Drawing on various national statements on the ethical conduct of research, the codes of ethics of professional associations and international agencies, and ethical guidelines in social research methods textbooks, this paper identifies current principles for ethical research involving humans and discusses their implications for impact assessment practice generally and social impact assessment specifically. The identified ethical principles include: respect for participants, informed consent, specific permission required for audio or video recording, voluntary participation and no coercion, participant right to withdraw, full disclosure of funding sources, no harm to participants, avoidance of undue intrusion, no use of deception, the presumption and preservation of anonymity, participant right to check and modify a transcript, confidentiality of personal matters, data protection, enabling participation, ethical governance, provision of grievance procedures, appropriateness of research methodology, and full reporting of methods. Topics such as a conflict of interest, moral hazard and duty of care are also considered. Also discussed are Indigenous peoples’ rights and their implications for ethical impact assessment processes. Ethical issues and dilemmas arise in all forms of professional practice. Academic research in various disciplines, especially in the social sciences, also encounters ethical issues. While there has been an increasing codification of research ethics and professional practice ethics with the establishment of institutional ethics committees, views about the ethical implications of various research methods and practices vary across disciplines and in different cultural settings (Castellano 2004; Hoeyer et al. 2005). For example, much concern has been expressed by social scientists about the dominance of biomedical thinking in research ethics discussions (Israel & Hay 2006; Shore 2007; Dyer & Demeritt 2009; Amon et al. 2012). Therefore, with evolving practice in impact assessment practice generally and social impact assessment (SIA) practice especially (Vanclay 2002, 2003a, 2004, 2006, 2012; Esteves & Vanclay 2009; João et al. 2011; Vanclay & Esteves 2011; Esteves et al. 2012; Franks & Vanclay 2013), it is appropriate that ongoing reconsideration be given to the topic of ethical practice and to the kinds of ethical issues that can arise (Howitt 2005; Baines & Taylor 2011; Fuggle 2012). This is especially the case because ethical issues in professional practice rarely have simple right and wrong answers (Guillemin & Gillam 2004). An active awareness of the ethical issues likely to be encountered is important for reflexive and professional practice (Fisher 2008). A hallmark of professionalism is an ongoing discussion of ethical issues within the professional group (Jowell 1986; Savan 1989; Wolpe 2006; Zandvoort 2008). Jennings (2003) considers that there are five general goals of ethics education for practising professionals:
This paper and its companion paper (Baines et al. 2013) seek to contribute to advancing these goals in the impact assessment field. While the companion paper discusses a range of ethical issues from the basis of the authors’ experiences of professional SIA practice, this first paper is relevant to all fields of impact assessment given that the principles of ethical human research are considered to apply to any research (i.e. data collection) process that involves human beings, whether humans are the subject of the research or only the providers of data. Thus, data collection for an (environmental) impact assessment that relies on asking people for opinions or information about biophysical issues would still normally be expected to comply with ethical research principles and procedures. The Australian national ethical research statement, for example, requires that its ethical principles be used in conjunction with any human research funded by any of the Australian government research funding agencies. Furthermore, it states that: ‘in addition, the National Statement sets national standards for use by any individual, institution or organisation conducting human research. This includes human research undertaken by governments, industry, private individuals, organisations, or networks of organisations’ (Australian Government 2007, p. 7). Social research ethics therefore potentially extend beyond SIA to all forms of impact assessment, and extend from academic to all organizational settings. While academic research in many countries is clearly subject to the national generic and institution-specific requirements of the particular university in which the academic researcher resides, it is worth considering the extent to which research ethics might also apply outside the context of formal research institutions, to the professional practice settings in which most impact assessment professionals work. Although ethical research principles are sometimes used by institutions to protect the reputations of those institutions and to address risk considerations, nevertheless there is a legitimate, widely accepted, fundamental philosophical basis to the ethical principles. To that extent, these principles also apply to all practitioners, irrespective of their institutional setting. Thus, good professional practice would mean complying with ethical research as generally understood. This paper (i.e. part I of a two-part paper) identifies the currently accepted ethical principles that apply to research involving humans and reflects briefly on the extent to which they apply to impact assessment. The companion paper (Baines et al. 2013) considers specifically how the ethical principles apply to SIA practice, drawing on the practice perspective of the authors. This first paper starts with a discussion of ethics and professional practice, before considering a range of codes of ethical research and identifying the major ethical principles in those codes. A concluding section provides some reflections relating to improving ethical conduct in impact assessment generally. Ethics, or moral philosophy, is a branch of philosophy that seeks to address questions of morality. Morality refers to beliefs or standards about concepts like good and bad, right and wrong (Jennings 2003). When used as the basis for guiding individual and collective behaviour, ethics takes on a normative function, helping individuals consider how they should behave from a moral perspective, in other words, what they ought to do. Applied or professional ethics deals with ethical questions in many fields of professional practice, and many journals have been established, including: Bioethics; Journal of Business Ethics; Journal of Clinical Ethics; Journal of Law, Medicine & Ethics; Journal of Medical Ethics; Nanoethics; and Science & Engineering Ethics. In addition, the mainstream journals of the professions frequently discuss ethical issues. Ethics apply to all aspects of personal and organizational practice and are therefore relevant to individuals, small firms, large corporations, government and non-government organizations, and to professions as a whole. The application of ethics in a professional context often takes the form of a written code, document or agreement that stipulates morally acceptable behaviour by individuals within an organization or profession. In medicine and health research, for example, the Helsinki Declaration (World Medical Association 2000) is the defining statement. The American Anthropological Association (2012), American Evaluation Association (2004), Association of American Geographers (2009), American Planning Association (1992), American Psychology Association (2010), American Sociological Association (1999) and their equivalent organizations in many other countries of the world all have their various Codes of Ethics. Most professional associations in most countries of the world, including the International Association for Impact Assessment (International Association for Impact Assessment 2009), have some form of a code of ethics – as stated before, consideration of ethical concerns is a defining feature of being a profession. An excellent entry point for links to codes of ethics is the CODEX website established at the University of Uppsala with the support of the Swedish Research Council (http://www.codex.uu.se/en/etik9.shtml). Another entry point is the Council of European Social Science Data Archives (http://www.cessda.org/sharing/rights/4/). Rossouw (2002) provides a useful discussion of the various features requiring attention when organizations develop a code of ethics, including consideration of purpose, process, form, content and implementation. He notes that some codes put more emphasis on promoting good practice while others emphasize the avoidance of malpractice. Some are aspirational in character, setting out ideal behaviours, while others are more directional, setting out actual behavioural requirements. Some ethical codes are more concerned with the implications of an individual’s behaviour for their professional colleagues within an organization, while others focus more on the importance of maintaining the confidence of external parties such as the public, the courts, the state, or key stakeholders. Rossouw argues that, if the purpose of a code is to establish agreement about shared values between members of an organization, then a consensus-seeking process is required. In any jurisdiction, one can conceive of various intersecting sets of ethical codes and understandings. One sphere relates to the ethics of academic social science enquiry. Another sphere is associated with the ethics of professional practice where consultants make a living implementing social research methods in commercial contexts. Another relates to institutional guidelines of a government agency (the regulator or competent authority) or, in the few situations where they have them, the codes of conduct of the private sector commissioning party. Yet another sphere relates to the provision of expert advice in judicial or quasi-judicial situations where there are often specific legal requirements pertaining to the nature of evidence and disclosure of sources. Another sphere is the expectations of the affected population and/or of any significant subgroups within society at large. A final sphere might be the concerns of certain key stakeholder groups in society at large, including NGOs and watchdog groups, who might have particular ethical perspectives or expectations that need to be considered, not just about the process of assessment but also about the planned changes (or project) overall. What people consider to be ‘best practice’, ‘ethical’, ‘professional’ or even ‘acceptable’ practice usually depends on what standpoint they come from. This phenomenon is known as ‘framing’ (Kaufman & Smith 1999; Wynne 2001; Shmueli et al. 2006; Oughton & Bracken 2009). Nevertheless, although these spheres do not necessarily share the same understandings of ethics or ethical obligations, some general and arguably universal principles can be inferred from moral and philosophical foundations. For example, one of the first national statements on research ethics to be implemented (although see Israel & Hay 2006 for a longer discussion on the origins of research ethics) was the Belmont Report (United States National Commission for Protection of Human Subjects of Biomedical and Behavioral Research 1978), which arose in part in response to public outcry about various medical experiments, specifically the now notorious Tuskegee Syphilis Study which exploited, deceived and withheld medical treatment from rural black men in Alabama (Thomas & Quinn 1991; Shore 2007). The Belmont Report (United States National Commission for Protection of Human Subjects of Biomedical and Behavioral Research 1978; also see Freed-Taylor 1994), which continues to be the basis of institutional ethics procedures in the USA, established that there are three overarching scientific norms that govern all research involving humans:
The Belmont Report differentiated between research and practice; however, more recent codes tend not to make this distinction. The Australian National Statement (Australian Government 2007), for example, has a lengthy discussion on the definition of ‘research’, making it clear that it should be understood in very broad terms. Nevertheless, Guillemin and Gillam (2004) make a case for ‘ethics in practice’ or micro-ethics, arguing that practitioners need assistance for dealing with what happens at specific individual encounters. The general view, however, is that ethical guidelines should not be prescriptive and that they will sometimes be contradictory. Rather than have specific rules for micro-situations, practitioners should be equipped with (and trained in) ethico-analytical skills to be able to make their own ethical decisions at the micro level and to be able to defend them at the macro level. It is generally understood that professionals (and thus impact assessment practitioners) have ethical obligations to: society generally; employers, clients and/or funders; fellow colleagues, employees and in the case of academics to students; the professional community to which they belong and/or operate; and research participants and the communities to which they (the participants and arguably the professionals) belong (Marcuse 1976; Jowell 1986; Social Research Association (UK) 2003; Social Policy Association (UK) 2009). The obligation to society was originally seen as being paramount, leading to a primary obligation ‘to protect the safety, health, property and welfare of the public’ (Holemans & Lodewyckx 1996, p. 22). The obligation to society requires impact assessment professionals to act with integrity, and to be committed to the fair and proper conduct of their research in terms of the collection of accurate data and the use of appropriate and valid analytical methods. They are expected to avoid real or perceived conflicts of interest (situations where they could personally benefit) and to be mindful of moral hazard (i.e. situations where the professional does not bear the consequences of any risks they take and may therefore be excessive in their suggestions or actions). They would be expected to restrict their activities to remain within their area of competence (Jamal & Bowie 1995; American Evaluation Association 2004). They have a duty of care, that is, ‘an obligation to take reasonable care to avoid causing foreseeable harm to another person or their property’ (Legal Aid Queensland 2012, online). They also need to ensure the provision of procedural and natural justice (Morrison-Saunders & Early 2008). The primary duty to society also means that there is an expectation that results of social research would be publicly available. With the maturing of discussions about ethical professional practice in the different spheres mentioned above, a gradual change in the emphasis in the codes of ethics can be discerned. Earlier codes tended to focus on obligations to society and to the proper conduct of research, whereas newer codes tend to focus on obligations to research participants. Another way of expressing this change is that there has been a shift from normative ethics to procedural ethics (Kenny & Giacomini 2005). A specific example of this is in the Australian Government (1999, p. 11) National Statement, where Clause 1.4 states that ‘Each research protocol must be designed to ensure that respect for the dignity and well being of the participants takes precedence over the expected benefits to knowledge’, although this statement was not repeated in the 2007 version of the document. The 2012 version of the American Anthropological Association (2012, p. 9), however, clearly states ‘obligations to research participants are usually primary’. Despite these varied contexts (spheres) discussed above, it is possible to distil a number of inter-related principles that are generally considered to be the basis of ethical research involving humans. This set of principles was identified by undertaking an in-depth literature review and a document analysis of key documents in the ethics in research field, specifically:
The identified principles are described below. Not all sources mentioned above include all the principles described below, but rather the principles presented here represent an analytical summary of the principles implied or stated in the documents considered. In the language of qualitative research, the set of principles represents the themes that emerged from the analysis. Although social scientists do not regard the principles as strict rules but rather as general principles to inform discussion and practice, institutional ethics committees have tended to interpret and implement them rigidly, resulting in resistance in various quarters (e.g. Adler & Adler 2002; Haggerty 2004; Israel & Hay 2006; Shore 2007; Dyer & Demeritt 2009). Because of the wide use of social research methods in SIA, the ethical principles applying to social research might be considered as also applying to SIA practitioners. They also arguably apply to impact assessment practitioners who derive or access any form of data from people. We therefore present these principles in order to encourage discussion about ethical practice amongst all impact assessment practitioners. The principles below are given in our words, but fairly reflect how they are understood in the social research field generally. Comments about their implications for SIA follow in the companion paper (Baines et al. 2013). While all principles potentially apply to SIA practice in general, there may be occasions when there is contradiction. In these situations, a practitioner would need to make a reasoned decision based on a balanced ethical judgement. The first two principles, respect for participants and informed consent, are the foundational principles from which all other principles cascade down. As the essence of ethical research, they are thus reflected in the other principles. Please note that the word ‘researcher’ is used in the principles, but this refers to anybody involved in a data-collection process and in the context of impact assessment therefore equates with practitioner.
These principles provide ethical guidance to researchers and practitioners and to the institutions in which they work. Rather than being implemented uncritically, the guidance is meant to encourage an understanding and critical reflection on ethical issues. It should be accepted that there will be circumstances that might obviate the rigid implementation of one or more of these principles, as discussed in the companion paper. However, all researchers and practitioners have an individual and collective responsibility to ensure ethical practice, with the team leader having overall responsibility and a specific role in ensuring compliance by all team members. Since ethical understandings will vary between individuals and across professional groups, there needs to be discussion of ethics in all team situations, especially given the interdisciplinary work contexts that typically apply in impact assessment. The first principle listed above, respect for participants, would also imply respect for the individual and societal differences and beliefs of various peoples, and, for example, expecting that researchers/practitioners would not regard or treat everyone as being homogenous. A specific application of this principle that is very relevant to impact assessment relates to Indigenous peoples. Because of past serious cases of unethical research practice by various professions (Cochran et al. 2008), and because of the growing assertion of Indigenous peoples’ rights as manifested in, for example, the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (United Nations General Assembly 2007), various organizations, including the IAIA (Croal et al. 2012) have been developing codes of practice for research or other interactions involving Indigenous peoples (e.g. Castellano 2004; Convention on Biological Diversity 2004; Persoon & Minter 2011). One example of such a code was developed by the Australian Institute of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Studies (AIATSIS 2011), with the key principles in that code being presented in Box 1.
Although the AIATSIS and similar codes typically address the same issues as mentioned in the ethical research principles presented in this paper, in the AIATSIS, IAIA (Croal et al. 2012) and related codes there is an explicit mention of the wider rights of Indigenous peoples and the need for the researcher/practitioner to acknowledge and protect those rights. For example, the introduction to the AIATSIS (2011, p. 4) guidelines starts with the words: Indigenous peoples have inherent rights, including the right to self-determination. The principles in these Guidelines … are founded on respect for their rights. These include rights to full and fair participation in any processes, projects and activities that impact on them, and the right to control and maintain their culture and heritage. AIATSIS considers that these principles are not only a matter of ethical research practice but of human rights. It is clear that the data collection processes (i.e. research) being undertaken for impact assessments must not only respect international understandings of ethical social research, but must also comply with the expanding domain of human rights (Kemp & Vanclay 2013). The AIATSIS Principle 6 states that the principle of free, prior and informed consent (FPIC) should be applied even to research with or about Indigenous peoples. The same is the case with the code of conduct produced by the Netherlands-based development agency/NGO, Tropenbos International (Persoon & Minter 2011). Thus, FPIC is not just a concept pertaining to the development project for which an impact assessment is being done; the concept of FPIC also applies to the impact assessment process itself. When applied to research, ostensibly FPIC would in practice be no different to ‘informed consent’ as implied by the guidelines for ethical research; however, FPIC arguably has a more significant legal and international standing than ‘informed consent’. As FPIC, informed consent becomes elevated to a human rights discourse rather than being just a matter of ethical research practice. The principles for research involving Indigenous peoples and the way they are put into effect are likely to have several consequences for researchers (and impact assessment professionals). It is important for practitioners to realize that Indigenous participation cannot be presumed or demanded. Indigenous peoples will be unlikely to accept the presumption that a researcher or practitioner has a right to do research or collect data. A convincing case as to why Indigenous peoples should participate will need to be made. The continued agreement of Indigenous peoples to participate in the research will probably depend on the practitioner being genuine, in treating the participants as equal partners in the process, and in the practitioner demonstrating meaningful engagement and reciprocity (AIATSIS 2011; Croal et al. 2012). This will mean that Indigenous peoples will want to negotiate about what research will be about, how it will be done, to what uses the results will be put, and how the data will be stored. The commitment and adherence to ethical practice rely on the efforts of practitioners, as well as those of their client organizations and professional associations. Professional organizations such as the IAIA can promote and provide active support for ethical practice. There is a suite of measures that can be undertaken to support ethical practice at the individual and organizational level (extracted/modified from Rossouw 2002), including:
The ethical performance of an association can be considered by using the criteria above. For example, the IAIA can be evaluated against these criteria as follows:
In addition, to its Code of Conduct, the IAIA has developed a range of supporting information such as an ethical practice ‘fast tip’ (Fuggle 2012) and a range of best practice guidance documents which it makes available on its website (see http://www.iaia.org/publications-resources/downloadable-publications.aspx). It has also facilitated the publishing of a range of papers on the principles and/or best practice of impact assessment (e.g. Vanclay 2003a; Vanclay 2003b; Marshall et al. 2005; Canter & Ross 2010; Cave 2012), as well as various state-of-the-art papers (e.g. Adelle & Weiland 2012; Bond & Pope 2012; Bond et al. 2012; Esteves et al. 2012; Harris-Roxas et al. 2012; Morgan 2012; Fundingsland Tetlow & Hanusch 2012. Comparing the IAIA’s Code of Conduct (Box 2) against the 18 principles for ethical research as presented in this paper reveals some shortcomings. The IAIA’s Code seems to be more typical of the earlier codes which, as discussed at the beginning of this paper, tended to focus on obligations to society and the proper conduct of research, rather than being akin to the newer codes, which tend to focus more on obligations to participants. It would be desirable for the IAIA’s Code to be revamped, increasing the emphasis on respect for affected peoples in the conduct of impact assessment and including requirements about ‘informed consent’ (from the research ethics discourse), and perhaps even ‘free, prior and informed consent’ (from the Indigenous rights discourse). It is important to realize that ethical and professional practice is more than just having a Code of Conduct. All impact assessment practitioners need to be active in upholding and promoting ethical standards of professional practice through their own practice and by peer support. Most importantly, an ongoing dialogue is needed in the profession, a dialogue this paper and its companion paper seek to stimulate. It is increasingly recognized that professionalism in all fields must be underpinned by ethical practice. Arguably, being ‘professional’ is defined by a commitment to and observance of ethical behaviour. However, like the various subfields of impact assessment, the fields of professional ethics and research ethics are also developing over time. The ethical expectations surrounding professional practice have become more exacting, covering the mechanics of undertaking data collection for an impact assessment (i.e. research), as well as the broader moral obligations and philosophical orientations in which impact assessment practice occurs. A marked shift has occurred in institutional codes of ethics, with the primary obligation to society and the proper conduct of data collection becoming replaced by an increased focus on obligations to research participants. Respect for research participants (i.e. people) and ‘informed consent’ are now the primary ethical principles. Related to this primacy is that social research ethics are deemed to apply to all research that is about or with human beings. The term ‘research’ is now defined very broadly to involve any data collection activity as well as the creation of novel ideas. Thus data collection and other activities undertaken as part of impact assessments that involve people in any way whatsoever require that the ethical principles for research involving humans be considered. The broadening of the field of research ethics also extends to the domains to which it applies. While institutional research ethics committees have typically been associated with universities or government-funded research institutions, there is an increasing social expectation that the ethical principles and procedures will be applied regardless of the setting of the research. Thus, private sector consultants engaged to undertake data collection for an impact assessment will increasingly be expected to comply with the same ethical principles as researchers in public sector agencies. Professional associations such as the IAIA need to play a key role in setting and enforcing these increasingly more exacting professional practice standards. Best practice in impact assessment will essentially require full observance of the 18 principles documented in this paper: respect for participants, informed consent, specific permission required for audio or video recording, voluntary participation and no coercion, participant right to withdraw, full disclosure of funding sources, no harm to participants, avoidance of undue intrusion, no use of deception, the presumption and preservation of anonymity, participant right to check and modify a transcript, confidentiality of personal matters, data protection, enabling participation, ethical governance, provision of grievance procedures, appropriateness of research methodology and full reporting of methods. The relatively recent rise in the recognition of human rights issues in impact assessment (Kemp & Vanclay 2013), the increasing acknowledgement of the rights of Indigenous peoples (United Nations General Assembly 2007; Croal et al. 2012), and specifically the concept of ‘free, prior and informed consent’ (Hanna & Vanclay 2013), will also influence the consideration of ethical issues that need to be considered in professional impact assessment practice in the future. Through this paper and the companion paper, we hope to increase awareness of ethical considerations and to improve the practice of impact assessment. This paper and its companion paper are a further development of a book chapter by James Baines and Nick Taylor published in Frank Vanclay & Ana Maria Esteves (eds) 2011 New Directions in Social Impact Assessment, Cheltenham: Edward Elgar. Comments were provided by Ana Maria Esteves, Philippe Hanna, Lucy McCombes, Angus Morrison-Saunders and students and staff of the Faculty of Spatial Sciences at the University of Groningen.
|
Who is responsible for overseeing research studies to ethical research standards are upheld?
Pos Terkait
Copyright © 2024 membukakan Inc.
