 antonella esposito |
Hi all, below my 2 pages abstract + References on a theme that have slightly start to approach in a previous paper and that I will have to cope with in my propsective doctoral work on PhD e-researchers. Comments and suggestions are welcome! Good luck with your proposals, antonella esposito Dimensions and tensions of research ethics in emergent digital learning environments: a review of ethical decision making issues as being challenged by evolving learning contexts and new research practices.
This paper intends to analyze a range of publications, such as conference and journal papers, reports and blog articles, focusing on assessing ethical issues in inquiry design and conduct as occurring in emergent technology-mediated learning contexts. The proposed review aims to provide insights for better understanding both research ethics constructs in recent e-learning research and where ethical decision making theory currently stands, by describing dimensions of research ethics in new digital research environments within an Activity Theory framework. In particular, the article aims to identify tensions in research ethics arising from research process at different points in time and levels, as stated in recent empirical studies. Constitutive principles of research ethics – such as informed consent, safety, privacy, anonymity and confidentiality, public versus private ownership (Eysenbach & Till 2001; Mann & Stewart 2000) - are considered as many causes of ethical discord and uncertainty in elearning research (Kanuka & Anderson 2007) as well as in a number of disciplines being investigated in online settings (Bruckman 2002). However, in recent times, evolving learning contexts have created additional conflicts to be faced by faculty, both in research and teaching activities (Burge 2007; Anderson & Kanuka 2009). Whereas there is a call for a stronger link between approaching research ethics in ICT-mediated environments and shaping situated research methodology (Markham 2007), others focus on highlighting new features and tensions of such settings and as a consequence urge a rethinking of the same principles of research ethics (Beaulieu & Estalella 2009). In fact, emergent digital landscape is providing teachers and students with new teaching and learning experiences and researchers with opportunities to pilot innovative methodological solutions. Digital learning contexts such as multi-user environments, open networked and mobile learning settings define conditions for new kinds of relations between teachers and learners and enable new opportunities for e-learning researchers to explore unexpected pedagogical scenarios and cope with uncharted territories of research ethics (Krotowski 2010). Ethical issues in e-learning research can be located in the wider domain of Internet-based research, in which ethics mainly refer to a human subject research model, rooted in medical and social science approaches (Eysenbach & Till 2001; Bruckman 2002). However, other views value a model of Internet research focusing on textuality: they intend “Internet as production of cultural texts” and online subjects as authors (Basset & O’Riordan 2002). But further unexplored ethical issues arise in recent practice of 'learning analytics' (e.g. Kop & Fournier 2011; Buckingham Shum 2011) when e-learning researchers consider networking data (e.g being gathered through social network analysis methods) as added value to well-established research methods. Moreover, easier possibilities to reach international audiences, in online teaching and research, not only suggest the investigation of multicultural factors at work (Basharina 2009), but imply a new committment to consider the different philosophical approaches to research ethics in diverse cultures (Ess 2002). Furthemore, current pressures on academia from societal contexts towards a timely disclosure of research settings and findings, put researchers in danger of not respecting the value of informants' anonymity as so far it has been conceived (Tilley & Woodthorpe 2011).
This work considers constructs of research ethics in online settings as the individual researchers' increasing efforts to balance discrepancy between 'control' (design of a research ethics plan) and 'contingency' (local and unpredictable ethical issues to be faced) (Whiteman, 2010). Such efforts are considered as aiming to preserve research integrity while taking into account and to a degree challenge well-established rules by institutional ethics review boards, methodological good practices for research validity, features of technology-mediated learning contexts, expectations from the community of stakeholders and changing roles of researcher and research participants. Considering the interplay of the above threads of debates and issues, the implied approach here endorsed argues that research ethics solutions are complex activity systems, that can be described using an Activity Theory framework (Engestrom, 1999; 2001), to highlight key dimensions of online research ethics and their interrelations. Activity Theory provides a framework of six interrelated components: subject, object, tools, rules, community and division of labour. In referencing a subset of articles (to be defined), this paper will adopt an AT perspective to identify how key issues related to research ethics in emerging e-learning settings are addressed in different publications.
REFERENCES
Anderson, T. D. & Kanuka, H. P. (2009). Ethical Conflicts in Research on Networked Education Contexts. In Demiray, U., & Sharma, R. (Eds.), Ethical Practices and Implications in Distance Learning. (pp. 108-124). Bassett, E. H. & O’Riordan, K. (2002). Ethics of Internet Research: Contesting the Human Subjects Research Model, Ethics and Information Technology, vol. 4, pp.233-247, http:/ Beaulieu, A. & Estalella, A. (2009). Rethinking research ethics for mediated settings. Paper presented at the 5th International Conference on e-Social Science, session 'Ethics and e-Research’, 2009, Cologne, Germany.,June 24-26, http:/ Bruckman, A. (2002). Studying the Amateur Artist: A Perspective on Disguising Data Collected in Human Subjects Research on the Internet, Ethics and Information Technology, vol. 4, n.3, pp. 217-231, http:/ Buckingham Shum, S. (2011). Learning Analytics: Dream, Nightmare, or Fairydust?. Key note presentation at the ASCIILITE 2011: http:/ Burge, Elizabeth J.(2007). Considering ethical issues, Open Learning: The Journal of Open, Distance and e-Learning, vol. 22 n. 2, pp. 107 — 115. Engeström, Y. (1999). Activity theory and individual and social transformation. In Y. Engeström, R. Miettinen & R. Punamäki (Eds.), Perspectives on activity theory (pp.19-38). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press. Engestrom, Y. (2001). Espansive learning at work. Toward and activity-theoretical reconcepualization. Journal of Education and Work, 14(1), 133-156. Ess, C. and AoIR Ethics Working Committee (2002) Ethical decision-making and internet research: Recommendations from the AoIR ethics working committee [online] http:/ Eysenbach, G. and Till, J. E. (2001). Ethical issues in qualitative research on internet communities. BMJ, 10 November 2001, http:/ Kanuka, H., & Anderson, T. (2007). Ethical issues in qualitative e-learning research. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, vol. 6, n.2, http:/ Kop, R. & Fournier, H. (2011). The value of learning analytics to networked learning on a Personal Learning Environment. Presented at LAK 2011, Banff http:/ Krotoski, A. (2010) (ed.). Special issue on Online Communities, International Journal of Internet Research Ethics, issue 3.1, December 2010. http:/ Mann, C. and Stewart, F. (2000). Internet Communication and Qualitative Research, London, Sage. Markham, A. N. (2007). Method as ethic, ethic as method. A case for reflexivity in qualitative ICT research. Journal of Information Ethics, vol. 15, n. 2, pp. 37-55, http:/ Tilley, L. & Woodthorpe, K. (2011). Is it the end for anonymity as we know it? A critical examination of the ethical principle of anonymity in the context of 21st century demands on the qualitative researcher, Qualitative Research, vol. 11, n. 2, pp. 197-212. Whiteman, N. (2010). Control And Contingency: Maintaining Ethical Stances In Research, IJRE - International Journal of Research Ethics, vol. 3, n. 1
|
|
Rebecca Ferguson |
Hi Antonella, The requirement to include material from several disciplines in the article provides a good opportunity for looking at how ethical frameworks vary between disciplines. In my doctoral thesis I included a consideration of the differences between the social sciences model of ethics and the humanities model - a difference that you pick up on in your abstract. Have you seen Rob Farrow's Cloudworks cloud on the ethics of mobile learning? http:/ Rob comes from a background of philosophy, so his definitions and conceptions of ethics tend to be much more precise than those used by many researchers from disciplines more obviously related to TEL. |
|
antonella esposito |
Thanks to all for comments and useful suggestions. Indeed I had posted early replies to Peter and Fridolin, but I apparently made some mistakes, because I can't see them listed :-( @rebecca I stumbled across your interesting thesis (http:/ Best, antonella |
