Click the star to add/remove an item to/from your individual schedule.
You need to be logged in to avail of this functionality.
Log in
- Convenors:
-
Jude Robinson
(University of Glasgow)
Margaret Sleeboom-Faulkner (University of Sussex)
Bob Simpson (Durham University)
- Formats:
- Panels
- Stream:
- Anthropology
- Location:
- Examination Schools South School
- Start time:
- 20 September, 2018 at
Time zone: Europe/London
- Session slots:
- 1
Short Abstract:
Are the principles underpinning ethical research in Anthropology adequately recognised by institutional ethical review panels? What is needed to support anthropologists to develop their research and teaching as part of the response by the humanities and social sciences to global societal challenges?
Long Abstract:
The requirements for anthropologists to submit their work for ethical review by university and other ethical committees has been researched and debated over the last decade. Although ethical conduct lies at the heart of anthropology, what this actually means in practice has proved harder for anthropologists to articulate to people from other disciplines. While the ASA and other organisations have developed guidance to codify and capture some of the complexity of ethical theory and situated field ethics, changing ideas about the person, the nature of what is 'public' and 'private', and the role of researchers means that any guidance may not adequately cover the particular dilemmas anthropologists face in their work and needs to be revised and developed to meet the needs of the community. Similarly, the use of new technologies, mass means of communication and changing regulatory frameworks have raised concerns about the future development of ethnographic research methods. This panel will include papers that explore the changing nature of research and research ethics and consider how anthropologists can be supported to continue to practice and develop ethnographic methods that conform with the necessary regulatory frameworks for research ethics.
Accepted papers:
Session 1Jude Robinson (University of Glasgow)
Paper short abstract:
If ethical committees focussed on the ethics of the researcher, rather than the research and the researched, what would this mean for future anthropological research in terms of training and ethical review?
Paper long abstract:
Ethics committees exist at many levels in institutions, and are variously nearer or more distant from departments of anthropology and anthropological understandings. As part of an explicit endeavour to make the process of ethical review 'objective' and 'rigorous', committees often have a variety of people from many disciplines to review research, based on the premise that 'research' should be presented so that 'anyone' could make a judgement of ethical standards rather than a specialist in the discipline/ field. Other mechanisms of objectivity include the forms devised by ethical committees, as while they include many required fields to detail the research design, participants and methods, there are minimal fields for the inclusion of information about the researcher. Indeed the researcher is not only largely absent on paper, but some committees do not invite researchers to their deliberations or consult them at any point in the process of ethical review. In this paper, I argue that rather than ensuring objectivity these mechanisms introduce multiple and often conflicting subjectivities, and the failure to adequately include the researcher in ethical judgements introduces the assumption that 'research' in itself can be ethical, regardless of the person who carries it out. Drawing on the ASA Ethical Guidelines (2011) I consider what ethical review might look like if the researcher is placed more explicitly at the heart of the judgements made within the ethical review process, and what this would mean for the teaching of research ethics, research practice and the future of ethical review.
Peter Pels (Leiden University)
Paper short abstract:
Datamanagement policies introduce new forms of academic governance. Their demands for transparency in the name of integrity can upset qualitative researchers because they may violate principles of maintaining social relationships during and after ethnographic research. This paper argues that such issues require anthropologists globally to clarify such principles.
Paper long abstract:
Datamanagement policies introduced by universities, national funding agencies, international journals and European government are changing academic governance and its attendant protocols of research integrity and ethics. Anthropologists can be upset by such demands, because they force transparency in the name of integrity (as Open Access and the reduction of scientific fraud) that do not take much account of the maintenance of ethically responsible relationships with participants in qualitative social research. As a result of a lack of awareness of the co-production of research materials and its consequences for ethnographic reporting, of commodified conceptions of ”data”, and of a mutilated notion of the process of research, datamanagement policies frequently forget about or ignore major ways in which research materials are processed into publishable or open access bits of knowledge. This paper argues that anthropologists have to spell out such principles for international audiences in order to avoid unethical behavior to result from such new forms of ethical governance.
Margaret Sleeboom-Faulkner (University of Sussex)
Paper short abstract:
The ethics of anthropological research is incongruent with formalised research ethics. The implementation of the new EU data protection regulation has the potential to make matters worse. BUT there are also ways in which anthropology can negotiate to acquire more suitable ethics review.
Paper long abstract:
The ethics of anthropological research is incongruent with formalised ethics of research ethics committees (RECs). Relating how the introduction of ethics review came about, the implementation of the new EU data protection regulation promises to make matters worse. This presentation will outline two ways in which the implementation of the new EU general data protection regulation (GDPR), though potentially detrimental to anthropology, could be an opportunity to get ethics review to work for anthropology, rather than other way round.
Bob Simpson (Durham University)
Paper short abstract:
For researchers using ethnographic methods issues of ethics, governance and regulation have become extremely complex. The aim of this tool is to help social anthropologists navigate their way through the landscape of research engagement as it has developed in the UK.
Paper long abstract:
For researchers using ethnographic methods in the social sciences issues of ethics, governance and regulation have become extremely complex. The approaches taken by social anthropologists create particular challenges which can make the planning and carrying out of research confusing and daunting. The aim of the EthNav initiative is to help those using methods that are collaborative and participatory to navigate their way through the landscape of research governance and oversight as it has developed in the UK. This session will provide a brief introduction to the concept and the content of EthNav with the aim of eliciting feedback on its utility and future directions.