My Trepidation: Personal Ethical Pitfalls and Dilemmas in the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning

B. Ntombela
{"title":"My Trepidation: Personal Ethical Pitfalls and Dilemmas in the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning","authors":"B. Ntombela","doi":"10.51415/ajims.v3i1.967","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Located within the broad framework of critical approach and critical pedagogy, this paper reflects on personal experiences of being caught within the complexities of research ethics in the scholarship of teaching and learning. The paper presents multiplicities in the interpretation and application of ethical procedures in the drive to maintain rigour and transformation in teaching and learning research. Whilst advocating for adherence to research ethics, the paper problematises resistance to change often mounted by those in power in the name of ethics. By implication, the paper exposes the technocratic utility of research ethics at the expense of emancipation and at the same time argues for contextual interpretation and application of ethical procedures for the emancipation of the marginalised. The paper is conceptualised and presented in the tradition of autoethnographic thick description. The findings reveal differences of opinion about the adopted ethical procedures. Whilst on the one hand, many participants identify with the ethical spirit adopted by the researcher, on the other hand, some participants rejected the ethical stance of the researcher. The conclusions suggest that the adoption of covert ethical approaches coupled with critical pedagogy in the context of the scholarship of teaching and learning are most likely to attract pitfalls in research ethics.","PeriodicalId":389941,"journal":{"name":"African Journal of Inter/Multidisciplinary Studies","volume":"45 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"1900-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"African Journal of Inter/Multidisciplinary Studies","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.51415/ajims.v3i1.967","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

Abstract

Located within the broad framework of critical approach and critical pedagogy, this paper reflects on personal experiences of being caught within the complexities of research ethics in the scholarship of teaching and learning. The paper presents multiplicities in the interpretation and application of ethical procedures in the drive to maintain rigour and transformation in teaching and learning research. Whilst advocating for adherence to research ethics, the paper problematises resistance to change often mounted by those in power in the name of ethics. By implication, the paper exposes the technocratic utility of research ethics at the expense of emancipation and at the same time argues for contextual interpretation and application of ethical procedures for the emancipation of the marginalised. The paper is conceptualised and presented in the tradition of autoethnographic thick description. The findings reveal differences of opinion about the adopted ethical procedures. Whilst on the one hand, many participants identify with the ethical spirit adopted by the researcher, on the other hand, some participants rejected the ethical stance of the researcher. The conclusions suggest that the adoption of covert ethical approaches coupled with critical pedagogy in the context of the scholarship of teaching and learning are most likely to attract pitfalls in research ethics.
我的惶恐:教与学学术中的个人伦理陷阱与困境
在批判方法和批判教育学的广泛框架内,本文反思了在教学和学习的学术研究伦理的复杂性中陷入困境的个人经历。本文介绍了在保持教学和学习研究的严谨性和转型过程中,伦理程序的解释和应用的多样性。在倡导遵守研究伦理的同时,这篇论文也对当权者以伦理的名义对变革的抵制提出了质疑。通过暗示,本文揭示了以牺牲解放为代价的研究伦理的技术官僚效用,同时主张对边缘化解放的伦理程序进行语境解释和应用。这篇论文是按照民族志厚描述的传统进行概念化和呈现的。调查结果揭示了对所采用的伦理程序的不同意见。一方面,许多参与者认同研究者所采用的伦理精神,另一方面,一些参与者拒绝了研究者的伦理立场。结论表明,在教学和学习的学术背景下,采用隐蔽的伦理方法与批判教学法相结合,最有可能引起研究伦理的陷阱。
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 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
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
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
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 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信