Week 9: Ethical Issues in Qualitative E-Learning Research

Heather Kanuka and Terry Anderson (2007)

Three main areas of concern among e-Learning researchers:

1. participant consent (informed and voluntary)
2. public vs private ownership (i.e. what is public and what is private)
3. confidentiality and anonymity of the data collected

According to Kant (1956), "the only thing that is good without qualification or restriction is a good will" and "goodwill alone is an unconditioned good".

Contemporary philosophers have reasoned that ethical perspectives are based on two competing views:

1. Deontological: codes of ethics need to be developed with clear, articulate and explicit rules to which researchers must adhere. Deontological perspectives develop and evolve over time and are effective in stable research contexts.
2.  Teleological: an approach to ethics that studies actions in relation to their ends or utility. Ethical behaviour is determined  but the consequence of an act, or the greatest social good and the least social harm. Teleological solutions can evolve rapidly as actors closely observe the results of their behaviour and adjust their ethical guidelines in response to observed results.

Rule-based solutions (e.g. deontological) are attractive in situations that that lack clear prescriptive guidelines. Specifically, if during the enquiry process researchers find themselves in a situation that raises ethical issues following a prescriptive set of rules is desirable (Bernard, 1999). 

In contrast, ethical relativism (e.g. the teleological view) requires researchers to look beyond the rules to either immediate or long-term effects or consequences as a basis for ethical action. The value of this action rests on the need for researchers to self-reflect on their research practices and assume responsibility for the consequences of their actions when conducting research.

Early researchers on e-learning have tended to apply ethical guidelines from a pre-internet context (Anderson & Kanuka, 2003). McLuhan (1964) pointed out that we tend to interpret new media through our experience of older media. With respect to mediated learning research on the Net, we have also tended to interpret Net-based communication technologies through our experiences with older mediated communication technologies (Kanuka, 2002).

Unanswered questions:

• is consent required when investigating postings in a public forum, such as public mailing lists or chat rooms, or are these communication forums considered private spaces (does a password imply these forums are private?)
• If so, who is the consent required from? The mailing list owner? The participants? Both?
• Who owns the data? The posting author? The owner of the server? All three?

 

Consent

 

• Except in cases where deception is relatively benign and integral to the research purpose, informed and voluntary consent must be obtained from all participants.
• In the few cases when consent is not obtained before participation, it must be obtained as soon as possible after participation, usually in debriefing sessions immediately following the researcher's intervention.
• Researchers must ensure that there are realistic and accessible options for participants who do not wish to participate in the research (i.e. they may not want to participate but may not have the option to attend the same course at a different time).

Researchers need to provide:

• a statement of the research purpose
• the identity of the researcher
• the expected duration of the research
• the nature of the participation, and
• a description of research procedures.

Some options:

• some researchers and institutions have argued that ethics approval (which includes informed consent) is need only when textual data contain information that allow identification of participants.
• specifically, if the data can be disembodied (stripped of login names) with, for example, search and replace features of analysis software, the data can then be used without ethics approval (Garrison & Anderson, 2003)
• Fahy & Spencer (2004) went further, maintaining that when text-based discussion transcripts are stripped of identifying markers, then they become secondary data and, therefore, their use does not require ethics approval. However, the inclusion of textual course transcripts (i.e. discussion forums) as a secondary data source has not been widely adopted by many research institutions.  

More issues:

• Is it enough to get approval for the possibility of research on human subjects, or do participants have the right to the specifics of the research adn specifics of how information from and about them is to be used or stored?
• If so, can researchers gain this level of specificity when they migh thave many types of investigation and secondary analysis in mind?
• Can archived e-learning course transcripts that have been stripped of personal identifiers (e.g. names, locations) but include th personal thoughts and opinions of the course participants be categorised as secondary data?
• Even when the transcripts are stripped of personal identifiers, is there still a risk of being identified through personal expression, for example, the instructor?
• Should the rights of the majority be overruled by the rights of the minority?

Wherever possible, we try to obtain a signed statement of consent from each participant, which we believe can best protect the researcher, the researcher's institution, funding sources, and research participants. 

Does obtaining consent for certain populations and people over the internet outweigh the possible risks of attracting unauthorised participants? 

 

Privacy, confidentiality, anonymity 

 

• Privacy: refers to the research participants' right to control the access of others to information about them, 
• Confidentiality: how information collected in the study will be kept secure and private (e.g. through controlled access). Terms of confidentiality are usually tailored to the needs of the participants. 
• Anonymity: refers to the removal of any unique characteristics (e.g. names, addresses, affiliated institutions, geographical areas) that would allow unique identification of participants.

Understanding participants' need for privacy, confidentiality, or anonymity is a way in which a researcher respects the participants and is deemed a fundamental requirement of ethical practice among education researchers.

This respect is shown most clearly by allowing the participants to share in the responsibility for decision making that affects them and in particular to share knowledgeably in the decision to participate (or not) in a research project.

To make decisions appropriately and knowledgeably, the participant must be informed of all the relevant details of the research, with an opportunity to refuse to participate.

BUT: How should we define a sense of privacy when privacy is a matter of individual perception and experience?

Ethics are socially constructed.

Sustaining ethical research on the Net must rest not only on guiding principles outlined by external committees and authorities but also on the personal integrity ot the researcher and the kind of goodwill described by Kant (1956).