Search results for: Elspeth McInnes

Authors: Elspeth McInnes

Abstract:

Research design is central to ethical research. Discriminatory research design is a key risk for researchers examining diverse cultural groups without conscious commitment to anti-discrimination values or knowledge of their culture. Culturally discriminatory research design is defined here as research proceeding from negative assumptions about people on the basis of race, colour, ethnicity, nationality or religion. Such discrimination can be direct or indirect. Direct discrimination is the uncritical mobilization of dominant group negative stereotypes of cultural minorities. Indirect discrimination is the examination of policies or programs grounded in dominant culture negative stereotypes that have been uncritically accepted by the researchers. This paper draws on anonymized elements of planned research projects and considers both direct and indirect cultural discrimination in research design and the responsibilities of ethics committees. Human research ethics committees provide a point of scrutiny with responsibility to alert researchers to risks of basing research on negative cultural stereotypes, as well as protecting participants from being subjected to negative discourses about them. This issue has become an increasing concern in a globalizing world of human displacement and migration creating a rise in the presence of minority cultures in host countries. As a nation established through colonization and immigration Australia has a long history of negative cultural stereotypes of Indigenous Australians as well as a legacy of the White Australia policy, which still echoes in attitudes to each wave of non-European immigration. The task of eliminating cultural discrimination in research design is vital to sustaining research integrity and ensuring that research is not used to reinforce or justify cultural discrimination.

Keywords: cultural discrimination, cultural stereotypes, participant risk, research design

Procedia PDF Downloads 131

Authors: Melanie Adrian, Elspeth McCulloch, Emily-Jean Gallant

Abstract:

Resources -financial, physical, and human- are increasingly constrained in higher education. University classes are getting bigger, and the concomitant grading burden on faculty is growing rapidly. Multiple-choice exams are seen by some as one solution to these changes. How much students retain, however, and what their testing experience is, continues to be debated. Are multiple-choice exams serving students well, or are they bearing the burden of these developments? Is there a way to address both the resource constraints and make these types of exams more meaningful? In short, how do we engender evaluation methods for large-scale classes that provide opportunities for heightened student learning and enrichment? The following article lays out a testing approach we have employed in four iterations of the same third-year law class. We base our comments in this paper on our initial observations as well as data gathered from an ethics-approved study looking at student experiences. This testing approach provides students with multiple opportunities for revision (thus increasing chances for long term retention), is both individually and collaboratively driven (thus reflecting the individual effort and group effort) and is automatically graded (thus draining limited institutional resources). We found that overall students appreciated the approach and found it more ‘humane’, that it notably reduced pre-exam and intra-exam stress levels, increased ease, and lowered nervousness.

Keywords: exam, higher education, multiple-choice, law

Procedia PDF Downloads 126