Discussion Area for INLT Post-IGC Workshop paper on Ethics
read paper - The Ethical Geographer: Ethics in Learning and Teaching Geography in Higher Education
For the discussion to work we need people to engage with it. We hope therefore that you will plan to visit the Web site every few days during the discussion period and contribute your views. Above all we should aim for the discussion to be stimulating and enjoyable.
In making your comments, please phrase the majority of them as discussion points, expressing viewpoints, and raising questions to encourage other colleagues to respond. These comments should be addressed to all the delegates and not just the authors. You may also like to make some suggestions to the authors about additional points and references that they might consider including.
Authors are encouraged to join in the debate of their own papers by responding to issues raised and clarifying their own views.
To join the discussion simply send your comments by email to Mike Sanders (masanders@plymouth.ac.uk) who will add them to the appropriate area of this webpage. Here are some guidelines when submitting comments.
- If responding to a comment please remember to indicate which comment you are responding to in your email (e.g. you may wish to use "Re: subject")
- If you are posting a new comment please give your comment a title or subject
- We will not display your email address with your comments unless you indicate in your email that you are happy for us to do so
Many thanks for your input
Comments / Threads So Far
- Comment on Ethics (from Sonja A.Boehmer-Christiansen)
- Comment on Ethics (from Eric Pawson)
- Comment on Ethics (from Julie Trafford)
- Comment on Ethics (from John Bradbeer)
- Comment on Ethics (from Phil Klein)
- Comment on Ethics (Michael Bradford)
- Comment on Ethics (Clare Madge)
- Comment on Ethics (Christine Jocoy)
Subject: Comment on Ethics
From: Sonja A.Boehmer-Christiansen, Hull University, UK
Date: 15th June 2006
Posting:
I hope that you have a good discussion about ethics in geography.
It is a subject that seriously worries me.
Whose ethics?
The danger of indoctrination by a state or NGO sponsored values system is very real, already observable, and should be resisted by the teaching profession.
(Like everyting else, within limits..preaching the extermination of elephants is different from pointing out that we got rid of animals dangerous to agriculture etc as a price for develoopment. Can such exterminations be avoided in Africa? Under what conditons? Teaching a scientific consensus as truth is wrong. It needs to be pointed out, with examples, that many times in history, such 'scientific agreements' have been wrong and may be again... What do the critics say ?
(e.g re global warming - observed temp change is within observed variability, solar changes are involved that are not yet quantified but may be primarily responsible....computer models can be no better than the science that goes into them as mathematical formulae)
I have certainly learnt (when I studied international politics for a PhD (after geography)) that nothing is more likely to create conflict between human beings and societies than appeals to ethics. Values are indivisble,(cash/goods/ even land and time, even people, can be shared out).
Teacher should teach not indoctrinate, and certainly not teach 'sustainability' as defined by our or any other government or even UNEP. If it does, a very strong dose of political analysis is needed first or as well.
For example, the Kyoto Protocols mechanisms (CDM and JI) are meant to transfer potentially significant investments and green technology to the 'south' for the sake of the planet, or rather, in reality, for the sake of the North being able to reduce certain emissions as cheaply as possibly. (Making it more expensive for poor countries to reduce their emission in future)
This can also be seen as anti-developmental, even as green imperialism with the values and moneys involved, and especially the priorities, being those of the rich and technology and finance exporting nations. Such flows also create new debt dependence.
Greenpeace and sustainability/ the battle against global warming and for 'Nature' can be interpreted in several ways.
If this is being taught, OK..but if geographers teach green ideology a la the East Anglia school and James Lovelock (or even DEFRA and the Research Councils), 'god' help us!
Best wishes Sonja
Subject: Comment on Ethics paper
From: Eric Pawson, University of Canterbury, NZ
Date: 16th June 2006
Posting:
After the last INLT workshop, my group on PBL set out to establish how widely, and in what ways, PBL is being used in geography. We have yet to answer that question; but we do have some experience with the variability of ethics requirements/expectations on different campuses in different countries.
I'm beginning to think that this is the real obstacle to transnational survey research of the sort we attempted. The extreme case was the chair of the ethics committee in one Canadian university, who wrote us long email missives, one on 2 Jan long after the courses that we wished to survey had ended, asking for more detail on this and that. Some other campuses were happy to give the same simple survey an exemption.
So my take on the question (above) of 'whose ethics?' is why is it often necessary to abide by the ethics of a committee whose experiences are often far removed from the research in question? To give another example (I'm sure we all have lots of them) the ethics commitee on my campus is notorious for expecting experienced people working in developing countries to adopt 'standard' procedures that would undermine research relations in the field.
We expect inexperienced students to develop ethical behaviour in respect of plagiarism, but as soon as other parties are potentially involved, off the proposal has to go to a committee. Very often exaggerated notions of 'harm' are invoked which simply encourage disrespect for ethics procedures. There must be better ways to encourage the development and appreciation of ethical behaviour.
Subject: Comment on Ethics paper
From: Julie Trafford, University of Auckland, NZ
Date: 20th June 2006
Posting:
Like both Sonja and Eric, I believe the issue of ethics to have a considerable impact on the learning, teaching and research of geography in higher education -often in a detrimental way. I am therefore keen for us to consider ways to ensure that ethical considerations have a more positive impact on geography in higher education.
I too have been witness to substantial disparities in both the processes and outcomes of numerous research proposals being submitted to various ethics committees both across New Zealand and across different countries.
There also seem to be some very interesting spatial and temporal variations in what is deemed ethical within a single ethics committee.
A recent research project was deemed ethical when participants were derived from a single organisation only. Sampling of participants across multiple organisations was deemed unethical. I would have considered comparison across multiple sites to add strength to the research findings. Eventually the ethics committee agreed.
A colleague of mine recently resubmitted his ethics application, seeking approval for a minor change. Interestingly, the minor change was approved while the committee raised an ethical concern regarding an aspect of his research that the very same committee had previously approved!
I had an interesting experience where the institution would only approve my research if I undertook it as a PhD candidate, but not as a staff member. This was not so much related to approval on ethical grounds, but because my research might compete or contradict with other institutional surveys. I think that in today's competitive environment, academic institutions are concerned that the publication of research that explores the quality of learning, teaching and research might impact negatively on their image - but surely this is of major importance? I would think ensuring quality learning, teaching and research was important to institutions, especially given the global trend towards government funding based on research, learning and teaching outputs. We need institutions to understand that we are passionate about ensuring and enhancing quality of higher education, and not damaging reputations.
I also find it intriguing that we are only required to obtain formal ethics approval when we are dealing directly with human participants or animals. Surely there are ethical issues concerning the use of publically available written and spoken information, computer software, taking samples from the field, etc...?
It is also interesting that in many academic instituions, ethics approval does not have to be obtained for each undergraduate student who undertakes research (blanket approval is obtained by the lecturer), or for material used in teaching; nor is ethics approval required for research undertaken by non-academic organisations.
So what do we mean by ethical, where do we draw the line in deciding what is ethical, and who decides? How do we avoid the inequalities that persist? How do we stop ethical considerations impeding unnecessarily on the learning, teaching and research of geography in higher education?
Perhaps, taking Eric's final comment a few steps further, all research students and academic staff could sign a contract at their respective institutions regarding their ethical obligations and commitments (whether their research involves the use of human participanrs, written material, samples from the field,...) as a researcher?
I look forward to further discussion on these matters, both on-line and in Brisbane.
Subject: Comment on Ethics paper
From: John Bradbeer, University of Portsmouth, UK
Date: 22nd June 2006
Posting:
The draft paper is an interesting and timely contribution to a growing theme in geography. In passing, it is interesting to note that such ethical issues did not feature at all in my undergraduate geography degree in the mid 1960s, notwithstanding courses in the history and philosophy of geography.
I want to make one main point to develop a theme that is probably...read more (30kb rtf opens in Word).
Subject: Comment on Ethics paper
From: Phil Klein, University of Northern Colorado, USA
Date: 22nd June 2006
Posting:
When Eric Pawson asked me to comment on this group’s paper, I wasn’t sure how I might be able to contribute, particularly after seeing the initial comments focused on issues related to dealing with institutional research ethics committees. These are clearly important concerns, but I personally did not have any examples to add in this area. But after reading the draft of the paper, I have begun to see the many ways in which ethical questions permeate our work beyond the frustrations of dealing with rigid, or even wrong-headed, regulatory stipulations. This group’s paper provides an important contribution through its clear explication of the several dimensions of ethics in higher geography education. That undergraduate geography programs ought to include modules explicitly discussing professional ethics is an important message.
The concrete examples included thus far provide compelling evidence of the impact of ethical questions within the domain of research in cultural and environmental geography. I would like to see additional discussion of ethical concerns within the context of geography education research and practice. Let me just add some grist for the discussion mill in these areas.
First, with respect to geography education research, we may be faced with a potential ethical conflict when we are evaluating the effectiveness of new instructional materials or strategies. On the one hand, it is important to maintain the integrity of the research design. On the other, certain research designs may limit a student opportunities to participate in innovative approaches to teaching and learning geography. An example from our evaluation of the Association of American Geographers’ Center for Global Geography Education (CGGE) project illustrates this. (Other methodological issues related to the evaluation are discussed in the “Collaborative Learning” group’s paper.) Although the overall evaluation could not include a formal control-group/experimental-group structure, owing to the diversity of the settings involved, there was one opportunity where we tried to add this dimension. A collaboration between universities in Barcelona and Pennsylvania involved a very large class at the former site (over 70 students), while the professor in Pennsylvania had two sections (different classes) of the same course. It was relatively easy for the American professor to set up a research design by which one of her sections used the CGGE module and collaborative-learning approach, while her other section used the online materials but did not participate in the international collaboration dimension.
The challenge came on the Barcelona side. At first, we attempted to divide the large class in two, with one half involved in the collaboration with the Americans and the other half working only in their “local” groups, without sharing their ideas with the international team. But the latter students became extremely dissatisfied with the arrangement as soon as they realized they would not actually be collaborating internationally. All of the students had been eagerly anticipating the collaboration concept, and those “left out” felt cheated. Class morale nosedived. Because the evaluation’s primary purpose was to test the quality of the online modules and explore student and faculty reactions to the international collaborative method, we abandoned the effort at splitting the Barcelona class. Everyone ultimately worked with the American students, which provided useful data for our main research purpose. But it remains a valid research objective to assess the value-added that this approach provides versus conventional e-learning. Yet to do so will raise the ethical issue of inequitable treatment of students, given that some will have learning opportunities denied others.
A second area I would like to mention concerns the training of students to be geography teachers in the school setting (grades K-12 in the U.S.). Education programs in the United States (and elsewhere?) routinely include components related to professional ethics for teachers. But the subject-matter of geography (and history and other disciplines) adds an important ethical domain that needs to be addressed explicitly by geography educators. In the U.S., it is rare to find education professors aware of the scope of the content covered by geography. It devolves upon geography faculty to prepare their students for the challenges of teaching about places fairly, equitably, and with sensitivity to cultural differences. A recent study by Forsyth and Maier (2006) sought to assess the impact of a middle-school (ages 12-14) world regional geography course on student attitudes and images selected world regions. They noted that the textbooks used had no explicit affective objectives, nor did the state geography curriculum. Nevertheless, their study revealed some changes (more positive or less negative impressions about the places) in the students after taking the course. The message is that what we teach matters: Intentionally or not, we are communicating information that can affect young people’s attitudes. Clearly, we want our students and future teachers to be aware of this and to be conscious and deliberate about the images conveyed in their geography courses.
Related to this concern is the need to train our students – whether they are going into teaching, resource management, regional planning, or other fields for which geography is in demand – to be fully cognizant of the political and social environment into which they will be entering. The draft paper by the Ethics Group addresses this concern well. Within the last year in Colorado, two high-profile incidents related to teaching ethics have occurred, one at the university level and one at a Denver-area high school (ages 15-18). I discuss these to provide further instances where an understanding of ethics becomes essential; it is where the discussion of ethics becomes pragmatic and not just high-flown theory.
The university professor became particularly notorious for comments in which he likened some victims of the 9/11 World Trade Center attack to Nazis. (A Google search on Ward Churchill yields over 6.8 million hits.) The attention – a better term might be revulsion - spawned by these remarks focused attention on that professor’s record, and a thorough review by the University of Colorado-Boulder’s ethics panel found serious instances of academic dishonesty – plagiarism, fabrication, and misrepresentation of other researcher’s work to justify his own political agenda. Of concern here is the damage that this individual has caused to the reputation of all university teachers. In a time of severe budget constraints for higher education in Colorado, and indeed across the U.S., such ethical and professional lapses are extremely damaging.
Less familiar – you get “only” 51,000 hits on a Google search of Jay Bennish – is the story of the local high school geography teacher. After President Bush’s State of the Union speech, he presented several controversial remarks to his 9th-grade class, most highly critical of Bush. (I should clarify that his suburban school district is in a politically conservative part of a generally conservative U.S. state.) In truth, the teacher’s remarks had little to do with a geographic analysis of any issues raised in Bush’s speech, such as energy dependence, spread of terrorism, or the purpose of the U.S. intervention in Iraq; it was basically a one-sided political rant. Little would have come of this event, but one student recorded his lecture on a cell-phone and later sent the recording to several conservative talk-show hosts. The resulting controversy was relatively short-lived, but it provided numerous opportunities for people with divergent political agendas to make their cases about “teaching” versus “indoctrination” of young people. At the very least, this episode illustrates how important a discussion of ethics is for future teachers. Like the Churchill case, the Bennish incident soured public opinion on the work that educators do.
As the group’s paper points out, modeling ethics in our research and teaching is critical. Academic integrity, rigor, fairness, and equity are integral to our working life, and all of us involved in higher education must aspire to and set a high ethical standard for our students. Many school teachers and professors at state colleges are paid through public funds and we (and our students) need to maintain these high standards as part of ensuring that we remain in the public trust. This paper will provide a valuable analysis of these issues, and I look forward to further discussion of the topic in Brisbane. I hope my comments will be of use to the group.
Phil Klein
Associate Professor of Geography
University of Northern Colorado
P.S. Two minor points: (1) The paper notes the impact on research approvals of anti-terrorism measures in the UK and Australia. You can add the U.S. to this list; effective January 1, 2006, several funding agencies have added stipulations that their funds not be used in any way to support terrorist groups. (2) In the introduction (4th paragraph), I found the use of the term “queer” to be mildly off-putting. Has this become an accepted term to refer to research into the geographies of gays and lesbians?
Reference
A. S. Forsyth, Jr. and J. N. Maier (2006) Affective outcomes of a world geography course, Journal of Geography 105(2): 59-74.
Subject: Comment on Ethics paper
From: Michael Bradford, University of Manchester , UK
Date: 24th June 2006
Posting:
I like the examples here and I think more could come from them at the end in discussion In the first part I think it would help to establish research related ethics rapidly and then to move on to T and L and developmore on this - perhaps after the examples I guess I would expect to see 'values' more often.
Re Ian's end quote are they necessarily independent alternatives?
Hope this helps
Michael Bradford
Subject: Comment on Ethics paper
From: Clare Madge, University of Leicester, UK
Date: 30th June 2006
Posting:
Hello,
This is generating an interesting discussion.
For me, bottom line, ethics is a process of working through relations with other people (and animals/plants/rocks etc). Attempts to codify and manage such relationships can be counterproductive, as several contributors have mentioned.
I have recently been grappling with some of the ethical issues associated with online research- research mediated through the internet (see http://www.geog.le.ac.uk/orm/ethics/ethcontents.htm). It might be worth quoting at some length:
`Given the growth and impact of the internet in recent years, it is both timely and of utmost significance that online research ethics are given some consideration in the ethics debate. But online research ethics are probably best characterised as new variations of old problems: many of the issues and problems of conventional onsite research still apply in the virtual venue. Issues of power between researcher and researched (who defines the research parameters/who decides on the methods/who 'tells the story') and structural power relations of the academy (who funds the research and how this alters the research agenda/where and how the findings are published and disseminated/whose lives are changed by the research) are often similar to conventional onsite research projects. Additionally, as with any research project, it is easy to spout high ideals in theory but hard to achieve in practice, as research ethics are complex, messy and negotiated through the research process, often with unforeseen consequences and many imperfections (Bailey, 2001). As Thomas (2004: 200) so rightfully reminds us 'ethical conundrums are never easily solved, and dialogue, critique, constant vigilance, and accountability seem far preferable to more rules and increased oversight.' It must be remembered too that ethical issues are often superficially considered by more conventional onsite researchers so care must be taken not to have higher expectations for online researchers than we do for onsite researchers! And if online/offline worlds are mutually constituted, and we carry our real-world assumptions, norms and behaviours into cyberspace, then we can clearly draw on onsite ethical guidelines (see support for this viewpoint from Boehlefeld, 1996; Jones, 2004; Thomas, 2004). But, further than this, if there is a dialectical relationship between cyberspace and geographical space, then what does a consideration of online ethics have to offer conventional onsite understandings of ethics? How might it challenge the human-subjects paradigm in the offline geography-ethics nexus? How might it enable a meaningful shift towards global responsibility which challenges current knowledge/power relationships? And how might this instigate a shift from ethics to rights, justice and productive alliances? This, in my opinion, is the exciting future for online ethical research enquiries.'
Thinking through how new technological changes/facilities/processes might (or might not) alter conceptualisations of research ethics is an intriguing prospect.
It has also led me to wonder whether it would be worth building up a bank of online sources wrt ethics that might be used for pedagogic purposes?
In this spirit, I contribute a paper I wrote some time ago (but was never published and is now on the web) entitled 'the right to write about Africa'. It is a reflective account of my PhD research and some of the ethical issues it raised for me (http://www.geog.le.ac.uk/staff/cm12/research/right_to_write_about_africa.doc). There is also the link above.
I hope to conference goes well and sorry I cannot attend.
Best,
Clare
Subject: Comment on Ethics paper
From: Christine Jocoy, California State University , USA
Date: 2nd July 2006
Posting:
The discussion of ethics and examples in this paper raise many important issues and questions for teaching and learning. I found the definitions/discussion of ethics and morals informative and the wide variety of examples of the integration of ethics into higher education interesting. I think there is lots of material here that can be fleshed out for an important contribution to the literature.
I do feel that the two sections of the paper – the discussion of ethics broadly and the personal reflections of its use in teaching situations – are not well integrated yet. I also would like to see the argument of the paper, regarding the problems with prescribed ethical practice, discussed earlier, probably in the introduction. The section on teaching and learning contains the clearest statement of the authors’ argument and should come earlier in the paper.
I also think that the reflections by Ruth, contrary to the authors’ argument, illustrate how engaging with the requirements of an ethics panel (in the US context, this requires filling out an application for Institutional Review Board approval for research with human subjects) might be a useful way of promoting reflection on ethics. While I agree that leaving ethics education to bureaucratic encounters is problematic, I do think that if advisors and students reflectively engage in discussions about IRB concerns and research procedures, some valuable learning can emerge, primarily because IRB responds to specific situations that allow students to really visualize ethical dilemmas. If Ruth had described some of the discussions of ethical issues with her advisor, with the refugee centre workers, or even with her research participants, it might show how we can use ethics boards as a starting point. Otherwise, I do not see how Ruth’s story supports the argument of the paper.
In general, I think the personal reflections need to address the paper’s overall argument more directly. For example, I would like to see a direct statement about how Susan relates her experiences to how she teaches students about ethics? What did her students involved in the IRCO project say they learned about ethics given the shifts Susan describes?
Because Bill’s reflections are the broadest and address a variety of areas in need of ethics education, I wonder if his reflections should frame the entire paper rather than serve as an example. I’d prefer to see a paper that uses selective examples to illustrate overall arguments rather than a wide variety or comprehensive set of examples.
It was also surprising to me that plagiarism was not mentioned until late in the paper, given the current media attention to the issue and with companies like Turnitin.com entering the discussion to promote software detection answers to ethical concerns. University plagiarism policies seem to me to be the greatest source of prescribed ethical practice that we have. Given the authors’ arguments, I would have expected to see it discussed in more depth.