Working together for critical research ethics

Abstract

Cannella and Lincoln argue for a critical approach to the social sciences which ‘requires a radical ethics, an ethics that is always/already concerned about power and oppression even as it avoids constructing “power” as a new truth’ (2011, 81; emphasis in original). Referencing Spivak, they call for research relations which ‘address contemporary political and power orientations by recognising that the investigator and the investigated (whether people, institutions, or systems) are subjects of the presence or aftermath of colonialism’ (2011, 83). Such recognition fuels growing dissatisfaction with the formalised ethical review procedures required in, inter alia, North America, Australasia and the UK. This paper draws on an investigation of how students on a professional doctoral programme taught by a UK university in three Anglophone Caribbean territories perceived ethics review procedures. This programme emphasises decolonising methodologies and pedagogies, whilst recognising that these can be ‘perceived as yet another instance of imperialistic, colonial imposition’ (Lavia and Sikes 2010, 90). The paper seeks to re-present a critical research ethics in which ‘societal structures, institutions and oppressions become the subject of research (rather than human beings) [with a view to] avoid further creation and subjectification of an or the Other’ (Cannella and Lincoln 2011, 88).

Keywords:

• research ethics
• ethics review and governance
• decolonising methodologies and pedagogies
• transnational education
• Caribbean

Acknowledgements

The author thanks Yvonne Downs, Thom Parkhill, Colin Hughes and the reviewers of this paper for their comments on earlier versions.

Notes

1. A manifestation of this dissatisfaction was the Ethics Rupture: An Invitational Summit About Alternatives to Ethics Review, supported by the SSHRCC and held at St Thomas’ University and The University of New Brunswick, Canada, in October 2012. See http://wp.stu.ca/ethicsrupture/?page_id=78 for information on attendees and for podcasts of presentations.

2. I take the view that there are exceptional, justifiable cases for covert research when, for example, the aim is to investigate practices that are, for example, antithetical to human rights, discriminatory, damaging to health and wellbeing or illegal. Obviously, in these cases not all parties can be involved in formulating ethics.

3. The programmes have been regarded as part of the university’s social mission and fees have, consequently, been subsidised. In line with the capacity building agenda, 2012 saw the final intakes into the programmes.

4. This was at the time of the investigation.

5. Thirty-eight of these students were in Part 2 of the programme and at various stages of working towards their thesis. They work with a supervisor and do not necessarily attend study school or have contact with me.

6. Essentially beneficence, non-maleficance, respect for persons and justice.