The ethics of (not) giving back

Hammett, Daniel; Jackson, Lucy; Vickers, Daniel

doi:10.1111/area.12471

Cited by 8 publications

(6 citation statements)

References 20 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…This resonates with discussions on the difficulties associated with appropriately recognising the role and importance of those who support us or collaborate with us in our research (Gupta and Kelly, 2014;Molony and Hammett, 2007) and on the incommensurability of what was being 'exchanged'. The sense of imbalance present here, of my receiving more than I was given, can also be seen as connected with concerns related to extractivism in research (Hammett et al, 2019). Awareness of an imbalance, and a corresponding sense of extraction, became viscerally manifest precisely because my interactions with Ibrahim no longer seemed to fit the parameters of the moral logic of exchange.…”

Section: Exchangementioning

confidence: 72%

“…Reflecting on the examples above, it becomes evident that giving back requires difficult choices to be made about who should benefit (Hammett et al, 2019). Should giving back focus exclusively on the individuals with whom a researcher directly interacted, or should it constitute activities that are beneficial to the larger communities of which those individuals are a part?…”

Section: The Complexity Of Reciprocitymentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Giving back and the moral logics of economic relations

Russell

2022

Qualitative Research

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This paper uses David Graeber’s work on the moral grounds of economic relations as a vantage point from which to reflect on the ethics of giving back in field research, drawing on my own fieldwork experiences in Sierra Leone and Sri Lanka as well as examples from existing literature. I argue that Graeber’s exposition of different moral logics for economic relations – hierarchy, exchange and communism – provides a valuable set of conceptual distinctions for thinking through what is owed by, and to, researchers in different research interactions. In addition to a recognition of the incommensurability of what is often being exchanged, this approach responds to the danger of researchers setting the terms of ethical interaction, through distant institutional processes and practices built on logics of exchange, in ways that might constrain the ability of interlocutors to meaningfully articulate their own positions in fieldwork relations.

show abstract

Section: Exchangementioning

confidence: 72%

Section: The Complexity Of Reciprocitymentioning

confidence: 99%

Giving back and the moral logics of economic relations

Russell

2022

Qualitative Research

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…We began this collaboration by asking ourselves and our community partners how we could best serve them and the organization through our unique positionality as researcher-participants. This open approach is important for thinking outside of universalized ideas of "giving back," which can reproduce the power relations and harm that researchers are wishing to stop (Hammett et al, 2019;Ybarra, 2014). JFN needed help evaluating the conference and writing rigorous reports for funders.…”

Section: Discussion: Framing Our Scholar Activism With Parmentioning

confidence: 99%

Harvesting a participatory movement': Initial participatory action research with the Jewish Farmer Network

Rice

Goldberg

2021

J. Agric. Food Syst. Community Dev.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The Jewish Farmer Network (JFN) is a North American grassroots organization that mobilizes Jewish agricultural wisdom to build a more just and regenerative food system for all. This paper presents methodological findings and reflections from the initial stages of a participatory action research (PAR) collaboration led by the authors and JFN organizers centered on Cultivating Culture, JFN’s inaugural conference in February 2020. For this early iterative phase, we used a PAR approach to guide event ethnography to both facilitate and understand collective movement building and action. This work included pre-conference collaborative research design, a participatory reflection and action workshop with roughly 90 participants, evaluative surveys, short ethnographic interviews, and ongoing post-conference analysis with researchers and movement organizers. While this data was first analyzed and organized for JFN’s use, we present findings to demonstrate the effectiveness of foregrounding event ethnography within a PAR research design at an early stage of movement formation, especially how elements of event ethnography can address some of the limitations of using PAR with a nascent network of farmers. Our work revealed themes in the movement of Jewish farming: the politics of identity in movement building, the tensions around (de)politicization, and the production of Jewish agroecological knowledge. We reflect on the utility of using PAR to frame scholar-activism and propose future inquires for Jewish agrarianism.

show abstract

“…A more responsive research ethics approach would also be better equipped to accommodate and work with the changing positionality of researchers during and after a research project, and the unanticipated ethical dilemmas and uncertainties that may arise (see Hall, 2009; Huisman, 2008; Wainwright et al, 2018). Current research ethics approvals tend to confine concerns about leaving the field to the sharing of findings and ‘giving back’ (on this, see Hammett et al, 2019), overlooking the ethical complexities – particularly in relation to social media – of navigating friendships that extend beyond the fieldwork period (Caretta & Cheptum, 2017; Hall, 2009; Huisman, 2008; Kingdon & Cupples, 2003; Sou, 2021).…”

Section: Critiques Of Dominant Research Ethics Approachesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Beyond ‘do no harm’? On the need for a dynamic approach to research ethics

Hammett

Jackson

Bramley

2022

Area

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Many social scientists criticise the functioning of research ethics boards and review processes for imposing medicoscientific ethics approaches and marginalising reflective practices (Wynn, 2017). While the maxim of 'do no harm' rightly remains the modus operandi of the ethics process, by focusing solely on this tenet ethical review processes often fall short of ensuring that research is experienced and understood as ethical (Hugman et al., 2011). Taking inspiration from previous calls for participatory ethics (e.g., Pain, 2008), we propose some possible strategies for moving towards a more dynamic, engaging, and inclusive ethics process.

show abstract

The ethics of (not) giving back

Cited by 8 publications

References 20 publications

Giving back and the moral logics of economic relations

Giving back and the moral logics of economic relations

Harvesting a participatory movement': Initial participatory action research with the Jewish Farmer Network

Beyond ‘do no harm’? On the need for a dynamic approach to research ethics

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About