The Ethics of Facelessness in Online Education

What is this research about?

Education is about ethics, not only pedagogy. Yet discussions about ethical considerations in online learning are often limited (e.g., focused on issues of academic integrity and intellectual property). Less attention is given to the ethical ramifications of teaching and learning through technologically-mediated exchanges.

This conceptual paper encourages ethical reflection on what it means for learners to engage with computer screens that separate people from the bodies of others who are different from themselves. It explores how online learning environments can create the potential for ‘faceless’ interactions that have consequences for ethical, caring relationships and the meaning of education.

What did the researcher do?

The author draws on the philosophy of Emmanuel Levinas and Nel Noddings’ work in feminist ethics of care. In contrast to more prevalent educational literature focused on strategies for enhancing ‘social presence’ and engagement in the online classroom, this paper argues for considering the ethical implications of ‘facelessness’. Facelessness is theorized as the lack of physical face-to-face encounters that summon our responsibility to care for other people.

What did the researcher find?

The researcher’s argument elaborates the meaning of the face and the implications of facelessness in online education.

The meaning of the face:

• Some scholars understand the ‘face’ as merely an issue of self-presentation and performance. We look into the faces of others to see how they see us.
• Drawing on the work of Noddings and Levinas, the author understands the ‘face’ as more significant. When we engage with the face of another person, we are awakened to recognize and understand their vulnerability, humanity, and difference from us, and we sense an obligation to care for them.
• From this perspective, ethical, caring relationships are based in the face-to-face encounter. The face of the other looks into our own and both summons our responsibility and calls us into being. Who we are emerges from our ethical response and relationships with others.
• While some scholars have extended this latter notion of the face to the technological ‘interface’ (e.g., a photo on an asynchronous discussion board or real-time video conferencing through Zoom), the author argues that the interface may not be equally conducive to ethical engagement with another person as face-to-face interactions.

The implications of facelessness in online education:

The facelessness of online teaching and learning is not just a pedagogical challenge to overcome through presence-enhancing techniques. It is an ethical issue. The author encourages consideration of how faceless environments alter (1) human relationships, (2) the meaning and nature of education, and (3) the kinds of society we might create.

1. Faceless human relations: The author asks, Can those who come together in online learning environments form truly caring relations with faceless others? Literature points to the struggle to care in online teaching and learning environments.
2. The meaning of education: The authors asks, As universities provide learning options that bring learners face to face with screens rather than each other, how do the fundamental nature and meaning of education begin to change? Can faceless education remain an ethical, relational process? The author points to critiques of how the shift to online learning is occurring alongside an emphasis on efficient and impersonal information transfer rather than human interactions. Literature suggests that students taking online courses prioritize flexibility and convenience over human contact and relationships.
3. A new society: The author asks, If students cannot see differences, if they are not put in positions where they have to face each other with openness and vulnerability, to negotiate a common ground of understanding, then how can they learn to live together? Online interactions may involve less restraint and inhibition than face-to-face interactions, or, conversely, an increased sense of politeness and online ‘netiquette’ to avoid conflict. This may impede development of the ethical relations necessary for genuine communities and democratic society.

How can you use this research?

• On a practical level, this paper encourages us to consider ways that we might preserve elements of face-to-face contact as much as is possible in online teaching and learning contexts. For example, opportunities for synchronous class sessions and group work. (The author cautions, though, that no amount of pedagogical technique can entirely eliminate the ‘faceless’ experience of technology-mediated learning.)
• On a more reflective note, this paper invites us to consider what is absent or lost in the move to online teaching and learning, including the ‘face’ of the other. In what ways have we personally experienced this ‘facelessness’? How has it impacted our work, learning, and relations?
• While this paper was written pre-pandemic, it reminds us that our radically transformed context of online work and learning, while required and involuntary in many cases right now, also raises significant ethical considerations for our relationships with each other. We might ask ourselves, what are we currently doing and what might we do to cultivate ethical, caring relationships within the public health constraints and accentuated ‘facelessness’ of our present moment? What new opportunities for face-to-face ethical relations has the pandemic facilitated in our lives?

Author:

Ellen Rose, PhD, is a professor in the University of New Brunswick’s Faculty of Education where she teaches courses in educational technology and instructional design. For further information, see https://drellenrose.weebly.com.

Reference:

Rose, E. (2017). Beyond social presence: Facelessness and the ethics of asynchronous online education. McGill Journal of Education/Revue des sciences de l’éducation de McGill, 52(1), 17-32. https://doi.org/10.7202/1040802ar