1 / 13

Methodological and ethical issues encountered in evaluating the Wohl Reach Out Lab

Methodological and ethical issues encountered in evaluating the Wohl Reach Out Lab. Roberts Zivtins & Dr. Annalisa Alexander . 28/02/19. Research Context- Wohl Reach Out Lab. Imperial College London’s dedicated outreach space Founded in 2010 by Professor Robert Winston

ostinmannual
Télécharger la présentation

Methodological and ethical issues encountered in evaluating the Wohl Reach Out Lab

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Methodological and ethical issues encountered in evaluating the Wohl Reach Out Lab Roberts Zivtins & Dr. Annalisa Alexander 28/02/19

  2. Research Context- Wohl Reach Out Lab • Imperial College London’s dedicated outreach space • Founded in 2010 by Professor Robert Winston • 16,126 pupils attended 1,227 activities since the WROL opened • Focus on practicals for students who otherwise would not have access to ‘hands-on’ science

  3. How to evaluate outreach programmes? Intervention Student post- intervention Student pre-intervention (Scriven 1994)

  4. How to evaluate outreach programmes? Intervention Student post- intervention Student pre-intervention “Randomised controlled trials are the most rigorous way of determining whether a cause-effect relation exists between treatment and outcome” (Sibbald & Roland 1998) (Scriven 1994)

  5. The problem with attributing causality Intervention Student pre-intervention Student post- intervention Widened participation with science (e.g. Banerjee 2017)

  6. The problem with attributing causality Intervention Student pre-intervention Student post- intervention Widened participation with science “All intervention groups are treated identically except for the experimental treatment” (Sibbald & Roland 1998) (e.g. Banerjee 2017)

  7. Using an appropriate intermediary measure Intervention Student science capital post-intervention Student science capital pre-intervention (Archer et al. 2015; DeWitt et al. 2016)

  8. ‘Does the programme work’? Student science capital post-intervention Intervention Student science capital pre-intervention Does visiting the WROL increase students levels of science capital?

  9. Re-focus away from outcomes alone?‘Howdoes the programme work’? Student science capital post-intervention Student science capital pre-intervention How might the WROL build science capital in students? (Pawson & Tilley 1997; Kazi2003; Deaton & Cartwright 2018)

  10. Ethical approval Ethical approval sought through ICREC Institutional processes focus on clinical/medical trials Tension between ethical and logistical issues- Response rate vs. parental consent Issues compounded by WP factors? School consent in loco parentis? (Macenaite & Kosta, 2017; BERA 2018)

  11. A traditional experimental model to evaluate outreach cannot fully account for the complexity of human behaviour and social systems Long-term outcomes are not easily attributable to outreach Use of theory, proximal outcomes and proper contextualisation can go some way to counter these shortcomings Investigating how programmes work is vital to supplement our understanding Institutional ethical approval can be difficult, but is possible Concluding remarks

  12. Archer, L. et al. (2015) ‘Science Capital: A Conceptual, Methodological, and Empirical Argument for Extending Bourdieusian Notions of Capital Beyond the Arts’, Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 52, pp. 922–948. Banerjee, P. (2017) ‘Is informal education the answer to increasing and widening participation in STEM education?’, Review of Education, 5(2), pp. 202–224. British Educational Research Association [BERA] (2018) Ethical Guidelines for Educational Research, fourth edition, London. Available at: https://www.bera.ac.uk/researchers-resources/publications/ethical-guidelines-for-educational-research-2018 Deaton, A. & Cartwright, N. (2018) Understanding and misunderstanding randomized controlled trials. Social science and medicine, 210, pp. 2-21 Dewitt, J., Archer, L. & Mau, A. (2016) Dimensions of science capital: exploring its potential for understanding students’ science participation. International Journal of Science Education, 38(16) pp. 2431- 2449 Kazi, M. (2003) ‘Realist Evaluation for Practice British Journal of Social Work 33, 803–818 Macenaite, M. and Kosta, E. (2017) ‘Consent for processing children’s personal data in the EU: following in US footsteps?’, Information and Communications Technology Law. Taylor & Francis, 26(2), pp. 146–197. Pawson, R. & Tilley, N. (1997) Realistic Evaluation. 1st edition. London: SAGE Publications Sibbald, B. & Roland, M. (1998) Why are randomised controlled trials important? BMJ, 316 References

More Related