Precarious Times, Professional Tensions: The Ethics of Migration Research and the Drive for Scientific Accountability

Abstract

How should migration scholars navigate tensions between our ethical responsibilities to research participants and growing “open science” calls for data transparency, replication, and accountability? We elaborate a three-step process to navigate these tensions. First, researchers must understand core principles behind open-science initiatives and the mandates of research ethics boards, especially those related to privacy, confidentiality, and protection from harm, and take them seriously. Second, migration researchers must think beyond routinized or mandated procedures to carefully consider the unique vulnerabilities of migrants in their study, which depend on socio-political context. Third, if vulnerabilities are significant, migration researchers should modify (or challenge) procedures elaborated in the name of open science or routinized research ethic board mandates, if inappropriate for their study. We, thus, encourage migration scholars to engage with open-science advocates but also to educate colleagues on migrants’ vulnerabilities and to double-down on data security, including vis-à-vis government authorities, as evolving technologies continue to change research practices.

Ethical considerations in social media analytics in the context of migration: lessons learned from a Horizon 2020 project

“…However, 'technology is not inherently democratic, and its human rights impacts are particularly important to consider in humanitarian and forced migration contexts' (Molnar, 2019: 7). Asymmetries in power between researchers and study participants, as well as between governments and people on the move, are particularly strong and can have severe consequences in social media analytics contexts where the principle of informed consent cannot be met (Bloemraad and Menjívar, 2022).…”

“…For instance, a picture posted on social media may be used by anti-migration groups to feed racist campaigns (Dearden, 2015), and the profiling of migrant social media accounts to predict migration flows and close migration routes can lead people to go through even more dangerous border crossings (Dimitriadi, 2021). Thus, such use of social media data increases the power imbalance between the researchers and institutions that process data for their specific purposes, and those vulnerable individuals whose personal data is extracted (Bloemraad and Menjívar, 2022). Addressing these risks means balancing the rights of individuals with the benefits of the collective.…”

“…While it was not the intention to directly affect participants as a result of any potential profiling of their social media activity, members of the PERCEPTIONS consortium and the European Commission’s expert review panel were acutely aware of the potential misuse and risk of harm of any reported research findings. The profiling of individuals as ‘migrants’ could potentially expose them to harm, including hate speech, detention, removal and for people fleeing persecution, potential pressures from homeland authorities on family members who remained there (Bloemraad and Menjívar, 2022). Moreover, PERCEPTIONS is funded under Horizon 2020’s security strand, and the consortium includes security agencies.…”

Reflections of methodological and ethical challenges in conducting research during COVID-19 involving resettled refugee youth in Canada

“…14 Research ethics boards (REBs) have a biomedical lens given their creation in response to immoral medical experiments. 15 Pollock 16 criticises REBs by arguing they do not cover issues from qualitative research. 16 While procedural ethics are familiar, such as gaining consent via signatures, microethics should also be emphasised to acknowledge that research is influenced by complex real-world contexts.…”

“…In the context of participants being aware that a community leader referred them, they might feel as if they have an obligation to participate due to previously existing power dynamics and relationships.24 35 36 It was apparent that community leaders helped the families within the resettlement process, either financially or socially, and these families were dependant on them to some extent 24. 35 36 In accountability within migration research, Bloemraad and Menjívar15 argue that researchers must recognise that harm not only affects the participant, but can also expand into their community. Thus, conceptualising a participant as a separate entity is ethically inappropriate 16.…”