Content uploaded by Jessica Pool
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Jessica Pool on Jul 06, 2022
Content may be subject to copyright.
32
The potential of Scholarship of
Teaching and Learning research
towards transformative pedagogies in
higher education: An approach to
ethical mindedness
Jessica Pool,
Centre for Teaching and Learning, North-West University
Mariëtte Fourie,
Centre for Teaching and Learning, North-West University
Yolande Heymans,
Centre for Health Professions Education, Faculty of Health Sciences,
North-West University
Christmal Christmals
Centre for Health Professions Education, Faculty of Health Sciences,
North-West University
Abstract
Scholarship of teaching and learning (SoTL) presents the vital intersection
between teaching, learning and research in the Higher Education context.
However, ethical requirements applicable to SoTL research are mistrusted
and remain a challenge. This results in lecturers not engaging in SoTL
research towards transformative pedagogies. In addition, clear guidelines for
ethics in SoTL are lacking. In this chapter, the authors critically reflect on
ethical mindedness specifically relevant to SoTL research. The scientific gap
identified in the literature implies the provision of more guidance on ethical
Chapter 1
33
issues to enhance SoTL research. Applying ethical mindedness to SoTL
research may provide a stronger coherence between the ethical application
process and the scientific approach of SoTL. The study followed a qualitative
research approach using design thinking as research methodology. This
chapter provided ethical principles and guidelines to the wider SoTL
community, including academics, academic developers, scientific committees
and RECs to close this gap. Guidelines included aspects such as how to address
the power relation in SoTL research, important aspects of informed consent
and the process, autonomy to choose freely to participate or not, selection of
participants, benefits and risk ratio, protecting participants and the integrity
of the research as well as safeguarding data.
Keywords: Ethics, Higher Education, Pedagogies, Scholarship of Teaching and
Learning, Transformation
Introduction and background
The identity of an academic as a university teacher is embedded in
knowledge consumers, producers, and disseminators. This implies that the
work of an academic involves being a university teacher and a researcher
(DHET, 2018). According to the framework for academics as university
teachers, these roles should not be in competition as they are equally
important and interdependent (DHET, 2018). Literature suggests a lack of
ethical mindedness amongst Scholarship of Teaching and Learning (SoTL)
researchers as regards to ethical guidelines that apply to scholarly research.
These guidelines are necessary as SoTL research adheres to the same
scientific and ethics criteria as all disciplinary research (Pool & Reitsma,
2017).
In addition, a misconception related to SoTL context and specific approach of
SoTL research by non-educational research ethics committees (RECs) is
evident (Stockley & Balkwill, 2013). During an SoTL writing retreat offered as
a professional development opportunity to academics at the NWU, these
Chapter 1
34
gaps were confirmed by SoTL participants. Consequently, an Ethics in SoTL
research workshop was conceptualised, developed, and presented. The
purpose of this workshop was to focus specifically on the ethical issues
related to the ethical considerations during each step of the SoTL research
process and to create a sense of ethical mindedness. The envisaged
outcomes of this workshop were to develop guiding principles for applying
ethical mindedness in SoTL research. The workshop created a space where
academic developers, academics and experts in RECs collaboratively and
critically engaged in ethical mindedness in SOTL research. This led to valuable
insights and a shared understanding of ethical principles in SoTL research that
might lead to more SoTL research outputs. Providing collaborative spaces and
professional development opportunities allows for academics who are
passionate about engaging in a scholarly approach to teaching and learning
in higher education (HE) to explore and discuss uncertainties and some
burning issues and challenges in SoTL research.
The transformative potential of SoTL in higher
education
This section emphasises the importance of engaging in SoTL research
towards transformative pedagogies in HE. The development of SoTL in HE
institutions in South Africa emerged from 2004 ISSoTL conference (ISSoTL,
2004). Subsequently, an increase in the number of SoTL initiatives is evident
in South Africa and also at the NWU. SoTL is supported by the Department of
Higher Education and Training (DHET) and is an integral part of the
framework for academics as university teachers (DHET, 2018).
SoTL provides an opportunity for academics as university teachers to conduct
scholarly inquiry into teaching and learning processes in HE contexts. The
overall intention of SoTL is to focus on expertise in HE teaching and learning,
Chapter 1
35
thus improving student learning and enhancing educational quality through
evidence-based and methodologically sound research (Huber & Hutchings,
2005; Mckinney, 2007, 2012). Kreber (2013) postulates that SoTL contributes
to the broader vision of university teaching through the commitment to serve
important interests of students, not only for their academic learning and
personal flourishing but also for creating greater social justice in the world.
In support of Kreber (2013), the draft Ministerial Statement on the
implementation of the University Capacity Development Programme (UCDP)
advocates for transformation and social justice in HE. The Ministerial
Statement further argues that promoting SoTL is one example of a vital
intersection between teaching and research because it provides an
opportunity for academics to conduct scholarly inquiry into teaching and
learning processes in HE contexts (Department of Higher Education and
Training [DHET], 2019). Therefore, research and teaching development
should be viewed as equally important imperatives for the success of the HE
system (Department of Higher Education and Training [DHET], 2019).
In the context of HE, and specifically at the NWU, a scholarly approach to
student success is regarded as necessary to ensure pedagogical best practices
(NWU Teaching and Learning Strategy, 2021–2025). This implies the adoption
of pedagogical best practices, as opposed to practices aimed only at the
transmission of knowledge. However, pedagogical best practices have been
challenged by the COVID-19 pandemic. In the context of remote online
teaching and learning, best practices in HE from a student, lecturer and
professional staff perspective are needed to enhance the virtual teaching and
learning experience. It is required of academics as university teachers to
engage in pedagogical innovation regarding teaching and assessment
strategies in their classrooms. SoTL research could enable pedagogical
innovation, as it encapsulates reflection on and transformation of teaching
Chapter 1
36
and learning practices and, therefore, provides a vital intersection between
teaching and research. This also aspires to the overall theme of this book –
“A scholarly approach to student success in HE within the context of one of
the subthemes: Academics as university teachers”.
Beyond the transformative potential of SoTL in higher
education: Adopting an ethical mindedness
In reaching a shared understanding of the ethical implications for SoTL
research, this section elaborates on the possible reasons for engaging in SoTL
research towards transformative pedagogies in HE being absent. Amongst
others, SoTL researchers are of the opinion that scientific evidence required
by REC’s are hindering SoTL research (Cleary et al., 2014; Reed, 2007; Stockley
& Balkwill, 2013). SoTL researchers find that the ethical criteria are
incompatible for SoTL research and, therefore, are lacking trust in the ethical
approval process. The literature also reports that, because of the
misconception about SoTL research, ethical clearance is perceived as
perplexed, tedious, and not applicable to SoTL research (Linder et al., 2014;
Stockley & Balkwill, 2013; Hally & Walsh, 2016).
The authors argue that providing practical principles and clear guidelines for
ethics in SoTL research may address the misconceptions and confusion about
ethics in SoTL research. This dilemma is confirmed by Pool and Reitsma
(2017:39), who stated, “[d]espite expanding engagement in Scholarship of
Teaching and Learning (SoTL), clear guidelines for ethical criteria for SoTL,
and the implementation thereof remain limited”. In their paper, they
critically reflected on how ethical criteria applicable to SoTL impact lecturer
engagement in SoTL. It is for this reason that the authors make suggestions
on how to support SoTL research without losing the scholarliness and the
impact it has on innovation in teaching and learning.
Chapter 1
37
Therefore, the authors acknowledge a lack of evidence of principles and
guidelines for ethics in SoTL research. In this chapter, the authors critically
reflect on ethical mindedness specifically relevant to SoTL research. The
scientific gap identified in the literature implies the provision of more
guidance on ethical issues to enhance SoTL research. Applying ethical
mindedness to SoTL research may support a better alignment between the
ethical application process and the scientific approach of SoTL. This chapter
aims to provide ethical principles and guidelines to the wider SoTL
community, including academics, academic developers, scientific
committees and RECs to close this gap.
Against this background, this study aimed to address the following
compelling research question:
What principles and guidelines can be developed to address the
misconceptions and confusion about ethics in SoTL research and to establish
a sense of ethical mindedness?
Moreover, the aims of this research was to:
• explore the potential of SoTL towards transformative pedagogies in
higher education;
• develop an understanding of the misconception and confusion
related to ethics in SoTL research;
• develop principles, guidelines and ethical mindedness related to
ethics in SoTL research.
Research methodology
A paradigm is a theoretical framework which is based on a certain set of
beliefs which suggests practical frameworks for scientific activities (Bandura,
Chapter 1
38
2001). This study followed a pragmatic approach by applying design thinking
(DT). Design thinking is generally defined as a developmental philosophy,
which includes a paradigm, methods, tools, and techniques relevant to DT.
This study employed a wicked problems paradigm, which deals with the
fundamental assumption behind DT. In the context of SoTL research, ethics
remains a contested and ill-defined topic, as it relies on many interdependent
factors, which often require a deep understanding of the stakeholders
involved (Interaction Design Foundation, n.d.). Therefore, the researchers
deemed DT as a suitable paradigm for this study. The research method of DT
applied in this study refers to reflective practice, and the tools and techniques
used to collect data include facilitated focus groups discussions, reflections,
brainstorming, mind maps, and feedback sessions (Laursen & Tollestrup,
2017).
Qualitative data was collected during an online professional development
workshop. The online workshop entailed information sessions, breakout
sessions in groups with feedback, brainstorming, expert panel discussions,
and input from scientific and research ethics committees. The study
population consisted of academics and academic developers who registered
for the workshop, and an all-inclusive voluntary sample was used. Informed
consent was obtained in adherence to all ethical criteria. All data sets were
transcribed by an independent person, to ensure trustworthiness.
Thereafter, the data was thematically coded and analysed to develop an
understanding of the misconception and confusion related to ethics in SoTL
research as well as to develop principles, guidelines and ethical mindedness
related to ethics in SoTL research.
In the next section, the research findings are discussed.
Chapter 1
39
Research findings and discussion
Ethics in SoTL research
Ongoing discourses in the field of SoTL research relate to the following: (i)
the need for ethical clearance due to the perceived non-scientific nature of
SoTL research; (ii) academics are often of the opinion that gathering
information from students in their classrooms is not defined as scientific
research and, therefore, does not require ethical clearance; and (ii) SoTL
research constitutes no risk.
A critical reflection is provided by Healey et al. (2013) which sheds light on
the understanding of both SoTL and ethics: “SoTL is the process of exploring,
researching, developing, refining, reflecting upon, and communicating better
ways and means of producing, promoting, and enhancing scholarly learning
and teaching in ways that are ethically reasoned and inclusive” (p. 24). This
definition implies that SoTL research is scientific in nature and affects (i)
institutional practice and educational issues, and (ii) human society (Healey
et al. 2013).
This, in turn, raises the question as to what constitutes ethical mindedness in
SoTL research. The Belmont Report explains the ethical nature of research
when involving human subjects: (i) respect for persons, (ii) beneficence, and
(ii) justice (Department of Health, Education, and Welfare, 2014). These three
Belmont principles are further subdivided into 10 ethical principles for SoTL
research, which are discussed in this section. These principles include power
relationship; voluntary participation; informed consent; fairness and equity;
autonomy and privacy; inclusive selection; risks and benefits; data storage
and management. SoTL research at the NWU strives to support the Belmont
principles. SoTL becomes ethical when researchers show personal ethical
mindedness and function in an ethical climate (Healey et al. 2013) .
Chapter 1
40
It is important to realise that there are always risks involved when conducting
research with students as vulnerable participants. Furthermore, the research
method applied also determines the risk level – for example, qualitative
research methods such as interviews, personal reflection, and/or
visual/audio recordings immediately indicate a higher level of risk.
The following section discusses 10 practice-based principles underpinned by
ongoing discourses and the Belmont Report. It provides guidelines on how
these could be applied to SoTL research. It is important to acknowledge the
interconnectedness between the principles.
Guiding principles for SoTL Research
Guiding Principle 1: Power relationship
Occupying the role as lecturer and researcher – each with their own identity,
values, and power association – creates an unequal power dynamic, thus a
conflict of interest, placing undue pressure on students (Pool & Reitsma,
2017; Schnurr & Taylor, 2019). As authority figures and gatekeepers to
students’ academic success, lecturers are in a position of trust and power.
Lecturers may occupy different types of power, all of which can create a
sense of fear. Lecturers have legitimate power, giving them “control” over
others. Having coercive power, lecturers may dispense “punishment” to
those who do not comply with requests. Having the power of reward implies
the ability (implied or real) to pass or fail students. Power is perceived
differently, and the power associated with an individual can influence the
thinking and doing of others. Students, as a captive audience and essentially
“trapped”, are dependent on the lecturer for their educational success (Pool
& Reitsma, 2017). The unequal power dynamics (perceived, implied, or
absolute) and the control associated with this position of power can create
Chapter 1
41
ethical dilemmas such as coercion, undue influence, and a conflict of interest
(Feroduk, 2017; Schnurr & Taylor, 2019).
The lecturer-researcher (hereafter “the lecturer”) must be ethical when
including students as research participants (Feroduk, 2017). An ethics
application and supporting documentation should show sensitivity towards
and cognisance of the dual role and associated power relationships. Drawing
on the risk analysis, possible conflict of interest (actual, potential, or
perceived), dual role and power-associated risks and ethical dilemmas must
be identified, and mitigating strategies must be included (Schnurr & Taylor,
2019). Strategies can include talking to colleagues to identify “blind spots”
the lecturer may have regarding undue influence, coercion, power
imbalances, and conflict of interest. Applicants should identify the power
relationships present, acknowledge the inherent power differential, and the
influence of race, gender, age, culture, etcetera, on the perception of power
(Feroduk, 2017).
The use of a knowledgeable neutral, independent person(s) who is not in a
position of power is advisable when engaging with the students during any
research-related activities (Feroduk, 2017). Informed about the roles and
responsibilities of the researcher and the independent person, the neutral
person serves as a buffer between the lecturer and the students, which will
help to protect the identity of students who are willing to participate or not
(Feroduk, 2017). The researcher must train the neutral person(s) before the
start of the research, as preparing them would protect the integrity of the
research project. To enhance anonymity, the neutral person must remove
any identifiable information from the data sets, and the use of a code list is
recommendable (Feroduk, 2017; Schnurr & Taylor, 2019). Using online
systems and software when collecting data from students can minimise the
power relationship (Schnurr & Taylor, 2019). Data analysis should only start
Chapter 1
42
when the lecturer has no further role to play in the teaching and learning of
the student.
Guiding Principle 2: Participants should be fully informed
Principle 2 pivots around ensuring that participants are fully informed about
the intended research, and based on the information, they can decide if they
want to participate (or not) (Feroduk, 2017). Research ethics committees
provide clear guidelines on the information that should be included for a
participant to make an informed decision. In their ethics application, the
informed consent form and applicable supporting documents, researchers
should disclose the information participants need to make an informed
decision regarding participation (Schnurr & Taylor, 2019). Before the
research commences, prospective participants should be informed about the
intended research during a research information session (Pool & Reitsma,
2017). It is also essential that participants have access to research-related
information for their perusal. Such information could, for example, be
uploaded to the learning management system (LMS). An independent and
neutral person should facilitate the information session. Using a neutral
person would reduce the power relationship associated with the dual
lecturer-researcher role (Feroduk, 2017). Students are a captured audience
and, therefore, the research information session should be mandatory and
not interfere with academic time. Although an independent person facilitates
the research information session, the researcher can still inform the
participants of the intended research. However, a trained independent
person should facilitate the informed consent process without the researcher
so as to minimise the student–lecturer power relationship (Pool & Reitsma,
2017).
During the research information session, it is important that participants are
informed about the aim of the research and that expectations are elucidated,
Chapter 1
43
highlighting possible risks and risk-mitigation strategies (Feroduk, 2017) and
explaining the direct and indirect benefits of participating in the research
(Schnurr & Taylor, 2019). The researcher should inform participants that
participation is voluntary, that they can withdraw before data
anonymisation, and that there would be no repercussions for declining
consent. The researcher must elucidate the data collection methods, who will
access the raw data sets and provide insight into when the data analysis
process starts (Schnurr & Taylor, 2019). The researcher must elaborate on
strategies to ensure anonymity and confidentiality and must emphasise that
only partial confidentiality can be ensured in the case of focus group
interviews. Finally, the researcher should share information on the
dissemination of the findings and the roles and responsibilities of the lecturer
as the researcher and the independent person(s) (Schnurr & Taylor, 2019).
Guiding Principle 3: Autonomy to choose freely and privately whether to
participate
Principle 3 addresses the ethical aspect of autonomy to choose freely and
privately whether to participate in the research, refuse to participate, or
withdraw from participation at any time during or after the research
(provided that the data have not already been disseminated) after being fully
informed. This implies ensuring that each student’s decision to participate (or
not) in the research is voluntary and that their privacy is protected when
giving or declining consent. Researchers have an ongoing duty to provide
participants with all information relevant to their ongoing consent to
participate in the research. Therefore, consent should be maintained
throughout the research project.
There is a specific way in which providing informed consent should take place
for a face-to-face and online setting, allowing for autonomy. This could differ
according to the specific REC requirements. Also, an important aspect to
Chapter 1
44
consider relates to the time that elapses between the information given
about the research and when informed consent is obtained. Therefore,
sufficient time should be allowed for students to provide consent to freely
and privately choose to participate.
All information pertaining to informed consent – including information
videos, etcetera – should be uploaded to an LMS for the students to access,
providing them sufficient time to familiarise themselves with the research.
During the contact session, an independent person (no power relation
evident) should explain the nature of the research, provide all relevant
information necessary and should address any questions so that potential
participants (students) are fully informed as explained in Principle 2.
Informed consent forms should be signed by both the students and the
independent person collecting these forms. When collecting consent forms
from student participants in class, the forms should be designed in such a
way so that all students sign and hand in the paper form in order to prevent
knowledge of who is participating and who is not participating (e.g., explain
that everyone signs the consent form, but those who do not want to
participate can then draw two lines through their signatures). The signed
forms are placed in a box, sealed in front of the last student by the
independent person, who will then capture the data. Students who do not
give consent immediately, have the opportunity to do so later during the
research. Within the online environment, informed consent is obtained using
an electronic form where all relevant protocols are followed. This implies that
the students are still fully informed and have a choice to freely participate or
not. Students are instructed to click on a link that takes them to the informed
consent form. If a student then agrees to give consent by clicking “accept”,
the terms and conditions are explained and the student agrees that they
want to participate in the study and that they are fully informed.
Chapter 1
45
The method of recruitment is also essential in ensuring voluntariness. In
particular, how, when and where participants are approached and who
recruits them are important elements in assuring (or undermining)
voluntariness. In considering the voluntariness of consent, RECs and
researchers should be cognisant of situations where undue influence,
coercion, or the offer of incentives may undermine the voluntariness of a
participant’s consent to participate in research, as explained under Guiding
Principle 1.
Different forms of data collection should be considered for the autonomy
principle (i.e., to participate or not). For example, video or audio recordings
may include students in one's class who have not provided informed consent
to participate in the research. When using video recordings, consenting
students should be given options. The first option may be that they give
consent if the video recording will only be viewed by the research team; the
second option may be that the video recording will be viewed by the research
team and will then be shared during dissemination of the research
findings. In addition, when conducting surveys, web-based survey tools (e.g.,
Qualtrics, etc.) that allow for students to participate anonymously should be
used. Anonymous online participation eliminates personal identifiers and
peer pressure and allows students who are not interested in participating to
privately decline. Incentives (if offered) should be kept a minimum to avoid
undue influence, and students should be provided with clear timelines during
which they may opt in or out of participation in the study.
Guiding Principle 4: Decision to participate (or not)
Principle 4 addresses the decision of the student whether to participate in
the research or not. Lecturers have the authority to conduct SoTL research
in a specific module they teach. However, they must ensure that students
have a choice as to whether to participate in the research. To understand this
Chapter 1
46
principle, it is necessary to distinguish between normal compulsory teaching
and learning activities and teaching and learning activities related to SoTL
research.
RECs require researchers to clearly explain which activities are research-
related and which are curriculum related teaching and learning activities
(Bishop-Clark & Dietz-Uhler, 2012). This remains a challenge, as in many
cases, there is no distinction between SoTL research activities and normal
learning activities. The reason for distinguishing SoTL research activities from
normal learning activities is to allow students a choice to participate or not.
This implies that normal learning activities are compulsory, but the student
has a choice as to whether the lecturer may use the data for SoTL research.
Students who do not provide consent to participate in the research cannot
be included in the study population. However, it is compulsory that students
are still being allowed to participate in the learning activity towards
improving their learning (Rowland and Myatt, 2013).
To further protect students as vulnerable participants, RECs suggest that data
should not be collected during class time, as valuable teaching and learning
time is lost if data collection is conducted during class time. The challenge
remains that student participation significantly drops when data is gathered
in separate organised sessions outside formal teaching time. This resulted in
problems with too small sample sizes, or not being able to reach data
saturation, impacting on the credibility of the data (Cleary et al. 2014).
Cleary et al. (2014) further explained that students do not participate
because they do not see the direct benefit of new or improved innovative
learning, and this may have resulted in them not realising the importance of
the SoTL research.
Chapter 1
47
Guiding Principle 5: Inclusive, fair, and equitable selection of participants
Many human atrocities underlined by scientific experiments such as the
Tuskegee syphilis study (Brandt, 1978), medical research in colonial Africa
(Tilley, 2016), the Holocaust, and unethical vivisection triggered critical
examination of ethical inclusion of humans in research. Just like research,
research ethics has evolved over time (Dhai, 2014; Paul & Brookes, 2015),
transitioning various industries and institutional boundaries – this includes
the use of students and HE institutional information in scientific inquiry
(Hassel, 2013). As discussed previously, due to the power relationship
between the students and their lecturers, their age, and the assumed need
to be successful in their assessment, students are considered a vulnerable
group for SoTL research (Sykes & Dullabh, 2012). There must be a concerted
effort by researchers and human RECs to ensure inclusive, fair, and equitable
selection of such vulnerable groups in SoTL research (Department of Health,
2015).
The following should be considered in the selection of students in SoTL
research: setting, risks, and benefits; vulnerability; inclusion and exclusion
criteria; and the recruitment and enrolment process.
The setting and population for the SoTL research must be inclusive of those
who would benefit most from the intervention during and after the study,
and they must be fully aware of the benefits. Beecher (1966) established that
many humans across the globe – and most commonly in the developing
world (Harkness et al., 2001) – have experienced grave consequences
secondary to participating in harmful experiments that they were not fully
aware of. The benefits must always outweigh the risk before participants are
allowed to participate in a study. Due to the stringent ethical requirements
in the developed and industrial world, many scientists tend to use the
developing world as a laboratory for experiments that they would not be
Chapter 1
48
allowed to undertake in their home countries. It is essential that HE
institutions and their scientific and ethics committees protect their students
and groups of potential participants against such exploitations. The burden
of the experimentation must be fairly distributed to the populations that
would benefit from the study, and no experiment should be allowed for the
development of products for another setting.
SoTL research may overburden students who already have full academic
loads. Also, students are easily susceptible to pressure, especially when their
lecturers are the researchers. The researcher must scientifically justify why
such vulnerable groups are included in the study and must provide strategies
to protect them from coercion. However, while protecting the vulnerable
population, the researcher must also be careful not to overprotect (Sykes &
Dullabh, 2012).
Researchers must evaluate their inclusion criteria to ensure that students are
not excluded for non-scientific reasons such as funding, available time, and
convenience. Researchers should vividly describe what participants are
susceptible to potential risks of the study and the exclusion process (Sykes &
Dullabh, 2012). The recruitment and enrolment process demands that the
researcher applies the inclusion and exclusion criteria carefully, knowing well
that biases may arise during the selection process which might make fair
selection criteria inequitable. Furthermore, the timing of any remuneration
should be carefully examined to ensure it does not introduce coercion of
students.
In Scholarship Reconsidered, Boyer (1990) sought to create the culture of
rethinking the classroom space as the laboratory for inquiry (Hassel, 2013).
Participating in SoTL research is beneficial to the students, academics, and
the institutions involved and must be encouraged by all stakeholders.
Chapter 1
49
Guiding Principle 6: Benefits and risks of participating
Principle 6 explores the ethical principles surrounding the risks and benefits
associated with participating in SoTL research. Non-maleficence underpins
SoTL research and refers to an obligation not to inflict harm on others (Linder
et al., 2014). Cleary et al., (2014) argue that any research with humans may
hold risks and there may be the possibility of harm. Cleary et al., (2014) refers
to “Risk” as the probability of harm when participating in research, and
“harm” relates to anything that harms a participant’s welfare (Cleary et al.,
2014).
Risk–benefit ratio analysis should precede any research with humans. Greeff
(2016:1) explains that the purpose of the risk–benefit ratio is to “evaluate
whether there is an ethically justifiable balance between the anticipated
research results and any harm or inconvenience” that the research can cause
any participant. Researchers should assess the probability, magnitude, and
seriousness of harm. The risks involved in participating in the research will
determine the risk category and levels (e.g., low, minimal, medium, and high
risk) (Greeff, 2016). The researcher should identify any harm, whether
physical, psychological, social, legal, economic, dignitary, or communal
(Greeff, 2016). Ethics applications and supporting documents should contain
the expected, potential and anticipated risks and harm categories, level of
risk in every stage of the research, and the reason for risk should be justified
(Feroduk, 2017). Researchers should further indicate how they plan to
minimise the risk of harm and include mitigation strategies (Greeff, 2016;
Linder et al., 2014). Before obtaining informed consent, participants should
be fully informed about the expected, potential/anticipated risks (Cleary et
al., 2014). The benefits of participating should outweigh the potential risk of
harm and the risk-benefit ratio should be a favourable ratio (Pool & Reitsma,
2017).
Chapter 1
50
Cleary et.al., (2014) emphasise the value of SoTL research for current
students as participants, for future students, the lecturer, the lecturer-
researcher, the institution, the broader community, and SoTL funders.
Benefits can be direct or indirect. Direct benefits positively affect the interest
or welfare of the participant, while indirect benefits are benefits to the
researcher, scientific field of knowledge, or the community (Linder et al.,
2014). The researcher should disclose all direct and indirect benefits upfront
in the ethics application and supporting documentation (MacLean & Poole,
2010).
Another essential element in SoTL research is the equitable distribution of
research benefits. Researchers should avoid circumstances where one group
of individuals are significantly advantaged or disadvantaged by participating
in the study (MacLean & Poole, 2010). Pool and Reitsma (2017) highlight
contesting arguments in literature regarding the award of incentives for
participating in SoTL research. These authors emphasise that incentives
should be appropriate for the time and effort spent participating, and
advocate the use of a lucky draw voucher(s) as a token of appreciation.
Guiding Principle 7: Disseminating the results
Principle 7 outlines the dissemination of the research results. As discussed in
literature (Fanghanel et al., 2016), there is a distinct difference between
adopting a scholarly approach to teaching and learning and participating in
SoTL. A scholarly approach (being a scholar) entails only being a consumer of
other scholars’ knowledge, whereas SoTL is evident of dissemination of
research outputs (i.e., being a producer of knowledge). These research
outputs take on a variety of forms inclusive of formal and informal outputs.
Formal outputs may include peer-reviewed articles, book chapters, and/or
conference proceedings and presentations. More informal research outputs
Chapter 1
51
involve intra-institutional presentations, faculty seminars, subject group
meetings, and workshops.
As an SoTL researcher, one has an ethical responsibility to inform participants
of the relevant dissemination of the results. During the process of informed
consent, students should be made aware that the results will be
disseminated. In addition, when disseminating the results, careful
consideration of the anonymity of participants and institutions is important.
The manner in which the findings are presented (e.g., direct quotations of a
small group of participants) might reveal the identity of participants. Another
important aspect to consider is the format in which the particular results are
shared – a journal publication will not necessarily be suitable for a student
audience but rather in a visually attractive presentation or report. Principle 7
is an important ethical consideration, and guidelines as outlined above
should always be clearly stipulated in the ethics application form.
Guiding Principle 8: Protecting participants’ information and the integrity
of the research project
Students and their guardians trust HE institutions to protect students’
information and dignity. The protection of participant information and
integrity is so essential to students, institutions, the Department of Higher
Education, and the South African government in general, that many policies
and Acts have been promulgated to ensure its implementation.
Major policies and Acts – such as the Post-School Education and Training
Information Policy (DHET, 2019); the Human Research Ethics Committee
(2021) Principles and Procedures; the Department of Health (2015) policy on
Ethics in Health Research: Principles, Processes and Structures; and the
Protection of Personal Information Act (POPIA) (Republic of South Africa,
2013) – prescribe the protection of personal information and dignity,
simultaneously permitting the use of anonymised data for scientific, quality
Chapter 1
52
improvement and policy purposes in South Africa. Researchers must be
aware of all the principles and ethical codes of conduct enshrined in these
policies and Acts to ensure the integrity of their scientific inquiry (“ignorantia
juris non excusat”) (Rudy-Hiller, 2018).
Volitionists believe that a researcher, even if ignorant of the requirements, is
liable to the negative outcomes (Rudy-Hiller, 2018). The NWU Human
Research Ethics Committee and other credible committees require that
researchers state clearly the procedures and strategies they will employ to
protect participant information before, during, and after their studies
(Department of Health, 2015; Human Research Ethics Committee, 2021). The
Committee ensures that all participants in a study complete a confidentiality
agreement, which makes researchers aware of their responsibility to protect
students and other participants in SoTL research (Human Research Ethics
Committee, 2021).
First, as SoTL researchers, we need to ensure strict adherence to all the
information we provide to our participating students, especially the content
of consent forms which makes us liable for breaches in participant
information protection and management (Department of Health, 2015;
Republic of South Africa, 2013; Staunton et al., 2021). Being mindful of data
protection and confidentiality requirements of the REC provided to the
participants through the information document is essential in ensuring the
integrity of the research project and safeguarding the research data.
Second, researchers should state their strategies in meeting confidentiality
requirements and explain if there are any foreseeable data disclosure
engagements in the REC’s application documents and during the consent
process with prospective participants.
Chapter 1
53
Third, all the research team members should discuss practical confidentiality
implications of the study and sign the appropriate confidentiality agreement.
Personal identifiers collected during the research should be kept within the
knowledge of only the research team. If data will be shared with any
government agency, community or funders, participants should be made
aware of it before signing the consent form.
Fourth, if breach of confidentiality occurs during the study, the researcher
must inform the participants and explain the strategies put in place to
remediate the situation. Breaches in confidentiality should also be reported
to the ethics committee.
Globally, the integrity of many highly respected people, institutions, and
nations has been ruined by poor information management. Therefore, it is
necessary that researchers take the protection of personal information and
data management processes seriously in their inquiry.
Guiding Principle 9: Safeguard and security measures to protect participant
information and data
Data – primary or secondary, containing either personal or institutional
information – need to be stored and protected for reference and research-
integrity purposes. All ethics committees and research institutions have legal
frameworks or policies on how data should be stored and protected and for
how long researchers could store data. Data storage is an essential part of
research integrity and ethical research in that a breach of protection has the
tendency of breaching all other ethical principles – confidentiality, respect,
anonymity, and dignity.
Many journals, funding organisations, and governments increasingly demand
research data to be archived and shared with researchers across the globe
(Bangani & Moyo, 2019) – for example, the National Research Foundation
Chapter 1
54
(2015) Statement on Open Access to Research Publications from the National
Research Foundation (NRF)-Funded Research. These requests demand
countries to develop Acts and policies to safeguard research participants and
their data. Different countries have different data protection laws – it is said
that developed countries have stricter participant data protection laws
compared to developing countries (Bezuidenhout & Chakauya, 2018).
Understanding data protection laws in the research setting and the countries
that the data will be shared with is necessary in planning and protecting
participants' data (Adams et al., 2021; Department of Health, 2015). In South
Africa, POPIA (4 of 2013) and the Department of Health (2015) policy Ethics
in Health Research: Principles, Processes and Structures underline participant
data protection in health research.
For effective data management, researchers need to ask themselves whether
the data to be processed are necessary and proportionate as regards what,
why, how, and for how long. Key principles on data storage and protection
are presented below.
First, the researcher should provide their proposed strategies to safeguard
participant information during and after the study to the REC’s and the
research participants. Second, soft copy data should be protected using
encryption software and limiting access to data through the use of passwords
protected computers and files. Third, all hard copies containing participant
information, including signed consent forms, should be stored in a locked
cabinet and the key should be protected. Researchers must also keep a log
of research team members who have access to the data- all team members
should sign a confidentiality agreement (Human Research Ethics Committee,
2021). Fourth, apart from student grades, examination scripts and teaching
materials that need to be retained for academic purposes, all research data
Chapter 1
55
containing participant information should be destroyed after the research in
accordance with the REC policies and procedures.
Whether intended or not, it is criminal to allow participant (students) data to
be leaked. Sensitive data (pollical, religious, genetic, medical, etc.) could lead
to lifelong damage such as stigmatisation. Researchers, therefore, need to
take actions to safeguard participants' data.
Guiding Principle 10: Approval for the use of secondary data
Data collected without a primary research intent or for the purpose of
research but not covered by the original consent of the participants are
regarded as secondary data (Department of Health, 2015; Tripathy, 2013). In
many instances, such data form part of routine institutional processes such
as teaching, learning, and assessment towards the fulfilment of the
requirements for an academic degree or certificate. Other major secondary
data sources include census, health records, and routine national surveys
(Tripathy, 2013). Such data are held in trust by universities and other
institutions, such as the Department of Higher Education.
The Post-School Education and Training Information Policy (DHET, 2019) is
clear on the importance of secondary data in research quality improvement.
The Department of Health (2015) was more specific on the processes and
principles required for ethical use of secondary data, stating that “[r]esearch
that relies exclusively on secondary use of anonymous information or
anonymous human biological materials usually need not undergo formal
ethics review, provided that no identifiable information is generated”
(Department of Health, 2015, p. 43). It was also explicit that HRECs should
expedite the review of proposals for secondary data use and explore the
previous consent obtained, if any, for the possibility of covering the new use
of the data or requesting new consent (Tripathy, 2013). In cases where the
data are anonymous and the outcomes of the research would not expose the
Chapter 1
56
institution or the participants to any potential risks, the committee can
approve the study without requesting new consent.
Also, if the data contain participant information but can be anonymised,
independent of the researchers, then there is no need for consent from
participants. It will then be required that the data gatekeeper sign a clear
agreement not to provide data with participant identifiers to the researchers.
The ethics committee then serves as a proxy to the participants in granting
consent in this case (Tripathy, 2013). Ethics committees, including the NWU
Human Research Ethics Committee, require an approval from gatekeepers
(the Research Data Gatekeeper Committee, in the case of the NWU)
(Research Data Gatekeeper Committee, 2019) for full ethical approval of
studies using secondary data.
First, the researcher should give clear reasons why they would need to use
the secondary data and who owns the intellectual property rights to the
outcomes of the study to be conducted. Second, applications for the
approval of prospective studies should be done in such a way that data will
be available for secondary analysis. Third, the researcher should state clearly
the benefits the institution that hosts the data will gain from the study. Lastly,
the researcher must be certain about the conditions of the secondary data
being sought. For example, data may be collected over years, especially if one
is investigating student outcomes over a period of time; extraneous variables
such as change of lecturers may blur the results.
Finally, secondary data provide opportunities for researchers to conduct
trend analyses and other studies that could prove vital for improvement in
their teaching and learning methods and institutional policy. Such data are
quick to use, less time consuming and cost-effective; however, secondary
data may be less accurate and outdated compared to primary data.
Chapter 1
57
Conclusion
This chapter affirmed the potential of SoTL research for transformative
pedagogies in HE. The Framework for Academics as University Teachers
(DHET, 2018) clearly stipulates that academics as university teachers should
engage in pedagogical innovation regarding teaching and assessment
strategies in their classrooms. This chapter highlighted that SoTL research
could enable this pedagogical innovation. The chapter set out to develop an
understanding of the misconceptions and confusion related to ethics in SoTL
research. Furthermore, the scientific gap identified in the literature implies
the provision of more guidance on ethical issues to enhance SoTL research
and ethical mindedness. Practical principles and guidelines relevant to ethics
in SoTL were provided in an attempt to close this gap. Guidelines included
aspects such as how to address the power relation in SoTL research,
important aspects of informed consent and the process, autonomy to choose
freely to participate or not, selection of participants, benefits and risk ratio,
protecting participants and the integrity of the research as well as
safeguarding data.
A limitation of the study might be that design thinking as the main research
methodology might not provide sufficient insight into the phenomena of
ethics in SoTL research. A suggestion for future research ethical mindedness
in SoTL could include individual or focus group interviews towards a more in-
depth inquiry.
References
Adams, R., Adeleke, F., Anderson, D., Bawa, A., Branson, N., Christoffels, A.,
De Vries, J., Etheredge, H., Flack-Davison, E., Gaffley, M., Marks, M., Mdhluli,
M., Mahomed, S., Molefe, M., Muthivhi, T., Ncube, C., Olckers, A.,
Papathanasopoulos, M., Pillay, J., Ramsay, M. (2021). POPIA code of conduct
Chapter 1
58
for research. South African Journal of Science, 117(5–6), 1-12.
https://doi.org/10.17159/
sajs.2021/10933
Bandura, A. (2001). Social cognitive theory: an agentive perspective. Annual
Review of Psycology, 52(1).
Bangani, S., & Moyo, M. (2019). Data sharing practices among researchers at
South African universities. Data Science Journal, 18(1), 1-14.
https://doi.org/10.5334/DSJ-2019-028
Beecher, H. K. (1966). Ethics and clinical research. New England Journal of
Medicine, 274(24), 1354-1360.
https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJM196606162742405
Bezuidenhout, L., & Chakauya, E. (2018). Hidden concerns of sharing research
data by low/middle-income country scientists. Global Bioethics, 29(1), 39-54.
https://doi.org/10.1080/11287462.2018.1441780
Bischop-Clark, C., & Dietz-Uhler, B. (2012). Engaging in the Scholarship of
Teaching and Learning: A guide to the process, and how to develop a project
from the start to finish. Virginia: Stylus Publishing.
Boyer, E. L. (1990). Scholarship reconsidered library of Congress Cataloging-
in-Publication Data. The Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of
Teaching. John Wiley & Sons. New York. USA.
Brandt, A. M. (1978). Racism and research: The case of the Tuskegee syphilis
study. The Hastings Center Report, 8(6), 21.
https://doi.org/10.2307/3561468
Chapter 1
59
Centre for Higher Education. (2017). Learning to teach in Higher Education in
South Africa: An investigation into the influences of institutional context on
the professional learning of academics in their roles as teachers. CHE:
Pretoria.
Cleary, M., Walter, G., & Jackson, D. (2014). Above all, “do no harm”: Key
considerations when including students as research participants in higher
education settings. Contemporary Nurse: A Journal for the Australian Nursing
Profession, 49(1).
Department of Health. (2015). Ethics in health research: Principles, processes
and structures. https://www.ul.ac.za/research/application/downloads/
DoH%202015%20Ethics%20in%20Health%20Research%20Guidelines.pdf
Department of Higher Education and Training (DHET). (2019). Post-School
Education and Training Information Policy. https://www.dhet.gov.za/
Policy%20Documents/PSET%20Information%20Policy,%202019.pdf
Department of Health, Education, and Welfare; National Commission for the
Protection of Human Subjects of Biomedical and Behavioral Research. (2014).
The Belmont Report: Ethical principles and guidelines for the protection of
human subjects of research. Journal of the American College of Dentists,
81(3), 4-13.
Dhai, A. (2014). The research ethics evolution: From Nuremberg to Helsinki.
South African Medical Journal, 104(3). https://doi.org/10.7196/SAMJ.7864
Fanghanel, J., Pritchard, J., Potter, J., & Wisker, G. (2016). Defining and
supporting the scholarship of teaching and learning (SoTL): A sector-wide
study. HE Academy.
Chapter 1
60
Feroduk, L. (2017). Ethics in the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning: Key
principles and strategies for ethical practice. Taylor Institute for Teaching and
Learning Guide Series. Taylor Institute for Teaching and Learning at the
University of Calgary.
Greeff, M. (2016). Risk levels for research with human participants.
Potchefstroom: North-West University.
Hally, E., & Walsh, K. (2016). Research ethics and medical education. Medical
Teacher, 38(1), 105-106. https://doi.org/10.3109/0142159X.2014.956068
Harkness, J., Lederer, S., Wikler, D., & Lederer, S. E. Public Health Classics
Laying ethical foundations for clinical research.
https://www.who.int/bulletin/archives/
79(4)365.pdf
Hassel, H. (2013). A Brief History of SoTL and Some Definitions. Teaching
English in the Two-Year College, 41(2).
Healey, R. L., Bass, T., Caulfield, J., Hoffman, A., McGinn, M. K., Miller-Young,
J., & Haigh, M. (2013). Being ethically minded: Practising the Scholarship of
Teaching and Learning in an ethical manner. Teaching and Learning Inquiry,
1(2).
Huber, M. T., & Hutchings, P. (2005). The advancement of learning: Building
the teaching commons. Jossey-Bass.
Human Research Ethics Committee. (2021). Other Ethics resources. North-
West University. http://health-sciences.nwu.ac.za/healthethics/hrec-other-
ethics-resources
Chapter 1
61
Linder, K. E., Elek, E. D., & Calderon, L. (2014). SoTL and the institutional
review board: Considerations before navigating the application process for
classroom research in higher education. Journal of the Scholarship of
Teaching and Learning, 14(2).
Interaction Design Foundation. Wicked Problems: What are Wicked
Problems? Retrieved https://www.interaction-
design.org/literature/topics/wicked-problems
ISSoTL. (2004). The Scholarship of Teaching and Learning: Perspectives,
intersections and directions. http://www.issotl.indiana.edu/issotl/04/
overview.html
Kreber, C. (2013). The Transformative Potential of the Scholarship of
Teaching. Teaching & Learning Inquiry: The ISSOTL Journal, 1(1).
Laursen, L. N., & Tollestrup, C. (2017). Design thinking – A paradigm.
Proceedings of the 21st International Conference on Engineering Design
(ICED17) Vol. 2: Design Processes, Design Organisation and Management,
Vancouver, Canada, 21-25.08.2017.
National Research Foundation. (2015). Statement on Open Access to
Research Publications from the National Research Foundation (NRF)-Funded
Research. https://www.nrf.ac.za/media-room/news/statement-open-
access-research-publications-national-research-foundation-nrf-fund
Paul, C., & Brookes, B. (2015). The rationalization of unethical research:
Revisionist accounts of the Tuskegee syphilis study and the New Zealand
“unfortunate experiment”. American Journal of Public Health, 105(10).
https://doi.org/10.2105/AJPH.2015.302720
Chapter 1
62
Pool, J., & Reitsma, G. M. (2017). Adhering to scientific and ethical criteria for
scholarship of teaching and learning. Critical Studies in Teaching and
Learning, 5(1). https://doi.org/10.14426/cristal.v5i1.98
Reed, K. (2007). Bureaucracy and beyond: The impact of ethics and
governance of health research in the social sciences. Sociological Research
Online,12(5), 89-98. https://doi.org/10.5153/sro.1627
Republic of South Africa. (2013). Protection of Personal Information Act (Act
No. 4 of 2013).
Research Data Gatekeeper Committee. (2019). Terms of reference: Research
Data Gatekeeper Committee.
http://services.nwu.ac.za/sites/services.nwu.ac.za/
files/files/Ethics/2019.06.19_RDGC%20ToR_Approved.pdf
Rudy-Hiller, F. (2018). The Epistemic Condition for Moral Responsibility. In E.
N. Zalta (Ed.), The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (pp. 1-17). Stanford
University. https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/moral-responsibility-
epistemic/
Schnurr, M. A., & Taylor, A. (2019). Bridging the gap between the research
ethics board and the scholarship of teaching and learning. The Canadian
Journal for the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning, 10(1).
https://doi.org/10.5206/cjsotl-rcacea.2019.1.8003
Staunton, C., Adams, R., Botes, M., De Vries, J., Labuschaigne, M., Loots, G.,
Mahomed, S., Loideain, N. N., Olckers, A., Pepper, M. S., Pope, A., & Ramsay,
M. (2021). Enabling the use of health data for research: Developing a POPIA
code of conduct for research in South Africa. South African Journal of
Bioethics and Law, 14(1), 33. https://doi.org/10.7196/SAJBL.2021.v14i1.740
Chapter 1
63
MacLean, M., & Poole, G. (2010). An introduction to ethical considerations
for novices to research in teaching and learning in Canada. The Canadian
Journal for the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning, 1(2).
https://doi.org/10.5206/cjsotl-rcacea.2010.2.7
McKinney, K. (2007). The student voice: Sociology majors tell us about
learning sociology. Teaching Sociology, 35(2), 112-124. https://doi.org/
10.1177/0092055X0703500201
McKinney, K. (2012). Making a difference: Applying SoTL to enhance learning.
The Journal of the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning, 12(1).
Stockley, D., & Balkwill, L. (2013). Raising awareness of research ethics in
SoTL: The role of educational developers. The Canadian journal for the
Scholarship of Teaching and Learning, 4(1).
Sykes, L. M., & Dullabh, H. (2012). Students’ vulnerability in educational
research. SADJ : Journal of the South African Dental Association = Tydskrif van
Die Suid-Afrikaanse Tandheelkundige Vereniging, 67(5).
https://www.researchgate.net/
publication/233786880_Students'_vulnerability_in_educational_research
Tilley, H. (2016). Medicine, empires, and ethics in colonial Africa. AMA
Journal of Ethics, 18(7), 743-753. https://journalofethics.ama-
assn.org/article/medicine-empires-and-ethics-colonial-africa/2016-07
Tripathy, J. P. (2013). Secondary Data Analysis: Ethical Issues and Challenges.
Iranian Journal of Public Health, 42(12), 1478. /pmc/articles/PMC4441947/
