Ethically scaling up interventions in educational development:case for collaborative multi-sited ethnographic research.

IF 3.1 1区 教育学 Q1 EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH
Peter Sutoris
{"title":"Ethically scaling up interventions in educational development:case for collaborative multi-sited ethnographic research.","authors":"Peter Sutoris","doi":"10.1080/03050068.2018.1481622","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Educational interventions are often administered at scale in diverse settings as part of international development programmes. Their implementation is subject to a linear process that begins with finding out 'what works' at a local level, frequently through the use of randomised controlled trials, and continues with rolling out the intervention to the whole population at a national or even transnational level. This process often fails to consider the role cultural, political, and historical factors play in the perceived success of the local intervention, which can compromise both the impact and the ethics of at-scale implementation. To help address this issue, this paper argues for a definition of scalability that incorporates the ethics of the practice of scaling. It points to the potential of collaborative multi-sited ethnographic research to identify nuanced understandings of the different ethics systems endogenous to individual sites of implementation, in lieu of the universalising notions of ethics that are embedded in mainstream, linear notions of scalability. In so doing, it makes the case for multi-sited critical ethnography as a methodology of choice in researching the scalability of interventions in the context of development projects in the 'Global South'.</p>","PeriodicalId":47655,"journal":{"name":"Comparative Education","volume":"54 3","pages":"390-410"},"PeriodicalIF":3.1000,"publicationDate":"2018-05-31","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1080/03050068.2018.1481622","citationCount":"5","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Comparative Education","FirstCategoryId":"95","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/03050068.2018.1481622","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"教育学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 5

Abstract

Educational interventions are often administered at scale in diverse settings as part of international development programmes. Their implementation is subject to a linear process that begins with finding out 'what works' at a local level, frequently through the use of randomised controlled trials, and continues with rolling out the intervention to the whole population at a national or even transnational level. This process often fails to consider the role cultural, political, and historical factors play in the perceived success of the local intervention, which can compromise both the impact and the ethics of at-scale implementation. To help address this issue, this paper argues for a definition of scalability that incorporates the ethics of the practice of scaling. It points to the potential of collaborative multi-sited ethnographic research to identify nuanced understandings of the different ethics systems endogenous to individual sites of implementation, in lieu of the universalising notions of ethics that are embedded in mainstream, linear notions of scalability. In so doing, it makes the case for multi-sited critical ethnography as a methodology of choice in researching the scalability of interventions in the context of development projects in the 'Global South'.

Abstract Image

Abstract Image

Abstract Image

教育发展中的伦理放大干预:多地点民族志合作研究案例。
教育干预往往作为国际发展方案的一部分,在不同的环境中进行大规模管理。它们的实施受制于一个线性过程,首先是通过使用随机对照试验,找出在地方一级“有效”的方法,然后在国家甚至跨国一级将干预措施推广到整个人口。这个过程往往没有考虑到文化、政治和历史因素在地方干预的成功中所起的作用,这可能会损害大规模实施的影响和道德。为了帮助解决这个问题,本文提出了一个包含扩展实践伦理的可伸缩性定义。它指出了协作性多地点人种学研究的潜力,以确定对个体实施地点内生的不同伦理体系的细微理解,而不是嵌入在主流线性可扩展性概念中的普遍伦理概念。在这样做的过程中,它为多地点批判性人种学提供了案例,作为研究“全球南方”发展项目背景下干预措施可扩展性的选择方法。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Comparative Education
Comparative Education EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH-
CiteScore
7.40
自引率
21.20%
发文量
35
期刊介绍: This international journal of educational studies presents up-to-date information with analyses of significant problems and trends throughout the world. Comparative Education engages with challenging theoretical and methodological issues - and also considers the implications of comparative studies for the formation and implementation of policies - not only in education but in social, national and international development. Thus it welcomes contributions from associated disciplines in the fields of government, management, sociology - and indeed technology and communications - as these affect educational research and policy decisions.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信