[SOLVED] Ethical Dilemma in Learning Analytics

This assignment requires students to analyze an ethical dilemma in learning analytics using the Doing Ethics Technique (DET). The DET involves listing facts, identifying non-ethical issues, stakeholders, and ethical issues, evaluating other options that can resolve them, and selecting the best option. Students are also expected to demonstrate good writing skills, structure their arguments clearly, and reference sources accurately.

Development Methodology/Scenario 2
Assignment 1: Doing Ethics Technique
Your Name
Student Number
School of computing and maths, charles sturt university
Word Count:1000
Q1. What's going on?

Development Methodology/Scenario 2
This particular scenario describes regarding one technological project of any specific
organization, where the client has asked for some of the alterations in software. He has asked
these changes from the junior software developer. The manager of the project then enters into
that room and questions regarding the project progress. The outline of this case study involves
the state of any type of alteration within the resultant software as demanded by their client
("Scenario 2: Development Methodology", 2018). The summary of the scenario discusses about
the urgency in making all the changes as per client requirements within the final software and
also the reason behind the junior software developer being agreeing for making those changes,
within the given time frame. The manager of the project is questioning the junior software
developer whether he contents to make all those changes within the provided time frame.
Q2. What are the facts?
There are some of the significant facts in this scenario (Coghlan & Brannick, 2014). The
scenario is solely related to the technological problem that is arising within this project of a
particular company. The client of the project has demanded for making several alterations within
the software. This organization is IT based and is undergoing IT projects. This project is for
building software according to the client requirements. The client is detecting some of the major
problems or issues present within the software and he wants to change all of those (Mannay &
Morgan, 2015). He wants the junior developer to make the software perfect.
Q3. What are the issues (non-ethical)?
In this scenario, there are few issues that are non ethical in nature. These issues or
problems could be of several types (Black, 2013). The manager of the project might question the
junior software developer the exact reason for accepting the phone call from their client and
taking the decision to make changes as per the client. The manager of the project suggests the
junior software developer to forward these types of phone calls directly to the project manager
and also notifies him on an immediate note. There is a high scope that the manager of the project
would yell at the junior software developer for uncomplaining such changes demanded by the
particular client (Slade & Prinsloo, 2013). The manager of the project even behaves rudely with
the junior software developer for accepting the fact of doing alterations within the software.
These are the few issues that are non ethical in this particular scenario. The manager of the
project should not have behaved rudely with the junior software developer and the entire act is
Your Name

Development Methodology/Scenario 2
extremely non ethical in nature. The junior software developer did not comprise of any personal
objective for these changes and he was only doing his work (Coghlan & Brannick, 2014). This
non ethical act of the project manager could even cause of the loss of his employee.
Q4. Who is affected?
The most affected person in this entire scenario is the junior software developer.
Moreover, the various stakeholders of this organization are affected in the case as they are losing
one of their best employees (Gray, 2016). These stakeholders of this organization mainly involve
board of directors, manager of the project, employees, and the clients. The employees are the
best assets of any organization and if any one of them leaves the organization, the most affected
persons would be anyone associated with the company. Moreover, the client is also affected here
as he would be receiving erroneous software. He is giving money to the organization and hence
it is his right to get perfect result (Mannay & Morgan, 2015). The goodwill of the company is
also affected in this scenario. Moreover, the company is also losing time, as the project is not
being completed within time.
Q5. What are the ethical issues and their implications?
In spite of having several non ethical issues, there are some of the significant ethical
issues in this particular scenario (Mintz, 2016). The first and the foremost ethical issue in this
scenario are the accepting of all client requirements and thus satisfying the client. The major
implication of this ethical issue is that the client would again come back to the company and
make further deals. The impolite behavior of manager of the project can have two implications.
The first implication is positive, where the junior software developer might learn from his
mistakes and would not take any more wrong decisions. For this implication, the scenario is
ethical (Slade & Prinsloo, 2013). However, if the implication is negative and the junior
developer leaves the company and is de motivated, it is termed as a non ethical issue.
Q6. What can be done about it?
Various probabilities are present for solving all the above mentioned problems that had
been raised for the alterations in the software demanded by their client (Black, 2013). The most
important role in the case study is its factor of trust. The manager of the project should trust the
junior software developer for completing his work. The manager of the project should motivate
his subordinate for completing the work within time frame. Moreover, he should appreciate the
Your Name

Development Methodology/Scenario 2
junior developer for doing his task perfectly. The manager of the project should behave ethically
with the junior software developer and thus solve all the issues (Gray, 2016). There is an option
that the manager would demand for more money for the changes from their client. This would
not affect the financial state of the company and the junior software developer and project
manager would extra payment for their work.
Q7. What are the options?
There are three options for solving the ethical and non ethical issues in the case study.
The first option is the project manager advices the project developer to forward these types of
important calls directly to him so that he can take necessary steps here. (Ford & Richardson,
2013). The second option in this scenario is that the project manager screams at the junior
developer for taking such drastic decision without his permission. The implication of this option
is that the junior developer might leave the organization. The third or the final option in this
scenario is that the program director listens and encourages the idea and action of the software
developer. This would lead to utmost motivation within the junior developer.
Q8. Which option is the best and why?
From the above mentioned options, the best option is the program director encouraging
the idea of the junior software developer (Bell, 2014). The junior software developer was ready
in making those changes. Therefore, he should be motivated for making the changes in the
software. This type of motivation would lead him to major success in professional life (Miguel,
2014). The program director therefore should encourage the junior software developer.
References
Bell, J. (2014). Doing Your Research Project: A guide for first-time researchers. McGraw-Hill
Education (UK).
Black, J. (2013). Mixed news: The public/civic/communitarian journalism debate. Routledge.
Coghlan, D., & Brannick, T. (2014). Doing action research in your own organization. Sage.
Ford, R. C., & Richardson, W. D. (2013). Ethical decision making: A review of the empirical
literature. In Citation classics from the Journal of Business Ethics (pp. 19-44). Springer
Netherlands.
Gray, D. E. (2016). Doing Research in the Business World. SAGE.
Your Name

Development Methodology/Scenario 2
Mannay, D., & Morgan, M. (2015). Doing ethnography or applying a qualitative technique?
Reflections from the ‘waiting field’. Qualitative Research, 15(2), 166-182.
Miguel, A. (2014). Doing Christian Ethics from the Margins: Revised and Expanded. Orbis
Books.
Mintz, S. (2016). Giving voice to values: A new approach to accounting ethics education. Global
Perspectives on Accounting Education, 13, 37-50.
Scenario 2: Development Methodology. (2018). YouTube. Retrieved 13 March 2018, from
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0npm9cEJBWY
Slade, S., & Prinsloo, P. (2013). Learning analytics: Ethical issues and dilemmas. American
Behavioral Scientist, 57(10), 1510-1529.
Do not remove the following marking sheet.
Marking Sheet
Criteria Standards
Marks
award
ed
Analysis of
the ethical
dilemma
using the
Doing
Ethics
Technique
(DET)
(Value
70%)
HD: Answers all DET questions, lists all the facts, identifies all the non-
ethical issues, lists all the stakeholders, identifies all the ethical issues,
evaluates OTHER options can resolve them and selects the best option from
these and the already given and justifies why this option is the best using
supporting arguments based on the literature.(59.5-70)
DI: Answers all DET questions, lists all the facts, identifies all the non-ethical
issues, lists all the stakeholders, lists all the ethical issues and the OTHER
options can resolve them and selects the best option from these and
explains why this option is the best.(52.5-58.8)
CR: Answers all DET questions, lists most of the facts, identifies most of the
non-ethical issues, lists most of the stakeholders, lists most of the ethical
issues and OTHER options can resolve them and selects the best option
from these and makes an attempt to explain why this option is the best.
(45.5-51.8)
PS: Answers some of the DET questions, lists a few facts, identifies a few
Your Name

Development Methodology/Scenario 2
non-ethical issues, lists a few stakeholders, lists a few ethical issues and
OTHER options can resolve them and selects the best option from these but
without explaining why this option is the best.(35-44.8)
FL: Answers a few DET questions but fails to list important facts, fails to
identify relevant non-ethical issues, fails to list important stakeholders, fails
to identify the ethical issues and evaluates the OTHER options can resolve
them and does not select the best option or does not explain why the option
selected is the best.(0-34.3)
Writing &
structure
(Value
20%)
HD: Language features and structures are used to convey meaning
effectively, concisely, unambiguously, and in a tone appropriate to the
audience and purpose with no spelling, grammatical, or punctuation errors.
(17-20)
DI: Well developed skills in expression & presentation of ideas.Fluent writing
style appropriate to assessment task/document type.Grammar & spelling
accurate.(15-16.8)
CR: Good skills in expression & clear presentation of ideas.Mostly fluent
writing style appropriate to assessment task/document type. Grammar &
spelling contains a few minor errors.(13-14.8)
PS: The text contains frequent errors in spelling, grammar, word choice, and
structure, lacks clarity, and is not concise, but the meaning is apparent to
the reader with some effort.(10-12.8)
FL: Rudimentary skills in expression & presentation of ideas.Not all material
is relevant &/or is presented in a disorganised manner.Meaning apparent,
but writing style not fluent or well organised.Grammar & spelling contains
many errors.(0-9.8)
Referencin
g
(Value
10%)
HD: Referencing is comprehensive, demonstrates academic integrity, and
conforms exactly to APA style conventions.(8.5-10)
DI: Very good referencing, including reference list and citations.High quality
Your Name

Development Methodology/Scenario 2
references.(7.5-8.4)
CR:Good referencing, including reference list and citations. Good quality
references.(6.5-7.4)
PS:Referencing is comprehensive, mostly accurate according to APA style
conventions, and demonstrates academic integrity. Some minor errors or
omissions in style and formatting choices (e.g. italics, punctuation, etc)
don’t impact on the transparency and traceability of the source, or
demonstration of academic integrity.(5-6.4)
FL: Sub-standard (or no) referencing. Poor quality (or no) references.(0-4.9)
Total
Marks
Your Name