Using Others in the Nicest Way Possible: On Colonial and Academic Practice(s), and an Ethic of Humility

Abstract

In this article, we draw from two independent, completed projects that forced us to struggle with our ethics and how we understood the nature of the researcher–participant relationship. We move past the presumption that we social justice–minded qualitative researchers are “needed” to discuss how we understand ourselves to be meeting that need. Here, our intent is to trouble qualitative researchers’ underlying assumptions about help and harm when we are working against oppression and inequity and/or toward justice and equity, both for our subjects/participants and for society.

Ethics in educational research: Review boards, ethical issues and researcher development

“…The nature and purpose of the research and who considers these to be responsible and worthwhile is dependent on the cultural, academic and individual values of the researcher, the researched , and the society in which it is taking place (Smith, 2016). Henderson and Esposito (2017), however, counter that the discourses around empirical research are dominated by the assumptions of the academy, with little input from participants. Moreover, Gregory (2003) argues that the educational researcher, in addition to a commitment to rigorous research, necessarily has a commitment to education and learning.…”

“…Academic researchers and professional associations have argued current ethical procedures in the form of ethics review committees are often lacking in knowledge and expertise of particular ethical contexts, including education (Sikes and Piper, 2010). Still others argue that procedures such as filling in a form seeking approval to conduct research are bureaucratic and restrictive and their main concern is one of compliance on the part of the researcher with sets of institutional regulations (Henderson and Esposito, 2017).Indeed, Velardo and Elliot (2018) argue that the restrictive nature of review processes encourages a 'single event' conceptualisation of ethics. Furthermore, they argue that, consequently, doctoral students in particular are not encouraged to consider ethical issues that may arise during research, including their own well-being.…”

“…Furthermore, they argue that, consequently, doctoral students in particular are not encouraged to consider ethical issues that may arise during research, including their own well-being. More importantly, critics argue that ethics reviews prior to the conduct of research often constrain research activity and can impose restrictions and conditions that may actually result in unethical research conduct (Henderson and Esposito, 2017;Parsell et al, 2014). This paper draws on literature to explore researchers' experiences of ethical procedures and to interrogate the issues surrounding the role of ethical review committees.…”

“…Increasingly, universities have set up ethics review procedures that require researchers to submit applications seeking approval to conduct research. Review boards and the rules and conditions which they operate have been criticised as obstructive (Parsell et al, 2014), unnecessarily bureaucratic (Sikes and Piper, 2010; Velardo and Elliot 2018), and even unethical (Henderson and Esposito, 2017;Parsell et al, 2014).At the same time, review boards and their procedures have been acknowledged as contributing to consideration of the ethical conduct of research (Breckler, 2005). This paper explores the issues related to ethical review and examines the wider ethical considerations that may arise during the research process.…”

“…Increasingly, universities have set up ethics review procedures that require researchers to submit applications seeking approval to conduct research. Review boards and the rules and conditions which they operate have been criticised as obstructive (Parsell et al, 2014), unnecessarily bureaucratic (Sikes and Piper, 2010; Velardo and Elliot 2018), and even unethical (Henderson and Esposito, 2017;Parsell et al, 2014).…”