Reimagining institutional ethics procedures in research partnerships with young people across Majority/Minority World contexts

M. Powell, S. Krishnamurthy, Loritta Chan, K. Tisdall, I. Rizzini, R. Nuggehalli
{"title":"Reimagining institutional ethics procedures in research partnerships with young people across Majority/Minority World contexts","authors":"M. Powell, S. Krishnamurthy, Loritta Chan, K. Tisdall, I. Rizzini, R. Nuggehalli","doi":"10.1080/14733285.2023.2237923","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"While institutional ethical procedures are critically important, the relevance and applicability of these procedures on the ground create tensions that are sometimes at odds with what is considered ‘ethical’. In this paper, we reflect on the dissonances between formal institutional ethics procedures and community-based research practices by drawing on our experiences of a project involving co-production with young people in India and Brazil. The project is an international collaboration between partners from both Majority and Minority World contexts, across universities, community organisations and government bodies. Young people were involved in advisory and co-researcher capacities, and played a vital role advising the project team, conducting research projects, and developing engagement and advocacy strategies. The project was planned prior to, but started during, the Covid-19 pandemic, and therefore required methodological adjustments. In this paper, we situate the role of institutional ethics procedures to reflect on the tensions and power imbalances in: (1) research co-production with young people, (2) collaborative cross-country research with partners, as well as considering (3) the relevance of ethical guidelines in different research contexts. We problematise the top-down nature of these procedures, and highlight the importance of reflexivity, conversations, and relationships in ethics. With growing research in the Majority world (funded by the Minority world), there is an urgent need to recognise and build on the expertise of experienced local civic society organisations in ethical research and safeguarding, to work in genuine, respectful partnership with those we do research with.","PeriodicalId":375438,"journal":{"name":"Children's Geographies","volume":"54 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-08-11","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Children's Geographies","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/14733285.2023.2237923","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

Abstract

While institutional ethical procedures are critically important, the relevance and applicability of these procedures on the ground create tensions that are sometimes at odds with what is considered ‘ethical’. In this paper, we reflect on the dissonances between formal institutional ethics procedures and community-based research practices by drawing on our experiences of a project involving co-production with young people in India and Brazil. The project is an international collaboration between partners from both Majority and Minority World contexts, across universities, community organisations and government bodies. Young people were involved in advisory and co-researcher capacities, and played a vital role advising the project team, conducting research projects, and developing engagement and advocacy strategies. The project was planned prior to, but started during, the Covid-19 pandemic, and therefore required methodological adjustments. In this paper, we situate the role of institutional ethics procedures to reflect on the tensions and power imbalances in: (1) research co-production with young people, (2) collaborative cross-country research with partners, as well as considering (3) the relevance of ethical guidelines in different research contexts. We problematise the top-down nature of these procedures, and highlight the importance of reflexivity, conversations, and relationships in ethics. With growing research in the Majority world (funded by the Minority world), there is an urgent need to recognise and build on the expertise of experienced local civic society organisations in ethical research and safeguarding, to work in genuine, respectful partnership with those we do research with.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
重新构想与多数/少数世界背景下的年轻人研究伙伴关系中的机构伦理程序
虽然机构伦理程序至关重要,但这些程序在实地的相关性和适用性造成了紧张局势,有时与所谓的“道德”不一致。在本文中,我们通过借鉴我们在印度和巴西与年轻人合作的一个项目中的经验,反思了正式的制度伦理程序与基于社区的研究实践之间的不协调。该项目是来自多数世界和少数世界背景下的合作伙伴之间的国际合作,涉及大学、社区组织和政府机构。青年参与了咨询和联合研究员的工作,在为项目团队提供咨询、开展研究项目以及制定参与和倡导战略方面发挥了至关重要的作用。该项目是在2019冠状病毒病大流行之前规划的,但在疫情期间启动,因此需要对方法进行调整。在本文中,我们定位了机构伦理程序的作用,以反映:(1)与年轻人的研究合作生产,(2)与合作伙伴的合作跨国研究,以及考虑(3)伦理准则在不同研究背景下的相关性。我们对这些程序自上而下的本质提出了质疑,并强调了道德中的反身性、对话和关系的重要性。随着多数世界(由少数世界资助)的研究日益增多,我们迫切需要认识到并利用经验丰富的当地公民社会组织在伦理研究和保护方面的专业知识,与我们进行研究的人建立真诚、尊重的伙伴关系。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Pedagogy, place, and food education in Australian schools: lessons from Tropical North Queensland Towards kinship literacies: attending to place relations in a play-based library program Child-Friendly Cities and Communities: opportunities and challenges Climate policy, youth voice and intergenerational justice: learning from Nottingham Youth Climate Assembly Children, education and geography rethinking intersections Children, education and geography rethinking intersections , edited by Hammond, Lauren, Mary Biddulph, Simon Catling, and John H. McKendrick, New York, Routledge, 2022, 280 pp., £102.00 (hardback), £31.44 (paperback), ISBN: 978-1-03216-432
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1