Remember Me
Or use your Academic/Social account:


Or use your Academic/Social account:


You have just completed your registration at OpenAire.

Before you can login to the site, you will need to activate your account. An e-mail will be sent to you with the proper instructions.


Please note that this site is currently undergoing Beta testing.
Any new content you create is not guaranteed to be present to the final version of the site upon release.

Thank you for your patience,
OpenAire Dev Team.

Close This Message


Verify Password:
Verify E-mail:
*All Fields Are Required.
Please Verify You Are Human:
fbtwitterlinkedinvimeoflicker grey 14rssslideshare1
Hargreaves, Janet (2007)
Languages: English
Types: Unknown
Subjects: RT, L1, BJ

Classified by OpenAIRE into

Regulations in Higher Education, e.g. subject benchmarks, the qualifications framework (QAA) and the CATs system. play an important role in ensuring the quality of educational standards. They assure students that each CAT point they acquire has value and that ‘graduateness’ is of equal worth regardless of location or subject. \ud In addition, a growing consumer ethos and the introduction of fees encourage students and their financial supporters to view Higher Education as a product. Whilst the student’s own motivation and input is still important, Universities are expected to deliver learning opportunities that maximise the likelihood of successful completion. \ud Innovation and creativity do not sit comfortably within this paradigm. Delivering educational experiences where the outcome is uncertain, or where there are less clear and objective methods for measuring student achievement, presents a risk to educational standards and to student experience. \ud \ud This paper seeks to explore the relationship between risk, ethics and the introduction of creativity and innovation into the curriculum. \ud It is generally accepted that university education should be challenging – encouraging the development of an enquiring mind that does not accept things at face value and the confidence to argue from an alterative viewpoint. These aspirations are related to notions of autonomy as espoused by J S Mill (1859) and others. Nurturing such attributes means respecting the autonomy of the student to make decisions, stand by them and to take responsibility for risk taking and its outcomes. It also means allowing lecturers to design courses that permit change, diversity of practice and risk taking. \ud By contrast an unintended effect of the paradigm outlined above is a culture in which individual academic freedom is stifled by the need for conformity. Success may be measured by the averagely intelligent student, with average levels of motivation, achieving an award one point higher on the value added scale than they came with. The ethical principle of non-maleficence takes precedence such that the possibility of doing harm – to the student or University - outlaws risk taking behaviour in curriculum design and delivery. \ud Utilitarian ethics (West 2004) is effective in surfacing such dilemmas. Its use in detailed analysis may help students and academics to plot the risks and benefits of innovative practice.
  • The results below are discovered through our pilot algorithms. Let us know how we are doing!

    • Beauchamp T L and Childress J F (2001) Principles of Biomedical Ethics, forth edition, OUP, New York
  • No related research data.
  • No similar publications.

Share - Bookmark

Cite this article