Ethics

Hello Kevin,
Pleased to meet you. I, too, have a dramatic arts background. Your thoughts are thought provoking. Being in the arts we are often encouraged to explore beyond what is given. I do find that in many areas of knowledge teachers, students and researchers are stiffled to stay within the appropriate guidlines and correctness In educating pupils, scores seem far more important than pupil's acctual aquisition, and retention of knowledge (content), or whether pupils are enjoying learning through hands-on experiences, play, and exploration.
But how far should we go? There are times ethical concerns are to be taken into account, when the dignity and reputation of a subject is at risk, and the subjects emotional wellbeing is threatened. In this, it is also thinking outside of the box. By considering the consequences, may direct us to better approaches or other alternatives to attain similar results. Sometimes hems can protect the knowledge of information from getting too frayed and murky, and keep us more focused on substance.

In terms of academic freedom there are no conditions: you either believe in free speech (free intellectual enquiry) or you don't! Subject disciplines don't have emotional wellbeing;that is part of the discourse of Social Constructivism ( ie Vygotsky, Bruner et al) which has become the dominant discourse in Education- from early Years through to Teacher Training. Worse still is how those ideas have been taken up by anti intellectuals ( eg Guy Claxton) who have popularised an ideology and have made a career out of that process! As soon as you limit intellectual debate and use ethics as a smokescreen to hide behind you end up putting limits on what research can be carried out.

 By subject, I was refering to people. When our research involves people (pupils) and or animals, we should consider how we go about things. I just realized I misunderstood Your question. Sorry.

Hi there,

Its a bit like the Ross / Brand incident. Some comedians thought it was their job to push boundaries and 'test the water'. Others have argued that as said above, dignity, ethics and fairness went out the window.

As with knowledge, and in the pursuit of it, one could argue, again as above, that we shouldn't ever stop searching for answers, methods and understanding and there, perhaps, is no reason why this cannot be addressed with looking at the consequences at the same time. What should be avoided is a glorification of the facts for media gain and therefore public hysteria.

I saw an article in the TES that talked of the boring lessons being taught by some teachers. There is always a danger of becoming stagnant, stuck in your ways... not wanting to rock the boat. However it should be argued every teachers pursuit of knowledge should be unlimited in their search of methods that make learning interesting and exciting and therefore engaging and worthwhile. We know, don't we, what is humanistically inappropriate and so in a classroom wouldn't happen? And if one doesn't that is when you look at the consequences and ethics and don't o it or stop, and do something else - always looking at how to be better.

Thank you, Kevin, for your thoughts. Where would you personally draw the line in pursuit of intellectual debate? It is a personal question that may suggest it's answer lies within all of us individually..... in the pursuit of knowledge where would one stop? And Why?

Tom

The Ross/Brand incident puzzles me as I fail to see why 'being offensive' should not be the remit of comedians who must surely have dramatic licence. People can always switch off the TV!

I would never draw any line in pusuit of intellectual debate. As soon as a line is drawn you end up with censorship and that gives rise to forms extremism as has been the case in recent times.
The pusuit of knowledge ( although rather quaint in our culture) is at the heart of what it means to be human: once we give up on that project we have lost sight of the purposes of Education.
The worrying trend is that pupils/students( perhaps some teachers) are now more interested in knowing about themselves rather than knowing about the world they live in and once you have an education sytem that privileges ' knowing your self, over knowing something about the world you are left with no Education and that is broadly where we are in the the UK at this current time.

I am intersted in Tom's idea of "humanistically appropriate behaviour" .

Tom says we know.... But do we? can we make this explicit?

This appears to be a code of practice. Surely we must be explicit about what this code is (particularly as researchers). we cannot just say we are teachers therfore we are ethical? I am assuming that you already have signed up to the GTC(E) code in the England, and school codes of ethics. As a researcher there are research codes of ethics too. So what are we explicitly signing up to and why?

Hi to everyone. Your thought are indeed thought provoking although I have to admit I was confused (mostly with my thinking) a few times. What I actually wanted to ask is rather simple yet mind bogling for me since I am really really new in the field.. I have read and tend to agree that sometimes teachers act based on hunches. So in difficult situations or in situations they've never faced before they act on what they have the feeling might work rather than some action taken straight out of a guidebook. For me this has been the case a few times and I have found myself wondering...is it ethically correct to go by my instinct? what if my instinct turns out to be wrong? I obviously wouldnt act on anything that could be risky or threatening for the children but where do i draw the line and seek guidance? And what if by going by the book means I never actually develop my own ways?
I hope this is not completely irrelevant but it has been on my mind so please tell me what you did when you started off?
thanx
christiana

I am not really sure what your point is in relation to my proposition about ethics and ethical issues vis a vis Knowledge.

what I was trying to say was (I did indeed manage to confuse myself the way I put it!) was what Tom said in a few but simple words. Instead of giving a boring lesson I have found myself wanting to experiment, 'rock the boat' and try new methods that will make the lesson interesting, fun and generally better. And my question was: when do I stop "rocking the boat"? But I guess as Tom said, it is within each individual to know what is appropriate and ethical and when to draw a line. Thanx anyway cause this whole confusion really got me thinking!

What justifies you in wishing to experiement with childrens education in this way Christiana? You must have a reason for I do not belive you wish not to be ethical. So what is it?

Ian, that is exactly the reason I asked the question in the first place. Maybe experimenting was the wrong word. What I was trying to get to is how much should we go by the book and not research or try out a new method without being unethical. By trying out something new I would obviously have the children's best interest in mind and giving them the best education possible as the main objective. So for someone new to the field as I am, most of the things I will try in the classroom are new experiences for me. So here's the question: should I be rigid and go exactly by the book nomatter if I can see a child needs something a little different?Should I follow what I believe would be for his best interest or stick to the book? And if I dont try to differ for their own best interest isnt that unethical? Up until now I have been going by the book but I do want to make a difference and that is why I am asking. Please let me know of what you think. Thanx

I think the greater part of teaching is to be flexible. You have to be open to new ideas and approaches. I don't see how in the interests of a child (pupil), you as a teacher, would be unethical. Unless your approach to teaching is illegal and/ or upsets the pupils, parents, staff, and the Governing body. Basic consideration, and appropriatness might be guidelines to go by. Though some might agrue saying there should be no boundries when it comes to the acquisiton of knowledge, and free speech, I've always believed that there is great power in the tongue. There have been many incidents in which havoc occurred simply by words spoken. Although, I do think in freedom in the approaches we incorporate and freedom in research, we need to consider being responsible, sensitive, and consider the possible consequences involved before practicum. Putting the child first and giving them a platform to express themselves or demonstrate to us what is needed should be the central focus. You might like to look at this book by Margaret Collins she's got practical resources to promote inclusion and disability awareness. It's call Inclusion in the primary classroom. It is quite child- centered, and has some new approaches.

Jessijac, thank you very much for this and for the book suggestion. I will definately have a look. I am looking for more flexible ways to teach and make education a fascinating experience for the children but as you said, i m looking for legal, ethical approaches that pupils and parents alike would approve and encourage the use of. Responsibility and sensitivity should indeed be the primal objective which means that sometimes acquisition of knowledge for the teacher will be set back. Thanx again.

Is this suggesting that all MAInclusive research projects are ethical simply by the fact that they add to the field of study and debate of "inclsuive" education. Are there no other considerations then?

Are we simply to say that we have a right to gain knowledge and to know therfore our research is justified? Or are there other rights?

There are the rights of the children to be considered as well I would have thought. They have a right for their education not to suffer from 'something new we have experimented with' - what if we tried something that really didn't work and meant the children did not progress as they should? Children only have one shot at their education and it is not our right to experiment with them in this way. I would imagine that it is the right of the parents as well to ensure their children have a 'consistent' education and we do not experiment on them.

However, without this experimentation we will never find improved ways of teaching our children....

I guess I should have used a different word or have justified what I meant by 'experimenting'. What i meant by experimenting was changing your teaching methods in whichever way you believe it would make for a better, maybe more inclusive education. With that said, the question still remains, is it ethical? As you say, there is still a chance the 'new' way wont work which you can never rule out, so what do we do?

So experimentation is OK if it is successful and improves education?

This discussion has got me thinking a lot and especially after your questions Ian, so I got down to this: no experimentation is NOT ok because even if you end up with something useful you couldnt have known that beforehand so it could still have ended badly. What about flexibility? Is being flexible with your techniques ethical? Isnt flexibility an imporatant part of achieving inclusive education?

There has been some really interesting discussion here and hopefully it has opened up the questions that need consideration whenever you make decisions about who to include in your research and how you will proceed. Every time you decide to place certain children in a differentiated group you are making decisions which might impact on access to learning opportunities. Most teachers make those decisions with the very best of intentions for the pupils they are trying to educate but it is always good to reflect on the implications in terms of inclusion and exclusion.
On a practical note always be sure to preserve confidentiality by changing names and stating that you have done so in your work. Ensure that you have sought parental approval if you intend to use a case study approach for instance. Make sure you critically discuss the possible ethical implications in your portfolio.

The rights of the Student should be considered before all other ambitious rights to gain knowledge. As educators, don't we have that understanding that there is more than one way to approach a lesson? There must be more than one way to gain knowledge while considering the ethical concerns.

I think back to my studies of Shakespeare, and how we had to analyze the sonnets and plays, there was that moment where we where capable of over analyzing a piece and as actors lost the true meaning, and intent of the piece. To do that to the playwright's piece was unethical. (humorously speaking)

I do believe and have seen happen that we can over indulge ourselves with research and the demand implementation of a gained knowledge or law without considering the ethical impact, while missing the whole purpose and benefit of the acutal idea. I look at the hems as the road signs that keep us focused rather than veering off into a never ending roundabout.

What do you think about the right not to take part in this knowledge building enterprise? Or the right to remain anonymous? Or The right not to be harmed by the "experimentation" (albeit in the pursuit of knowledge)?

Are there other ethical considerations?

What about the right to withdraw from some research you have agreed to take part of? Or the right to be informed of the conclusions of the research?

Dear Kevin,

I agree with your opening statement that in recent years there has a been a 'stark loss of faith in the Enlightenment Idea of knowledge' E.g. over the past 5/8 years at the societal level we have had impressed upon us what many would argue are a set of 'draconian' laws under the pretext of 'war on terror' and of course this has had its ramifications within the context of a classroom (databases, phraseology etc). What worries me is the lack of questioning (even by researches) on why histories or 'knowledges' turn out they way that they do. Which of course in many cases leads to a readiness to accept knee jerk solutions? In this case you could bet your bottom dollar that in the advent of a post Brown/Labour era an immediate set of new policies, guidelines and instruments enacted for Inclusive Education with little or varying levels of objection.

We always hear about 'freedom of expression' and of course 'freedom' is an absolute. To limit it would be a contradiction. What puzzles me is the lack of discussion on the 'freedom of thought'. Is this something we take for granted? Now, regarding your question "are there any ideals that intellectuals should not examine?" – NO. I have been based in the Yemen since August 2008 where freedom of expression is…… well you can imagine! However one hope that I have is that 'freedom of thought' is universal, and that the necessity to pursue thought is linked if not to our very survival to the advancement of the quality of life. Sure we may face pressure groups, lobbies and public opinion. But is it not the role of the intellectual to pursue 'ideals' and 'thought' through engaging in debate? To engage the convinced or those close to compromise is meaningless. The real challenge is to crossover to those on the other side (even the extreme – be it cloning, anthropology, science etc) for a healthy reasoned debate…and may the best idea win! Does not this process of debates elevate all involved so long as the pursuit is for a strong convincing idea?

I would like to cite the example of the Donaldson Committee's recommendation that therapeutic cloning be allowed in the UK. The response of the Director of the Church of Scotland Society, Religion and Technology Project, Dr. Bruce was "The Donaldson report should now form the start of the debate, not the end," http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/882886.stm