Session Information
09 SES 13 C, Ethical Issues in Assessments
Paper Session
Contribution
In this descriptive study, I used written answers from school leaders to provide information about the reasoning involved when 349 Norwegian upper-secondary schools were invited to take part in a research project. Although researchers make significant effort to understand and explain these layers of consent, less attention has been given to the participants’ perspective. Indeed, unless explicitly asking for explanations, little is known about the participants’ own reasons for agreeing or refusing to participate in educational research, and whether these layers of consent can be understood in the light of ethical reasoning. Participation in a research project might be considered the right thing to do if it produces more overall good than non-participation. It might be argued that the decision about whether or not a school should participate must be fully evaluated, and that school leaders must consider the duty and the consequences of participation before they can make an ethically sound choice. The challenge for a school leader is therefore how to determine what is a school’s obligation in such a situation, as well as which consequences produces “more overall good” than will the alternative.
Research questions:
(1) Which perspective is presented in the reasons; the students, the teachers, or the school?
(2) What reasons do school leaders give for participation or non-participation?
(3) How explicit are the answers in terms of ethical reasoning?
Objectives: The main purpose of this study was to provide a description of the reasons that appeared in e-mails from schools leaders that were invited to participate in a research project, which involves the collection of secondary data from a national mapping test in reading for students in upper secondary school. I discuss how ethical reasoning based on consequence and duty ethics might arise as ethical concerns in specific situations where schools are asked to participate in a research project. This can in turn be used to develop a better understanding of potential participants’ decisions with regard to accepting or declining to participate in a research project.
Theoretical framework: Building on the conceptualizations of basic ethical theories of consequence (Bentham 1789/1948, Mill 1863/1987) and duty(Kant 1785/1981), I understand ethical reasoning as reasoning about right and wrong human conduct with regard to educational research. This can be understood as ethical reasoning that school leaders engage in when they argue for or against participation in a research project. Ethical reasoning can also be conceptualized as tools for the school leaders’ reflection on, and their evaluation of participation in research (cf. Vestøl 2012). Following this line of thought, school leaders’ reasons might concern consequences or effects, and duties or rights for the school. These two meta-ethical positions consider individual acts, judging them either by their consequences (cost/harm or benefit) or according to whether they satisfy certain universal principles (duty or rights). In these cases, the reasoning about participation or non-participation is in itself an ethical discussion that will involve multiple viewpoints (Ryen 2011).
Method
Expected Outcomes
References
Bentham, J. (1948). An Introduction to the Theory of Morals and Legislation. New York: Hafner. Busher, H. and James, N. (2012). The Ethical Framework of Research Practice. In: A. Briggs, M. Coleman & M. Morrison. Research Methods in Educational Leadership & Management. 3rd ed. London: Sage Publications. Dysthe, O. (1997) Dialogisk leiing. In: Fuglestad, O.L. and Lillejord, S. (ed.). Pedagogisk ledelse – et relasjonelt perspektiv. 2nd ed. Bergen: Fagbokforlaget. Fowler, F.J. (2009). Survey Research Methods. 4th ed. Thousand Oaks, Cal.: Sage Publications. Hammersley, M. (2009). Against the ethicists: on the evils of ethical regulation. Intenational Journal of Social Research Methodology, 12:3, 211-225. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/1364557082170288 Homan, R. (2001). The principle of assumed consent: the ethics of gatekeeping. The Journal of the Philosophy of Education Society of Great Britain, 35(3): 329-343. Kant, I. (1785/1981). Groundwork of a Metaphysics of Moral. Indianapolis, IN: Hackett Publishing Co. Leer-Salvesen, P. and Eidhamar, L. G. (1998). Nesten som deg selv. Oslo: Høyskoleforlaget. Løgstrup, K.E. (2000) Den etiske fordring. Oslo: Cappelen Forlag. Mill, J. S. (1863/1987). Utilitarianism. Buffalo, NY: Prometheus Books. NESH (National Committee for Research Ethics in the Social Sciences and the Humanities in Norway) (2006). Guidelines for research ethics in the social sciences, law and the humanities. Oslo: NESH. www.etikkom.no Ragin, C. and Amoroso, L.M. (2011). Constructing Social Research. The Unity and Diversity of Method. 2nd ed. SAGE Publications, Inc. Ryen, A. (2011). Ethics and Qualitative Research. In: Silverman, D., Qualitative Research.Third edition. London: SAGE Publications Ltd: 416-438. Silverman, D. (2011). Qualitative Research. Third edition. London: SAGE Publications Ltd. Silverman, D. (2006). Interpreting qualitative data: methods for analyzing talk, text and interaction. Los Angeles, SAGE. Vestøl, J.M. (2012). Research Ethics and Basic Ethical Theories. Presentation at Research ethics course at the University of Oslo, 3rd October 2012.
Search the ECER Programme
- Search for keywords and phrases in "Text Search"
- Restrict in which part of the abstracts to search in "Where to search"
- Search for authors and in the respective field.
- For planning your conference attendance you may want to use the conference app, which will be issued some weeks before the conference
- If you are a session chair, best look up your chairing duties in the conference system (Conftool) or the app.