Over research and ethics dumping in international archaeology

Abstract

Among public health researchers two ethical concerns have recently stimulated discussion: “over-research” and “ethics dumping”. Over-research refers to a situation where the host community are not benefiting from research activity conducted by outsiders. Ethics dumping refers to doing research deemed unethical in a researcher’s home country in a foreign setting with laxer ethical rules. We briefly review the origins of these terms and explore their relevance for archaeology, with special consideration of Southeast Asia. To minimize over-research and ethics dumping in archaeology we propose some modest, specific activities that should be possible for all archaeologists to do to increase the benefit of their research to local communities, and to ensure their work is consistent with international ethical standards.

After the Revolution: A Review of 3D Modelling as a Tool for Stone Artefact Analysis

“…North, West, and Central Africa, Central, South and South-East Asia, Australia, the Pacific and South America combined make up less than a fifth of all studies (see Cardillo et al 2021;Forestier et al 2022bForestier et al , 2022aJennings and Weisler 2020;Maloney and O'Connor 2014;Pérez-Balarezo et al 2022;Prentiss et al 2015;Weisler et al 2013 for exceptions). The impact of differential access to resources between archaeologists working in the developed and developing world is well known (Connah 2013;Mapunda and Lane 2004;Marwick, Pham and Ko 2020;Shepherd 2002). While 3D modelling has become more accessible, particularly with the growth of photogrammetry (Magnani et al 2020), there are still comparatively few studies of assemblages from low-tomiddle income countries and even fewer papers have lead authors affiliated with institutions in the Global South.…”

Untitled

“…North, West, and Central Africa, Central, South and South-East Asia, Australia, the Pacific and South America combined make up less than a fifth of all studies (see Cardillo et al 2021;Forestier et al 2022bForestier et al , 2022aJennings and Weisler 2020;Maloney and O'Connor 2014;Pérez-Balarezo et al 2022;Prentiss et al 2015;Weisler et al 2013 for exceptions). The impact of differential access to resources between archaeologists working in the developed and developing world is well known (Connah 2013;Mapunda and Lane 2004;Marwick, Pham and Ko 2020;Shepherd 2002). While 3D modelling has become more accessible, particularly with the growth of photogrammetry (Magnani et al 2020), there are still comparatively few studies of assemblages from low-tomiddle income countries and even fewer papers have lead authors affiliated with institutions in the Global South.…”

Handling Ethics Dumping and Neo-Colonial Research: From the Laboratory to the Academic Literature

“…When establishing a new set of values that attempt to combine different ethical standards, and while seeking integrity (Nortjé and Hoffmann 2019 ; Roets and Molapo 2019 ), in addition to the risk of ED (Tiffin 2018 , 2019 ), there are additional challenges and risks such as ethical shopping (i.e., trying to identify the best and most appropriate or comprehensive ethical guidelines, but at the risk of settling for “bargains” of lower quality), ethics-washing (i.e., giving the impression of research being more ethical than it really is), ethical shirking (i.e., lowering the commitments to ethical values while seeking the same returns), and ethics lobbying by conflicted ethics groups that might attempt to legitimize their sets of ethics through political or other means (Floridi 2019 ). Independent of the country or field of study, the ability to offer equitable social benefits, alongside strict ethical research and publishing norms embedded in scientific integrity, i.e., fortified research literacy (St. Fleur and Schwartz 2019 ), may reduce the possibility of ED and maximize mutual benefits such as local empowerment (Marwick et al 2020 ). There is still a long way to go.…”