My+Research+Platform

= My Research Platform and Reflection = (See below for reflection on this platform)  **Making school and home work: an exploration of the relationship** // **between classroom practice and parental involvement in developing children's online self-efficacy** // // **Introduction** // The world in which children live is inherently full of risk. Some might argue that a risk-free childhood is no childhood at all. However, the ubiquity of the Internet and social media in the lives of children today presents a range of risks which differ not so much in kind with those of the past, but in potential. The ease with which information, text and images can be stored, copied, manipulated, replicated and misused has created a need for vigilance and action on the part of parents and educators. The disclosure of personal information on social networking sites by children in New Zealand is an issue of high public interest, as revealed by the current media attention given to it. Because many schools approach social networking websites with caution, or block them outright, young people tend to spend most of their online social networking time at home. Therefore any attempt to increase children's self-efficacy and awareness of digital citizenship must involve their parents/caregivers, and be seen as a partnership. Hope (2002) and Ofsted (2010) both affirm the importance of schools and families working together in partnership, with schools needing to be proactive in initiating this partnership.

Liau, Khoo and Hwang (cited in Wirth, Rifon, LaRose and Lewis, 2009) claim that adolescent engagement in risky behaviour can be predicted in part by the level of parental supervision and communication with the child. Other researchers have found similar results, with p arental supervision found to reduce, but not eliminate privacy-risky behaviour (Steeves and Webster, 2008; Berson, Berson, Desai, Falls and Fenaughty, 2008). Berson and Berson (2005) found that New Zealand girls who had not discussed online safety with a parent were four times more likely to agree to meet an internet acquaintance. Unfortunately, many articles also suggested that lack of parental knowledge, skill and awareness around internet safety and their child's usage was a barrier to parents fulfilling this role effectively (Ofcom, 2008; De Souza and Dick, 2008; Berson and Berson, 2006). The New Zealand Curriculum also highlights the need to develop self-efficacy, through the Key Competencies. In particular, the emphasis found in the literature regarding the importance of young people's self-efficacy in risk management relates closely to 'Managing Self', which concerns students seeing themselves as capable learners. The Key Competency of 'Relating to Others' is also highly relevant, as online social networks provide a unique context in which the personal information of others and oneself must be carefully managed to ensure the maintenance and positive development of relationships with others. Hinduja and Patchin (2008) call for both teachers and parents to promote awareness of online safety and ethical use, and cultivate self control, tolerance, respect, and conflict avoidance. It is clear then that school - caregiver continuity and communication is key to any digital citizenship development efforts. // ** The Big Question ** // // This research project seeks to answer the following question: What is the relationship between classroom practice and parental involvement in developing a child's self-efficacy around digital citizenship and online safe practice, and how can this be enhanced? //

** Questions for further exploration ** What social networking platforms are available for parents to use with their children? What conversations do parents need to initiate with their children about safe internet use and digital citizenship? How is continuity achieved between at-school and at-home online practices? The primary theoretical perspective taken in this research project is post-positivist critical realism. This approach acknowledges an objective reality, but concedes our imperfect ability to know this reality: "Because all measurement is fallible, the post-positivist emphasizes the importance of multiple measures and observations, each of which may possess different types of error, and the need to use // triangulation // across these multiple errorful sources to try to get a better bead on what's happening in reality." (Trochim, 2006 n.p.)
 * Background Theory **

Critical realism holds appeal for a number of reasons, all of which position it well within an emergent research paradigm. Firstly, it is distinct from the 'naive realism' or scientism that holds certainty around issues of validity about the observable world, and acknowledges the complexity of the social world. On the contrary, our knowledge of the world is fallible and imperfect, and therefore there is all the more need for multiple perspectives and critical examination in order to arrive at the clearest understanding possible (Cohen and Crabtree, 2006). In the Participatory Action Research model that I will outline below, a key element of increasing the democratic and dialogic validity (Gall, Gall and Borg, 2005) of the research is to regularly bring the findings back to the participants as they emerge, in order to collaborate on a developing understanding. As Cohen and Crabtree (2006) posit, in critical realism it is through dialogue that truth is sought, with objectivity being ultimately unattainable, but aimed for nevertheless.

Critical Realism also has an emancipatory aspect that sits well with an emerging research paradigm. Banfield (2004) suggests that we must go beyond interpretation and bring change to the world, a position rejected by positivism as well as Hammersley's 'subtle realism', which doubted the legitimacy of any ethnography with professional practice or political objectives. Participatory Action Research (as described by Savin-Baden and Wimpenny, 2007) also seeks to bring about change in practice as a result of collaborative inquiry. The purpose is not simply abstract theorising, but is firmly rooted in practice: "The purpose of PAR is to generate knowledge to inform action; the research methodology is conducted with people as opposed to on people." (p.333)

One aspect of critical realism that I must depart from is the complete rejection of statistical and quantitative approaches to research. In this respect I follow Nash's (2004) 'scientific realism', which argues that quantification is an aspect of any mature science, and claims that quantification and statistical modelling is not inherently positivist, but can be used to 'enhance realist explanatory narratives' (p.186). It must be said that the research project outlined below contains very little, if any, statistical modelling or quantitative techniques, but I feel that to rule out a particular method of finding out about our question from the start is unnecessarily restrictive. One of the key strengths of an approach that is not afraid to mix methods is the freedom it provides in answering the research question. As Snape and Spencer (2003) assert, our ability to select the most appropriate research design can be undermined by "purism about the epistemological origins of an approach" (p.17). Mixed methods allow the researcher to move across the methodological continuum, using whichever tools can best address the question (Teddlie & Tashakkori, 2009). Johnson and Onwuegbuzie (2004) call this an 'expansive and creative' (p.23) form of research, rather than a limiting one.

One may question the appropriateness of a realist theoretical perspective informing an emergent research paradigm. Emergent methodologies tend to be qualitative in nature, seeking to describe and interpret, from an insider's perspective, rather than quantify and analyse from an outsider's point of view. Feldman (2007) agrees, claiming that qualitative researchers generally reject realist epistemologies and constructs of validity. However, Feldman also points out that many realists (Hammersley, for example) use a broad definition of validity, claiming anything as valid which accurately portrays that which it seeks to describe or explain, and can do so using a variety of means, including words, images, video and so forth. Nash reiterates the compatibility of critical realism with emerging forms of research: //(Realists) do not dispute that the// //entities of the social world are constituted by social relations, that these emergent// //entities have properties in accordance with their being, and that the explanation of// //social events, processes, and states of affairs requires an account of the real// //mechanisms that bring them about.// (Nash 2004, p.189) As can be seen, the assertion of a real world independent of observers and their fallible interpretations, can be quite compatible with an emerging form of research like Action Research.

I teach a Year Four class at a large decile seven primary school in the Bay of Plenty. Our school has a strong emphasis on digital learning, having a number of classes with 1:1 and 1:2 ratios of student to computer. However, the focus is very much on effectively using the excellent creative tools we have on the Apple computers. This is important, of course, but educational uses of Web 2.0 have not received much focus, despite the incredible development of possibilities over the last few years. As a result, there is not a great emphasis on developing online safety skills. My class of 23 students (14 boys and 9 girls) set up Epal accounts early in the year, which provided each child with a teacher-monitored email account. It was very interesting to see what some of the students were using their email addresses for, and their willingness to disclose personal information, usually to sign up for a games website or to register for commercial promotions (for example, Weetbix sports promotions). Some have also tried to register for social networking websites that explicitly state that they must be over 13 years of age to join, lying about their age in the process. My response to this has always been to inform the parents of the child and to discuss issues around online safety with the class. However, I have found that in these discussions, as well as in parent-teacher interviews, parents have raised the issue of how best to manage their child's increasingly social use of the internet. There has been a sense of frustration at the speed at which their children move in digital spaces, and their own unfamiliarity with emerging social media relative to their children.
 * My Context **

** Methodology and Methods ** The approach I intend to take is Participatory Action Research (PAR), as described in Savin-Baden and Wimpenny (2007). PAR distinguishes itself from 'traditional' action research by its emphasis on the participants. That is to say, the expert-researcher is not at the centre of the research process. Instead, ownership and control of the research process is in the hands of those whom it affects the most - the participants. As the name suggests, both participation and action are key elements of this approach. The community has identified a 'problem' or issue that needs addressing, and comes together to explore possible solutions, with the aim of doing something about it. The primary perspective throughout the research cycle(s) is that of the participants.

Nevertheless, this approach can share a number of characteristics with the Action Research described in Gall, Gall and Borg (2005). They describe the steps of an Action Research project as follows: 1. Define the problem 2. Select the design 3. Select research participants 4. Collect data 5. Analyse data 6. Interpret and apply findings 7. Report findings (p.492)

As can be seen here, the participants themselves are not involved until stage three, and even then they selected by the researcher. It is a completely researcher-driven process. But this requires only an adaptation of the process. Savin-Baden and Wimpenny (2007), in contrast, emphasise the fact that PAR needs to be conducted // with // people, rather than // on // them. If we follow Gall's et al. (2005) basic outline, we would see that firstly, the problem is highlighted and defined by the participants. Even if the researcher instigates PAR as a response to the voiced concerns of the participants, the agenda of the participants is the focus of the research (Savin-Baden and Wimpenny, 2007).

The second part of the cycle, selecting the design, is constructed in consultation with the teacher/researcher. The PAR process does not reject the use of experts, and it may well be that the researcher has the tools and knowledge to give the participants' agenda and concerns more focus and structure. However, the researcher walks a fine line between walking with and walking ahead of the participants: "During the entire process there is a need for the primary researcher to continually reflect on the delicate balance between incorporating and imposing knowledge." (Savin-Baden and Wimpenny, 2007, p.340). The researcher will spend some time at the outset explaining the PAR process and seeing how it might be adapted to this particular context.

As for the third stage, it goes without saying that the participants are self-selected, as they are the ones for whom the concern or question is most relevant. There is little need for the researcher to induce participation by offering petrol vouchers in exchange for attendance at focus group, because there is genuine ownership of a real issue. These are parents who have expressed a need to explore and deepen their understanding of their child's online behaviour. It is important to point out that the children themselves should also have a voice in this discussion, as the issue primarily concerns them. One possibility would be to draw a representative sample from the class and engage in a conversation around these issues. However, because the size of the group is not that large, and because it is important that all of them should have the opportunity to have a voice, the researcher will conduct the conversation with all students, organised into smaller groups.

The next three stages are data collection, analysis and interpretation, and all three are a collaborative exercise. The term 'data collection' itself can be misleading, bringing to mind images of statistical analysis and mathematical modelling. However, it is important to remember that what is most important in this emerging form of research is the dialogue and conversation that centres on the issue in question. We are not so much counting as exploring and telling. Therefore, the data that is collected will be agreed upon themes that emerge from this conversation. This is where Action Research differs from more academic/outsider research forms. An outsider doing a qualitative study might conduct a similar kind of discussion, and then go away and transcribe it before analysing it and seeing what themes emerge. As an action researcher, however, this level of detail is unnecessary. Gall et al. (2005) assert this as a key difference from 'formal' research. What is most important is the practical significance of the data for those concerned.

This does not mean that the process is loose or unplanned. Savin-Baden and Wimpenny (2007), citing Stringer (1999), maintain that PAR processes should be "rigorously empirical and self-reflective" (p.334), although always collaborative. This self-reflective element is very important in PAR, and so the method used here must reflect this. Participants will be encouraged to keep a self-reflective journal throughout this process. This is not something that needs to be submitted to the researcher/teacher for analysis, but is a place for the participants' own thoughts to develop. Of course the participants may draw upon this as the conversation evolves, with greater clarity as a result of the reflection. Needless to say, the teacher/researcher is also involved in this reflective process, as their own practice around digital self-efficacy is as much a part of the conversation as the parental involvement and children's perspective. Just as the teacher/research may ask probing questions and offer insights that may affect the practice of parenting for digital citizenship, so may the parents offer comment on the teacher's practice as it relates to online use. There is no great distinction between researcher and subjects - all are participants seeking solutions to a common problem. Individual conversations would also inform the research. What might normally be called interviews (implying an interviewer and interviewee) are instead a mutual probing for depth around an issue, a depth that a group session might inhibit.

All of this builds credibility around the research through a triangulation of both methods and participants. The methods include self-reflective journalling, collaborative discussion and interpretation of issues and themes, and individual conversations aimed at deepening understanding. The triangulation of participants arises from the shared perspectives of the parents, the learners, and the teacher. As mentioned above, this triangulation, which is aimed at building as strong an understanding of a real situation as possible, is characteristic of a critical realist perspective.

The final stage of Gall's et al. (2005) Action Research process is reporting on the findings. Of course it must be stated here that a key criticism of the approach taken by Gall et al. is that it is linear rather than cyclical. It is much more likely in a PAR model that previous stages would be revisited as understanding develops, and so a cycle, such as that described by Somekh (2010), would develop. This process would only be complete when all participants are satisfied with the interpretation of the findings.

Sharing the findings that do emerge must be a key element of this process. It is one of the criticisms that Goodfellow and Hedges (2007) make of Action Research, that the findings are not always shared, limiting the impact that these might have on the wider community. In the case of the current research project it is highly likely that other teachers and parents would benefit from the findings, even if they might miss out on the benefits arising from the self-reflective process itself. Possible venues for sharing could include staff meetings, area cluster meetings and even national conferences such as ULearn, where there would be significant interest in this topic. All sharing would have to be done within the ethical guidelines outlined below, including consent, confidentiality and anonymity.

Any sharing of the results must of course be ethical. After all, the researcher does not 'own' the project and its findings - all of the participants own the process and the result. Savin-Baden and Wimpenny (2007) highlight the respect that must underline the entire process, including reporting: //In sharing any findings participants’ dignity, integrity and privacy also need to be respected. Methods to demonstrate commitment to such values include full participatory involvement, parity across individuals and groups, informed choice, and the ability for participants to comment on the presentation of any outcomes before they enter the public domain.// (p.341) The success of the project, according to Savin-Baden and Wimpenny (2007) must be measured by how the processes of PAR have affected the participants' understanding and action around the children's self-efficacy online.

One of the key challenges of PAR, due to its dialogic nature, is the amount of time that it may involve in coming together, establishing trust, setting up decision-making processes, agreeing on emerging themes and so forth. Considering the busy lives and responsibilities of both teachers and parents in this project, this problem becomes quite acute. One method suggested by Savin-Baden and Wimpenny (2007), that seems particularly appropriate to a discussion around digital self-efficacy, is the use of a wiki as a forum for asynchronous discussion and as a record of ideas. This is termed PARonline. Wikis are collaborative by nature and provide ideal venues for discussion and reflective thought. If this approach were to be taken, it would be essential to begin with a face to face session, not only to get to know one another, develop an agenda and priorities, discuss the PAR process, but also to introduce the wiki and its basic functionality. Although it has tremendous potential and could be an incredibly effective way of enabling, recording discussion and making the process visible, there is a chance that it could solve one problem by introducing another. The group would have to be sure that no-one would be excluded on account of not having access to a computer upon which to contribute. Furthermore, the fact that the issue of online efficacy was raised by the parent community, means that some parents might feel intimidated by the wiki technology itself.

Another challenge facing the teacher/researcher in particular is being aware of the unequal power relationship between themselves and the participants. Savin-Baden and Wimpenny (2007) discuss the potential for anxiety or uncertainty that may arise as a result of participati on: " Developing a sound dialectic between participants can be seen to be both the greatest challenge to and greatest opportunity for developing new knowledge and change." (p.340). The researcher is simultaneously wearing a number of hats, such as facilitator, participant, commentator, as well as teacher, and must be careful to balance these with care and sensitivity.

**Ethical Issues** A research project of this nature inevitably raises a number of ethical issues, all of which need to be satisfactorily addressed, both for the sake of the well-being of all participants, and to increase the trustworthiness and credibility of the results. As with any research project, there are a number of risks to the participants, and potentially, to the researcher as well.

A key risk to the participants in this case is the protection of privacy. The parents need to be assured that they and their child will not be identified in the research, either directly or indirectly in such a way that a third party could guess who it is. This will be addressed in the information sheet by the guarantee that code names will be used in any sharing of the findings and that nothing will be published that will identify the child (in the case that particular examples or cases were used to illustrate the findings.

The other aspect of privacy is confidentiality, that the data collected, including the parents' and children's comments during the discussions, will be secure. This would be guaranteed in the consent form, where it would be stated that the children's and parents' responses and data will be kept in a locked filing cabinet for a period of three years before being destroyed. The use of code names increases the confidentiality.

There is the risk that having agreed to participate in group discussions, a child might subsequently feel uncomfortable continuing. Furthermore, a child may feel that withdrawing may disappoint the me as their teacher because of the power relationship, and so may be reluctant to do so. This risk would be addressed on the consent form, where it would be stated that the parent could withdraw their child, or the child could withdraw from the project at any time themselves without repercussions. On the information sheet it would state that they can withdraw at any time by saying so to the teacher/researcher.

There is a risk that the children's participation could result in time out of class and missed learning. The information sheet would make it clear that there would be only one discussion. The parents could also be assured that the metacognition and language involved in the discussion would be beneficial learning activities in themselves.

There is a possibility that the child misunderstands the purpose of the research, or is unsure what is required of them in a a group discussion. This could be dealt with by showing the children a video of another similar discussion taking place, and the video would make it clear that it is all right for them to not answer questions, or to say "I don't know." The video would also show that the child will not be asked to do anything difficult or beyond their competence, which could otherwise cause harm to their self-esteem. If this video is viewed with the child's parents, they can also assist the child in understanding the research, resulting in truly 'informed' consent. The information sheet makes it clear that any questions about the research are welcome, either at the outset or at any stage during the research.

Because the principal researcher is also a teacher at the participants' school, there is potential for there to be a conflict of interest between these two roles. This would be minimised by emphasising the voluntary nature of the participation in the research, and the freedom to withdraw at any time for any reason. During the period of research there would also be no assessment requirements and the research data would not be used for any school-based assessment purpose, either at present or in the future. Students will be guaranteed that their discussion responses are completely anonymous and will have no impact on any future assessment.

**Conclusion** A study of this kind promises a number of benefits to participants. Firstly, it will result in an increase in parental self-efficacy in dealing with their child's growing use of online environments to conduct social relationships. This increase in confidence will in turn provide a consistency of approach between what is encouraged at home and what is encouraged in the classroom around digital citizenship and online safety, benefitting the children. The teacher will benefit throughout this process by gaining a clearer insight into actual at-home internet practices of the children, which were previously unknown, or partially known. The children's own perspective on their online experiences would be very valuable, both from a parental and teacher point of view. It would be hoped that in addition to this, the very process of PAR would open the doors of communication between teacher and parents, and continue on a path of collaboration in their child's education.


 * References**

Banfield, G. (2004). What’s Really Wrong with Ethnography? // International Education Journal, 4(4), Educational Research Conference 2003 Special Issue. Retrieved from // http://iej.cjb.net 53 on 22 September 2010.

// Berson, I. R., & Berson, M. (2006). Children and their digital dossiers: Lessons in privacy rights in the digital age. Enhancing Democracy with Technology in the Social Studies [Special Issue]. International Journal of Social Education, 21 (1), 135-147. //

// Berson, I.R., Berson, M., Desai, S., Falls, D., & Fenaughty, J. (2007). An analysis of electronic media to prepare children for safe and ethical practices in digital environments. Contemporary Issues in Technology and Teacher Education. 8(3), 222-243. Retrieved on May 10, 2010 from __ @http://www.citejournal.org/vol8/iss3/socialstudies/article2.cfm __ //

Bogdan, R.C., & Biklen, S.K. (1998). Qualitative research for education: An introduction to theory and methods (3rd ed). Boston: Allyn and Bacon. pp.1-7, 35-42.

Cohen D, Crabtree B.(2006). "Qualitative Research Guidelines Project." Retrieved from http://www.qualres.org/HomeCrit-3517.html on 29 August 2010.

De Souza, Z. & Dick, G.N. (2008). Information disclosure on MySpace - the what, the why and the implications. // Pastoral Care in Education //, 26(3), 143-157. doi: 10.1080/02643940802246427

Gall, J. P., Gall, M. D., & Borg, W. R. (2005). Chapter 15 Action Research. In J. P. Gall, M. D. Gall, & W. R. Borg (2005) // Applying educatonal research. A practical guide. // (5th ed.), 487-521. Boston, MA: Pearson. ISBN020538076.

Goodfellow, J., & Hedges, H. (2007). Practitioner research ‘Centre Stage’: Contexts, contributions and challenges. In L. Keesing- Styules & H. Hedges, //Theorising early childhood practice: Emerging dialogues//. Castle Hill, NSW: Pademelon Press.  Hinduja, S. & Patchin, J. (2008). [|Personal Information of Adolescents on the Internet: A Quantitative Content Analysis of MySpace].  // Journal of Adolescence //, 31(1), 125-146. DOI:10.1016/j.adolescence.2007.05.004.  Hope, J. (2002). // Internet Safety: Issues For New Zealand Primary Schools. // Paper presented at the NetSafe: Society, Safety and the Internet, Auckland. Retrieved from http://www.cs.auckland.ac.nz/~john/NetSafe/Hope.pdf on 19 May 2010. Johnson, R.B. & Onwuegbuzie, A.J. (2004). Mixed Methods Research: A Research Paradigm Whose Time Has Come. //Educational Researcher,// 33(7), 14-26. Nash, R. (2005). Explanation and quantification in educational research: the arguments of critical and scientific realism. //British Educational Research Journal//, 31(2), 185-204. Ofcom. (2008). //Social Networking: A Quantitative and Qualitative Research Report into Attitudes, Behaviours and Use.// Office of Communications: London. Retrieved from __http://www.ofcom.org.uk/advice/media_literacy/medlitpub/medlitpubrss/socialnetworking/__ on May 23 2010. Ofsted (2010). // The safe use of new technologies. // Retrieved from [] on 15 June 2010. Savin-Baden, M. & Wimpenny, K. (2007). Exploring and Implementing Participatory Action Research. //Journal of Geography in Higher Education,// 31 (2), 331-343. Snape, D. & Spencer, L. (2003). The foundation of qualitative research. In J. Ritchie & J. Lewis (Eds.). //Qualitative research practice//. London: Sage Publications Ltd. pp.1-19. Somekh, B. (2010). Simplified model of Action Research. Cited in N.E. Davis (2010) // Action Research: An emergent journey //. Presentation to EDEM698 hui, Christchurch July 2010. Retrieved September 11, 2010 from http://learn.canterbury.ac.nz/mod/resource/view.php?id=106964 Steeves, V. & Webster, C. (2008). Closing the Barn Door: The effect of parental supervision on Canadian children’s online privacy. // Technology & Society, 28 // (1), 4-19. Teddlie, C. & Tashakkori, A. (2009). //Foundations of Mixed Methods Research: Integrating Quantitative and Qualitative Approaches in the Social and Behavioural Sciences//. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. Trochim, W. (2006). // Research Methods Knowledge Base. // Retrieved on 21 August from http://www.socialresearchmethods.net/kb/positvsm.php. Wirth, C.B., Rifon, N.J., LaRose, R., & Lewis, M. (2009). //Promoting Teenage Online Safety with an i-Safety Intervention: Enhancing Self-efficacy and Protective Behaviours//. [] (Accessed May 20, 2010). **Comment from Helen Hayward, 28/09/2010:**  //Kia ora Craig// //Nga mihi mahana ki a koe.// //A few comments. Interesting to include scientific realism as a part of your considerations. I came to appreciate this particular paradigm through studying with Brian Haig and his work relating to how research problems/questions themselves can be better utilised in methodological terms.// //In terms of the context I would urge you to include the school's decile rating. Not all schools have the kind af access to IT technology and resourcing that you have described. This aspects also helps 'shape' the context setting for your research.//

//Noho ora mai ra// //HelenH//

** Reflection ** Having submitted this assignment, and put it aside for a week or so while I worked on another paper, I have found it a valuable task to come back to it and recognise changes in my thinking, even in such a short space of time. I will outline some of those changes below. To be honest, I initially struggled with how to approach this topic from an emerging methodologies perspective. I think a big part of this is the fact that research around internet safety is very heavily biased towards quantitative methodologies and data collection/analysis. I think this is because it is an area of concern for policy makers and school leaders, and so researchers seek to provide the 'hard data' that could influence change at the level of decision makers. I found very little research that sought to explore these issues from the inside out. The way I was able to re-think an approach to the issue was by focusing on who this issue concerns the most. Most immediately it concerns young people and their parents, and teachers (myself, in this case) in so far as they are able to provide conditions under which students online self-efficacy can thrive. Looked at from this point of view it is quite clear that most parents are not going to find the results of large-scale surveys very useful, or indeed relevant. What these parents want to know is how they can do a good responsible job as parents in an age where technology is racing ahead faster than attempts to harness it. The important aspect here is being able to discuss issues and voice concerns, and in partnership with each other and myself, try to uncover ways and means of encouraging responsible online behaviour in their children. This sharing of stories and knowledge offers something immediate, something relevant and something embedded in community in a way that pure number-crunching cannot. Of particular benefit to me was the process of determining my theoretical perspective, and coming to a position of adapted critical realism. I did not want to approach this as a matter of simply choosing an obvious or convenient epistemology to suit my research design, as this would not have integrity. I really sought to look a little deeper to discover what I really believe about the nature of reality and our ability to know about it. My readings took me on quite a journey, discovering a school of thought that seemed to fit perfectly, only to find aspects of it that did not sit with me. Ultimately I came across critical realism, and although I acknowledge that I have only really scratched the surface in my understanding of it, I have found that it most closely aligns with my beliefs and perspective. Of course I cannot accept it in its entirety, and I have outlined aspects of it which I do not agree with. Perhaps most importantly I came to realise that I do not have to accept everything offered by a particular perspective, but that I live the reality of my own perspective, which inevitably will be eclectic in nature and provisional. Since submitting this assignment I have also done reading around Kaupapa Maori research, and see a number of areas where the richness of this approach could inform aspects of my research design. My methodology was Participatory Action Research, and although it would not do justice at all to say that PAR and Kaupapa Maori research (Cram, 2001) are similar, they do nevertheless share some common approaches and viewpoints, including the importance of respect between all participants, the importance of community collaboration and ownership of an issue, and the acceptance (and importance) of the researcher's position as an insider. Another related perspective, which I did not go into in my research platform, is the Maori perspective of online identity, especially as it relates to children being online, sharing information online, and presenting themselves in particular ways online. It is not something I can offer comment on now, as I have not researched around this issue or discussed it with anyone better positioned than myself to offer a point of view. However, I do acknowledge this as a significant aspect to this research, which is omitted above, and would certainly be included in any further reframing of the research. On the whole this has been a very valuable learning experience for me and the process, even more than the final product, has furthered my growth and depth of understanding of emerging forms of research. Cram, F. (2001). Rangahau Ma-ori: Tona Tika, tona pono - The validity and integrity of Maori research1. In M. Tolich //Research ethics in Aotearoa New Zealand.// (pp. 35-52). Auckland: Pearson Education.