In this final episode we explore the transition from 'research ethics' to 'researcher ethics'. We will delve into the rich complexity of the intersections between ethics and research methodologies and ponder how we can show up our research in the best possible way.

EPISODE TRANSCRIPT

Well hello everyone, and welcome to this special last episode of the SOSC 730 Podcast! I can't believe this is the last official week together. Time sure has flown by, hasn't it? You've been an incredible group to work with, and I've enjoyed getting to know each and every one of you, and your exciting new research projects.

Before we dive into today’s topic, I want to express my gratitude for all the amazing conversations we’ve had together. Your incredibly rich and generous reflections and conversations on the complexity of research have been so wonderful. I’m looking forward to your reflections on the issues of research ethics! Thank you for taking the time to contribute to this conversation, especially while juggling assignments.

Today, I wanted to end our journey with a discussion on a topic that is incredibly important and often overlooked: the transition from 'research ethics' to 'researcher ethics'. It’s a concept brought to light by Banks in 2018. We’ll delve into the rich complexity of the intersections between ethics and research methodologies and ponder whether we should add a seventh class into the doctoral program that explores this very topic. Just kidding – well, kind of.

As I was reflecting on our last 12 weeks together, it became clear to me that we are our research. Our projects are an extension of ourselves, and ethics goes deeper than our institutional ethics forms. von Unger asks us to consider research ethics as an umbrella term that addresses the social, political, and moral dimensions of empirical research.

This encompasses everything from the larger role of social science research in society, to decisions about study aims and methodology, to the smaller day-to-day decisions of how to act vis-à-vis partners and participants in specific research interactions. And how to manage research relationships and information flow.

von Unger raises several critical questions about how we, as researchers, should approach ethics:

1.         How do we see our roles and responsibilities?

2.         How do we position ourselves in the field?

3.         What is the purpose of our research?

4.         How do we navigate ethical implications in critical, participatory, and transgressive research?

5.         How do we reveal our identity and intent?

6.         Should we help people in great need?

7.         What do we do with "secrets" shared by participants?

8.         How do we avoid causing harm?

9.         And, lastly, should we anonymize participants if they don’t want to be?

These questions lead us to consider Gray’s notion of the “corruption of knowledge,” where ethical lapses via self-censoring and our desire “not to ruffle any feathers” are way too common. It’s a challenge we all may face when trying to conduct research that may be critical of the status quo. But how do we ensure that the findings of our research and the recommendations that emerge from it are, in fact, worthy of trust? What makes research trustworthy? Is it the funder? The identity of the researcher? The perceived objectivity of the researcher? I don’t think there are any easy answers to these questions.

But I do disagree with Gray’s characterization of the issue of trustworthiness as being one that leans more heavily towards practitioner researchers or what he calls industry scientists. I believe that self-censoring happens to all researchers applying for funding. Regardless of the sector, the “gatekeepers” – the funders, peer reviewers, institutions—all have their own bias in their expectations that you conduct research in a particular way or with a particular methodology, or with a particular slant. I would argue that the rise of “cancel culture” in academia and the non-critical acceptance of “political correctness” within academia is an emerging form of the “corruption of knowledge”.

The potential lack of independence in being able to write, discuss, or engage otherwise in politically divisive topics raises the question of what and who do we privilege to conduct unfettered and unbiased research? Is it possible to conduct ethical research and also be critical of the status quo? And what happens if your research puts you at cross-purposes with your employer or future clients?

Well the pandemic has certainly raised a lot of questions about censorship of knowledge that runs counter to mainstream, government-sanctioned narratives.

For example, consider the doctor in Saskatchewan who lost his job during the pandemic because he raised concerns based on his understanding of the ethics of informed consent. I’m not taking sides here, but reflecting on the importance of ethical practice and the importance of holding our institutions and our colleagues accountable to these practices.

Well, as we wrap up this episode and this season, I want to refer back to Fulton and Costley’s chapter 5, where they argue that ethics is ultimately a conscious mindset; it is not just a strict set of procedures that you follow and institutional forms that you fill out for approval – something we could characterize as “the check-box approach”.

It’s WAY deeper than that.

Fulton and Costley break this down into four principles of research ethics: kindness; respect for autonomy; justice; and non-maleficence. For me, it’s about showing up authentically with a good mind and a good heart. It’s about treating people with respect, and cultivating a perspective that our research always has an impact on our participants and ourselves.

This aligns with Banks’ distinction between research ethics and researcher ethics. I like the idea of ethics as a virtue, although we have to be careful that we don’t get too righteous in our attempt to be virtuous.

I refer to this connection between research ethics and researcher virtues as “deep ethics.” This concept emerges from my own critical analysis paralysis about how to be able to show up authentically as a privileged white guy who is seriously invested in contributing to social change.

Deep ethics calls me at my core to always show up in a good way, no matter the challenge, and to remember that my work will always have an impact, even if it takes generations. There is a considerable amount of responsibility being a social scientist that should not be taken lightly. I’ve learned that it is a deeply personal journey – sometimes we find solace in sharing this journey with our community and colleagues, and other times there are no words for the feelings or experiences that inform this journey. For me, these connections often come through dreaming, running, or playing music.

As you reflect on your own research journey and the year that was and the years that will be, I hope that you can consider the deep ethical value of your work and its lasting impact on you and your circle of relations.

Well, thanks for such a great class this term! It was a privilege and a pleasure to get to know all of you and your projects with a little more depth and richness.

I appreciate all your efforts in co-creating this learning community and am excited to see how all of your projects continue to emerge over the next year and beyond.

Remember to get your final assignments handed in. I’ll have final marks for everyone posted and assignments with comments returned in the next little bit.

And even after our class is over and your marks are final – remember I’m just a phone call or email away. Don’t ever hesitate to reach out anytime!

Oh and good luck with the Quants Class.

Well, signing off for now  - this is Siomonn, your guide to all things interdisciplinary research. Take care everyone and see you on the flip side.