Ethical dilemmas for researchers working in international contexts
Bibliographic record
Abstract

 
 
 The International Association for School Librarianship (IASL) has a reputation for supporting and disseminating research informing school librarianship around the world. Since the organization serves a multi-national and multi-cultural library community, it has the responsibility to promote sound ethical procedures for all research. This can raise serious dilemmas for researchers planning to work in Global South countries with few or different ethical standards for conducting research when, as members of the Global North academic community, we are bound by strict guidelines covering ethical procedures. These dilemmas can include: 1) differing views on what counts as research: 2) differing values and policies on gender, religion, inclusive practices and other social and cultural areas; 3) the insider/outsider phenomenon (white privileged researchers working in non-white communities; and 4) developing research instruments that are culturally sensitive. These dilemmas present serious challenges as we set out to conduct research in school and community libraries in remote/rural areas and large urban centers where frontline staff have little or no experience with, nor knowledge of, educational research. Researchers are charged then to pay serious attention to issues of positionality, paradigms of what is “truth”, iterative methods and analyses, as well as an overarching awareness of their reflexivity throughout the research process. Research in this context becomes a continuous process of examining our relationship with fellow researchers and research participants, the dynamics of that relationship, and its relationship to the research that is undertaken. Without a self-critical lens through which we engage in the research process we run the risk of placing ourselves in the position where “ethical research guidelines {as imposed by Universities} could be yet another western construct that create a global discourse of ‘our way’ is the ‘right way’ to do things” (Skelton, 2008, p. 29).
 
 
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".