What and why of research ethics?

All images

©Chiara Stenico

What is research ethics?

Research ethics can generally be understood ‘as the evaluation of attitudes and behaviour based on a combination of ideas of values and reality’ (Lidén, 2020: 61). While this evaluation can be done at the level of the values to guide attitudes and behaviour in research, it can also focus on the reality of the decisions and research practices, for example by assessing their impact.

Either way, the ethics of research seeks to ensure that research practices do no harm and do not create conditions for the occurrence of harm (i.e., the risk of harm). However, defining what is harm and what is doing harm is also context specific. To address this, organizations, groups or other entities reflect on practices that are acceptable and unacceptable behaviour in their particular context and community of practice. In research this has been broadly translated into a process to avoid harming all research-related actors. In more specific terms, this is sometimes translated into guidelines and norms of conduct, such as the Netherlands Code of Conduct for Research Integrity (KNAW et al., 2018).

The core tenet ‘do no harm’, captures principles of ‘beneficence’, ‘justice’ and ‘respect for autonomy’ mainly envisioned for research participants. Research ethics complements these with principles assuming the capacity of research to create social value, for example, principles of transparency, independence and responsibility.

Because research occurs in many different contexts, addresses a multitude of issues and interacts with a myriad of people and institutions, recognizing what negative consequences practices and decisions may have in a particular context is not enough; researchers also need to take decisions and actions that help prevent or mitigate the negative consequences of research practices. In this process, other variables come into play such as the research question, methodology and the dissemination of results. Research ethics becomes, therefore, a reflexive act, which dynamically balances out ethical considerations along the whole research process.

Why research ethics?

1. Research care

For the most part, research depends on the participation of others. In that, we see the primary importance of engaging in ‘care labour’ when doing research. Effectively, ‘doing no harm’ first reflects on the relationship with research participants who volunteer their time, experiences and knowledge. GonzálezLópez (2011) develops an idea of ‘mindful research’ as subject-centred, ethically conscious and alerted to the circumstances of the participants: ‘Far from being simply “subjects” participating in a qualitative study, the informants who are willing to share their life histories and stories are human beings with complex everyday lives characterized by unique social circumstances’ (González-López, 2011: 448). Managing this relationship ethically and mindfully can be complex and demands care. Dilemmas arise continuously and unexpectedly, particularly in the absence of ideal initial conditions and an equal researcherparticipant relationship (Fujii, 2012).

Thinking through this relationship and its complexity is not all when it comes to care. Another aspect of it, one which is rather integral to research, is: when choosing to work around certain topics, research also expresses a commitment to do justice to these topics. This is particularly relevant when working with vulnerable communities or data on topics which directly affect and are of special value to those communities –this is often the case in ISS-led research.

2. Research credibility

Collective, democratic research needs to be credible in the eyes of research communities and society at large. For example, Irina, an activist and practitioner who has often contributed to research projects with her own life experience and knowledge, clearly unfolds this idea of credibility,1 by questioning the way she may be represented as marginalized and as a vulnerable community member.

The principles captured by ‘do no harm’ have evolved into a better articulation of what consent means by establishing voluntariness and the autonomy of research participants as necessary elements to it (Beauchamp, 2010). In the spirit of credibility, we must speak of autonomy against ‘a presumption of autonomy’ (Rhodes, 2005) which translates into being respectful of someone else’s capacity for autonomy.

Credibility also plays out at the level of making research accountable. Research should nurture its relationship with society and research ethics advocates for research to become an increasingly transparent endeavour that actively responds, sometimes embeds, citizens’ views.

3. Research sustainability

Building on the aspects of credibility and care is the idea that ethical research has a longer life span than research that is not reflexive. While the focus of research ethics and its significance is, understandably, mostly on the researcher-participants relationship, by treating it ethically, we impact beyond the sphere of this one relationship. Ethical research first creates relational trust amongst researchers, collaborating partners and research-outcome users. In the broader framework of responsible research and innovation, research that can be defended as sound, ethical and accountable can sustainably endure and further develop.

How to do it?

Developing ethical research is not easy. In general, the process encompasses multiple phases. The first is to analyse the possible risks associated with the research endeavour. This will identify which elements of the research may, or risk doing, harm. Based on this analysis, multiple actions can be developed to reduce the identified risks, mitigate their consequences and identify what modifications to the research are necessary.

A few things to reflect upon here are:

1. Collecting and processing personal data, especially when this may be sensitive.

2. People participate on a voluntary basis, can withdraw at any time and are informed of the details of the research. Researchers need to be attentive to participants such as minors, children, people with learning disabilities, undocumented migrants, patients and prisoners for whom voluntary and informed consent require special attention.

3. To offer anonymity or confidentiality to create a safe space and increase open and reliable answers.

4. Are there any incentives offered to participants?

5. Whether researchers require the cooperation of a gatekeeper for access to the groups, communities or individuals to be recruited.

6. To reflect whether the research could induce psychological stress or anxiety, cause harm or have negative consequences for research participants or researchers.

With this information, the project can be submitted for ethics review in which a research ethics committee considers the research proposal and sees whether all possible risks have not only been identified, but whether measures are in place to address them. Following a positive recommendation, the next phase requires two things: implement everything that was presented to the ethics committee and develop a reflexive attitude to the research process, constantly reflecting on the risks of the research for researchers and others.

Closing words

There are important considerations to bear in mind when talking about research ethics. The first is that it does not only apply to what is commonly called qualitative research. Quantitative research also carries multiple risks. For example, the decision about which statistical parameter to use is often left to the researcher’s discretion and in the process unrecognized biases can reinforce the negative labels of some groups.

Another important consideration is that risk assessment does not create risks, it merely allows us to observe them and do something with them. Not listing all possible risks does not make them disappear, it only renders them invisible to us and increases the risk of affecting other participants and research practices. Likewise, ethical considerations are not only for those who do ‘field work’. Risks are everywhere in research practices (Bos, 2020; Curran, 2006) and research ethics also applies to remote research.

Thinking about research ethics is also an invitation to rethink research agendas, methods and allocation of resources (Smith, 2012). To observe possible top-down and ‘western’ agendas, methods/methodologies can carry or mobilize multiple risks. In this sense, extractivist research practices and approaches are not strange to research endeavours.

Finally, researchers need to be conscious of not falling into ethics-washing practices: making research practices appear risk-free, whilst in reality risks have simply been hidden or placed elsewhere. An example is risk dumping in which we use local researchers or research assistants without considering the risk that doing research brings to them.

All in all, research ethics can be seen as a reflexive act, evaluating attitudes and behaviour and their impact. Taking care of these considerations not only makes research more legitimate or accountable, more importantly, it makes it more caring and, as indicated by Fujii (2012: 722), ‘[w]restling with ethical dilemmas is the price we pay for the privileges we enjoy. It is a responsibility, not a choice, and, when taken seriously, it may be one of the most important benefits we have to offer those who make our work possible.’