Mõistlik, M., & Selke, T. (2011). ASSESSMENT OF PARTICIPATION OR MUSICALITY: PILOT STUDY AMONG ESTONIAN MUSIC TEACHERS. Problems Of Education In The 21St Century, 3061-73.
“.. on the one hand, music teachers open up the path to the world of music, on the other, they have to assess children’s musical development.”
Stephanie Rosemann, Eckart Altenmüller and Manfred Fahle (2015) Psychology of Music 1–16 DOI: 10.1177/0305735615585398
Main point: eye-hand span (EHS) is how far can one look ahead while sight-reading. “EHS seems to be characteristic for each musician, is developed over years of practice and is relatively independent of a short practice phase.” More complex scores are harder to read, especially at higher tempi. Big surprise 
Oh, btw N=9
Resnik. Ethical Issues in Scientific Publication.
Publish=to make publicly known. What does that mean and how can it be done?
Objektiivsus
Eelmises peatükis kirjeldatud ja potentsiaalselt veaohtlikud tegevused nagu kallutatud andmekogumine, -töötlus, ja interpreteerimine on vaatluse all ka publitseerimisest rääkides. Sarnased põhimõtted kehtivad kõigile publitseerimisprotessi osalistele – autoritele, toimetajatele ja retsensentidele.
Et abistada retsensente, tuleks kirjutada selgelt. Lisaks peab ta loomulikult sisaldama kogu relevantset infot, mis on vajalik kirjutise mõistmiseks. Vajaliku info hulka kuulub teave materjalidest ja andmetest, nendega toimunust, uurimismetoodikast, rahastajatest, uurimiseks vajalikest lubadest ja publikatsiooni staatusest (nt, et pole samaaegselt mujale esitatud). Autori vastutus ei lõppe trükikojas. Kui ilmneb, et tekstis on vigu, tuleb nendega tagantjärele tegeleda.
Toimetajad ja retsensendid peavad oma töös eriti hoolikad olema, sest nemad vastutavad selles süsteemis kvaliteedikontrolli eest. Nende kohus on töö autorit tema puudustest teavitada. Ideaalis peaks hindamine olema vaba isiklikest huvidest. Eelrentsenseerijad on ju sama ala eksperdid, kel on kindlasti teatav koolkondlik või muul alusel põhinev eelistus mõningate teooriate, autorite, ideede, kirjutamisviisi (mitte-emakeeles kirjutatajad!) osas. Sel kombel võib kuritahtlik retsensent anda tekstile negatiivse hinnangu või selle ilmumist muul moel pidurdada. Toimetajatel on selles suhtes veelgi rohkem võimu.
Täielikult avalik retsenseerimine – kõik teavad kõigi nimesid. Kasulik väga väikeste teaduskogukondade puhul, kus nagunii kõik kõiki teavad. Single blind – autor ei tea, kes retsenseeris, aga retsensent teab autori nime. Double blind – kumbki ei tea, kellega tegu. Topeltpimeda vastu on ka kriitikat, sest asjatundlik inimene saab ju viidete jm järgi aru, kes on autor. See aga tähendab, et kurjade kavatsustega retsensent saab mängida, et ta ei tea, kellele ta negatiivse hinnangu andis.
Kriitika peaks lähtuma sisust ja olema ka esitatud nii, et adressaadiks pole mitte autori isik, vaid sisu. Konfidentsiaalsusprobleem – kõik, kes puutuvad käsikirjaga enne avaldamist kokku, on eelistatud seisus võrreldes nendega, kes saavad teksti lugeda pärast avaldamist. See on oluline risk, sest kui autoritel puudub avaldaja suhtes usaldus, kukub praegune publitseerimise süsteem kokku.
Muud probleemid
Publikatsioonide liigid: eelretsenseeritud originaaltöö (kõige mahukam kategooria), eelretsenseeritud varem avaldatud eksperimendi kordused, ülevaateartiklid. Kuigi kehtiv süsteem soosib originaaluurimusi, on ka teised liigid väga olulised. Keegi ei jõua kogu ilmuvat kirjandust läbi lugeda ja on vaja, et kompetentsed inimesed teeksid ilmuvast ülevaateid.
Kohati on teadlastele oluline publitseerida kiiresti. (Meenub J. Watsoni “Kaksikheeliks”, kus kiirustamise põhjus oli konkurents). Näiteks selleks, et saavutada mingi kriitiline publikatsioonide hulk, mis nö annab kaalu. Kiirustamine aga tähendab üldiselt madalakvaliteedilisi publikatsioone. See võib viia ka “väikseima publitseeritava ühikuni” – jagatakse oma andmed tükkideks ja avaldatakse jupikaupa. Ühik on tähtis!
Eetilised, aga madalakvaliteedilise sisuga publikatsioonid ei tee palju kurja, sest vajuvad peagi unustusse. Esile tõusevad paremad. Samas on väga tiheda sõela kasutamine riskantne, kuna häid ideid võib kaduma minna. Seepärast võiks pigem avaldada kui mitte avaldada. Kuid teisest küljest on liigsel avaldamisel ka miinuseid: ajakirjad konkureerivad omavahel ja tahavad avaldada häid asju, keskmine relevantsus läheb alla, kui mass prahi arvel suureneb. Veebis avaldamine on odav ja see võib tähendada kehvema materjali pealekasvu.
Viitamine, kaasautorid
Viisakas on ära märkida, kelle ideid kasutatakse. Selleks saab kasutada kaasautoriks lisamist, viitamist, äramärkimist (acknowledgements). Kõige hullem eksimus siin valdkonnas on plagiarism. Kohati tehakse vigu, kuna ei mäletata, kust mingi teadmine tuli. Osa plagiaate on tahtmatud. Juhtub ka seda, et sama idee süttib mitmes peas.
Autor on see, kes annab töösse märkimisväärse panuse ja vastutab selle eest. Juhtub, et autoriks pannakse ka inimese teadmata – et saada usaldusväärsust juurde, et “kinkida” autorlus, et märkida ära kellegi tahtmatu panus töösse… Laboratooriumi juhatajad, professorid, õppejõud, juhendajad jne. Osadel töödel on sadu autoreid, neist suurem osa “au-autorid”.
Matthew-efekt: tuntud teadlastele viidatakse rohkem kui nende töö seda väärt on.
Intellektuaalomand
Ülevaade USA IP regulatsioonidest. IP formaalsed tüübid: copyright, patent, trademark, trade secrets. Autori õigused on piiratud kontekstiga. Teiste osapoolte juurdepääs IP-le ei ole võrreldav nö tavalise varaga, sest kõik võivad IP-d kasutada, küsimus on vaid, kuidas. Patent kaitseb autori ainuõigust IP-d kommertsialiseerida. Seegi õigus on ajaliselt piiratud (tihti 20 aastat). Patenditaotluses sisalduva kirjelduse detailsuse aste peab olema piisav, et sama ala ekspert suudaks selle kirjelduse järgi IP subjekti valmistada (Täiesti ebareaalne! Ma pole ühtki oma valdkonna, st muusikatarkvara patenti näinud, mille järgi saaks midagi korrata). Ärisaladuse võib teine ettevõte samuti avastada. Sel juhul esmaavastaja eelis kaob.
Entitlement approach vs desert approach. Olemasolevad IP regulatsioonid järgivad “utilitarian approach” põhimõtet – nad kaitsevad pigem tulemust kui protsessi (panust ja pingutust). Arutlus teemal, mis üldse võib patendi subjektiks olla – kas geenid näiteks võiksid olla? Arvutiprogrammid, valemid, organismid, rohud jne.?
Teadus, meedia ja avalikkus
Teadus ja meedia tegelevad mõlemad info kogumisega, hindavad täpsust ja objektiivsust. Vähemasti uudismeedia kuulub sellesse seltskonda. Teadus soovib samuti meedia kaudu avalikkust teavitada. Näide: uudis mõnest kosmoseavastusest “ei põle”, aga on PR tööriistana toimiv. Probleem: kas pressikal välja öeldud avastus, mille publitseerib ajakirjandus, vastab veel “värskuse” kriteeriumile teadusajakirja mõistes? Teaduse ja meedia suhet on targem reguleerida kui vältida. Selgitamine töötab paremini, kui et lasta inimestel ise “arvata”. Informeeritus on oluline arvamuse kujundaja. Inimest tuleb harida. Paternalism – info moonutamise kolm erinevate astet.
Felice J. Levine and Paula R. Skedsvold, “Behavioral and Social Science Research“, in The Oxford Textbook of Clinical Research Ethics, ed. by Ezekiel J. Emanuel, a. o. Oxford UP, 2008. ch. 32.
Codes for behavioral and social sciences: Belmont report, DHHS’s Policy for Protection of Human Research Subjects.
Examples: anthropology, economics, political science, psychology, sociology, linguistics, educational research, geography, demography, sociolegal studies etc.
Ethics became an explicit topic in social sciences during the 1960-70s. APA was first professional organization to make an ethics code.
Ethical challenges. Experimental methods. Is it ethical to cause memory overload, stress etc to experiment with cognitive abilities?
Observational methods. How invasive can the researcher get? Different levels of privacy: a party, a public sports event. On the other hand, is it ethical to observe youngsters drinking or bullying?
Survey methods. Main factors are questionnaire content, mode of administration, recruitment strategies, mechanisms to increase participation. Other issues: privacy, data storage.
Interview methods. Mostly same as survey problems. In addition: degree of structure in the interview, sensitive responses, disclosure following group interviews, recruitment through the use of interviews.
Etnographic methods. Includes many of the described tools – interviews, observations, document or audiovisual analysis. Problems – observation can lead to attachment to the subjects (e.g. observing domestic violence), observation can often take a long time, involves building trust, differentiating casual talk and research.
Analysis of public data files. Biggest problem is the creation of those files which has to involve de-identification of the data.
Cross-cutting issues.
Deception – participants have to understand what they are asked. And what for.
Incentives – it’s OK to compensate participants’ effort but not OK to buy them in.
New stuff
Internet research – data storage, transmission, handling, confidentiality, privacy, boundary between public and private.
Geospatial measurements and other tracking methods. Personal identification problems.
Third party – talking about your friend’s, parents’ or else’s health, details etc. How to handle this kind of information?
Resnik. Chapters 4, 5
Chapter 4: Standards of Ethical Conduct in Science
Ethical standards in science have two conceptual foundations, morality (do not violate common moral standards) and science (should promote advancement of scientific goals).
Common misinterpretations of data: trimming (leave out the data that does not support the theory), cooking (designing biased tests and experiments), fudging (try to make the data look better than it is).
– Honesty
– Carefulness
– Openness
– Freedom
– Credit
– Education
– Social Responsibility
– Legality
– Opportunity
– Mutual Respect
– Efficiency
– Respect for Subjects
Chapter 5, Objectivity in Research
Focus on honesty, carefulness, and openness.
– Honesty in research
– Misconduct in Science
– Error and self-deception
– Bias in Research
– Conflicts of Interests
– Openness
– Data management
Oplatka, I. (2004). The principalship in developing countries: context, characteristics and realities. Comparative Education, 40(3), 427-448.
Habermas’ Three Generic Domains of Human Interest:
1. Work Knowledge. Work refers to the way one controls and manipulates one’s environment. Knowledge is based upon empirical investigation and governed by technical rules. Hypothetical-deductive theories characterize this domain e.g. Physics, Chemistry and Biology.
2. Practical Knowledge. The Practical domain identifies human social interaction. Social knowledge is governed by binding consensual norms, which define reciprocal expectations about behavior between individuals. Social norms can be related to empirical or analytical propositions, but their validity is grounded ‘only in the intersubjectivity of the mutual understanding of intentions’. The historical-hermeneutic disciplines — descriptive social science, history, aesthetics, legal, ethnographic literary.
3. Emancipatory Knowledge. ‘Self-knowledge’ or self-reflection. ‘Interest in the way one’s history and biography has expressed itself in the way one sees oneself, one’s roles and social expectations. ‘ Knowledge is gained by self-emancipation through reflection leading to a transformed consciousness or ‘perspective transformation’. Examples: feminist theory, psychoanalysis and the critique of ideology.
%0 Book Section
%D 2014
%B The Nurturing of New Educational Researchers
%E Ibarrola, Maríade
%E Anderson, LorinW.
%R 10.1007/978-94-6209-698-1_8
%T What is the Proper Role of Research in Doctoral Programs in Education?
%U http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-94-6209-698-1_8
%I SensePublishers
%8 2014-01-01
%A Anderson, LorinW.
%P 81-98
%G English
Overview of the problem
The thesis of this paper is that all doctoral programs should be built around research.
1893 – first PhD in education (Columbia)
1921 – first Ed.D (Harvard)
Henry Holmes (first dean of the Graduate School of Education at Harvard): the primary difference between the Ph. D. and Ed. D. degrees in his eyes was the intended audience, not the emphasis on research.
Over the decades, the Ph. D. and Ed. D. have become quite similar.
Is science a result or a process? Or, is it just something that scientists do?
For these authors, research is a way of thinking. Because in education, the same knowledge would not work universally.
What follows is discussing what is a good research. As I am currently taking the scientific methodology course, this part seems like a child’s reasoning
6 principles of quality research identified by the NRC committee:
a. Significant questions
b. Theories, models, and conceptual frameworks
c. Data collection
d. Interpretation
e. Generalizability and replicability
f. Scrutiny and critique
Greenfield, P. M. (2013). The Changing Psychology of Culture From 1800 Through 2000. Psychological Science (Sage Publications Inc.), 24(9), 1722-1731.
Main point: A central theoretical claim from Greenfield 2009 is that diff values systems, behaviors and human psychologies are adapted to diff types of ecology. Now she tested this theory with Google Books Ngram Viewer.
Individualistic values, behavior, psychology are adapted to gesellschaft environments.
Collectivistic values, behavior, psychology are adapted to gemeinschaft conditions.
Gesellschaft versus gemeinschaft from wikipedia:
The Gemeinschaft–Gesellschaft dichotomy was proposed by Tönnies as a purely conceptual tool rather than as an ideal type in the way it was used by Max Weber to accentuate the key elements of a historic/social change. According to the dichotomy, social ties can be categorized, on one hand, as belonging to personal social interactions, and the roles, values, and beliefs based on such interactions (Gemeinschaft, German, commonly translated as “community”), or on the other hand as belonging to indirect interactions, impersonal roles, formal values, and beliefs based on such interactions (Gesellschaft, German, commonly translated as “society”).
“When any ecological dimension moves in the gesellschaft direction (urbanization, increased wealth, tech dev, availability of formal education), values, behaviors, and psych become more individualistic and materialistic.”
Method:
1.160 000 books from Google. In English, published between 1800 and 2000 in the USA. Second corpus 350 000 British books, same period. Analysed word frequency in the books.
Results:
Theory got some additional empirical support.
Tamm, A., & Tulviste, T. (2015). The role of gender, values, and culture in adolescent bystanders’ strategies. Journal Of Interpersonal Violence, 30(3), 384-399. doi:10.1177/0886260514535097
Main point: to examine the role of gender, values and cultural origin in adolescent bystanders’ behavior in bullying situations.
Literature:
Bullying often happens in presence of other people. Adolescents’ helping behavior is associated with their need of approval of the audience. Bullying – inbalance of power and somebody gets hurt.
Adults intervene rarely. The older the child the less willing to help. Gender has an effect, too. And value priorities – benevolence (desire to do good to others), universalism, conformity, power, security. First three should increase bystanders’ probability to intervene, last two rather to defend one’s own ass. Culture differences: Estonians rated higher benevolence and universalism, Russian kids tradition, security, conformity and power.
Method:
682 7 graders, 82% Estonians. Kids were shown a video of two boys throwing around a younger one’s bag and a female bystander talking on the phone nearby, not intervening. A typical situation. Participants then were asked how they would have behaved.
Results:
10.8 % would have done the same as the bystander, 89.2% would have behaved differently. 37.4 % said they’d go and help. No significant gender diff. Estonians were more willing to help than Russians. The values’ effects were confirmed.