Walking the talk on research and publication ethics

Exposing injustice and inequality is a raison d’être for sociology. Environmental sociologists interrogate not only the social and economic causes of ecological crises but the violence perpetuated on communities via ecosystem disruption and natural resource depletion. Through our engagements with communities, social movements, multidisciplinary research programs and policy-makers we seek to uncover, to explain and, most of all, to transform, destructive social-ecological relations through positive social and environmental change.

Reflexivity, ethics and epistemology

Key to positive change in the sociological canon is the idea of reflexivity (Boström, Lidskog, and Uggla 2017). For Beck (1992), reflexivity reflects less a growing societal self-awareness than a forced reckoning with the unintended consequences of industrialisation and the proliferation of increasingly complex and global risks. Forces of ‘anti-reflexivity’, however, seek to preserve the prevailing ‘industrial capitalist social order’ through attacks on the credibility, motivations and knowledge claims of scientists and science-based agencies – amplifying uncertainty and polarisation (McCright and Dunlap 2010, 7). Individual capacities for reflection and self-criticism are critical in countering the forces of anti-reflexivity, but they are not sufficient (Boström, Lidskog, and Uggla 2017). Institutional reflexivity is needed to grapple with the uncertainties of global environmental change and the failures of neoliberal reform

(Lockie 2017).

Reflexivity figures equally in the sociological canon as characteristic of sound and responsible research. It is invoked as at least part of the answer to epistemological and ethical questions raised by working with minority and/or disadvantaged groups, utilising interpretive methods or engaging in various forms of activist research. Often reflexivity is invoked (somewhat ironically) with little specificity as to what it really means or how it will be operationalised. Drawing on Wasserfall (1993), I argue in an earlier edition of Environmental Sociology that:

At minimum, reflexivity functions as a filter on our subjectivities, beliefs, backgrounds and feelings that leads to better representations of the social … . However, a deeper reading of reflexivity – a reading that takes the situatedness and relationality of social knowledge more seriously – deconstructs our authority as authors of social accounts (Lockie 2018, 176).

A deeper reading of reflexivity thus suggests more is required of the social researcher than a degree of self-awareness as they follow otherwise well-established norms of data collection and analysis. A deeper reading suggests we should reflect far more critically on the relationships between ethics and epistemology – on who determines research priorities, who is accorded authority to interpret research data, who authors outputs, and who owns the knowledge produced through social research.

There have been excellent examples of deep and critical reflection on research ethics and epistemology published in Environmental Sociology – most of which have been published in articles focused on environmental justice and/or cross cultural research. Shared epistemic authority, for example, is central to Hoover’s (2018) study of Akwesasne Mohawk peoples’ exposure to environmental contamination. The theoretical framework for this study, environmental reproductive justice, is attributed to community member Katsi Cook and used to integrate concepts of health and environmental justice with the particularities of Akwesasne knowledge, culture and experience. Cordner, Richter, and Brown (2019, 341) propose a model of engaged public sociology that ‘deliberately focuses knowledge production on issues and inequalities of concern to impacted and marginalized communities.’ One of the many important features of Cordner, Richter, and Brown's (2019) model is its link to the data justice movement – a link with broader relevance as a means to reconcile growing regulatory requirements around data management with the normative goals of social research. Jessie Luna (2018) reflects on how her positioning as a white American woman in Burkina Faso both shaped her experience of fieldwork and the peculiar insights it offered into the racialized cultural fields of agricultural technology adoption.

Beyond minimum compliance

Deep and critical reflection on ethical and epistemological issues in manuscripts published Environmental Sociology is the exception rather than the rule. Many authors, in fact, need reminding of their rather minimal obligation to include details in the manuscript of ethical approval and informed consent procedures for all research involving human participants.

When submitting their work, authors are asked whether they have, among other things:

• read the journal’s author guidelines (which provide detailed guidance on research and publication ethics)?

• complied with national and institutional ethical guidelines and legal requirements for research?

• included details in the manuscript of all necessary ethical approvals for research involving human participants, or an explanation of why these requirements were waived?

• included details in the manuscript of procedures followed to secure appropriate informed consent from participants, or an explanation of why requirements for consent were waived?

• written consent to publish from any participants who may be identifiable through the manuscript?

Clicking through these questions takes seconds. Reading the journal’s author guidelines and the comprehensive suite of policies they reference on authorship, citation, competing interests, data availability, misconduct, plagiarism, research involving humans, informed consent etc. takes considerably more time. Would anyone be surprised if some authors do not do this? If they assume the content of guidelines will reflect what they take to be disciplinary norms? If they do not even read closely the questions they are answering?

While it is deep and critical reflection on ethical and epistemological issues I am most at pains to encourage authors to ensure is evident in their manuscripts, compliance issues should not be taken lightly.¹

Research integrity compliance frameworks can be complex and demanding even before we consider the policies and procedures imposed by journal and book publishers. In my own country, I must conform with a national code for responsible research, subsidiary codes dealing with human research and research involving Indigenous peoples, institutional policies and procedures for operationalising these codes, and funding body policies. When working internationally, I must conform with all these requirements in addition to those imposed by the country in which I am working. Journal policies add a further layer of complexity through their expectation of compliance with international codes and guidelines that do not always align (at least not terribly clearly) with national ones.

Fortunately, our own publisher’s website provides detailed and useful guidance on how to interpret journal requirements. Where there is any doubt about how to interpret these authors should simply contact the editor and ask. The vast majority of authors will find that requirements specific to human research ethics are straightforward and require little more than inclusion in the manuscript of basic information about institutional approvals and consent procedures. Where approval was not required for human research because the project was considered low risk or non-interventionist, this needs to be explained. Researchers working in jurisdictions in which there is an absence of national and institutional frameworks should similarly explain their circumstances and how ethics were managed in their research. Again, when in doubt, ask.

Policies will change over time but the principle of transparency will endure. The minimal requirement, at present, is to be transparent about approvals and consent procedures. Better practice is to be transparent about all the ethical issues raised by our research, particularly those that present risks to participants or which speak to the deeper reading of reflexivity discussed above, and about how we have managed those issues.

Authorship

The principle of transparency applies equally to authorship. Who has contributed and who takes responsibility for the integrity of the manuscript and the research on which it is based? Our current journal policy states that those listed as authors must have made a significant contribution to the work reported whether that be through conception, data acquisition, analysis and interpretation, or really any stage of the research process. Authors must also have participated in the preparation of the manuscript, whether this be through writing, revision or critical review. And they need to agree with each other on matters such as authorship order and manuscript changes.

What makes a contribution significant? In an ideal world, everyone connected with a study or program of work will communicate regularly and agree among themselves who has made a significant contribution to the research or ideas underlying a particular manuscript. They will ensure that all those, and only those, with a legitimate claim to authorship are included in the final manuscript.

But the real world is not ideal.

Many researchers, according to a survey undertaken by our publisher, believe there is a tendency across the humanities and social sciences to under-credit early career academics when attributing authorship.² I suspect under-attribution is, in fact, a broader problem and I have no doubt it is a problem with gender and career stage effects.

Conclusion

There are a number of issues associated with publication ethics I have not discussed here including data fabrication/falsification, failure to declare interests, plagiarism (including self-plagiarism) and attempts to manipulate peer review. This is not to suggest these are unimportant. Rather, it is because I have seen little evidence of them in submissions to Environmental Sociology, to date, and because they are less directly connected to my central concern which is to encourage a transparent and reflexive attitude toward relationships between ethics, epistemology, research methods and publication. That authors do not, for the most part, discuss these relationships in their manuscripts does not mean they have neglected to reflect on them during the conduct of their research. It does mean, however, that matters critical to the assemblage and interpretation of sociological knowledge are opaque to readers while opportunities to build scholarship and dialogue around the operationalisation of ethical frameworks are lost.

Notes

1. n my experience, compliance with ethical approval and other research integrity requirements is seen by many social scientists as largely irrelevant, if not an impediment, to responsible research practice. Many have stories to tell about unreasonable delays securing approval from institutional ethics committees or the imposition of legalistic, cookie-cutter consent protocols that fail to recognise the unique circumstances of research participants. I have no doubt many of these complaints are justified. However, as someone who has sat on institutional ethics committees, I have also seen no small number of applications delayed because they were ambiguous and/or failed to discuss reasonably foreseeable risks.

2. See https://authorservices.taylorandfrancis.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/09/Coauthorship-white-paper.pdf