What difference does openness make to ethics? This session will examine this question both from the perspective of research into OER and the use of open resources in teaching and learning. An outline of the nature and importance of ethics will be provided before the basic principles of research ethics are outlined through an examination of the guidance provided by National Institutes of Health (2014) and BERA (2014). The importance and foundation of institutional approval for OER research activities is reiterated with a focus on underlying principles that can also be applied openly.
I argue that with a shift to informal (or extra-institutional) learning there is a risk that we lose some clarity over the nature and extent of our moral obligations when working outside institutional frameworks – especially with what Weller (2013) has termed “guerilla” research activity. But we might also speak of “guerilla” education for innovations taking place on the fringes of institutional activity – from using social media to going full-blown “edupunk” (Groom, 2008). I show how the principles underlying traditional research ethics can be applied openly while noting that, whether working within or outside institutions, there is almost no existing guidance that explains the ethical implications of working openly. Similar issues are raised with MOOC, which operate outside institutions but while drawing on institutional reputations and values. With this in mind I briefly explore the moral dimensions of scenarios we are likely to encounter in the future (e.g. privacy, security, big data and intellectual property) focusing on the implications of openness.
I argue that, while models for ethical analysis have been proposed (e.g. AUTHOR, 2011; 2013; 2014) more attention should be paid to the ethics of being open. I conclude with an examination of the idea that we have a moral obligation to be open, contrasting prudential and ethical approaches to open education. At the heart of the OER movement, I argue, is a strong moral impulse that should be recognized and celebrated rather than considered the preserve of the ideologue: openness is not reducible to lowering the marginal cost of educational resources. Openness is a diverse spectrum and to leverage its true potential we need to reflect deeply on how media technologies continue to challenge the normative assumptions we make about education.
AUTHOR. (2011). [REDACTED]
AUTHOR. (2013). [REDACTED]
AUTHOR. (2014). [REDACTED]
BERA (2014) Ethical guidelines for educational research. http://www.bera.ac.uk/researchers-resources/resources-for-researchers
Groom, J. (2008). “The Glass Bees”. http://bavatuesdays.com/the-glass-bees/.
McAndrew, P. and AUTHOR, (2013). Open Educational Research: From the Practical to the Theoretical. In McGreal, R., Kinuthia W., & Marshall S. (eds.) Perspectives on open and distance learning: Open Educational Resources: Innovation, research and practice, Commonwealth of Learning, Athabasca University. https://oerknowledgecloud.org/sites/oerknowledgecloud.org/files/pub_PS_OER-IRP_CH5.pdf).
National Institutes of Health (2014). Protecting Human Research Participants. http://phrp.nihtraining.com/
Robbin, J. “The Ethics of MOOCs”. Inside Higher Ed. http://www.insidehighered.com/blogs/sounding-board/ethics-moocs.
Weller, M. (2011). The Digital Scholar: How Technology is Changing Academic Practice. Bloomsbury Academic
Weller, M. (2013). “The Art Of Guerrilla Research”. Available from http://nogoodreason.typepad.co.uk/no_good_reason/2013/10/the-art-of-guerrilla-research.html.