Reflections on teaching research ethics in education for international postgraduate students in the UK

Abstract

Use policyThe full-text may be used and/or reproduced, and given to third parties in any format or medium, without prior permission or charge, for personal research or study, educational, or not-for-prot purposes provided that:• a full bibliographic reference is made to the original source • a link is made to the metadata record in DRO • the full-text is not changed in any way The full-text must not be sold in any format or medium without the formal permission of the copyright holders.Please consult the full DRO policy for further details. Reflections on teaching research ethics in education for international postgraduate students in the UKResearch ethics in education is a challenging topic to teach and to learn. As the staff and student body in UK higher education and elsewhere diversifies, the challenges increase as shared reference points diminish. My teaching reflections focus on a key tension explored in this article: how the imperative of internationalising the curriculum conflicts with hegemonic codes of conduct regarding research ethics that seem resistant to change. The framework of threshold concepts is applied to the teaching and learning of research ethics in education not, as is usual, to identify such concepts, but to draw attention to the critical role of the intersection between learner and curriculum and how institutional expectations need to be reappraised.

Ethics in educational research: Review boards, ethical issues and researcher development

“…In order to satisfy research review committees, applicants must demonstrate control over each of these aspects, yet the more they do so, the more they inhibit opportunities for negotiation of these with participants (Henderson and Esposito, 2017). Smith (2016) argues that this is antithetical to ethical research and is contrary to the ethical position argued by van Rensburg (2013) that the caring educational researcher should be in a responsive relationship with participants rather than constrained by pre-set rules. Such matters are, therefore, elements of the continuous process of research and cannot be satisfied fully by a 'correct' entry in an ethics approval application.…”

“…The process of written submissions to a review board is also open to accusations of lack of transparency leading to distrust (Smith, 2016). Furthermore, Gregory (2003: 46) argues that the sets of codes or principles laid down by review boards amount to 'highly abstract assertions' which are often in conflict with each other and which provide little in the way of guidance for specific research contexts and the ethical issues that may arise within them.…”

“…Consequently, questions arise regarding whether or not it is culturally and ethically acceptable to interfere in the everyday lives of educators and their students. The nature and purpose of the research and who considers these to be responsible and worthwhile is dependent on the cultural, academic and individual values of the researcher, the researched , and the society in which it is taking place (Smith, 2016). Henderson and Esposito (2017), however, counter that the discourses around empirical research are dominated by the assumptions of the academy, with little input from participants.…”

“…In addition, Clarke (2006) and Henderson and Esposito (2017) suggest that participants view should be sought on their experience of the process. Furthermore, Smith (2016) recognises that there are circumstances in which the 'gold standard' of signed consent faces challenge. In addition to the possibility of cultural contexts where signing might be alien, there are also possible scenarios where, for example, a parent is unable to sign consent for their child as a result of their own level of literacy or a disability.…”

“…Review boards have been criticised as bureaucratic, behaving in an arrogant manner, being a hindrance rather than a help to research and even as being unnecessary, as social scientist have always done this kind of research (Breckler, 2005; Sikes and Piper, 2010). Furthermore, institutional bodies have been accused of making what could be considered unethical decisions in an effort to protect themselves and their reputations rather than prospective research participants (Smith, 2016; Stark and Hedgecoe, 2010). Smith (2016) and Bloor et al (2007) argue that the codes and rules applied by review boards impose constraints on educational research that do not hinder other professions such as journalism.…”