Abstract
Stierer & Antoniou (2004) have described Pedagogic Research (PR) as primarily teachers undertaking research into aspects of their own teaching and learning. Consequently, those undertaking PR often occupy dual roles of teacher and researcher. Likewise the subjects being studied are often the researcher’s own students and thus also occupying dual roles of student and participant. The purpose of this article is to highlight the potential risks to valid, informed consent inherent in the nature of pedagogic research itself; due to the dual roles mentioned above and the blurred boundaries between practice development and PR. Whilst inaccurate or incomplete information for decision making is an obvious risk to informed consent, the risks to voluntary participation can be more subtle. Reference is made to a documentary analysis of feedback provided to applicants by a research ethics committee reviewing pedagogic research. Whilst this is not a research report of that study, it provides empirical evidence to support the arguments made in this article. The article concludes that the greatest risk to valid informed consent is the lack of awareness among practitioner-researchers of the risks to voluntary participation this type of research holds. The author highlights the role for academic developers in highlighting these issues on professional development programmes. It is also recommended that a clear institutional position on when teacher/researchers need to apply for ethical approval could also be useful, particularly if flexibility is built in to allow for informal discussions with the Chair of the REC.
Highlights
Whilst acknowledging the term is contentious, Stierer and Antoniou (2004) have described Pedagogic Research (PR) as “the study of processes and relationships comprising pedagogy” (p278) but acknowledge the focus is mainly teachers undertaking research into aspects of their own teaching and learning
The purpose of this article is to highlight the potential risks to valid, informed consent inherent in the nature of pedagogic research itself; due to the dual roles mentioned above and the blurred boundaries between practice development and PR
A stance, reported by academic developers from many institutions, is that if data are being collected from students, over and above that which would normally be obtained as part of ‘normal’ learning, teaching, assessment or quality monitoring purposes, ethical approval must be sought
Summary
Whilst acknowledging the term is contentious, Stierer and Antoniou (2004) have described Pedagogic Research (PR) as “the study of processes and relationships comprising pedagogy” (p278) but acknowledge the focus is mainly teachers undertaking research into aspects of their own teaching and learning. The term ‘teacher’ is used here as a generic term for individuals teaching and/or supporting learning in a higher education context. MacFarlane (2011, p127) described PR researchers as doing “research about their own teaching, that of others or focussed on the way students learn”. Those undertaking PR often occupy dual roles of teacher and researcher. The term ‘student’ is used here as a generic term for learners on higher education programmes or courses. Researchers undertaking PR are not always performing dual roles, this paper will focus on those who are
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callMore From: Journal of Perspectives in Applied Academic Practice
Disclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
