Raising Awareness of Research Ethics in SoTL: The Role of Educational Developers
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Does the subject of research ethics take you by surprise? Does it make you somewhat uncomfortable? Does it seem to have nothing to do with your research or your practice? These are the attitudes we have encountered about research ethics among some SoTL researchers at workshops and conferences. In many cases, these researchers had conducted research that should have undergone research ethics board (REB) review, but did not; that should have included a consent process for the use of student data or previous work, but did not; or that started out as program evaluation and became research without meeting the criteria of ethically acceptable research conduct. In this essay, we will argue that familiarity with our national research ethics Policy: The Tri-Council Policy Statement: Ethical Conduct for Research Involving Humans, 2nd edition (TCPS 2) and how it applies to SoTL, is essential for researchers and for educational developers. We will propose a role for Centre of Teaching and Learning staff in raising awareness of TCPS 2 and we will dispel some of the most common myths and misconceptions that abound regarding SoTL and research ethics. Le sujet de l’éthique de la recherche vous surprend-il? Vous rend-il quelque peu mal à l’aise? Semble-t-il ne rien avoir à faire avec votre recherche ou votre pratique? Ce sont des attitudes que nous avons rencontrées quant à l’éthique de la recherche chez certains chercheurs en ACEA dans des ateliers et des conférences. Dans de nombreux cas, les chercheurs ont effectué des recherches qui auraient dû être examinées par les conseils d’éthique en recherche, mais qui ne l’ont pas été; qui auraient dû comprendre un processus de consentement pour l’utilisation de données sur les étudiants ou de travaux antérieurs et pour lesquelles mais ils n’en ont pas, ou qui ont commencé par être une évaluation de programme et qui sont devenues une recherche sans toutefois respecter les critères relatifs à la conduite d’une recherche éthiquement acceptable. Dans cet essai, nous expliquons que la connaissance de notre politique nationale d’éthique en matière de recherche : l’Énoncé de politique des trois Conseils : Éthique de la recherche avec des êtres humains 2e édition (EPTC 2), est essentielle et nous montrons en quoi elle s’applique à l’ACEA. Nous proposons un rôle pour le personnel du Centre d’enseignement et d’apprentissage afin de mieux faire connaître l’EPTC 2 et dissipons les mythes et idées erronées les plus courants qui abondent concernant l’ACEA et l’éthique de la recherche.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.087 | 0.182 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.019 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".