Ethical issues in researching Higher Education teaching and learning: what’s the same as, and what’s different from, close-to- practice research in other phases of education?
Authors
Golding, Jennie
Issue Date
2024
Educational Level
ISCED Level 6 Bachelor’s or equivalent
ISCED Level 7 Master’s or equivalent
ISCED Level 7 Master’s or equivalent
Curriculum Area
Geographical Setting
United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland
Abstract
Context: The report explores ethical issues in researching Higher Education Teaching and Learning (RHETL), particularly when academics research their own or colleagues’ teaching practices. It draws on an initiative at a research-intensive university in London aimed at creating accessible ethical guidance for those inexperienced in such research, targeting both experienced researchers in non-cognate disciplines and those on teaching contracts with limited research experience.
Aims: The research addresses three primary questions: (1) What are the key ethical issues in RHETL? (2) How can institutional ethics processes better support those unfamiliar with these issues? and (3) What are the similarities and differences between ethical issues in RHETL and close-to-practice research in other educational phases? The goal is to inform the development of ethical guidelines and support the integration of RHETL into university practices.
Methods: This was a scoping study rather than an empirical investigation. It began with issues identified from the researchers’ experiences as RHETL practitioners and members of the university’s Research Ethics Committee, supplemented by a literature review. The aim was to map the scope of existing evidence, identify emerging discussions, and re-interpret findings to inform both current practice and future research, including potential systematic reviews.
Findings: Key issues in RHETL include the power imbalance between academics and students, which complicates the ethical use of student-generated data. There are also challenges related to competing terminology in the field, the complexity of ethical processes, and the use of digital tools in research. The literature review indicated that while the ethical issues in RHETL resemble those in other educational phases, they require adaptation for the university context, particularly in managing the insider-researcher position and navigating the evolving digital research landscape.
Implications: The findings underscore the need for tailored ethical guidance and support mechanisms for academics engaged in RHETL, including simplified ethical consent processes and training. Cross-phase learning between higher education and other educational phases is advocated to enhance mutual understanding and support. The initiative has led to increased RHETL activity and early evidence of improved peer-reviewed publications, suggesting a positive impact on academic research culture.
Aims: The research addresses three primary questions: (1) What are the key ethical issues in RHETL? (2) How can institutional ethics processes better support those unfamiliar with these issues? and (3) What are the similarities and differences between ethical issues in RHETL and close-to-practice research in other educational phases? The goal is to inform the development of ethical guidelines and support the integration of RHETL into university practices.
Methods: This was a scoping study rather than an empirical investigation. It began with issues identified from the researchers’ experiences as RHETL practitioners and members of the university’s Research Ethics Committee, supplemented by a literature review. The aim was to map the scope of existing evidence, identify emerging discussions, and re-interpret findings to inform both current practice and future research, including potential systematic reviews.
Findings: Key issues in RHETL include the power imbalance between academics and students, which complicates the ethical use of student-generated data. There are also challenges related to competing terminology in the field, the complexity of ethical processes, and the use of digital tools in research. The literature review indicated that while the ethical issues in RHETL resemble those in other educational phases, they require adaptation for the university context, particularly in managing the insider-researcher position and navigating the evolving digital research landscape.
Implications: The findings underscore the need for tailored ethical guidance and support mechanisms for academics engaged in RHETL, including simplified ethical consent processes and training. Cross-phase learning between higher education and other educational phases is advocated to enhance mutual understanding and support. The initiative has led to increased RHETL activity and early evidence of improved peer-reviewed publications, suggesting a positive impact on academic research culture.
Description
Keywords (free text)
higher education , practitioner research , close-to-practice research , ethics