The amoral academy? A critical discussion of research ethics in the neo-liberal university

Abstract

This paper challenges current dominant thinking in Universities about the processes of ethical appraisal of research studies in the Social Sciences. It considers this to be founded on unjustifiable and inappropriate principles, the origins of which are presented before discussing alternative, more inclusive and ethically defensible approaches. The latter are based on dialogic processes to sustain respectful and empowering ethical reviews which appreciate the situated nature of research. The empirical evidence for this comes from papers about ethnographic studies with children and adults in various educational spaces in Western Europe, originally a symposium on the practice of ethics in educational ethnography at ECER, 2017, now forming a book published by Routledge, 2019. The dialogic processes help researchers to carry out culturally-appropriate research with the demonstrable ethical integrity that participants and stakeholders reasonably expect. The authors argue that currently riskaverse Universities need to change their research cultures to support all research methodologies and fieldwork practices that have ethical integrity and create valuable research that is socially beneficial, to enhance their lustre.

The ethics of experimental research employing intrusive technologies in tourism: A collaborative ethnography perspective

“…This reveals the need for ongoing conversations among the project team, respective ethical review committees and other stakeholders (e.g. neuroscientists) to derive a robust framework surrounding experimental design using intrusive technologies in which ethical considerations are “constructed in a more communal manner” (Busher and Fox, 2020: 3).…”

The ethics review and the humanities and social sciences: disciplinary distinctions in ethics review processes

“…We argue that ERBs that apply generic and institution-wide review processes, and that maintain memberships with narrow disciplinary expertise are at risk of marginalising other research disciplines. On this point we note Busher and Fox’s (2021: 475–6) observation that ERBs invariably preference ‘research projects based on utilitarian understandings of ethical practice’, which may be an inappropriate response to much HASS research. Ignoring the disciplinary nuance and epistemic foundations of distinct research approaches generates prescriptive ethics review practices.…”

Circumnavigating the Revolving Door of an Ethical Milieu

“…The establishment of Institutional Review Boards, also known as Ethical Review Boards (ERBs) commenced in the 1970s. This occurred because of numerous public revelations about medical abuses of human participants in research, such as the Tuskegee Syphilis study from 1932-1972 [1], along with concern about the questionable ethics of psychological research into obedience by Milgram [2], and power dynamics of Zimbado [3]. The need for ethical guidelines for dealing with human participants became widely recognized and ERBs were established with the initial remit of the protection of participants from harm.…”

“…Today, most institutions including universities, professional organisations and funding bodies, as well as peer-reviewed publications, require researchers to obtain ethical approval from an ERB prior to commencing any research involving human participants [2]. As a result, ERBs have become the 'gatekeepers' of new knowledge [3] emerging from within empirical studies. Further changes in the nature and function of ERBs came about in the 1980s.…”

“…Further changes in the nature and function of ERBs came about in the 1980s. A new brand of institutional accountability and the drive for consumer satisfaction, whether it be students, funders or other stakeholders, moved universities to become more regimented and risk averse [3].…”