research ethics

  • when its participatory the goal is ultimately to do your best to solve the problem of that one person

  • understand the agency of the people that are the subject of the data, make it so it benefits them

  • ethics throughout entire research path, meaning and purpose

  • incorporating critical ethics and frameworks

  • Greek ethos meaning character, habit, dwelling, way of being, disposition, way of approaching the world

  • in research there are common principles it aligns with

  • what kind of researcher do you want to be, what kind of person do you want to be

  • any conversation is a chance to hold your power

  • ethics in relation specifically to systemic, calculated harm

  • often ethical milestones in the past are in relation to aftermath of harm (eg Nuremburg Code) rather than future-building - reactionary

  • informed consent - includes clear and accessible information, no coercion, and ongoing, revocable consent

  • consent is both a legal contract and an ongoing relationship of trust and care

  • Declaration of Helsinki (1964) - weighing risk against benefits

  • Belmont Report (1979) - respect, beneficence and justice

  • exploitation under the name of science

  • academia as a colonial institution itself and the need to deconstruct it throughout, new methodologies

  • Institutional Review Boards established to oversee human research - example impetus for this is Tuskegee Syphilis Study (1932 - 1972)

  • Drug testing regulations came from the effects of thalidomide in pregnancy

  • by the mid-20th century ethical considerations shift to social sciences, humanities, cultural space

  • positionality and power dynamics between researchers and participants

  • research is never neutral

  • who speaks and who listens, what is considered knowledge

  • what do we owe each other, what can we give each other

  • holding uncertainty and complexities and sitting in it

  • no longer necessarily ‘experimenting with bodies’ but foundationally that still happens all the time actually

  • rise of University Research Ethics Committees modelled on IRBs, through the 1990s

  • National Committee for Research Ethics in the Social Sciences and Humanities released first guidelines in 1993, emphasising respect for cultural norms and participant autonomy

  • ethics submission is the core of methodology when working with subjects of equalities and justice

  • ‘do no harm’ includes psychological, social and reputational harm - embarrassment, discomfort and misrepresentation

  • privacy and confidentiality as respect, as care

  • you can’t pass on that trust, details carry risk

  • upfront clarity on any claims or guarantees of anonymity, do they want to be seen or unseen

  • respect for the agency of individuals under all circumstances

  • being honest about your goals, methods and affiliations to everyone involved - those your research touches is the primary audience, those who are systemically disempowered

  • ‘what is going to happen to my story?’

  • in autoethnography you’ll be more cognizant of this question too because its your own story

  • pretending ethics are universal is a kind of violence

  • unlearning, undoing, switching framework if it doesn’t fit the people you’re working with

  • begin with listening, avoiding extractive modes

  • reflexivity - ethics as process

  • Digital Modernity (1960s–1980s), new challenges developing with computing, IP and surveillance, profitable data, early networks

  • Digital Post-Modernity - internet, algorithms, disinformation and big data

  • sensitive data moves from name/contact/demographic to detailed metadata and fingerprinting

  • blurring of public and private data online

  • emerging organisations eg Association of Internet Researchers developing guidelines, but not keeping pace

  • AI ethics

  • not inherently less impactful when not meeting participants directly

  • misrepresentative data and excluded users are still collateral - who suffers as a result of what you’re studying, it is not disconnected

  • avoiding ‘styling’ harm, what shouldn’t be abstracted, and whose pain is legible

  • what you choose not to do - ‘decide’ - killing other options - resolving into a singular choice

  • critical enquiries on sensitive material can create new harms - how to work with trauma

  • people as gateways to systems, situated knowledges of those implementing policy or observing contradictions, silent actors caught in hierarchies

  • infrastructural data - NDAs, internal policy constraints, legal obligations, moral conflicts, loyalty and safety

  • from subjects to co-creators - beyond consent - agency and authorship

  • shared ownership/authorship

  • tokenistic use of ‘participation’, participation without power is extraction

knowledge lineage

Section titled “knowledge lineage”