Booklet 01 Research ethics and the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning

Page 1 of 8 / v01 | May 2016

Contents

01.00 About this booklet
02.00 What is human research
03.00 Human research ethics
04.00 National guidelines
05.00 Principles of ethical conduct
06.00 Ethics review
07.00 SoTL and research ethics
08.00 Using this manual
09.00 Sources of advice
10.00 References
11.00 Acknowledgments
12.00 Glossary

1.0 About this booklet

This booklet was commissioned by the Australian Government Office for Learning and Teaching (OLT). As theScholarship of Teaching and Learning Human Research Ethics Resource Manual (SoTL Manual):

  • provides an overview of human research ethics in Australia
  • discusses the core principles for the design and conduct of human research
  • introduces ethics review
  • discusses practical strategies for the design and conduct of SoTL research.

Thebooklet refers to content from the other booklets of the SoTL Manual but does not repeat that content. The National Statement on Ethical Conduct in Human Research(NHMRC 2007a) (National Statement) is also referenced in thebooklet without that content being repeated. Researchers should also consult the research ethics resources for the institutions where the research will be conducted.

The guidance can help scholarship of teaching and learning (SoTL) researchers avoid some of the more common reasons for delays and frustrations associated with the ethics review of SoTL research, refine the ethical design of the research, and ensure the conduct of the research is ethically justifiable.

It should not be approached as a set of rules to be applied without reflection, but rather as a prompt to support your practice.

Back to contents

2.0 What is human research?

During the last few decades (especially since 1999) the definition of human research used in Australia has expanded considerably beyond biomedical research to include designs and methods irrespective of the discipline, the funding source (if any) and the expertise of the researchers. The introduction to the National Statement provides definitions of research,[1] human research and work that requires ethics review.

Many institutions provide further guidance with regard to matters such as the treatment of evaluative practice/quality improvement,[2] research with data that is not personally identified/identifiable,[3] the approach to research where the output will be fine arts/creative industry works (such as a theatrical performance or photographic exhibition), or the output will be journalistic (such as a newspaper article). Researchers must ensure that they are aware of the scope and exemption provisions of the institutions where their work will be conducted.

Back to contents

3.0 Human research ethics

In its preamble, the National Statement provides a definition of human research ethics, and discusses its origin and role. Some jurisdictions outside Australia focus primarily upon participant protection or approach human research ethics in terms of a list of acceptable and unacceptable behaviours. Rather than rely upon absolute rules that are to be applied universally, the National Statement discusses four core principles (see 5.0) that are to be applied in way that is appropriate to the specifics and context of a project.

While human researchethics must be an element of an institution’s research governance framework,it is first and foremost the responsibility of researchers. Rather than being seen as a matter of complying with externally imposed standards, human research ethics should be approached as an indispensable element of the design and conduct of human research and as essential to the quality of a piece of work.

Back to contents

4.0 National guidelines

The National Statement is the Australian standard for research conducted under the auspices of Australian universities and any other institution that receives ARC or NHMRC funding. The National Statement provides guidelines with regard to the ethical design, research ethics review and the ethical conduct of human research.

Several commentators have argued that the National Statementoften does not provide useful advice with regard to types of research in the broad social sciences, humanities and fine arts – especially those usingdesigns that employ qualitative methods.[4]In 2015, working groups were created to redraft Section 3 of the National Statement; the Australian Research Council and Universities Australia have nominees who are part ofthis review. The three authors of this booklet are also members of the working groups.

TheNational Statementdoes not currently provide any specific advice for SoTL researchers. Accordingly, the way many research ethics reviewers interpret provisions of theNational Statement(e.g. with regard to matters such as the weighing of risks and benefits, voluntary participation, and consent) will be based on their experience in reviewing other kinds of research and will lack familiarity with the practicalities, needs and challenges faced by SoTL researchers.

Outside Australia there are very few useful and comprehensive resources available for SoTL researchers (see Mount Royal University Research Ethics Board in Canada(2012)for one example of such a resource). It is hoped that this resource manual will provide useful and practical guidance for ethical research design, research ethics review, and reporting the results of SoTL research.

Back to contents

5.0 Principles of ethical conduct

Section One of the National Statement discusses four core principles that must be addressed in the design and conduct of human research. The principles are summarised below. Ethics reviewers are expected to consider proposed projects with regard to those principles. Throughout the other sections of the National Statementthe guidelines as regard to specific methods/designs, potential participants and context/other factors refers back to these principles. The following is an indicative summary of these four principles, which appearin full at pp. 10–11 of the National Statement.

Research merit/integrity – this core principle includes such matters as:

  • whether the work has clear objectives/aim
  • the degree to which a project is based upon prior work/literature
  • the potential of the work to make a useful contribution to the body of knowledge (including professional practice)
  • the relevant expertise/training of the researchers (including the persons who will recruit participants, collect the data/information, and analyse the data)
  • the sufficiency of the available resources for the conduct of the research
  • the presence of conflicts of interest.

Justice – this core principle includes such matters as:

  • the degree to which the recruitment strategies, including the inclusion/exclusion of participants, is fair and described in outputs from the research
  • the degree to which there is no unfair burden on participants (including considerations such as whether they are over-researched, what else they are doing, and whether participation in the research might have a deleterious impact on their other activities)
  • ensuring there will be no exploitation of participants
  • ensuring there will be fair access to the benefits of the research (if only a timely and appropriate summary of the overall results of the research).

Beneficence – this core principle includes such matters as:

  • the degree to which the likely benefits of a projectjustify its risks and burdens
  • whether a reasonable attempt has been made to minimise the risk of harms/discomforts to participantsin the research
  • the extent to which the benefits and risks will be disclosed to potential participants so they can make an informed decision about whether to participate.

Respect for persons – this core principle includes such matters as:

  • the degree to which there is due regard for the welfare, beliefs, perceptions, customs and cultural heritage, both individual and collective, of those involved in research
  • the degree to which the design and conduct of the research respects the privacy, confidentiality and cultural sensitivitiesof participants and, where relevant, of their communities (including adhering to any assurances provided with regard to these matters)
  • respecting the capacity of individuals for self-determination (even if in a legal sense they cannot consent)
  • placing due regard for these matters ahead of the objectives of the research.

In practice, the challenges and typical circumstances with regard to the above matters can be quite different for SoTL research compared with other kinds of human research. As a consequence, the usual strategies to address these practical challenges may be unfamiliar to ethics reviewers and can be a contributing factor in delays/problems/frustrations with the ethics review of SoTL research. Furthermore, even researchers who are very experienced with other research in their field may be unfamiliar with the practicalities of SoTL research and the research ethics review of that research.

See 6.0 of this Booklet for more about ethics review, 7.0 for more about SoTL and research ethics, and 8.0 for more about using this manual.

Back to contents

6.0 Ethical review

In the case of Australian biomedical research, the concept of research ethics review has more than 40 years’ history. Progressively, this expanded to health research more broadly and to ‘behavioural’ research conducted under the auspices of Australian universities.[5]

However, the release of the first (1999) and second (2007) editions of the National Statement has seen the definition of the scope of human research ethics review expand to human research in all disciplinary areas, irrespective of the design or potential participant cohort. The historical origins of research ethics review and its perceived lack of relevance to some research has remained a source of frustration for some researchers – especially qualitative researchers working in the broad social sciences.

The current edition of the National Statementincludes the use of existing data (including de-identified data) about individuals as human research.[6]

All Australian universities (and other bodies in receipt of ARC or NHMRC funding) are expected to adopt policies with regard to evaluative practice/quality assurance activities (including interalia evaluations of teaching and courses).

Many institutions have established proportional review arrangements such as an expedited review pathway for ‘low risk’ research and a special pathway for research that has already been reviewed at another institution (typically referred to as a prior review).

Very few institutions have special research ethics review arrangements for SoTL research and most universities don’t have research ethics resources for SoTL researchers.

Refer to Booklet 2 of this resource manual for more about research ethics review. The other five booklets of the resource manual provide advice with regard to SoTL research and research ethics review, including case studies and useful strategies.

Back to contents

7.0 Scholarship of teaching and learning (SoTL) and research ethics

The scholarship of teaching and learning is a relatively young area of study. Like many emerging interdisciplinary fields, there may be gaps in the areas that it has addressed, a restricted sense of collective endeavour, and relatively narrow relationships with cognate fields of study. In addition, SoTL also has to cope with emerging frontiers as scholars grapple with new forms of teaching and learning, changes in the higher education landscape, emerging methodologies, as well as newer challenges faced by any researcher dealing with matters such as big data, internet-mediated research, human-computer interaction, globalisation and transnational networks (Israelet al, in press).

SoTL’s limited history of engagement with questions of research ethics may stem from a variety of issues. These might include: limited exposure to the more intensive forms of research ethics review; the entry of researchers to SoTL from disciplines with little familiarity of human research; a disjuncture between the matters that concern principlist approaches to research ethics – the basis for most national and international guidelines on research ethics – and the kinds of power relations that SoTL researchers regularly confront in the context of higher education institutions; and, as we have already suggested, the context-specific nature of some of the ethical challenges that SoTL researchers face. We return to these issues in more detail in Booklet 6 of this manual.

Even researchers who are very experienced in their own fields, or seeking research ethics review for their primary research practice, may be inexperienced in facing the practical ethics challenges for SoTL research or the research ethics review of that research.

When research ethics reviewers perceive that an applicant is unaware of the ethical dimensions of a project or the research ethics review process, this can sometimes prompt reviewers to adopt a more interventionist approach so as to ‘educate’ applicants in their responsibilities and the review process.Such responses may sometimes be experienced as adversarial (Australasian Human Research Ethics Consultancy Services,2015).

Similarly, research ethics reviewers may be unfamiliar with SoTL research, the potential benefits of that work,[7] or established and useful strategies to address common ethical challenges (such as mitigating the vulnerability of students). This can result in the ethics reviewers providing feedback or insisting on strategies that are unhelpful for SoTL research, impractical or contrary to established good practice.

The booklets of this resource manual are intended to help SoTL researchers avoid, or at least mitigate, some of these problems and delays with the research ethics review process by showing, in their applications, that they are familiar with relevant ethical considerations.

It remains important for researchers to approach review feedback in a positive and reflective manner.The responsibility of ethics reviewersis to offer advice in good faith in order to assist in the successful ethical design and conduct of research, enhance the degree to which people will be willing to participate, and potentially to add to the quality of the results.When designing a SoTL research project, and when preparing the application for the research ethics review of that project, it is vital that researchers:

  1. have a clear understanding of
  2. the ethical principles (see 5.0)
  3. how the National Statement applies to the project
  4. the institution’s human research ethics policies and resources
  5. the institution’s research ethics review arrangements

(see 9.0 for more about sources of information about these matters)

  1. clearly explain the potential benefits of the research
  2. outline the strategies to address the ethical challenges of the project, including sharing their reflections upon different strategies and why the proposed strategy was selected
  3. be prepared to respond with courtesy, information and resolve to feedback or directions, even if they are inappropriate or unhelpful.

Section 8.0 of this booklet provides some advice to researchers with regard to using this resource manual to assist with the above. See Booklet 2 of this resource manual for more about research ethics review.

Back to contents

8.0 Using this manual

This manual should be approached as a resource for the reflective practice of both new and experienced SoTL researchers. It was commissioned by the Australian Government Office for Learning and Teaching to assist researchers to avoid some of the more common reasons for delays, difficulties and frustrations with the research ethics review of SoTL research.

The booklets of this manual are intended as a resource for researchers working on the conception,design and conduct of SoTLresearch.The resource manual might also be helpful when preparing an application for research ethics review and responding to the feedback of reviewers.

The resource manual introduces the principles and guidance provided by the National Statementandreflects upon their usefulness for SoTL research. The resource manual also utilises vignettes to explore real ethical challenges that might confront SoTL researchers and useful strategies to resolve them.

These booklets may also be of interest and assistance to research ethics reviewers and research office staff.

The other booklets of this resource manual are:

Booklet 2 –Ethics review and grant or fellowship funded research

Booklet 3 – Risks and benefits in SoTL research

Booklet 4 – Recruitment and consent in SoTL research

Booklet 5 – Privacy and confidentiality in SoTL research

Booklet 6 – SoTL Research:Common ethical challenges and practical strategies

Back to contents

9.0 Sources of advice

In recent years, recipients of Australian Learning and Teaching Council (ALTC) and Australian Government Office for Learning and Teaching grant and fellowship funding have highlighted the importance of seeking advice on research ethics and ethics review. Ethics reviewers and research ethics managers have made the same observation.

An important early step is participating in the research ethics training at your institution.

There a number of sources of useful advice available to SoTL researchers.These include:

  • the other booklets of this resource manual
  • any resource, guidelines and policies produced by your institution
  • the small SoTL literature on research ethics (see Australasian Human Research Ethics Consultancy Services, 2015)
  • a research ethics adviser (if your institution has any) or the chair of the HREC/Research Ethics Manager if no REA is available
  • a SoTL adviser (if your institution has any who are experienced with SoTL research)
  • other SoTL grant recipients at your institution or in your professional networks.

Advice should be sought as early as possible in the design of your work and definitely prior to submitting an application for ethics review. These same sources of advice can be helpful when responding to review feedback.

Back to contents

10.0 References

Australasian Human Research Ethics Consultancy Services 2015,AHRECS Summary Report and Recommendations to the OLT,Australasian Human Research Ethics Consultancy Services. Available at: July2015).

Israel, M, Allen,G &Thomson, C (in press),‘Australian research ethics governance: Plotting the demise of the adversarial culture’,in van den Hoonaard, W Hamilton, A (eds) The Ethics Rupture: Exploring Alternatives to Formal Research-Ethics Review, University of Toronto Press, Toronto.

Mount Royal University Human Research Ethics Board 2012,Ethical Considerations for Dual‐Role Research: Conducting Research with Students in your own Classroom. Available at: July 2015).