Mobilising research ethics: Two examples from Aotearoa New Zealand

Abstract

Im)mobilities are considered to encapsulate a broad range of projects that establish a 'moment-driven' social science. I argue that moment driven research needs to be in conversation with an ethical document. It is how the ethical landscape responds to this increasingly dynamic and radically open interaction, while avoiding the excess dangers of institutionalised review that warrants more attention. Through the lens of two research projects, one based around relocated populations from post-disaster Christchurch and the other on sharemilkers in the Waikato, mobilities and ethics are discussed. In short, the mobilities of participants altered the ethical dynamics of research.

“Disciplined research in undisciplined settings”: Critical explorations of in situ and mobile methodologies in geographies of health and wellbeing

“…Given the remit of this type of “in/out situ ” research – outdoors in public settings, often incorporating expensive equipment, and sometimes explicitly designed to work with, and support the voices of, more marginalised communities – it is important to acknowledge ethical tensions and values that can surface in its use. When faced with mobile and in situ research proposals, university research ethics committees often raise the safety implications of stepping out of traditional researcher‐controlled environments (Adams‐Hutcheson, ). Beyond efforts to establish “buddying” systems of reporting when entering/leaving the field, or carrying precautionary alarms, there are broader questions around risk and responsibility to consider.…”

“…Conversely, researchers should remain alert to the potential effects of endorphins from walking outdoors and recognise that a person's positive sense of wellbeing conveyed while walking may mask deeper feelings of anxiety that would be captured in a traditional interview (Macpherson, ). As noted by Adams‐Hutcheson (), ethical review boards perhaps need to move beyond discussions of what should be regulated, and who is or is not “able” to participate in such methods, to more pragmatic considerations of what can and cannot be regulated within more mobile, unpredictable research terrains, and what adaptations can be made to support meaningful participation regardless of one's embodied priorities and needs.…”

“…Yet the logistical and ethical implications of embarking on such – at times, messy and unpredictable – forms of research are rarely reported (Brown & Durrheim, ; Latham, ; Simpson, ). As noted by Adams‐Hutcheson (, p. 90), in situ and mobile fieldwork typically unfolds in “contingent and dynamic open research environments” rather than more traditional researcher‐controlled environments, such that unforeseeable challenges can develop quickly. The benefits of negotiating such uncertainty to gain deeper insights into experiences of health and wellbeing can be challenging to convey to traditional research ethics committees.…”

Mycoplasma bovisin New Zealand: a content analysis of media reporting

“…This is a key issue for New Zealand (NZ) where cattleand whole herdmovements are high (Stevenson et al 2014). In addition to routine high stock movements, many thousands of cows are also moved during the annual 'Movement Day' when sharemilkers move their cows, equipment and families to new farms (Adams-Hutchenson 2017).…”