TY - JOUR
T1 - Navigating institutional ethics processes
T2 - Insights from higher degree by research students and supervisors doing research in fragile contexts
AU - Baker, Sally
AU - Burke, Rachel
AU - Cabiles, Bonita
AU - Fox, Alison
AU - Molla, Tebeje
N1 - Publisher Copyright:
© The Author(s) 2024.
PY - 2024
Y1 - 2024
N2 - Although gaining ethical approval is a conventional and established requirement for academic scholarship, institutional approaches remain subject to sustained critique. While not questioning the legitimacy of institutional ethical procedures, the dominance of legal frameworks and a focus on entry to ‘the field’ is inflexible and irresponsive to ethical complexities in practice. This is particularly evident in situations where participants experience ongoing trauma, marginalisation, and social and political precarity, or settings that we refer to in this paper as ‘fragile contexts’. Responding to such ethical dilemmas, this article draws on Guillemin and Gillam’s (2004) notions of ‘ethics-in-practice’ and ‘ethically important moments’ to examine how doctoral candidates and their supervisors navigate the compliance requirements of institutional ethics vis-à-vis the requirements of ethics-in-practice. Our findings foreground the need to attend to the linguistic and discursive challenges associated with research in fragile contexts, the temporalities of vulnerability, the management of community expectations, and a humbling of researchers and their institutional research ethics committees to avoid compounding injustices and power imbalances.
AB - Although gaining ethical approval is a conventional and established requirement for academic scholarship, institutional approaches remain subject to sustained critique. While not questioning the legitimacy of institutional ethical procedures, the dominance of legal frameworks and a focus on entry to ‘the field’ is inflexible and irresponsive to ethical complexities in practice. This is particularly evident in situations where participants experience ongoing trauma, marginalisation, and social and political precarity, or settings that we refer to in this paper as ‘fragile contexts’. Responding to such ethical dilemmas, this article draws on Guillemin and Gillam’s (2004) notions of ‘ethics-in-practice’ and ‘ethically important moments’ to examine how doctoral candidates and their supervisors navigate the compliance requirements of institutional ethics vis-à-vis the requirements of ethics-in-practice. Our findings foreground the need to attend to the linguistic and discursive challenges associated with research in fragile contexts, the temporalities of vulnerability, the management of community expectations, and a humbling of researchers and their institutional research ethics committees to avoid compounding injustices and power imbalances.
KW - educational research
KW - ethical reflexivity
KW - ethics in practice
KW - Fragile contexts
KW - institutional ethics
KW - vulnerability
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85208812318&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1177/14687941241288178
DO - 10.1177/14687941241288178
M3 - Article
AN - SCOPUS:85208812318
SN - 1468-7941
JO - Qualitative Research
JF - Qualitative Research
ER -