Send message to Contributor

Contribution short abstract

The main driver for wanting to be engaged in the co-production of this guidance is from observing discussions across different spaces, hearing diverging opinions and perspectives across and within different constituents, and seeing the potential for better conversations and allyship.

Contribution long abstract

The Gaza crisis has revealed deep fissures and deficiencies in research ethics discourse and practice and shown the limits of standardised ethics processes when confronting power structures and narratives that undermine respect for fundamental human rights principles.[1]

The politicisation of human suffering and the lack of moral courage to lean into difficult spaces and conversations has had a chilling effect on upholding respect for human rights and our shared humanity. The main driver for wanting to be engaged in the co-production of this guidance is from observing and being a part of discussions across different spaces, listening to diverging opinions and perspectives across and within different constituents, and seeing the potential for better conversations and practices on good allyship.

Below I have listed some questions that may be helpful to start the conversation:

What are the foundational principles for good allyship?

Who needs to be at this table? Who is at the table? Who is missing and why?

Who can and should speak on Gaza? Does this shift across time and issues?

When should allies step up? And step back?

How can we support safer spaces for dialogue on difficult issues?

How should we engage in wider public discussions that can raise confronting views?

What are more effective approaches for engaging those who may be fearful or less informed? How do we build bridges and conversely how can we avoid shutting down opportunities for important discussions?

How can we support collective learning and unlearning?