Beyond‐human ethics: The animal question in institutional ethical reviews

Abstract

In this paper, I investigate how the development of ethics and methods in beyond human and posthuman research have largely been ignored within institutional ethical frameworks. Specifically, I argue that the ethical review process for research needs critical consideration in light of emerging multispecies methodologies. The inclusion and consideration of animals in geography should go further than “bringing animals in” to the discipline; instead they must seek to rethink geographical theory as with and for non‐humans. The ethics, politics, and practices of animals’ inclusion in research have been differentially attended to across geographical scholarship. To do this, I investigate how institutional ethical review operates as a disciplining and shaping tool in the neoliberal university. In doing so, I contend that ethical review processes shape the narratives and structures of what kinds of research are possible for not only animal geographers, but across the discipline. I then explore how multispecies research specifically is affected by and can affect institutional ethical review, revealing how these processes fall short against the heightened backdrop of species difference. Where posthumanist ethics is in tension with institutional ethical frameworks, I argue that ethical approval does not necessarily indicate that researchers have successfully grappled with complex moral dilemmas. Particularly, the acquiring of ethical approval prioritises outmoded forms of knowledge that prioritise homogenised ethical and methodological practice over ethical innovation and questioning. Finally, I offer three propositions drawing on posthumanist ethics and informed by innovative and exploratory multispecies research: the inclusion of animals as participants in research; the reimagination of multispecies ethical and methodological practice; and the reform of institutional ethical review processes. By exploring how radical ethics might be mobilised in multispecies research, I argue that we can further geographical theory and practice to reconfigure who matters as a geographical and ethical subject.

Using ethnomethodology as an approach to explore human–animal interaction

“…In addition, the focus on examining naturally occurring social phenomena gives an impression of a researcher removed from impacting the data collection, which is impossible. However, in placing animals as 'members', ethnomethodology challenges institutional ethics systems which have ignored nonhumans (Oliver, 2021), placing them as worthy of ethical consideration beyond the binary of harm and benefit.…”

Data Hazards as an ethical toolkit for neuroscience

“…Further, some animal species are widely considered more morally acceptable research subjects than others, depending on factors such as their phylogenetic proximity to humans, their perceived intelligence, or whether or not they are commonly held pets (reviewed in (Ormandy & Schuppli, 2014)). There is often a utalitarian harm-benefit argument made to justify animal usage in relation to potential human benefits (Oliver, 2021). But even researchers who subscribe to this utilitarian argument may consider acknowledging the underlying assumptions if prompted with the Reinforces Existing Biases label.…”

Experiences of dog theft and spatial practices of search/ing

“…Since emerging in the 1990s, ‘new’ animal geography has highlighted the differing interactions, understandings, and experiences of nonhuman animals in relation to humans (Buller, 2014; Gibbs, 2021; Hovorka, 2017; Philo & Wilbert, 2000; Wolch & Emel, 1995, 1998) by exploring the ‘complex entanglings of human–animal relations with space, place, location, environment and landscape’ (Philo & Wilbert, 2000, p. 4). Although fragmented, the subdiscipline can be broadly presented through two interrelated concerns (Lorimer & Srinivasan, 2013): (i) ‘animal spaces’, the spatial ordering of animals in relation to different human communities and practices (Enticott, 2008; Matless et al, 2005; Urbanik & Morgan, 2013); and (ii) ‘beastly places’, the lived experiences and agency of nonhuman animals and the practical, political, and ethical implications of researching with nonhuman animals (Bear, 2011; Gillespie & Collard, 2015; Ginn, 2014; Hobson, 2007; Oliver, 2021; Srinivasan, 2016; Turnbull & Van Patter, 2022). Grounded within the more‐human‐focused area of animal geography, this paper engages with both areas of concern.…”