Beyond the IRB: An Ethical Toolkit for Long-Term Disaster Research

Abstract

This article argues for expanding the ethical frame of concern in disaster research from the early phases of site access to longer-term issues that may arise in the field. Drawing on ethical theory, these arguments are developed in five sections. First, we identify the philosophical roots of ethical principles used in social science research. Second, we discuss how ethical concerns span the entire lifecycle of disaster-related research projects but are not fully addressed in the initial protocols for gaining Institutional Research Board (IRB) approval. Third, we introduce the idea of the philosophically informed “ethical toolkit,” established to help build awareness of moral obligations and to provide ways to navigate ethical confusion to reach sound research decisions. Specifically, we use the work of W. D. Ross to introduce a template of moral considerations that include fidelity, reparation, gratitude, justice, beneficence, self-improvement, and non-maleficence. We suggest that in the absence of a clear framework that researchers can use to think through ethical dilemmas as they arise, Ross’ pluralist approach to ethical problem solving offers flexibility and clarity and, at the same time, leaves space to apply our own understanding of the context in question. Fourth, we draw on six examples from our research studies conducted following Hurricane Katrina. Using these examples, we discuss how, in retrospect, we can apply Ross’ moral considerations to the ethical issues raised including: (1) shifting vulnerability among disaster survivors, (2) the expectations of participants, and (3) concerns about reciprocity in long-term fieldwork. Fifth, we consider how the ethical toolkit we are proposing may improve the quality of research and research relationships.

Paradise Found? the Emergence of Social Capital, Place Attachment, and Civic Engagement after Disaster

“…Like all research, this study does carry some limitations. Principally, we know that data collection in post-disaster communities is notoriously difficult (Barron Ausbrooks, Barrett, and Martinez-Cosio 2009;Browne and Peek 2014;Henderson et al 2009;Knack et al 2006;Phillips 1997Phillips , 2014, and requires a "sociological determination" (Haney and Elliott 2013). The sample size of the current study (n=407), though large enough to be generalizable and yield significant results, is still quite limited.…”

Long-term housing recovery among Mexican immigrants: How service providers navigate racialized anti-immigrant disaster recovery policies

“…I chose to reach out to all seven of the organizations in the study several months in advance of arriving to Houston to introduce my research project and intentions with the goal of establishing relationships with service providers and assessing their interest in participating. I chose this approach due to the ethical dilemmas that come with conducting research on disasters and in disaster-affected communities (Browne and Peek 2014;Fothergill and Peek 2015;Gaillard and Gomez 2015;Gaillard and Peek 2019). These communities are often over-burdened with researchers flocking to an affected area looking to collect perishable data (Gaillard and Gomez 2015), all while they are stretched thin trying to focus on their recovery.…”

“…This perspective sheds light on how “some groups in society are more prone than others to damage, loss, and suffering” due to characteristics such as class, occupation, ethnicity, gender, disability and health, and immigration status (Wisner et al 2004:11). These groups are not innately vulnerable but rather, “vulnerability is dynamic and it may build in a cumulative manner when post-disaster needs are not met” (Browne and Peek 2014:94).…”

The Aftermath of IrMaria in the U.S. Virgin Islands: Temporal Patterns of Looting, Burglaries, and Community Solidarity

“…This study uses an interpretative phenomenological approach (Adu 2019) with purposive and snowball sampling methods for the selection of interview participants from 30 hurricane-impacted households, 20 business owners in key shopping areas, 15 police officers, and 3 senior government officials. While onsite, the field research team was cognizant of conducting ethical fieldwork practices and ensuring the confidentiality of participants (Browne and Peek 2014;Louis-Charles et al 2020;Phillips 2014). Therefore, in this report, individuals' names and commercial business names are kept anonymous.…”