Ethics to match complexity in agricultural research for development

ABSTRACT

International research-for-development initiatives seeking to tackle complex problems present a range of challenges and responsibilities. Meeting standards of ethical research practice is one of these. While practitioners may identify as being committed to ethical practice, the reality is far more complicated. This situation is particularly apparent in agricultural research for development (AR4D). This article reflects on the changing research landscape before using the experiences of a unique partnership to demonstrate how the authors moved beyond compliance-focused tasks towards collective reflection and planning for a broad range of ethical challenges. It concludes with suggestions for integrating ethics into the planning and implementation of development initiatives.

KEYWORDS:

• Environment (built and natural) – Food security, Agriculture
• Governance and public policy
• Aid – Aid effectiveness, Capacity development

Acknowledgements

The authors wish to thank Samantha Stone-Jovicich and Rob Cramb for their valuable feedback on earlier drafts.

Disclosure Statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.

Notes on contributors

Lucy Carter has a background in international health, agriculture and nutrition links and research ethics. She has held roles in research and management across various sectors including biotechnology, public policy and health. She is a social scientist at the CSIRO in Brisbane, Australia.

Liana Williams is a human geographer with an interest in social and institutional implications of agricultural and rural development in South East Asia and processes and mechanisms to support research impact. She is a social scientist at the CSIRO in Brisbane, Australia.

Notes

1. Multi-disciplinary refers to an approach where different disciplines analyse a common problem from their own disciplinary frame, with attempts to compare across disciplines only after the analysis. Inter-disciplinary approaches in contrast bring the different disciplines together to define analytical frameworks and approaches collaboratively, crossing disciplinary boundaries from the outset. Transdisciplinarity builds on this by including non-scientists in the definition and articulation of research problems and frameworks. Bringing different disciplines and knowledge types together is expected to improve the overall rigour and relevance of the research (Stock and Burton 2011).

2. In 2016, the Australian Council for International Development released ‘Principles and Guidelines for Ethical Research and Evaluation in Development’. Along with the International Institute for Environment and Development’s ‘Research Ethics: Putting our Principles into Practice’ 2014 booklet, and the ‘Global Code of Conduct for Research in Resource-Poor Settings’ (www.globalcodeofconduct.org) there are few other resources dedicated to supporting development practitioners in ethical research practice.

3. For example, Australian research is primarily assessed under the National Health and Medical Research Council’s 2007.

4. Sponsored by the US Public Health Services, and conducted by the Tuskegee Institute, the Tuskegee Syphilis Study recruited impoverished Alabama sharecroppers to participate in a study which documented the natural progression of untreated syphilis. Researchers did not obtain fully informed consent from participants and offered inducements to increase recruitment. The study was conducted at a time when penicillin was available for the treatment of syphilis, which if left untreated causes severe debilitation and death. Many men, women and children died while enrolled in the study.

5. See, for example, the Journal of International Development’s 2010 Development Studies Association conference: Development Paths: Values, Ethics and Morality, published in 2011 and Chronicles from the Field: The Townsend Thai Project (Townsend, Sakunthasathien, and Jordan 2013). Development ethics as a topic of academic interest has a long and rich history, yet its influence on the design and implementation of AR4D programmes is less clear.

6. For example, see Australia’s National Statement on Ethical Conduct in Human Research (https://www.nhmrc.gov.au/about-us/publications/national-statement-ethical-conduct-human-research-2007-updated-2018).

7. The FSI project also had an interest in capturing its own learning as the project unfolded and this presented an additional layer of ethical complexity.

8. It should be noted that the composition of institutional review bodies in Australia does not formally require the involvement of a sitting member who has agriculture, development studies or even social science expertise. Often experts, including project leaders, are invited to join in the discussion of proposals undergoing review. This approach builds the capacity of all involved, and was the approach adopted by the CSSHREC for the FSI initiative.