Human Subjects, IRB, and the ethics of school-based research

The APA style manual has cautioned us to avoid calling the humans who help us with our research “subjects.” While they may be the subject of our work, APA would prefer that we acknowledge their actual contribution. So if they respond to a survey call them “respondents” and if they work in your class, call them “students” or “learners.” If nothing else, call them “participant” to acknowledge they volunteered to participate and were not just the empty subject of your observations, like monkeys. Using the right term is just a baby step toward treating volunteers for our social research fairly and with respect.

Chapter 4 in your TopHat text lists many of the technical issues surrounding social science research. It’s a little longer than the typical text chapters and features a 30 min YouTube video that I added about the “trolley dilemma” and self driving cars just above section 4.1. So I’m hesitant to add much more beyond your assigned Tophat readings. The Youtube video is really worth your time and introduces research on the ethical dilemmas that self driving cars may face. It will be worth your time.

Essential Understanding:

Conducting ethical research is the responsibility of the teacher/researcher as well as the sponsoring organization(s) and school administrators. There are many issues to consider and CITI training is simply one way to account for the institution’s (UConn’s) responsibility to keep all researchers alerted to these issues. Ultimately, it is up to each of us to keep these principles in mind and find a balance in how to treat all involved (needs of the 1) fairly, while collecting important information to move scholarly work forward (needs of many). The welfare of the child, parent, and community must be kept in mind as we seek new and better ways for students to learn with technology. Everyone involved in the research should (eventually) benefit from what we learn.