scholarly journals A critical self-reflexive account of a privileged researcher in a complicated setting: Kakuma refugee camp

2021 ◽  
pp. 174701612110373
Author(s):  
Neil Bilotta
Keyword(s):  
Research Ethics ◽  
Forced Migration ◽  
Refugee Camp ◽  
Relational Ethics ◽  
Gender Status ◽  
The Face ◽  
Conducting Research ◽  
And Gender ◽  
Ethics Guidelines ◽  
Research Ethics Guidelines

As a white, Western-educated man, undertaking research in Kakuma refugee camp, Kenya, I encountered ethical dilemmas related to my privileged racial and gender status. These include power imbalances between researchers and refugees and conducting research in the face of human suffering. Through critical self-reflexivity, I analyze my own experiences to reveal the personal and professional vulnerabilities that researchers from high-income countries (HICs) may encounter when working in contexts where oppression and forced displacement are prominent. I conclude that researchers who work in contexts of forced migration must extend beyond the boundaries of procedural research ethics and include components of relational ethics. This involves close collaboration with refugee participants to develop more culturally relevant research ethics guidelines for refugee-specific populations.

Emotions in human research ethics guidelines: Beyond risk, harm and pathology

2021 ◽  
pp. 146879412110399
Author(s):  
Rebecca E Olson
Keyword(s):  
Research Ethics ◽  
The Other ◽  
Vulnerable Groups ◽  
Human Research ◽  
Rational Decision Making ◽  
Human Research Ethics ◽  
The United Kingdom ◽  
National Human ◽  
Ethics Guidelines ◽  
Research Ethics Guidelines

Drawing on a discourse analysis of emotions in national human research ethics guidelines from Australia, Singapore, the United Kingdom and United States, I argue that such guidelines treat emotions as superfluous, harmful, risky and threats to rational decision-making. Such uncritical appreciation of emotions sees instructions to show ‘respect’ position non-Western participants as ‘the other’, sees directives to consider ‘emotional welfare’ undermine the autonomy of people from ostensibly vulnerable groups, and risks undermining qualitative research’s cathartic potential. These findings underpin a call to revise guidelines to position emotions as part of everyday life; and to encourage researchers to adopt embodied, caring and emotionally reflexive approaches to human research, where researchers draw on guidelines and emotions in deciding how to produce ethical research.

scholarly journals The ESRC's 2010 Framework for Research Ethics: Fit for Research Purpose?

2010 ◽  
Vol 15 (4) ◽  
pp. 106-115 ◽  
Author(s):  
Liz Stanley ◽  
Sue Wise
Keyword(s):  
Research Ethics ◽  
Ethical Issues ◽  
Ethics Committees ◽  
Professional Associations ◽  
Consultation Process ◽  
Ethics Framework ◽  
Science Community ◽  
Set Up ◽  
Ethics Guidelines ◽  
Research Ethics Guidelines

The ESRC's (2010) Framework for Research Ethics extends the remit of its 2005 research ethics framework in three significant ways: the system is to be fully mandatory and it will no longer be possible to make the case that no out of the ordinary ethical issues arise; the Research Ethics Committees (RECs) set up under the ESRC's 2005 document have extended remit, including reviewing all research proposals accepted by the ESRC and other funding bodies; and funding will depend on the REC review, with its purview extending through a project's life. The 2010 document is reviewed in detail and the conclusion is drawn that it is not fit for purpose. Six wider issues raised by the FRE document are discussed: the consultation process by the ESRC was insufficient and the informed consent of the social science community was not obtained; the ethics creep involved will involve unnecessary bureaucratisation; the RECs will operate without expert discipline-specific knowledge using unethical generalist criteria; the overall effects long-term will be deleterious to the research base; the FRE document unacceptably ignores the professional associations and their research ethics guidelines; and the ESRC's system of the expert peer review of funding applications will be undermined.

Reflexivity in Research Practice: Informed Consent with Children at School and at Home

2008 ◽  
Vol 13 (4) ◽  
pp. 17-30 ◽  
Author(s):  
Hayley Davies
Keyword(s):  
Informed Consent ◽  
Research Ethics ◽  
Ethical Issues ◽  
Research Process ◽  
Research Practice ◽  
Ethical Practices ◽  
Research Participants ◽  
Ethical Approach ◽  
Ethics Guidelines ◽  
Research Ethics Guidelines

Informed consent is a key consideration in ethical research, particularly research conducted with children. Devising an approach to and obtaining informed consent is a complex task involving multiple considerations. The examples used in this paper are derived from a study investigating how children constitute family members and close relationships. The paper is divided into two sections. The first section suggests that researchers should take a reflexive approach to their professional research practice and addresses how a researcher's professional location determines their particular ethical approach. Consideration is given to how the researcher's particular ethical approach can be achieved in consultation with academic thought and research ethics guidelines, which often offer contradictory advice on important ethical issues. The second section of the paper addresses how researchers negotiate their approach to informed consent in particular research contexts which offer challenges to the researcher's thinking about research participants or chosen procedures for obtaining and maintaining that informed consent is upheld. The paper concludes by arguing that the researcher can incorporate academic thought and aspects of the research ethics guidelines in an approach to informed consent that simultaneously values the research participants and the ethical practices operating in the research setting. Such an approach involves careful negotiation and consideration of the interests of all stakeholders in the research process.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document