This page is referenced by:

• 1 2022-06-04T15:43:12+00:00 Glossary 19 alphabetic listing of glossary items with links to notes that describe each item plain 2023-06-28T15:29:30+00:00 Here is an alphabetic listing of the glossary items included in this dissertation document. Each item is linked to a note where the item is defined, described, and/or examples provided. These glossary items are also embedded throughout the document as notes within pages, where they provide 'just in time' clarification for you, the reader.
  • Actor Network Theory
  • Affinity Spaces
  • Alternative Dissertation
  • Artificial Intelligence (AI)
  • Black Box technology
  • Block Chain
  • ChatGPT
  • Computer Assisted Qualitative Data Analysis Software (CAQDAS)
  • Creative Commons
  • Cynefin framework
  • Data Gathering
  • Digital Rights Management (DRM)
  • Educommunication
  • Emirec
  • Episteme / Phronesis
  • Faculty of Education (FoE)
  • #FemEdTech
  • Free and Open Software (FOSS)
  • Homo Faber
  • Hupomnemata
  • Interpretive Phenomenological Analysis (IPA)
  • Learning Management Systems (LMS)
  • Makerspace
  • Massive Open Online Course (MOOC)
  • Media and Information Literacy (MIL)
  • Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD)
  • Open Educational Practices (OEPr)
  • Paywall
  • Platforms
  • PDF
  • Portable Graphics Network (PNG)
  • Post-Intentional Phenomenology (P-IP)
  • Practice - both noun and verb
  • Research Ethics Board (REB)
  • Safety, Security, Privacy, Permission (SSPP)
  • Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council, Canada (SSHRC)
  • Teacher Candidates (TCs)
  • Teacher Educators (TEds)
  • Teacher Educator Technology Competencies (TETCs)
  • TPACK
  • Tri-Council Policy Statement: Ethical Conduct for Research Involving Humans
  • UNESCO
  • Uniform Resource Locator (URL)
  • Universal Serial Bus (USB)
  • Visitors / Residents
  
   
• 1 2022-06-08T21:33:06+00:00 Ethics 13 considerations for ethical decision making and issues arising from research that impact ethical research plain 2023-10-30T16:52:05+00:00

  Data are never neutral, but always already imbued with discourses of power within local, national, and global contexts that perpetuate massive and tenacious social, economic, and political inequities. For these reasons, data engagement must entail ethical choices in the context of research trajectories. We advocate for three commitments, or underlying ethical sensibilities, to infuse the making, assembling, and becoming of data: pragmatism, compassion, and joy (Ellingson & Sotirin, 2020, p. 11).

  While these ethical sensibilities were foundational to this research, it was the basic tenets of ethical research that grounded this work. These included the “fundamental rights of human dignity, autonomy, protection, safety, maximization of benefits and minimization of harms, or, in the most recent accepted phrasing, respect for persons, justice, and beneficence” (Markham & Buchanan, 2012, p. 4). Farrow (2016) outlined an ethical framework when considering research into OER and OEPr which included respect for participant autonomy, avoiding harm and minimizing risks, considering full disclosure, establishing privacy and data security parameters, integrity, independence, and informed consent. These elements were woven into the considerations and decisions I made for/during this research. Additionally, I used and referred to the Tri-Council Policy Statement (TCPS-2) on the Ethical Conduct for Research with Humans (Research Council of Canada, 2014) and the Association of Internet Researchers (AoIR) recommendations (franzke et al., 2020; Markham & Buchanan, 2012) to ensure my awareness and compliance with current recommended ethical guidelines for Canadian and digital contexts. The ethical considerations for this proposed research were premised on my beliefs about respect and relationship. It was important for me to be explicit to participants and readers that care and respectful practices were foremost considerations, despite the premise of doing no harm that was implied when following the TCPS-2 guidelines. Although allowing for participant agency and voice through open sharing with informed consent (Moore, 2012) may appear self-evident in research about open educational practices, I erred on the side of caution by maintaining a strong stance of anonymity for participants. In this way, I hoped to capture an honest and open story in the sharing of challenges that point to systemic and institutional barriers to becoming media and digitally literate open education practitioners.
  
            Ethical decisions were based on “norms, values, principles and usual practices” (Markham & Buchanan, 2012, p. 4). Privacy and confidentiality of web-based information such as social media accounts, course syllabi, and university specific data available on the internet are considered non-intrusive since there is no direct interaction with the researched individuals. Such data gathering does not require REB approval (Research Council of Canada, 2014). These digital artifacts can divulge participants' openly available OEPr and MDL, as revealed in their internet related “documents, records, performances, online archival materials or published third party interviews” (Research Council of Canada, 2014, p. 16). An initial examination of participants’ open and online digital artifacts was conducted prior to REB approval in order to scan for potential participants, but I erred on the side of caution (Seko & Lewis, 2017) and held this data in confidence pending the signed consent form. Once consent was received, gatherings from these openly available internet sources were further assembled and analyzed.
  
            I was vigilant to the ethical issues of data engagements as being “inevitably cultivated and curated by serendipitous algorithms and other computational logics” (Ellingson & Sotirin, 2020, p. 75). I curated these data gathering explorations as a means of discovering elements relevant to participants' individual identity, or specific texts that modelled or exemplified MDL practices. I resisted the urge to aggregate or crystallize this content into other genres so as to honour the individuality of lived experiences, voices, and stories as shared through text, audio, and/or video formats.
  
            As I shifted into direct engagement with participants, I confirmed that participants were treated fairly, equitably, and justly (Gupta, 2017).  The research ethics approval and informed consent ensured that participants were aware that: a) data will be treated confidentially by default; b) that identifiable information would not be share openly; c) that the data was only used for scientific and non-commercial purposes; and that d) they could withdraw their consent at any point during the second phase research (Caliandro & Gandini, 2017; Saunders et al., 2015). I verified and made explicit, through the informed consent form, the procedures for privacy, informed consent, anonymity, confidentiality, security of data, and transparency. These were reviewed as I initiated the direct contact during the interviews. Additionally, participants were assured in the recruitment letter, the informed consent, and in the introduction to the interview that they had the right to withdraw at any time up to the time of data analysis by communicating this desire in either an email or phone call. With their experiences in OEPr and research, participants were cognizant of cookie policies, terms of service, and privacy statements for the web-based services used, so these were not explicitly addressed in the ethical considerations for this research.
  
            I ensured transparency and autonomy in my recruitment of participants by clearly describing the research purpose, details, and any perceived risks and benefits (Gupta, 2017). This was provided in the research recruitment letter and the informed consent letter but was also described in a pre-recorded video message which afforded the participants an early opportunity to see me as the researcher. Although I did not perceive this to be a primary concern, but in order to manage potential identity fraud (Gupta, 2017), I used a consistent means of contact primarily through email, but also through direct messaging on my cell phone. I did not apply an identifying secure-code such as those used by Captcha because I sensed it was not necessary for this research.
  
            To address potential concerns of internet breaches of data, I maintained an external data storage device - a dedicated universal serial bus (USB) drive which was locked in a secure location. This external USB device was used to store and backup the research data. I ensured privacy and confidentiality by assigning a pseudonym, a randomly generated avatar image, and also consistently used 'their' or 'they' rather than gendered pronouns such as she/her or he/him. The confidentiality of web-based data such as blog sites, tweets, posts was ensured through the use of the pseudonym identifier. As well, I randomly changed the password used for the web-based services applied to this research.
  
            Since the research summary was shared in an ALT-DISS format using open web publication in Scalar, when screen images or other recognizable information were captured, all identifying details and meta-data was pixelated or redacted prior to being used. Direct hypertext links to participants’ web-based data were not included in the dissertation or the ALT-DIS Scalar location.
  
            In summary, “ethical decision-making is best approached through the application of practical judgment attentive to the specific context (what Aristotle identified as phronesis)” (Markham & Buchanan, 2012, p. 4). All potential ethical guidelines for the context of this online and web-based research were reviewed and enacted, with a consistent schedule throughout the research project. Although the purpose and intention of this research was focused on opening discourse and publication of the research results using an accessible web-based portal, the ALT-DISS format of reporting research results required continual vigilance to maintain confidentiality, privacy, security, and autonomy of participants’ data.