Framework for an Ethics of Open Education

Editor's Notes

• #10: Split into 3 slides?
• #11: Split into 3 slides?
• #14: Jordan (2014) used openly available and crowd-sourced data on MOOC enrolment and completion to perform a trends analysis using linear regression. This study showed that the average completion rate for MOOC was 10%, and that the massive enrolment seen in some early MOOC was falling as more courses became available. The data from the study was made openly available to others to corroborate results or perform alternative analyses. A blog post about the work went viral and became the de facto citation for MOOC completion rates (Weller, 2014, p. 14).
• #15: In 2009 Tony Hirst produced a map of British MP expense claims which was picked up and used by The Guardian newspaper This was produced quickly using open technologies and led to further maps and other ways of exploring data stories through openness
• #16: Jordan (2014) used openly available and crowd-sourced data on MOOC enrolment and completion to perform a trends analysis using linear regression. This study showed that the average completion rate for MOOC was 10%, and that the massive enrolment seen in some early MOOC was falling as more courses became available. The data from the study was made openly available to others to corroborate results or perform alternative analyses. A blog post about the work went viral and became the de facto citation for MOOC completion rates (Weller, 2014, p. 14).
• #18: This threshold would be unlikely to be high enough for most institutional review boards –especially given (i) the intention to cause psychological stress, and (ii) the impossibility of a small research team knowing what impact the study would have on such a large sample. Indeed, though the study involved researchers from Cornell University their IRB covered only the analysis of data and not its collection. Furthermore, because the work was for a private company it was believed that different ethical expectations apply: “[b]ecause this experiment was conducted by Facebook, Inc. for internal purposes, the Cornell University IRB determined that the project did not fall under Cornell's Human Research Protection Program” (Verma, 2014). 
• #29: Point to make here is that these principles are widely understood, apply in diverse contexts Not a systematic review but full papers shows shared genealogy of research ethics principles back to WWII through Belmont Report, Declaration of Helsinki, etc.
• #30: Full paper includes a summary of the strengths and weaknesses of these approaches
• #35: DUTIES - Unforced and un-incentivized participation; no compulsory questions; translation of survey into local languages for field work OUTCOMES - Some gaps in data due to unanswered questions PERSONAL DEVELOPMENT - Encouraged reflection on how to encourage participation through effective research design
• #36: DUTIES – Follow all relevant institutional review board requirements, especially important in unfamiliar national contexts with different cultural expectations OUTCOMES – All names, contact details and identifiable information removed from open data / Collaboration model meant dozens of separate IRB applications; often extremely impractical PERSONAL DEVELOPMENT - The research team developed a stronger sense of how open sharing could introduce new and unforeseen possibilities for harm and acted accordingly / Open research involving institutions should allow extra time for review board
• #37: DUTIES – Explained nature of open licensed dissemination to participants and give participants (e.g. interviewees) option to add criteria to their recordings being released in open OUTCOMES - Some concerns over whether participants would be as forthcoming if they thought their responses might not be anonymous DEVELOPMENT - Raising openness with participants helped clarify expectations for future work / Consciously developing an ‘ethic of open’ as expected practice
• #38: DUTIES – Data was collected and stored securely according to relevant institutional policies / Research instruments were designed to only collect personal information relevant to hypotheses (e.g. gender, disability were included but sexual orientation was not). OUTCOMES - Some countries, states and provinces exhibit differences in legal expectations around cloud storage of data. It was important to comply with the local expectations / Open dissemination strategy required redacting survey data sets of information, which arguably diminishes their value for re-use DEVELOPMENT - Practical experience of conducting research in different contexts makes it easier to prepare subsequent interventions / Participants may become more used to sharing data openly
• #39: DUTIES – As instruments and data were released openly it was important to ensure that the work could be followed and reproduced OUTCOMES - OER Hub is producing a ‘researcher pack’ which will encourage intended re-use of instruments. An annual survey will provide a set of comparative data points for those re-using questions, etc. / High quality research into OER impact is needed by developing OER movement for planning and advocacy DEVELOPMENT - Researchers were required to engage closely with validity of the research / Improved sense of awareness of the challenges of using open and mixed methodologies
• #40: DUTIES – Research team had a duty both to be independent and to act responsively to actually existing research needs of diverse organisations OUTCOMES - Collaborative research model involved some compromises over research methodology but in return large data sets were acquired / Occasionally a fine line between research objectivity and advocacy DEVELOPMENT - Use of the framework encourages authentic reflection and ownership rather than ‘box-ticking’ risk assessment / Importance of projecting a clear and independent research identity; this was partly achieved through social media
• #41: DUTIES – A duty to ensure that all participants understood the intention to openly disseminate results and redacted data; custom consent form OUTCOMES - Information collected from more than 7,000 participants has been disseminated without incident DEVELOPMENT -