| Previous | Next | |
Gaining EntryGetting permission to conduct research in the three chosen programs began with the teachers. The school referred to as Suburban High was the first to be confirmed. 5 The teacher quickly gave his permission after a brief meeting before school started. Official permissions were necessary from the school district and involved the submission of a written proposal. The man responsible for permissions, with whom I had several phone conversations, requested greater specification regarding the short interview, and a month into the term, I was granted permission to conduct my study. I never met with the principal. The opposite pattern proceeded in the second school. The school referred to as Urban High was in the Los Angeles, where the proposals are submitted electronically. No personal contact was made at the district level, and permission was granted without any additional communications. The principal, however, met with me and the teacher whom I first contacted. The principal was new to his position and, having just received his Ph.D., wanted to support research. He had few concerns, and the meeting started late and was interrupted more than once with school business. He was quickly satisfied. The third school, referred to as Boarding High, presented more of a problem. At every level, the staff seemed uncertain how to handle my request to conduct research. The school is under the jurisdiction of the Bureau of Indian Affairs but has a great deal of independence, and the video program was being conducted by a museum outreach program, funded through a not-for-profit granting organization, and led by university art students, thus everyone I spoke with had to consult someone else. First, the classroom teacher was concerned about my intentions: She did not want someone to come in to study “Indians,” in part because the cultures of her students were quite diverse, some coming from reservations and others coming from urban centers and knowing nothing of Native culture. She also expressed a vague concern about protecting them from exploitation. This concern was expressed again by the school and the funding agency when they realized I wanted to copy student work. Emails and discussions with two representatives from the funding organization, face to face discussions with teacher, additional documentation for the school, and finally the final permissions were given. All that remained were parental and student permissions. I presented my project in a simple and condensed format to the classes I studied. With the exception of the advanced class at Suburban High, I asked for students to volunteer to allow me to copy their video work and consent to an interview at the end of the program. Multiple requests, reminders, mailings, and specific requests to the partners of existing volunteers resulted in 41 volunteers. At Urban High, one teacher offered extra credit to students who brought back their consent forms, regardless of whether they chose to participate or not, and my offer of pizza as a thank you to one class was turned into the reward for returning consent forms, which I did not enforce. Because the students at Boarding High did not have easy access to their parents, letters were mailed and permissions received via self-addressed, stamped envelopes. This amazingly resulted in only one missing parental consent form. All students were given the option, but only one student requested that her image be blurred before being included in analysis. Everyone appearing in the videos from whom consent was not obtained has had their images blurred in the focal videos. Pseudonyms are used for all participants to protect their privacy. The process of seeking schools, permissions, and volunteers revealed three differences worth noting. First, New York City presented more obstacles to research than did Los Angeles and nearby communities: The New York City public school administration requires, when last explored, that researchers be fingerprinted. No formal checks of my identity were made in connection to my research in California. In New York, one school principal declined to participate due to some previous bad press, and such sentiments and distrust were frequently expressed in New York, but it never was in California. In fact, surprise was often expressed about the need to blur faces or get written consent in California schools. A general difference in the regard of research is clearly expressed. Second, the size of school districts corresponded to the degree of personalization and standardization in the process of gaining permissions. Urban High, as the largest school and in the largest district had the least personal involvement and the most direct process. Suburban High required more work to discover what needed to be done and more personal involvement at both ends (though the principal deferred to the others). Boarding High, as the smallest school, seemed to have everyone involved. Setting aside the complicated involvements of the program, permissions within Boarding High seemed straightforward until I required documentation. Then several people seemed to become involved behind the scenes. Thus the size of the communities and apparent history with research were relevant: In the largest community where research was likely to be common, the process was formal, and the smallest community was uncertain how to address a research proposal. These differences are indicative of the relations between administrations and students, reflecting the extent to which students are an anonymous group or collection of individuals within the system. |
||
| Previous Contents |
5The meaning of school pseudonyms will be discussed in the following section. | Next References |