This article reflects on ethical issues that arose during the course of two different evaluation projects that used photovoice method to engage with marginalized populations. The evaluations serve as case studies for a critical discussion about potential barriers that researchers may face when employing photovoice method while trying to balance the principles of community-based participatory research with the requirements of Institutional Review Boards. We reflect on ethical dilemmas related to the meaning of photography within the cultural context of participants’ lives, the compensation of participants as collaborators, and the representation and dissemination of participant photos. We conclude by examining how researchers may approach ethical requirements without compromising the important collaborative relationships central to photovoice method. We additionally call on researchers to engage with ethics review committees to create a new “participant–researcher” category with its own set of protocols that recognizes the nuanced role members of disenfranchised communities play in the research process.
This research examines how the conservative movement has used both conservative think tanks and the media to gain entry into the field of education policy. The study examines how the conservative movement has attempted to use think tanks as legitimating organizations to enter the education policy arena by (a) measuring the historical growth in the number of conservative think tanks focused on education policy, (b) situating that growth within the larger context of efforts on the part of the conservative movement to bring free market ideas to education, and (c) analyzing and comparing conservative think tank media presence to that of centrist and progressive think tanks and university-based education-policy centers. Findings indicate that conservative think tanks produced the largest number of education media citations, followed by centrist think tanks. Liberal/progressive think tanks and university-based education-policy centers had little to no media presence.
This research examines the framing of health care and immigration policy debates by high profile cable television (TV) pundits on FOX News and MSNBC. The study uses an interpretive framework to apply Lakoff’s (2006) conceptualization of “freedom” as a contested idea within political discourse in the United States. Qualitative content analysis was used to examine 322 TV transcripts. Findings indicate that in both the health care debates of 2009 and immigration debates of 2010, conservative and progressive cable TV pundits overtly drew on deep frames that produced inherently contradictory conceptualizations of “freedom” in political discourse. Conservatives framed government health care as an intrusion on personal freedom, yet applauded government intervention on the issue of immigration in the name of security, whereas progressives framed access to health care as security for the greater good, while viewing immigration legislation as racial profiling and a violation of personal freedom. Employing a qualitative approach to the study of cable TV pundits provides insight into how framing processes are communicated and reinforced in the midst of political debate.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.