CEP 901B Proseminar in Technology & Education

1. CEP 901B Proseminar in Technology & Education Matt Koehler Punya Mishra February 18, 2003

2. Today… • Combined class with 901A (ethics in research) • Visit by Dr. Wallace & Discussion of readings • Break • Brief updates on your work so far

3. Announcements • Monday, February 24th, 5:30, MSU Union: Susan Golden-Meadow, University of Chicago. Distinguished Speakers in Cognitive Science Lecture Series. Hearing Gestures: How our Hands Help us Think • You are invited to a free bowl of another Moosewood Restaurant Daily Special:Eastern European Vegetable Stew.Serving begins at 11:45 in the LTC Soup Kitchen.First come, first served, while it lasts. (Enough for about 15 people.)People who don't like beets, turnips, and parsnips, need not apply!Patrick Dickson, Eastern European Vegetable Steward

4. Ethics in Research • The Ethical Standards of the American Psychological Association http://www.apa.org/ethics/ (2002 Ethics code, to be effective June 1, 2003)http://www.apastyle.org • Ethics in Cyberspace Research: Consent, Privacy and Contribution http://www.rider.edu/users/suler/psycyber/ethics.html • Ethical and legal aspects of human subjects research in cyberspace (a report from the American Association for the Advancement of Science) http://www.aaas.org/spp/dspp/sfrl/projects/intres/main.htm

5. Ethics for Social Scientists / psychologists* • General Standards • Evaluation, assessment, or intervention • Advertising and other public statements • Therapy • Privacy and confidentiality • Teaching, training supervision, research, and publishing • Forensic activities • Resolving ethical issues * Thanks to Lawrence R. Gordon, University of Vermont (http://www.uvm.edu/~lgordon/)

6. Research Ethics (background) • Where it comes from • Cost-benefit considerations (Utilitarianism) • Respect for human dignity (Deontology) • Major principles underlying modern codes • Respect for persons - autonomy/consent • Beneficence - max benefit and min harm • Justice - benefits and burdens distributed fairly

7. Ethics of Human Research • We can’t just do whatever we want! • Protocols prepared and submitted to the Institutional Review Board (IRB) for approval • IRB needs to give you permission to do your study

8. What Is the IRB? • Committee responsible for reviewing all proposed research involving human participants at all schools receiving federal funds for research • Members include faculty members from different departments, at least one community member, at least one nonscientist (at least 5 total members)

9. IRB @ MSU (UCRIHS) • At MSU, The Office of Research Ethics and Standards (ORES), houses among other things, the human subjects review • IRB at MSU is called UCHRIHS (University Committee on Research Involving Human Subjects) • http://www.msu.edu/user/ucrihs/] • Contains forms, FAQ, Tutorials, Regulations and contant info.

10. What the IRB Does • Its chief function: Considers costs and benefits of the research • Is the research question worth the use of human participants? • Because human participants do not need to participate in studies, their rights are the highest priority

11. Issues • Voluntary participation • Informed consent • need to know what might keep them for consenting • need to be able to consent • need to know the right to withdraw • Coercion • vulnerable populations • payment/compensation

12. Issues • Deception • Is the value of the study worth it? • Alternatives? [Must be last alternative!] • Needs to be explained ASAP [Dehoaxing] • Debriefing • Explain purpose of study • remove bad feelings [Desensitizing] • get information • thank participants

13. Informed consent • Documented agreement with participants • clarifies the nature of the research and the responsibilities of each party • Use language that is reasonably understandable • Obtained prior to any data collection • Explain significant factors that may influence the person's willingness to participate • risks, discomfort, adverse effects, or limitations on confidentiality and other aspects about which the person may inquire. • Tell participants that they can withdraw from the research at any time • If participants are legally incapable of giving informed consent, provide an appropriate explanation, obtain the person's consent, AND obtain permission from a legally authorized person • Inform participants of how data will be used (privacy/confidentiality) • Provide an opportunity to the participants to obtain information about research findings • Give contact information for researcher and IRB official

14. Issues • Experimenter conduct • PI has assumes all responsibility for fair treatment of participants (e.g. by assistants) • 6 P’s of conduct • Present • Prompt • Prepared • Polite • Private • Professional

15. Submitting Protocols • Exempt from review • Expedited review • Full review

16. Full review • Full review • study of vulnerable populations • use of physically invasive techniques (e.g. drugs, exercise, x-rays) • psychological or emotional distress • behavior manipulation (includes ALL deception) • sensitive data (with ID) (e.g. drugs, sex, crime) • videotaping (potential for ID)

17. Expedited review • Expedited review • voice recordings (e.g. study of speech defects) • studies of behavior w/o manipulation or stress • study of existing documents that are not publicly available • use of noninvasive clinical assessments (such as weight, sensory acuity, EKG, but NOT x-rays)

18. Exempt from review • Exempt from review • Educational practices • Anonymous survey, interview, or naturalistic observation (no identifiers) • Study of existing data, documents, or archival records that are publicly available (no ID) • Consumer surveys (ex. Quality of dining hall food)

19. Finally… In ALL aspects, first concern is the ethical treatment of participants, clients, consumers Do not see UCRIHS as a hoop to jump through (though they often make it look that way). The onus is on YOU as a researcher / scholar!

20. Teachers and Technology • Visit by Raven Wallace

21. Reminders • DKSC need to • Sum up the online activity for the yahoogroup • Readings are up for next week, Three Monkeys in charge. • Visit by Yong Zhao & Ken Frank (maybe) • Topic: Technology Diffusion • Please post to the Yahoogroup by the deadline (as decided by the group of the week)

22. Reminders II • Continue thinking of research project • Continue to meet with your parole officers this week with some ideas of what you would like to conduct research on. • Third summary in your annotated bibliography due TODAY • Continue to re-design your research page as per our discussions

23. Reminders III • Preliminary, 1 paragraph summary of a research study you could do that fits your interests is due in two weeks.