Reconceptualizing participant vulnerability in Scholarship of Teaching and Learning research: exploring the perspectives of health faculty students in Aotearoa New Zealand

IF 2.1 Q2 ETHICS Research Ethics Pub Date : 2023-07-25 DOI:10.1177/17470161231188720
A. Lees, R. Godbold, S. Walters
{"title":"Reconceptualizing participant vulnerability in Scholarship of Teaching and Learning research: exploring the perspectives of health faculty students in Aotearoa New Zealand","authors":"A. Lees, R. Godbold, S. Walters","doi":"10.1177/17470161231188720","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"While the need to protect vulnerable research participants is universal, conceptual challenges with the notion of vulnerability may result in the under or over-protection of participants. Ethics review bodies making assumptions about who is vulnerable and in what circumstance can be viewed as paternalistic if they do not consider participant viewpoints. Our study focuses on participant vulnerability in Scholarship of Teaching and Learning (SoTL) research. We aim to illuminate students’ views on participant vulnerability to contribute to critical analysis of the role and processes of ethics review. Additionally, we aim to highlight the importance of seeking the views of participant communities, especially in research environments beyond ethics review’s medical origins. Thirty-four students from a health-related faculty at a university in Aotearoa New Zealand, participated in five focus groups. Participants discussed factors affecting their potential participation in research drawing upon a series of vignettes based on examples of published SoTL projects. Themes, generated using reflexive thematic analysis, built a participant-informed picture of vulnerability. Findings indicate that students do not generally consider themselves vulnerable and instead consider participation in SoTL research through an agentic lens. Students expect that participation will be voluntary, not negatively impact their grades, and not single them out so that others could judge them. Our study also highlights the value students place on relationships with one another and teaching staff and the implications these have for SoTL research participation and future professional practice. This research challenges research ethics committees to think further about vulnerability in the context of SoTL whilst highlighting the importance of providing opportunities for research participants more broadly to explore and vocalize their views as members of participant communities.","PeriodicalId":38096,"journal":{"name":"Research Ethics","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.1000,"publicationDate":"2023-07-25","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Research Ethics","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/17470161231188720","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"ETHICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

While the need to protect vulnerable research participants is universal, conceptual challenges with the notion of vulnerability may result in the under or over-protection of participants. Ethics review bodies making assumptions about who is vulnerable and in what circumstance can be viewed as paternalistic if they do not consider participant viewpoints. Our study focuses on participant vulnerability in Scholarship of Teaching and Learning (SoTL) research. We aim to illuminate students’ views on participant vulnerability to contribute to critical analysis of the role and processes of ethics review. Additionally, we aim to highlight the importance of seeking the views of participant communities, especially in research environments beyond ethics review’s medical origins. Thirty-four students from a health-related faculty at a university in Aotearoa New Zealand, participated in five focus groups. Participants discussed factors affecting their potential participation in research drawing upon a series of vignettes based on examples of published SoTL projects. Themes, generated using reflexive thematic analysis, built a participant-informed picture of vulnerability. Findings indicate that students do not generally consider themselves vulnerable and instead consider participation in SoTL research through an agentic lens. Students expect that participation will be voluntary, not negatively impact their grades, and not single them out so that others could judge them. Our study also highlights the value students place on relationships with one another and teaching staff and the implications these have for SoTL research participation and future professional practice. This research challenges research ethics committees to think further about vulnerability in the context of SoTL whilst highlighting the importance of providing opportunities for research participants more broadly to explore and vocalize their views as members of participant communities.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
重新定义教学和学习研究中的参与者脆弱性:探索新西兰奥特罗阿卫生学院学生的观点
虽然保护脆弱的研究参与者的需要是普遍的,但对脆弱性概念的概念性挑战可能导致对参与者的保护不足或过度。伦理审查机构如果不考虑参与者的观点,就会假设谁是弱势群体,在什么情况下会被视为家长式作风。本研究主要关注教与学学术研究中的参与者脆弱性。我们的目标是阐明学生对参与者脆弱性的看法,以有助于对伦理审查的作用和过程进行批判性分析。此外,我们的目标是强调寻求参与者群体意见的重要性,特别是在超越伦理审查医学起源的研究环境中。来自新西兰奥特罗阿一所大学健康系的34名学生参加了5个焦点小组。与会者根据一系列以已发表的SoTL项目为基础的例子,讨论了影响他们可能参与研究的因素。使用反身性主题分析生成的主题构建了参与者知情的脆弱性图景。研究结果表明,学生通常不认为自己是弱势群体,而是通过代理视角来考虑参与SoTL研究。学生们希望参与是自愿的,不会对他们的成绩产生负面影响,也不会把他们挑出来让别人评判他们。我们的研究还强调了学生对彼此关系和教师关系的重视,以及这些关系对SoTL研究参与和未来专业实践的影响。这项研究挑战了研究伦理委员会进一步思考SoTL背景下的脆弱性,同时强调了为研究参与者提供更广泛的机会来探索和表达他们作为参与者社区成员的观点的重要性。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Research Ethics
Research Ethics Arts and Humanities-Philosophy
CiteScore
4.30
自引率
11.80%
发文量
17
审稿时长
15 weeks
期刊最新文献
Institutional requirement and central tracking of RCR training of all researchers and research eligible individuals Student interactions with ethical issues in the lab: results from a qualitative study Animal behaviour and welfare research: A One Health perspective No recognised ethical standards, no broad consent: navigating the quandary in computational social science research Research misconduct in China: towards an institutional analysis
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1