The infantilized researcher and research subject: ethics, consent and risk

Abstract

Current research ethics processes, based on the mantra of privacy and institutional protection, take a paternalistic approach to research participants that leaves them open to harm. Reflecting on our own research/consultancy as a case study to illustrate the current flaws, we explore our and our subjects' experiences within the wider political context of institutional ethical rules and the Australian NHMRC guidelines. In doing so we argue for fundamental changes to the modern research ethics processes-a system that treats participants more as research collaborators rather than victims in waiting. A complete review of ethics processes is needed to empower participants and researchers to recognize the reality of the process as co-created and negotiated. This includes changes at the top level of research administration-a shift in ethics policies and procedures as well as greater education in ethics with commensurate trust for active researchers.

‘Keen as fuck’: youth participation in qualitative research as ‘parallel projects’

“…Youth researchers and qualitative researchers, in general, have found that the adultcentric ethics review process can produce paradoxically unethical results (Connor et al, 2017;Doyle and Buckley, 2017;Gabb, 2010). Connor et al (2017) and Doyle and Buckley (2017) argue that the origins of the ethics review process in the positivist bio-medical model are problematic for the 'subjective, messy and non-linear' (Doyle and Buckley, 2017: 96) social sciences. Qualitative researchers concede that there are inherent problems of power in the research-participant dynamic (Connor et al, 2017: 2).…”

“…The adult and compliance with adult concerns became the central story of the research, rather than the agency and competence of the young people. While youth researchers continue to wrestle with the infantilisation of young people, Connor et al (2017) argue that these risk-averse ethics processes also infantilise the researcher. Likewise, Doyle and Buckley (2017) point out that researchers have to demonstrate that they are not 'irresponsible and even dangerous' (103).…”

“…Each new project requires a re-articulation of the same argument about the capacity of (young) participants (and researcher) and the mitigations of potential risks. Connor et al (2017) argue this kind of rote process is the result of the 'blizzard of paperwork' (2017: 9) involved in ethics applications. The probability of achieving ethics approval is therefore in part linked to the ability of the researcher to articulate their argument.…”

“I Look at You and See You Looking at Me”: Role Boundaries in a Dynamic Research Relationship in Qualitative Health Research With Refugees

“…The researcher immerses him or herself into the participant’s social world and this intimate encounter gives rise to the development of a research relationship. Given the inherently intersubjective nature of qualitative research, a myriad of scholars have pointed to the inherent limitations of institutional ethical and deontological frameworks to guide qualitative health researchers in the ethical tensions they face during day-to-day relational interactions with participants in the field (Connor, Copland, & Owen, 2018; D’Souza, Guzder, Hickling, & Groleau, 2018; Hewitt, 2007; Kendall & Halliday, 2014). Here, in the application of fundamental ethical principles, several authors addressed the importance of a contextual and culturally sensitive understanding of these institutionalized principles, an understanding which takes into account the challenges of a continuous evolving, indeterminate research course, situated in a social context (Hewitt, 2007; Ruiz-Casares, 2014).…”

When does research end? The emotional labour of researching abjection

“…So too, much of this advice implicitly presumes the researcher is an objective agent who remains unaffected by research. While there is an enormous body of resources that focus on protecting participants from harm (Connor et al, 2017; Drake, 2014), there is very little focus on how these issues affect researchers. The issue, then, of ‘researching the researcher’ (Campbell, 2002) remains relatively unexplored and taken-for-granted (see also the articles in this Special Issue).…”