Second Workshop
Introduction
In the second workshop, we built upon the foundation of the work done in workshop one to drill down into the themes that emerged, looking at challenges, solutions, best practice, and examples of community-based research ethics. We used interactive theatre to develop scenarios based on our shared experiences. Bringing researchers and community groups together to develop these scenarios proved invaluable. Participants representing community groups, statutory and voluntary sector groups, artists and social researchers shared real-life research experiences and dilemmas where ethics were not co-designed.
This created space to discuss and work through alternative approaches and outcomes.
These ethical guidelines are based on the perspectives of communities and community organisations, artists, and researchers to counter the experiences of ‘extractive’ or ‘tokenistic’ research approaches to community based research methods. Four key ethical values emerged from our collaborative scenarios and discussions:
- Ethics as morality in action
- Ethics applied as moral values in practice, through engagement with communities
- Ethics of care
- Ethics in practice: respect, recognition, inclusion, active listening, attentiveness to power dynamics and genuine collaboration
Visual research ethics guidance - Theme 1
Ethical Engagement & Community Partnership
“Communities should be part of defining ethics”
Power dynamics, trust-building and consent
Scenario: A PhD student with external funding and ethics approval found that the community group she was due to work with were unwilling to participate in what they saw to be a top-down, ‘extractive’ project. The funders pushed for the research to go ahead, but the community requested a collaborative, participatory approach based on an ethic of care. Eventually, everyone agreed. The scenario highlights the importance of collaboration from the outset.
Theme 2
Inclusive Practice & Representation
“Research should be for everyone”
Posing the problem of discrimination and misrecognition and the researcher's role in representation.
Scenario: A researcher studying a marginalised community finds that some participants misrepresented their addresses on official documents to avoid discrimination. Though relevant to her study, the researcher faces the ethical dilemma of whether to include this information since it could harm the community and she must decide how to best represent participants sensitively and collaboratively. Rather than show a solution, this scenario aimed to stimulate discussion about ethical challenges, strengths and limitations of community research and working collaboratively, particularly in the context of social inequalities. In this case the community members sought to limit the stigmatisation and discrimination they experienced (as a marginalised group). This is an important finding in a research project, and could form the basis for a recommendation to policy makers.
Theme 3
Adaptive Approaches & Stakeholder Involvement
“Research is relational”
Stakeholder relationships and collaborations
Scenario: A public body offers funding for research on public understanding of brown bins*, proposing that school children photograph their family’s bin use. However neither the children, their parents, nor local advocates are consulted, and potential child protection risks in the photography are not acknowledged. Instead of imposing research, this scenario shows how the project needs to ensure all participants' involvement in the design and undertaking of this research from idea to write up, and especially with regard to the safety of children participants.
*Brown bins are used for the disposal of compostable food and garden waste.
Theme 4
Challenges & Considerations in Research
“Care as a grounding principle”
Stakeholder relationships and collaborations
Scenario: A community member is tired of being the subject of research that brings no change and shows little interest when a new researcher arrives with funding and consent forms. A community development worker steps in, listens, and urges the researcher and funder to consult with the community group. The scenario focused on a solution where the project is reshaped so that themes are co-developed with the community’s engaged involvement, aiming for meaningful change.
Theme 5
Ethics of Research Outcomes & Representation
“All are co-learners and co-owners of research”
Advocacy, data sharing and implementation
Scenario: In a top-down project that did not seek community input, research expectations between the community, a local NGO, and a national research company are not aligned, and there is pressure for timely results. The process feels intrusive to the NGO, who decides they cannot stand over the findings, use, or share them. The scenario highlights that ethics is not phase-specific, a tick box at the start of a project, but is interlinked throughout the research process. A socially engaged approach would involve working with the NGO to align expectations, aims and outcomes for the good of all.
