Micro Research Ethics Framework (MREF v1.0): An Ethics Standard for Embedded Educational Research by Blue Blocks Micro Research Institute

What MREF Is and What It Does Most research ethics frameworks were built for a world where researchers enter a setting, conduct a study, and leave. MREF was written because embedded educational research doesn't work that way. When the same person is both a child's teacher and their observer, when research happens continuously across years rather than in bounded episodes, and when the subjects are children in their own school — the standard IRB checklist isn't enough. MREF fills that gap. It functions as the guide for the Institutional Review Board at Blue Blocks Micro Research Institute, and it is designed to be adopted by other schools and research organisations doing similar work. The Architecture of the Document MREF is built around five practical systems, not just principles: The first is consent that moves with time. Instead of a single sign-off at the start of a study, MREF uses a Longitudinal Consent Architecture — enrollment consent, annual reaffirmation, publication notices, and special consent for specific activities. Consent is treated as a living relationship, not a one-time transaction. The second is child protection with teeth. The framework is explicit that child safety overrides research confidentiality in every circumstance. It names the specific Indian laws that apply (POCSO Act, Juvenile Justice Act), sets a 24-hour reporting deadline, and prohibits practices like delaying a mandatory report to finish an observation session. This isn't aspirational — it comes with step-by-step procedures, training requirements, and a list of prohibited practices. The third is an Institutional Review Board that is defined in enough detail to actually build one. Composition, quorum, functions, meeting frequency, documentation requirements, and its equivalence to international standard IRBs are all specified. It is not left as a vague governance gesture. The fourth is conflict of interest handling that goes well beyond the usual "declare your funding" requirement. It distinguishes financial conflicts from ideological ones, addresses the specific tension of a teacher-researcher evaluating their own methods, and covers the unusual case of researchers whose own children are enrolled as subjects. The fifth is researcher wellbeing — an entire section that treats emotional sustainability as an ethical obligation, not a wellness perk. It covers vicarious trauma, dual-role stress, debriefing procedures after mandatory reports, and institutional accountability for workload.