 other ethical considerations as it pertains to research, and meeting the researcher's challenge of what Patton (2002) referred to as having an ethical framework, issues including the research purpose, informed consent, confidentiality, and risk assessment were all given attention. The following research strategies were employed to establish an ethical framework for research. To prepare for the IRB application process, the researcher contacted Virginia school districts for permission to contact technology directors and technology specialists as potential research participants. Some school districts gave permission through authorization by the district superintendent, granting permission through a letter they drafted, while other districts used the researcher's School District Permission Form (Appendix C), or gave permission through email. A few of the participating districts required a formal application and review process. 150 No data collection was conducted before the researcher received formal approval from the Institutional Review Board (IRB) of Northcentral University. After receiving formal IRB approval, recruiting began with the researcher coordinating the informed consent process, and approaching potential participants directly, rather than through a third party, to minimize pressure from other parties that might influence the obtaining of free consent. The researcher used the Informed Consent Form (Appendix D) approved by IRB. Whether approaching potential subjects through email or by telephone, the researcher made an effort to avoid any undue pressure on the potential participants, while emphasizing that participation is voluntary. For each approach to recruitment, email or telephone, IRB approved scripts (Appendix E and Appendix F) were used that were respectful of the informed consent process. The research purpose was summarized for potential participants during recruiting and on the informed consent form, and summarized during the interview protocol (Appendix A), and on the written questionnaire (Appendix B). In discussing integrity in research, Schram (2006) argued that a researcher should posture and present himself to participants in such a way that there is an integral balance between engaging with participants, and remaining focused on the primary aim of conducting research. Schram (2006) noted that rapport building can be part of the presentation of oneself to participants. Because the researcher is a member of professional groups and consortiums, and has attended educational technology conferences, he has a professional acquaintance with many technology leaders from other Virginia school districts. While professional collegiality may promote rapport with participants, the researcher endeavored to remain honestly focused on the primary aim of research (Schram, 2006). The study involved minimal risk to study participants. A possible area o f concern for ensuring minimal risk concerned professional reputation. Maintaining confidentiality was important, and ensuring that no identifying information became available to others (
other ethical considerations as it pertains to research, and converge the research worker's challenge of what Patton (2002) referred to as having an ethical model, issues admit the research purpose, informed consent, confidentiality, and hazard judgment were all given care. The follow inquiry strategies were employed to lay down an ethical model for research. To prepare for the IRB lotion process, the research worker touch Virginia school districts for permission to contact engineering directors and technology specialists as potential research participant. Some school districts gave permission through authorization by the district superintendent, grant permission through a letter they drafted, while other districts used the researcher's School District Permission Form (Appendix C), or gave permission through email. A few of the participating districts required a formal application and review process. 150 No datum solicitation was conducted before the researcher received conventional approval from the Institutional Review Board (IRB) of Northcentral University. After receiving formal IRB blessing, recruiting began with the research worker coordinating the informed consent process, and approach potential participants directly, rather than through a third party, to understate pressure from other parties that might influence the obtaining of free consent. The researcher used the Informed Consent Form (Appendix D) approve by IRB. Whether approaching potential subjects through email or by telephone, the researcher cook an effort to avoid any undue atmospheric pressure on the potential participants, while emphasizing that participation is voluntary. For each approach path to recruitment, email or telephone, IRB approved script (Appendix E and Appendix F) were used that were respectful of the inform consent process. The inquiry purpose was summarized for likely participants during recruiting and on the informed consent form, and summarized during the consultation protocol (Appendix A), and on the written questionnaire (Appendix B). In discussing integrity in research, Schram (2006) argue that a researcher should posture and present himself to participants in such a way that there be an integral balance between prosecute with participants, and remaining focused on the primary aim of conducting inquiry. Schram (2006) noted that rapport building can be part of the presentation of oneself to participants. Because the researcher is a member of professional groups and consortium, and has attended educational technology conferences, he has a professional acquaintance with many technology leaders from other Virginia school districts. While professional collegiality may advertise rapport with participants, the researcher endeavored to remain honestly focused on the primary aim of research (Schram, 2006). The study involved minimal risk to learn participants. A possible area oxygen f concern for ensuring minimal risk concerned professional reputation. Maintaining confidentiality was important, and ensuring that no identifying information become available to others (
 otjer ethical consideratioks as it pertains to revearch, and meeging the researcher's challenje od whau Patton (2002) referred go as havpng an etyicao framework, issues lucludjkg thz cesearch purposg, informed cmnsent, confidettkapity, and risk assessment were all gyven atyejtion. The folljwinb ressarch strategies were employed to sstablivh an ethical framework for research. To preoare for the IRB aoplication kdocqws, the reseafcher contacted Virginja school districts for permisskon tp contact jzxhnlnogy directirs agd technologn specidlists ss potential rcsearrh pqrticipants. Some schoml districts gave kermission tkrough authorization vy the gistsict wupdrihtxndsnt, grwntmng permissjon through a letter they drafued, qhile other djstrices used the researcher's School District Ptrmisaion Form (Appendix C), or gave permission throogh email. W few of the participating districts required a fmrmal xppoigatiub wnd review process. 150 No data collection was cogsuvtvd before the rescarcher received fprlak approval froo the Nhsfitutional Review Hoard (ITB) of Borthcentwal Iniversity. After receiving dormal IRB aiprocal, recruiting begcn with the xesearvher voordinating the informzd conaent procesd, and appduaching potentiau psrdicipants directly, rather ehan throngh a third oarti, to migimize predsure from other parties that mhght influfnce the obtaining of free consxit. The researvhar lsed the Nnformcd Consent Form (Appendix D) apkroved by IRB. Dhether apiroaching potential fubjects throghh email or uy telephjne, rhe eesearcfdr made an effprt to avoid any uneue pressure on thc potgnfial participancr, while emphasizong thwt perticy[ation is vonuntxry. Gor exch approacm tu revruitment, email or talepgone, IRB approved xcvipts (Appgndix E agd Appendix F) were used that wege revpertful pf jhe informed consent process. Ths researcj pmrpose was suimarlzed for potencial participants during recruiting and in the informed cobsent form, and summcrlzed during vhe ineerview psotocol (Appendix A), abd on the written questionnaire (Appendjx B). It disfussing integrity in research, Schram (2006) argued that a researcher should posrure aid present hijselg to iarcicnpants yn snci a way that therv is an integral balance between engaginc cith participants, and remainimg focused on tfe primary aim of conducfing resrarch. Schram (2006) noted that rappory building can be part on the prewentafion of onxself to participantx. Becabse thw reseaechev is a member uf lrlfessionap grpu's and consortiums, and has attendwd eduxahional technologb conferenced, he hzs a ptofessional acquajntahfe wijh many technokogy leaders ftom other Virginia sbhojl districts. Wyple professiomal colnegiality mab promote ra[port with participants, the researcher endeavored tk remain gonestly hocused on the 'rimary aim of research (Xcrram, 2006). Thd study invonved minimal risk to study participants. A possible arva o f concern for vnsuring minimal risk concerned prufessuonal reputqtion. Maintzining vogfideutiality was importagt, ahd ensuriny tiag no idektifying infmrmation bebame available to others (
other ethical considerations as it pertains to meeting researcher's challenge what Patton (2002) ethical issues including the purpose, informed consent, and risk assessment were all given The following research strategies were employed to establish an ethical framework for research. prepare for the IRB application process, the researcher contacted Virginia school districts for to technology and specialists as potential research participants. Some school districts gave permission through authorization by the district superintendent, permission through a letter they drafted, while other used the researcher's School Permission Form (Appendix C), or permission email. A of participating required a formal and review process. 150 No data collection was conducted before the researcher received formal approval from the Review Board Northcentral University. receiving IRB recruiting began with coordinating the informed consent process, and directly, rather than through a third party, to pressure from parties that might influence the obtaining free consent. The researcher used the Informed Consent (Appendix D) approved by IRB. Whether approaching potential subjects through email or by telephone, the an effort to avoid undue pressure on potential while that is voluntary. each approach to recruitment, email or telephone, IRB approved scripts (Appendix and Appendix F) were used that were respectful of the process. research purpose was for potential participants during and the informed consent form, during interview and the questionnaire (Appendix B). In integrity in research, Schram (2006) that a researcher should participants in such a way that there is integral balance between engaging with participants, and focused on the primary aim of conducting research. Schram (2006) noted that building can of the presentation of oneself to participants. Because researcher is a member professional groups and consortiums, and has attended educational technology he a professional with many technology from other Virginia districts. While professional promote rapport participants, researcher honestly focused on the primary aim research 2006). The study involved minimal to A possible area o f concern for ensuring minimal risk concerned professional reputation. Maintaining confidentiality and ensuring that no information available to others (
 other ethical considerationS as it pertaIns to ResEarCh, And mEetiNg the researcheR'S chaLlenge of what Patton (2002) refeRred tO aS HaviNG aN ethiCal framEWoRK, IssUeS iNclUdINg The reSeaRch purpOse, informeD coNsEnt, confidentIAlIty, and risk AssEssment were aLl gIven atTeNtiON. The fOllOwing ResearCH stratEgies were EmPLoyed tO EstabliSH An EthiCal framework for reSEaRCh. To prepare for The IRB ApPLiCATioN prOcess, the reSeArcheR ContactED VIRGIniA School districTs for permisSIon To contAcT teCHnologY direCtORs aNd technologY speCialists aS potenTIal reseARch partIcipanTs. SOme SchoOL dIsTriCtS GavE PeRmiSSioN through AuThOrizaTion BY THE disTriCt suPerinTendent, grantiNg pErmiSSioN throUgh a lEtteR tHey drAfted, wHile oThEr districts used The rEsearcher'S ScHoOl DIsTrict pErmissIon forM (AppendIx C), or gaVE peRmISSIoN through email. A few oF tHE PaRticipatIng disTRiCtS Required A fOrmAl apPLIcatiOn anD ReView procEss. 150 No dATa CoLlectioN wAs condUcTed BefOre thE ReseArcher Received FormaL Approval from thE institutional rEvIEW BOArd (IrB) oF NorthcentrAl UnIVersIty. AFTeR reCEivinG formAl irB APproval, recruiting beGaN with tHe resEarcher coordiNating the iNFORmed consEnt pROcESs, and approachiNg potEntial partICipants dIrectLy, rather Than throuGH A third paRty, To mIniMizE PReSsure from otheR PArtiEs That migHt iNfluencE thE obTaiNinG oF free consEnt. The reSeArChEr UseD the INFormed CoNsEnt foRm (APpendIX D) apprOved bY IRB. whEtHEr aPproachINg POTentIaL sUbjeCts ThRough EmaiL Or bY telephOne, the resEarCHer mAdE aN effort To avoid any undUe Pressure on ThE poTentiaL PArticipaNts, while emphasizing that PArticipAtiOn is vOlunTary. For eaCh aPproacH to REcruitMent, emAil or TeLepHONe, IRB APPrOveD sCripts (AppeNDIx E And ApPeNdix f) were usEd that were respectfUL of The informed coNseNt prOCEsS. ThE ReSEarCh PUrpOSE was summarized fOr potentiaL pARtIcipants duRIng ReCruitinG and on tHe infORmed conSent form, aNd summariZeD durING thE interview Protocol (appendix A), ANd on tHE wRitteN quEstionNaIre (appenDix B). In DIscUssinG integRiTy in reSearcH, SChram (2006) argUed that a researcher shoulD postuRe and PreSent himseLf tO ParTicipants In suCh a way that TheRe iS an inTegRAl balAnce BEtWeeN EngagIng wITh particiPAnTs, aND ReMaining focuSED On tHe priMarY Aim of cOnduCting research. SchrAM (2006) noted that rappOrt bUILdiNg cAN be pArT of the presentaTioN oF ONeself to PaRticipants. BEcause thE rESearcHer is a Member Of profeSSIoNAl grouPs anD coNsortiums, And HaS AttendeD eDuCAtionaL tecHnOlogy cOnfereNCes, hE HAs a professional aCquaiNTAnce wITh mAny teChNology lEAderS from other virginia schOol disTricTs. WhiLe profeSsIonal cOllEgIality may pROmote rappOrt wiTh partiCiPantS, thE reseaRcheR ENdeavOred To RemAin honestLY FoCUsEd ON thE priMary aIm Of reSearch (SchRAm, 2006). The stuDy iNVolved mInImaL RIsk to sTUdY PArticipantS. A pOssibLE Area o f concERn foR EnSUring MinimaL risk cOncerneD ProFeSsional RepUTAtion. MainTaining coNFidEnTialIty was imPoRtanT, aNd eNsUring that no idenTifying iNformatiON Became AvaILablE To otheRs (
 other ethical considerati ons as itperta ins  to  r esea rch,  and meeting t h e re searcher's challenge o f wha tP atto n  ( 2002)  referr e dt o  as  h av ing  a n  e thica l f ramewor k, issuesinc lu ding the res e ar ch purpose , i nformed cons ent , conf id ent i ality , a nd ri sk ass e ssment  were all  g i ven at t ention. T he  fol lowing research s t ra t egies were emp loyedto es t a bli shan ethical  f ramew o rk forr es e a r ch. To prepare fo r the IRB a p pli cation  p roc e ss, th e res ea r che r contacted  Vir ginia sch ool di s trictsf or perm ission  to  co ntac t  t ec hno lo g y d i re cto r s a nd techn ol og y spe cial i s t s  aspot enti al re search partic ipa nts. Som e sch ool d istr ic ts ga ve per missi on  through author izat ion by th e d is tri ct  supe r intend ent , g ranting  permis s ion  t h r o ug h a letter they dr af t e d,  while o ther d i st ri c ts usedth e r esea r c her's  Sch o ol  Distric t Perm i ss io n Form(A ppendi xC),  or  gave perm ission  through  emai l . A few of the participating di s t ri c ts r equ ired a form al a p plic atio n  a ndr eview  proc es s .1 50 No data collecti on  was c onduc ted before th e research e r received  for m al approval fromthe I nstitution a l Review  Boar d (IRB)of Northc e n tral Uni ver sit y.Aft e r  r eceiving form a l  IRB  a pproval , r ecruiti ngbeg anwit hthe resea rcher co or di na ti ngthe i n formed c on sen tpro cess, and ap proac hing  p ot e nti al part i ci p a ntsdi re ctly , r at her t hant hro ugh a t hird part y,t o mi ni mi ze pres sure from oth er  parties t ha t m ight i n f luence t he obtaining of free co n sent. T heresea rche r used th e I nforme d C o nsentForm ( Appen di x D ) appro v e dbyIR B. Whether a ppr oachi ng  pot entialsubjects through e m ail  or by teleph one , th e re sea r ch e r m ad e  an e ffort to avoidany unduepr e ss ure on the pot en tial pa rticipa nts,w hile em phasizing  that par ti cipa t i onis volunta ry. Foreach appr o ach t o  r ecrui tme nt, em ai l o r tel ephone ,  IR B app rovedsc ripts(Appe nd ix E and  Appendix F) were usedthat w ere r esp ectful of  th e  in formed co nsen t process.  Th e r esear chp urpos e wa s  s umm a rized  for potential pa rti c i pa nts duringr e c rui tingand on the  inf ormed consent for m , and summariz ed d u r ing  th e  int er view protocol(Ap pe n d ix A), a nd  on the wri tten que st i onnai re (Ap pendix  B). In d is c ussing  int egr ity in re sea rc h , Schra m(2 0 06) ar gued  t hat aresear c hers h ould posture and  pres e n t him s elf  to p ar ticipan t s in  such a wa y that ther e is a n in tegra l balan ce  betwe enen gaging wit h  particip ants,  and re ma inin g f ocused  ont h e pri mary  a imof conduc t i ng re se a rch . Sc hram(2 006)  noted th a t rappor t b u ildingca n b e part o f  t h e  presentat ion  of o n e self to pa r tici p an t s. Be causethe re searche r  is  a  member  of p rofession al groups and  c onso rtiums,an d ha satt en ded educational  technol ogy conf e r ences,  he hasa  profe ss ional acquai ntanc ew ith man y tec hnology lea der s f romoth er V i rginia school districts.  Whi le pr o fes siona l col le gialitym ay p romote r a pport with pa rticipants, the res e arch ere nd ea vored torem a in ho nest lyfocu sed  ont h e pr i mary ai m of  resea rch(S ch ram, 2006 ).  The st u dy i n vol vedminim al  r i sk  to stu dy parti cipan ts . A possi b le area  o f  c oncern for en suring minim al  ris k conc e rne d p r o fessional re putation.Mai ntaining c on fid e nti ality  was importan t,an d  en suri ng  thatno ident ifying  inf o r matio n bec ameavail able t o o the rs ( 
 other_ethical considerations_as it pertains to_research, and_meeting_the researcher's_challenge_of what Patton_(2002) referred to_as having an ethical_framework, issues including_the_research purpose, informed consent, confidentiality, and risk assessment were all given attention. The following_research_strategies were_employed_to_establish an ethical framework for_research. To prepare for the_IRB application_process, the researcher contacted Virginia school districts for_permission_to contact technology_directors and technology specialists as potential research participants. Some_school districts gave permission through authorization_by the district_superintendent,_granting_permission through a letter_they drafted, while other districts used_the researcher's School District Permission Form_(Appendix C), or gave permission through email._A few of the participating districts_required a formal application and_review process._150 No data collection was_conducted before the_researcher received_formal approval from_the Institutional Review Board (IRB) of_Northcentral University. After_receiving formal IRB approval, recruiting began_with_the researcher coordinating_the_informed_consent process,_and approaching potential_participants_directly, rather_than_through a third party, to minimize_pressure_from other parties that might influence the_obtaining of free consent._The_researcher used the Informed_Consent Form (Appendix D) approved_by IRB. Whether approaching potential subjects_through email_or by_telephone, the researcher made an effort to avoid any undue pressure_on the potential participants, while emphasizing_that participation is voluntary._For each_approach_to recruitment, email_or_telephone, IRB_approved scripts (Appendix E and Appendix F)_were used_that were respectful of the informed_consent process. The research_purpose_was summarized for potential participants during_recruiting and on the informed consent_form, and summarized during the_interview_protocol_(Appendix A), and on the_written questionnaire (Appendix B). In discussing_integrity in research,_Schram (2006) argued that a researcher should_posture_and present himself to participants in_such_a way that there is an_integral_balance_between engaging with participants, and_remaining focused on the primary aim_of conducting research. Schram (2006) noted that rapport building_can be part_of the presentation of oneself_to_participants._Because the researcher is a member of professional groups and_consortiums, and_has attended educational_technology conferences, he has a professional acquaintance with many technology_leaders from other Virginia school districts. While_professional collegiality may promote rapport with participants, the researcher endeavored to_remain honestly focused on the primary aim of_research (Schram, 2006). The study involved minimal_risk to study participants._A_possible area o f concern for ensuring_minimal_risk_concerned_professional reputation. Maintaining_confidentiality was important,_and ensuring that_no identifying_information became available_to others_(