Efficacy and ethics:An investigation into the role of ethics, legitimacy and power in planning

The main thrust of the article is to consider the role of ethics, legitimacy, power and evidence-based policy in planning practice. The laboratory for the investigation is provided by developments in policymaking and implementation in the jurisdiction of Northern Ireland. In this context, each of the key themes is developed to establish a conceptual framework and the emerging issues are subsequently explored in an empirical investigation which deals with policy formulation and implementation, enabling lessons to be learnt about the motivations, tactics and strategies of the various participants in the process.

The four I-model for scaffolding the professional development of experienced teachers in the use of virtual learning environments for classroom teaching.

Models of professional development for teachers have been criticized for not being embedded in the context in which teachers are familiar, namely their own classrooms. This paper discusses an adapted-Continuous Practice Improvement model, which qualitative findings indicate was effective in facilitating the transfer of creative and innovative teaching approaches from the expert or Resident Teacher’s school to the novice or Visiting Teachers’ classrooms over the duration of the project. The cultural shift needed to embed and extend the use of online teaching across the school was achieved through the positive support and commitment of the principals in the Visiting Teachers’ schools, combined with the success of the professional development activities offered by the Visiting Teachers to their school-based colleagues.

The level playing field: the impact of assessment practice on professional development

Context: The effects of assessment practice on students’ learning are unclear, particularly regarding professional development. Corralling in objective structured clinical examinations (OSCEs) is designed to reduce illicit passing of examination information. Candidates completing an examination are kept secluded until the next cohort of examinees has begun. We used the introduction of corralling as a context in which to explore social influences on examination misconduct, with the aims of improving understanding of the hidden effects of assessment, and evaluating the acceptability of corralling from the student perspective.

Methods: A questionnaire was administered to students corralled post-OSCE for the first time. Eleven semi-structured interviews were subsequently conducted. Questionnaire data were analysed for descriptive statistics and thematic analysis of interview transcripts was carried out.

Results: The questionnaire response rate was 95.4% (251/263). Before corralling, 80.9% (203/251) of students were aware of the sharing of information among peers and 78.5% (197/251) agreed that such misconduct was unprofessional. The majority were in favour of corralling (90.8%, 228/251). Four themes emerged from the semi-structured interviews: the student network versus the individual; assessment-driven culture; the deferring of professionalism, and the ‘level playing field’. Students saw interaction within the student network, on a background of assessment-driven culture, as the key driver in examination misconduct. Conforming to the rules of the social network was prioritised over individual agency, although the mismatch between the rules of the network and the dominant professional discourse caused some conflict for individuals. Deferred professionalism (described as the practice of taking on the norms of professional behaviour only when qualified) was a rationalisation used to minimise this conflict. Corralling provided a ‘level playing field’ in which the influences of the network were minimised.

Conclusions: Examination misconduct is thus a complex social construction with implications for individual learners in terms of professional development. Corralling is one mechanism for addressing misconduct that is acceptable to students, but assessment processes have important hidden effects which educators should acknowledge.

Research ethics committees: values and power in higher education

The rise of research governance structures in universities has created huge disquiet amongst academic researchers. The unquestioning adoption of a medical model of ethical review based upon positivist methodological assumptions has created for many a mismatch between their own ongoing ethical research practice and the process of obtaining clearance from Research Ethics Committees (REC). This paper examines the issues that have contributed to dissatisfaction with the ethical review model that is prevalent within the modern university. Using examples from the authors’ own experiences, the dynamics of values, interests and power in research governance is examined from multiple perspectives including that of REC member and applicant; lecturer/student supervisor; researcher; and
university administrator. The paper reveals a rift between the values and objectives of the key players in research governance within the modern university and concludes by asking whether differences can be resolved so that a collaborative approach to ethical review may be incorporated into a renewed academic research culture. It is suggested that the alternative is increasing alienation from anything to do with ‘ethics’, with potentially serious consequences for the ethical standards of social research.