Demystifying Ethics and SoTL

Scholarship of Teaching and Learning
  1. Scholarship of Teaching and Learning /
  2. Recent Activity /
  3. Demystifying Ethics and SoTL

Demystifying Ethics and SoTL

Liz Austen & Sue Beckingham
Sheffield Hallam University

SoTL – Scholarship of Teaching and Learning – is a sector leading term and represents engagement in the existing knowledge of teaching and learning, developing ideas and innovation in practice, reflections on practice, undertaking enquiry through research and evaluation, and sharing of scholarship publicly. When we – staff at Hallam - are working closely with students or staff in an enquiry-led situation we are doing so as an ‘insider’. This means we need to think about how we conduct ourselves, what we need to tell the institution we are doing, and how we might want to share what we have learnt. These are all ethical considerations. These considerations may be different in SoTL enquiry than in disciplinary research and evaluation.

Understanding Relational and Procedural Ethics

How we conduct ourselves in an enquiry situation is likely driven by our understanding of key relationships and how we manage them. This notion of ‘relational ethics’ guides us in the critical appraisal of the moral and political dimensions of enquiry, typically through a process of continuing reflexive dialogue. In some situations, we also need a formal record of the work we are doing. ‘Procedural ethics’ – the form filling bit - primarily serves the interests of the university and is based on institutional norms, standards and procedures which determine the responsibilities of the researcher. An approved application, a declaration of the research/evaluation, also records the parameters of our projects and ensures that safeguarding mechanisms are in place to protect all stakeholders. 

Ethics and SoTL

Engagement in a SoTL project typically involves working alongside students or researching students and staff whilst positioned as an ‘insider’ i.e. conducting enquiry within our own employment context. There are specific ethical considerations to review including power dynamics, risks of coercion and blurred boundaries between participation in learning and data gathering during a teaching session. This is in addition to the more common considerations of consent, confidentiality, anonymity, withdrawal and data storage. Such that Purvis & Crawford (2024, p2) note

“It may not occur to practitioners that they have crossed a boundary and moved into practice where their work now needs further consideration supported by independent scrutiny.”

Whilst we should consider relational ethics daily, and specifically in our project work, the type of planned SoTL activity will determine the approach to procedural ethics. SoTL@SHU promotes the continued engagement in relational ethics, and the incorporation of partnership, justice and care (Bunnell, Felten, & Matthews, 2022) into project planning and implementation, and a pragmatic approach to procedural ethics. Given some of the complexities in SoTL work, completing a procedural ethical approval application may well be the prompt needed for these relational reflections. Reviewing possible avenues for SoTL publications at the start of a project is another prompt for considering whether a procedural ethical approval application is needed.

Ethical Guidance:

All SoTL projects which collect data from students at Sheffield Hallam should apply our Student Voice Principles which guide ethical practice when working alongside or collecting data from students. These are our relational guidelines.

On enrolment, all students agree to the conditions of the Student Privacy Notice which stipulates how the university will use their data. This includes guidance on quality enhancement and research and closely links to statutory Data Protection guidance.

As a rule, SHU ethical approval – our procedural ethics - is required for any external publication of newly generated research and evaluation data concerning human participants, as analysis, synthesis or conclusions.

If publishing findings using existing institutional data as research (MEQ results, learner assessment data, NSS comments etc) the Student Privacy Notice suggests SHU ethical approval is needed. Consent can be linked to permissions obtained at enrolment.

If an output contains research or evaluation data, publishers will expect that formal ethical approval was obtained prior to project inception, and that it is clear how ethical standards have been considered (Purvis & Crawford, 2024). 

There are some caveats: 

  • If you are publishing a reflection on the methodology of a SoTL research/evaluation project (as occurred or as a fictionalised reflection), no SHU ethical approval is needed.
  • If publishing a SoTL opinion piece based on existing published literature, no SHU ethical approval is needed.
  • If publishing a SoTL reflective description (how to) of teaching practice, no SHU ethical approval is needed.
  • If you are implementing a SoTL intervention, noSHU ethical approval is needed, if you are not collecting new data. But projects should employ the considerations of relational ethics. 

SoTL Staircase: Ethical Mapping

In Sue Beckingham’s previous blog post, we introduced the different ways we can contribute to SoTL. Mapping the SoTL Staircase to the need for procedural ethics then looks something like this:

  • Book/chapter/journal - yes, with caveats about content
  • Exhibition/Conference Presentation/Paper - yes, with caveats about content
  • Case Study/Conference Poster - yes, with caveats about content
  • How to guide, blog, podcast, infographic - no, with caveats about content
  • Implement an intervention - no, with caveats about relational ethics

An image of a staircase with five steps of scholarship. For each step it states the item and answers the question "Is there a need for procedural ethics?" Implement an intervention to enhance student learning and engagement (No with caveats about relational content); How to guides, blogs, podcasts or infographics (No, with caveats about content); Case study or conference poster (yes, with caveats about content); Exhibition or conference presentation/paper (yes, with caveats about content); Book/chapter or journal article (yes, with caveats about content)

Figure 1: The SoTL Staircase and when procedural ethics is needed

As you move further up the SoTL staircase it is important to recognise the distinction between narrative reports about teaching and learning and SoTL that makes use of evidence to support the research that needs ethical approval. Ashton-Hay et al (2025) highlight the importance of going beyond description and using evidence to justify and clarify how the study is a credible claim. 

Further Resources

The SoTL@SHU network delivered a session of ethics in February 2025, and details can be found on our internal SharePoint sites.

For more information on the ethical approval system at Hallam (Converis), please follow the links below:

Notes: 

Hallam Student Union Student Voice principles:  

Ethical: Student voice activities must be conducted within strict ethical guidelines, including data integrity, confidentiality and anonymity of respondents. Students must be informed of the purpose of the SV activity and how results will be communicated.” (Hallam Student Union 2019) 

Student Privacy Notice:

 “Your data may be shared with:

  • University staffwho need the information for administrative, teaching, research, assessment, and student support purposes. In the case of international students, this includes staff in our overseas offices.” 

If conducting research (creating new knowledge on a topic through generation of evidence), SPN suggests: 

“The University may share data with organisations for the purposes of research with may include: 

  • authorised university researchers but only after ethical approval, permission from the Director of Academic Services and with appropriate safeguards
  • research funders and/or collaborating partners to support a funding application, for the monitoring of an award, or in the case of research misconduct allegations”

Liz Austen is Associate Dean Learning, Teaching & Student Success in the College of Social Sciences and Arts

Sue Beckingham is an Associate Professor Teaching & Learning in the College or Business, Technology and Engineering

References

Ashton-Hay, S., Coleman, B., Sullivan, M. & Toquero, C. M. (2025). The difference in practice papers and scholarship: We publish the latter. Journal of University Teaching and Learning Practice, 22(1). https://doi.org/10.53761/2qgq0714

Bunnell, S. L., Felten, P., & Matthews, K. E. (2022). Toward trust in SoTL: The role of relational ethics. In Ethics and the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning (pp. 129-146). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-11810-4_9

Daley, K. (2012). Gathering sensitive stories: Using care theory to guide ethical decision-making in research interviews with young people. Youth Studies Australia, 31(3), 27-34. https://search.informit.org/doi/10.3316/informit.753395168622149

Hunt, M. R., & Godard, B. (2013). Beyond procedural ethics: foregrounding questions of justice in global health research ethics training for students. Global Public Health, 8(6), 713-724. https://psycnet.apa.org/doi/10.1080/17441692.2013.796400

Purvis, A.J. & Crawford, J. (2024) Ethical Standards in Social Science Publications. Journal of University Teaching and Learning Practice, 21(09). https://doi.org/10.53761/hqnqr710