Science learning occurs throughout people's lives, inside and outside of school, in formal, informal, and nonformal settings. While museums have long played a role in science education, learning in this and other informal settings has not been studied nor understood as deeply as in formal settings (i.e., schools and classrooms). This position paper, written by learning researchers in a science museum engaged in equity and access work, notes that while the researchers consider the ethics of their work regularly and deeply, little formal guidance exists for the ethical challenges they routinely face in studying science learning. To explore this, the paper first shares contexts of studying informal science education at the Science Museum of Minnesota, including epistemological understandings of both science and research, a commitment to justice‐based equity, and existing ethical guidance and processes. Drawing on three research projects, it explores ethical issues pertaining to (a) museum visitors and (b) museum staff and community members engaging in participatory research. First, as visitors do not generally come to a museum to be part of a research study, learning researchers must consider sampling, representation, and data collection methods, balancing these with a museum‐goer's desires for their visit. Second, when using participatory methodologies with staff, community members, and young people as co‐researchers, ethical considerations involve building relationships, redefining (unanticipated) risks, and data collection and dissemination practices that do not extend existing social inequities or work hierarchies. Ultimately, this position paper argues for expanded or revised ethical guidance that meets the needs of this work, surpasses current guidelines or institutional review board practices, draws on epistemologies outside of a supposedly neutral, individualistic Western framework, and places participants at the center of the work. Such a discussion could enhance the ethical study of science learning across settings.
An Ethics and Social-Justice Approach to Collecting and Using Demographic Data for Psychological Researchers
The collection and use of demographic data in psychological sciences has the potential to aid in transforming inequities brought about by unjust social conditions toward equity. However, many current methods surrounding demographic data do not achieve this goal. Some methods function to reduce, but not eliminate, inequities, whereas others may perpetuate harmful stereotypes, invalidate minoritized identities, and exclude key groups from research participation or access to disseminated findings. In this article, we aim to (a) review key ethical and social-justice dilemmas inherent to working with demographic data in psychological research and (b) introduce a framework positioned in ethics and social justice to help psychologists and researchers in social-science fields make thoughtful decisions about the collection and use of demographic data. Although demographic data methods vary across subdisciplines and research topics, we assert that these core issues—and solutions—are relevant to all research within the psychological sciences, including basic and applied research. Our overarching aim is to support key stakeholders in psychology (e.g., researchers, funding agencies, journal editors, peer reviewers) in making ethical and socially-just decisions about the collection, analysis, reporting, interpretation, and dissemination of demographic data.
more » « less- PAR ID:
- 10383610
- Publisher / Repository:
- SAGE Publications
- Date Published:
- Journal Name:
- Perspectives on Psychological Science
- Volume:
- 18
- Issue:
- 5
- ISSN:
- 1745-6916
- Format(s):
- Medium: X Size: p. 979-995
- Size(s):
- p. 979-995
- Sponsoring Org:
- National Science Foundation
More Like this
-
more » « less
Abstract -
Social media provides unique opportunities for researchers to learn about a variety of phenomena—it is often publicly available, highly accessible, and affords more naturalistic observation. However, as research using social media data has increased, so too has public scrutiny, highlighting the need to develop ethical approaches to social media data use. Prior work in this area has explored users’ perceptions of researchers’ use of social media data in the context of a single platform. In this paper, we expand on that work, exploring how platforms and their affordances impact how users feel about social media data reuse. We present results from three factorial vignette surveys, each focusing on a different platform—dating apps, Instagram, and Reddit—to assess users’ comfort with research data use scenarios across a variety of contexts. Although our results highlight different expectations between platforms depending on the research domain, purpose of research, and content collected, we find that the factor with the greatest impact across all platforms is consent—a finding which presents challenges for big data researchers. We conclude by offering a sociotechnical approach to ethical decision-making. This approach provides recommendations on how researchers can interpret and respond to platform norms and affordances to predict potential data use sensitivities. The approach also recommends that researchers respond to the predominant expectation of notification and consent for research participation by bolstering awareness of data collection on digital platforms.more » « less
-
null (Ed.)The growing prevalence of data-rich networked information technologies—such as social media platforms, smartphones, wearable devices, and the internet of things —brings an increase in the flow of rich, deep, and often identifiable personal information available for researchers. More than just “big data,” these datasets reflect people’s lives and activities, bridge multiple dimensions of a person’s life, and are often collected, aggregated, exchanged, and mined without them knowing. We call this data “pervasive data,” and the increased scale, scope, speed, and depth of pervasive data available to researchers require that we confront the ethical frameworks that guide such research activities. Multiple stakeholders are embroiled in the challenges of research ethics in pervasive data research: researchers struggle with questions of privacy and consent, user communities may not even be aware of the widespread harvesting of their data for scientific study, platforms are increasingly restricting researcher’s access to data over fears of privacy and security, and ethical review boards face increasing difficulties in properly considering the complexities of research protocols relying on user data collected online. The results presented in this paper expand our understanding of how ethical review board members think about pervasive data research. It provides insights into how IRB professionals make decisions about the use of pervasive data in cases not obviously covered by traditional research ethics guidelines, and points to challenges for IRBs when reviewing research protocols relying on pervasive data.more » « less
-
Nonprofits provide a range of human and social services in the United States, producing what some call the delegated welfare state. The authors aim to quantify inequities in nonprofit service provision by focusing on two types of vulnerabilities: spatial and socio-demographic. Specifically, the authors develop a service accessibility index to identify mismatch between population demand and locational supply of nonprofits. The authors apply the index to an original data set of more than 1,500 immigrant-serving legal and health organization in California, Nevada, and Arizona. The authors find that immigrants living in rural areas are underserved, especially in access to justice, compared with those in metropolitan areas but that residents of smaller cities have better access, especially to health services, than those in larger cities. The service accessibility index not only brings such inequities into relief but raises critical questions about the determinants and consequences of service-access variability, for vulnerable immigrants and others dependent on the nonprofit safety net.more » « less
-
null (Ed.)In citizen science, data stewards and data producers are often not the same people. When those who have labored on data collection are not in control of the data, ethical problems could arise from this basic structural feature. In this Perspective, we advance the proposition that stewarding data sets generated by volunteers involves the typical technical decisions in conventional research plus a suite of ethical decisions stemming from the relationship between professionals and volunteers. Differences in power, priorities, values, and vulnerabilities are features of the relationship between professionals and volunteers. Thus, ethical decisions about open data practices in citizen science include, but are not limited to, questions grounded in respect for volunteers: who decides data governance structures, who receives attribution for a data set, which data are accessible and to whom, and whose interests are served by the data use/re-use. We highlight ethical issues that citizen science practitioners should consider when making data governance decisions, particularly with respect to open data.more » « less
