There are a number of ethical considerations I need to consider during this project, both practical and moral. Bringing students together to discuss their own lived experiences is at the heart of the project. These dialogues will be most impactful if allowed to take place without intervention, however this brings associated risk. Students at either end of the mentoring partnership may reveal personal or sensitive information. As final-year students take on the role of ‘teacher’, the power dynamic changes. There is a chance that they may give poor advice, or inflammatory opinions, and it’s possible that as facilitator I may not be made aware of these conversations to provide support.
To limit these risks, I will introduce the idea of duty of care to the third-year students when briefing them about the first session, and establish supportive ground rules at the start of the session. During each session I will provide regular ‘recap’ moments to check-in with groups, providing an opportunity to steer conversations back to the relevant topic if necessary. Any personal issues that arise will be treated confidentially and support will be signposted where necessary. At our weekly year meetings, I will provide first-years with an opportunity to discuss anything they’ve found confusing.
I hope the intervention will have a positive impact on the course but have a responsibility not to significantly increase the workload of my colleagues or disrupt planned teaching. Setting strict boundaries on the time the project should take should allow participants to manage their time and other responsibilities. I wish to ensure the experience is mutually beneficial for all participants and that they respect the bigger picture of a reciprocal exchange of care, so have asked them to consider this when signing up, and not to sign up if they didn’t feel they could commit to the three sessions.
Participants will be pre-warned that I am recording observations and gathering data with optional questionnaires and semi-structured interviews. Consent forms will be provided for interviewees. Faces and names will be anonymised, and students have the opportunity to opt-out or request a copy of the data. Data will be stored on our internal Sharepoint system and deleted after the completion of the PgCert.
I have a responsibility to use the data I collect responsibly and reflect it fairly- even if it does not show what I hope it might. Gray & Malins (2007) talk about ‘trustworthiness’ within research into humans as an equivalent to ‘validity’ in scientific study. There is an ethical requirement to present the research in a way that reflects it accurately, with no bias or agenda. ‘Have you tried to explore, describe, explain in an open and unbiased way, or are you more concerned with delivering the required answer or selecting the evidence to support a case?’ Robson (1993) cited in Gray and Malins (2007)
To this end I will engage in ‘communicative validation’ (Gray and Malins, 2007) where the subjects of my research have the opportunity to feed back if they feel they have been misrepresented by my summary of their contribution.
Copy of Ethical Action Plan
Copies of consent forms signed by interviewees. Names and signatures have been redacted for privacy.
References
- Gray, C. & Mallins, J. (2007) Interpreting the map: methods of evaluation and analysis in Visualising Research: A Guide to the Research Process in Art and Design, UK: Taylor & Francis Group.