Ethical considerations for using student focus groups for research
Pertimbangan Etis dalam Menggunakan Kelompok Fokus Mahasiswa untuk Penelitian

Using students in one's own class as a focus group is ethically possible, but it creates a high-risk situation in educational research because of the unequal power relationship between instructor and student. Research involving one's own students is common in educational research, particularly in studies of teaching and learning, but the inherent power imbalance requires particular attention. Ethics committees usually expect stronger protections than they would for research involving participants with no dependent relationship to the researcher.

Institutional Review Board (IRB) Approval

US colleges and universities that conduct research with human subjects must have an ethics committee, called the Institutional Review Board (IRB) that approves the research.The US rules for IRBs give an exempt category for classroom research, so the onus for maintaining ethical standards rests solely on the IRB. Researchers must get IRB approval before starting to recruit participants or collect data. You cannot skip formal oversight just because the study takes place during class time.

The ethics application to the IRB typically explains:

• recruitment procedures,
• consent process,
• confidentiality,
• data storage,
• management of the instructor–student relationship,
• risk minimization.

Recommended safeguards

Most ethical problems in student focus groups are common to many other kinds of research with human subjects, but you have three very simple ways to minimize them:

• Keep to low-risk research topics
• Include all required safeguards in the IRB application.
• Provide full information in the disclosure documentation and consent forms.

The closer the instructor is to decisions about grading, progression, or supervision, the stronger the safeguards should be. In many cases, the most defensible approach is to separate the teaching and research roles by using an independent recruiter or moderator and by ensuring that identifiable research data are not available to the instructor until all assessment responsibilities have ended.

Many ethics committees also consider the following to be best practice:

• Keep your role as an objective researcher completely separate from your role as a grader.
• Recruit students through an independent person rather than the instructor.
• Delay recruitment until after grades have been finalized where possible.
• Have someone other than the instructor conduct the focus group.
• Use anonymous identifiers instead of names.
• Keep participation completely separate from assessment.
• Offer an equivalent alternative if any incentive is provided.
• Ensure students understand that declining participation has no academic consequences.
• Report findings only in aggregated or anonymized form.
• Do not look at the focus group data or identities until after final grades are submitted.

The main ethical concerns

Voluntary participation

Students must be genuinely free to decline participation without fear of negative consequences. For example, students may believe participation will improve their grades, or that refusing will lower their grades. They might fear disappointing the instructor, or worry that refusing will affect future recommendations or supervision.

It is good practice to state clearly, both verbally and in writing, that participation is entirely voluntary. Explain that choosing not to participate will have absolutely no effect on grades, treatment, or future opportunities.

Fair participant selection

Selection should be fair and justified. Participation should not be limited to favorite students, high-achieving students, or students likely to agree with the instructor.

Avoiding coercion

Even subtle pressure can become coercion because instructors hold authority. Examples of indirect coercion include asking students during class to sign consent forms immediately, or watching students decide whether to participate. Coercion also includes publicly identifying participants, and repeatedly encouraging reluctant students.

It is good practice to allow students to decide privately, and give adequate time. If possible, use someone independent to recruit participants.

Even if there is no coercion, students might still perceive themselves to be coerced. The instructor’s position of authority naturally compromises their ability to say no freely. For example, they may feel forced to participate to stay in your favor, or might worry that refusing will lower their grades.

If the IRB considers students to be vulnerable, it may strictly scrutinize research involving a researcher's own students.

Right to withdraw

Students should be able to withdraw before the focus group, during the discussion, and, where feasible, within a specified period afterwards. The choice to opt out must be a genuine, penalty-free choice.

The researcher should explain any practical limits. For example, once a focus-group discussion has been fully anonymized and incorporated into collective analysis, removing one person's contributions may no longer be possible.

Avoiding conflicts of interest

The instructor has two potentially competing responsibilities: supporting student learning, and collecting research data. Educational decisions should always prioritize students' welfare rather than research needs.

In particular, research participation should never influence assessment. It is good practice for the teacher to not know who participated until final grades have been submitted, and after award marks for participating. If participation is rewarded (for example, bonus marks), there should always be an equivalent alternative activity requiring similar effort.

Power imbalance

Students may find it difficult to distinguish between the instructors multiple rolesteacher, assessor, mentor, and researcher. Consequently, many ethics committees recommend that another person collect consent forms and conduct the interviews or focus groups. Moreover, data should be withheld from the instructor until grading is complete.

Confidentiality, privacy, and data security

Students may discuss sensitive experiences. Special care is necessary because classmates may recognize one another's comments. They should informed beforehand who will see the recordings, how transcripts will be stored, whether names will be removed, and how quotations may be used. You must guarantee that individual comments remain anonymous in your final research.

Unlike interviews, focus groups cannot guarantee confidentiality because participants hear each other's comments. Participants should be informed that researchers will keep information confidential but other participants cannot be guaranteed to do so. Researchers normally ask everyone to respect the privacy of others, although this cannot be enforced.

In the application to the IRB, researchers should specify where recordings will be stored, who has access, how long data will be retained, when recordings will be destroyed, and how transcripts will be anonymized.

Informed consent

Consent should be obtained before participation begins. Students should understand:

• the purpose of the research,
• why they were invited,
• what participation involves,
• possible risks,
• possible benefits,
• how long participation takes,
• their right to withdraw,
• who to contact with concerns.
• The consent forms and information documents must explicitly state that participation does not impact grades.

Minimizing harm

Questions should not expose students to unnecessary embarrassment, psychological distress, social conflict, or academic disadvantage. Their willingness to contribute must not affect their social standing in class. Sensitive topics require additional safeguards and support if distress occurs.