview, the participants were acquainted with the purpose of the research as well as their rights throughout the process. The participants anonymity of the qualitative part of the study benefited from the opportunity to self-reflect on their role participants’ identity could not be fully guaranteed in the educational system present study, as it was revealed when they showed up for the interview. Still, in the assurance of confidentiality, the obtained information during the process had not been discussed with anyone else other than the thesis supervisor (▇▇▇▇▇ et al., 2011). In addition, all the participants were guaranteed that their names would not be used in the thesis report, as they would be substituted with the use of pseudonyms. In this regard, ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇ (2014) say that stories are to be told but the identities are not to be revealed. All the data and to express their opinions about teacher autonomyinterview protocols were stored on the researcher’s personal password protected laptop and the paper variants of protocols and notes were stored in a locked cabinet in the researcher’s office. The participants’ perceptions and opinions about teacher autonomy and its effects on their practices will allow policy-makers and school administrators study did not involve more than minimal risk. In order to understand what affects teachers’ motivation and job satisfaction. These reflections will help shape the new “Law on the Status of Teachers” so as to guarantee teachers more professional freedom, protection and autonomy. As for further minimize the risks, there the following steps were no sensitive questions that would put taken. As though the researcher and the interviewees worked at the same school, other staff members might have seen them together, hence identify who the participants in were. Therefore, the researcher did not discuss anything connected to the study itself with any dangerstakeholder at the workplace. In all my records, all names were replaced with participant codes and the recorded interviews were kept in a separate folder with password protection. The participants were free to refuse to answer any of the questions, so there Another risk was no pressure on them in this regard. I also made sure that the participants were interviewed during might have felt discomfort thinking that somehow the data could can be disclosed as the researcher knew them and their free timementors as well. In such case, so the researcher assured the participants about the confidential nature of the research to gain trust. Additionally, the interviewees might have had some negative feelings remembering unpleasant moments that they would not feel the stress of missing a class. To avoid unnecessary nervousnesshad gone through; hence, the interviews were held in places selected by researcher needed to observe the participants themselves, which would usually be their own classroom. Thus, they would feel “at home” and be participant’s emotions being more relaxed and open during sensitive throughout the interviews. Also, if any other teacher entered the room, there was no clear indication that the teacher was being interviewed for a study. As for the quantitative part of the study, the survey was done online and anonymously, so the participants did not have to identify themselves. To avoid multiple entries, the survey was set up so that each participant could only respond once. All questions were optional, so the participants had the freedom to skip any question they were not willing to answer, or to submit the whole survey without answering any questions. The data was recorded in a separate spreadsheet under a passwordprocess.