Ethical Issues

In a research study there are many ethical issues to be wary of. There are ethical issues concerning research participants such as the issue of consent, privacy and anonymity, the possibility of causing harm and the confidentiality issue. There are ethical issues in relation to the researcher being biased, or making inappropriate use of information. The ethical considerations reviewed for this study were based on the Graduate School of Education Ethics, University of Bristol, submission form (Appendix C). The University of Bristol was my former university when the data collection was taken; hence the ethical approval came from them.

There are also other ethical issues within a virtual environment, such as the mobile learning field, that would be similar to any data collecting research which includes informed consent. On the consent form detailed information on the research, the nature of data collected, confidentiality issues, and also the rights of participant(s) to withdraw from the study were stipulated clearly. Marge (2006) stated that issues and challenges from more traditional research could still arise when using virtual methods. Therefore, since some of my data collection methods were in the form of virtual methods such as using the students’ blog posts and also the online interviews, such issues were deliberated.

179

According to Ruane (2007) the “ethical obligation remains for researchers to anticipate likely outcomes and to take those steps that would mitigate the harm and maximize the benefits that might come to participants” (p.19). One way to address this is through debrief sessions whereby the researcher can provide more information about the study and elicit feedback on their thoughts, reactions and negative after-effects. I provided the briefing and then the debriefing sessions verbally during the first day and on the last day of the course respectively for the participants in both stages of the research process.

Ruane (2007) emphasises the issue of informed consent. He stressed “the right of individuals to determine for themselves whether or not they want to be part of a research project” (p.19). Anderson (1998) posits that the “most fundamental principle for ethical acceptability is that of informed consent: the involved participants must be informed of the nature and purpose of the research, its risks and benefits and must consent to participate without coercion” (p.18). Students in this study were fully informed about the research and also all aspects of this research project that might influence their decision to participate. Issues highlighted were the cost of some mobile learning activities. I briefed them on how to reduce the issue of cost, for example by downloading through their desktop or notebook computers and then transferring the files to their phones. Formal consent was granted by the participants through the MReadiness questionnaire. By agreeing to fill in the questionnaire the participants agreed for the results of the questionnaire to be used for research.

Furthermore Ruane (2007) also raises the issue of volunteerism as the participants were to volunteer to be part of the research. He noted that “institutional settings entail authority relationships that are inconsistent with true voluntarism” (p.19). Anderson (1998) also discusses this possibility of students volunteering for this study out of obligation because I was seen as more powerful. This means that the students might find it hard to say ‘no’ to authority as I was a tutor on the course. In Asian culture it is perceived that the issue of power relations could be problematic in data collection. In this research as noted by Anderson (1998) and the British Psychological Society (n.d), the students do have the right to withdraw from the study. Thus, I stressed to the participants that

180

their participation in this study was by no means linked to achievement of course credits. However, should there be a withdrawal from the study; I needed to ensure that I could identify the part of my raw data that needed to be excluded.

I was also concerned with the public versus private issue. As recognised by the British Psychological Society (n.d), internet communication is often effectively public through greater visibility, traceability, and permanence, but research conducted online could be more publicly accessible and could leave permanent records of communications. According to Anderson & Kanuka (2003) there a difference between confidentiality (researcher knows the identity of participants but take steps to keep them confidential) and anonymity (researcher takes steps to ensure identities are not revealed to them). In this research, the participants' identities are known, hence I was more cautious to safeguard the participants’ anonymity.

I understood that as much as I wanted to it was quite impossible to ensure absolute anonymity of the participants especially in an online environment. In my interview sessions, even though they took place via a closed medium such as the platform Windows Live or Google Talk, there was a need to ensure safety measures for the chat or discussion sessions. In order to preserve the anonymity and integrity of the research participants, I have decided not to include direct quotes from public or semi-public sources that were used in this study as research data. Protecting the identity of the research participants is more important than the research evidence. If I used direct quotes in my publication, that data could be traceable to any particular student or groups. This traceability notion was something that I needed to ensure as anything could easily be searched online nowadays particularly in the students’ blog posts. However, quotes from the online interviews, which were conducted privately, were included as research evidence.