The presentations/Q&A by Dr. Sarah Gray and Dr, Zoe Meletis were excellent. Their goal, to remove fear of (and in) the ethics review process, was met. Here are the question I had after Zoe's session:
- How can or should I make use of non-approved "data," for example, a conversation had by chance that sheds important light on a research topic, perhaps even changing the direction of research?
- To what extent do I need to pay attention to unintended consequences of research on individual, i.e. research that might have the potential, even in a round-about way, to damage the reputation of research subjects or politicians (who are "fair game" for certain kinds of exposure)? For example, research may highlight deficits in policy that can be traced back to a particular government minister of highlights deficits in a curriculum writing process that might shame the committee members, some of whom may also be research subjects.
- If I were tyring to get interviews or gather data from these curriculum team members, do I just need their permission or do I need permission from the folks that commissioned their work (the Ministry of Education) or the people who picked them to sit on the committee (BCTF)?
- What if research highlights or exposes toxic culture in a organization... is this fair game? For example, an organizational analysis can often highlight problems, questionable practices, and so on. These are connected to individuals. Exposing the problem might be tantamount to shaming people.
- As an employee of a school district, I am obligated to respect our collective agreement with the employer. One of the items in our contract relates to maintaining confidence in the public education system and refraining from any comments that would undermine public education. Would exposing problematic areas of curriculum design (see #2 above) be seen as undermining public education?