The best laid schemes o’ Mice an’ Men,
Gang aft agley,
An’ lea’e us nought but grief an’ pain,
For promis’d joy!
-Robert Burns, “To a Mouse” (1785)
Political scientists often do research in places where things can shift quickly after they leave. This kind of change brings up new ethical questions that we might not have thought about before or during our time in the field. Usually, when we talk about ethics, we focus on what happens while we’re actually doing the research outside our offices and institutions. Footnote 1 But here, I want to show that ethical issues pop up well beyond the fieldwork itself and are a big part of our responsibilities as researchers. Footnote 2 In short, we need to think about and deal with ethics even after we’ve packed up and left.
I’m not saying researchers should try to predict exactly what will happen once they’re out of the field. That’s not realistic. Instead, I want us to see field sites as places that can change unexpectedly. So ethical considerations shouldn’t stop once the fieldwork ends; they need to keep going.
I got interested in this from my own work in Crimea where I studied how people identified with Russia between 2012 and 2013. Then suddenly in early 2014, Crimea went from being an uncontested part of Ukraine to a disputed area under Russian control in just three weeks. This huge political shift changed the lives of those involved in my research dramatically – probably forever.
While something like Crimea’s annexation is rare, political scientists often work in places that are unstable or newly contested-think about countries affected by the Arab Spring in the Middle East and North Africa (MENA). Although you might expect this kind of upheaval mostly in authoritarian states like Crimea was back then, there are also ethical problems for democracies like the US or UK where governments might misuse data. Footnote 3 Here are three main points: First, what ethics come into play when keeping contact with participants who live through these changes? Second, what should guide us when sharing research on these shifting contexts? Third, what ethical questions arise if we decide whether or not to return? Lastly, I’ll touch on how all this fits with policies pushing for more open data access and transparency (like DA-RT).
Why We Need To Talk About Ethics
Back in 1978 the Belmont Report laid down four key principles guiding ethics reviews at institutions (like IRBs in the US) which shape everyday decisions around ethics during fieldwork. Footnote 4 The main idea is pretty straightforward: minimize harm to participants while maximizing benefits for them too (see table 1). Footnote 5 It also stresses respecting participants’ autonomy-that means treating them with dignity and making sure they consent freely. Footnote 6
Table 1 Ethical principles and guidelines stemming from the Belmont Report
Political science hasn’t always talked much about research ethics. Footnote 7 But recently-with new methods like experiments gaining ground and more work happening in risky areas-ethical discussions have picked up steam across social sciences too. Some folks question whether applying Belmont’s biomedical-rooted rules really works for social science studies though. Footnote 8 My focus isn’t so much on whether IRBs fit but how those principles get put into practice during research-not just while you’re still out there but also afterward. For example, understanding harm means thinking through its kinds (physical? psychological? political?), severity and who it affects (participants? researchers? assistants?). Doing this before or during fieldwork is tricky enough; it gets even tougher once you’re no longer on site dealing with unpredictable situations.
Next up I’ll look at two major debates inside political science-the ethics around experiments and working where danger is real-to see how each handles ideas like consent and harm beyond just being physically present.
Experiment Ethics
Field experiments have exploded across political science lately but raise serious ethical concerns-especially since scandals like Montana’s get-out-the-vote mess back in 2014. Footnote 9 People involved often don’t know they’re part of a study because revealing it could mess up results due to observation bias (the Hawthorne effect).
Teele points out this isn’t really a dilemma between solid methods versus morals-it’s more like choosing method over ethics outright. Footnote 10 Some argue knowledge gained has moral worth though-even if found by stirring democratic processes or causing some harm-because it tackles vital topics others methods can’t reach easily such as elections or conflict studies. Footnote11 Footnote12
These sacrifices sometimes ripple beyond individuals directly involved; experiments may affect election outcomes long after they’re done-which raises thorny issues usually missed by institutional reviews focused mainly on participants rather than broader effects. Michelson highlights how politicians worried that Montana’s experiment influenced actual results-not just participant experience. Footnote13
More broadly speaking these interventions risk hurting trust-in politics generally as well as academic credibility-which may make future studies harder because people won’t want to take part anymore. Some experimental methods contribute unintentionally to public skepticism-from medicine all way through politics. For instance Tuskegee’s experiment deeply hurt black communities’ trust toward government medical programs during America’s AIDS crisis era. Footnote15 Assessing harm types & scale here is complex-and definitely doesn’t end when experiments wrap up.
Dangerous Fieldwork Ethics
Another hot topic involves doing research where physical danger exists because conflicts happen nearby or are ongoing. Psychological & physical risks apply both ways-for researchers & participants alike. And studying groups ranging from victims through combatants complicates matters since their views clash sharply Footnotes16-18 Researchers must juggle these conflicting interests carefully Footnotes19.
Danger applies also internally within teams. Generally researchers forget their own potential harms partly because empathy draws focus onto subjects plus review boards care mainly about participants Footnotes20. Plus some students chase risky projects aiming for bragging rights despite dangers.
Judging harms requires strong personal moral judgment based on context which can be affected negatively by trauma exposure leading sometimes ironically to riskier practices towards participants Footnotes21-22. Deciding if conducting research makes sense includes choices over publishing timing especially if conflict keeps threatening safety Footnotes23. Some anthropologists doubt full foresight & harm prevention ever possible given unpredictability Footnotes24. This pushes us strongly toward considering post-field ethics seriously since publications appear later yet impact communities whose situation may drastically change meanwhile Footnotes25. Evaluating publication harms demands fresh thinking & solid participant ties despite distance-a tough balance indeed.
Banality Meets Politics – Crimean Research Contexts
Before talking post-field ethics let me share briefly my setting. My UK institution had loose oversight unlike U. S.’s strict federally mandated IRBsfootnotes26 , meaning only cases involving vulnerable folks needed formal review. Supervisors provided most guidance. No broad debate existed then over interview-type methods commonly seen simply as elite info gathering with consent/privacy top issues contrary ethnography seeing interviews as dynamic partnershipsfootnotes27-30 Crimean conditions back then were unremarkable post-Soviet normalcy Ukraine neither fully free nor autocratic No armed conflict Corruption rampant My biggest worry was avoiding state security attention typical for post-Soviet regimescautious independence stressed oral instead written consentfor fear official paper trail could increase risksfootnotes31-34 Access was easy travel visa-free little bureaucracy now impossible without Russian visa Crimea’s status changed so fast few expected it turning contested overnight marking first European territorial annexation since WWII footnotes35 -36
Similar scenarios arise elsewhere MENA regions after Arab Spring etc colleagues faced rapid shifts affecting minorities states rolesfield sites changing constantlybut rarely factored ethically Overall message-we must treat uncertainty not as exceptionbut normethical duties extend regardlessof regime type stabilityor democratic level footnotereflectedin next sections discussing communication publishing returning etc
Beyond The Field Ethics Concerns
Here I’ll dive into three big challenges beyond leaving actual sites staying connected reporting findings revisiting locations. These came from handling Crimea post-annexation, but apply widelyincluding high-risk middle eastand stable democracies. Dynamic contested settings highlight urgencyyet core responsibilities transcend location type. I’ll use Belmont framework linking notions of minimizing harmgiving benefitsrespecting autonomy(table below)to frame discussion emphasizing complexity past mere ‘do no harm’.
Table 2 Applying Belmont criteria…
Staying In Touch Post Field Work
When doing qualitative immersive stuff-ethnography interviews focus groups-we build networks including gatekeepers assistantsand especiallyparticipants These relationships help understand local dynamicsand foster dignity respectimportant foundations per Fujiifootnotenumbers38-40 Relationships aren’t necessarily balanced-we enter participants’ private worlds far more than vice versa Not “real” friendshipsbut professional bonds marked by power differences sometimes reciprocal sometimes exploitative We hangout participate eventssometimes become friendsfrom Facebook connections tomore intense contactswhich helps immersiondata collection Participants & assistants act as gateways enabling access eventsprotestscommemorations In Crimea attendeeswearing military gear Russian flags gatheringshelped observe expressions identityetc Participants themselves can use researcher presence politicallywe can hardly controlparticipant actionsafter study endsnor predict futuresthus our duty includes careful evaluation potential harms informed consent anonymity confidentiality ongoing maintaining privacy Respecting autonomy continues beyond leaving site Data security matters long term Contact maintenance useful methodologicallyfor tracking developments social media boosts monitoring But continued engagement increases responsibility Ethics don’t vanish off-site Need rethink Consent timeframe usually limited assumes static fieldsdynamic contexts require renewed permissionsif possible If unreachable initial limits bind info use Use realistic upfront disclosure Participant input valuable esp during upheavals But distancing hampers accurate harm judgement Still better than ignoring evolving realities My attempts contacting Crimean respondentspost annexation quickly faded Politically volatilefelt disconnected Too risky intrude Complex perspectivesdivided loyaltiesneed local insight Harder protect welfare remotely Risk visibility As shownby politicized uses published materialbelow caution essential Meanwhilemethodology suggests assistants may gather info remotely posing new risks hard evaluate safe Even knowing harms remains difficultonce detached Researchers struggle foresee consequences Yet ignoring such challenges isn’t an option Either way reflection crucial throughout.
Publishing After Leaving The Field
What we publish matters greatly here Choices affect participant safetyassistant wellbeing community reputationpublish nowor delay Pressure exists via academic norms fast publishingsometimes clashingwith cautious ethical conduct Avoid harmful disclosuresuphold dignity respect Privacy standards matter-but anonymizing small samples often insufficientsince insiders guess identities Protective abstractionhelpspresent themes without pinpointing individuals Or keep analysis general rather than specificdetailstradeoff credible argument vsprivacy Transparency rules compound challenge Dynamic contexts make judging sensitivity hard Data meanings shiftalongside politics Some advocate avoiding “guilty knowledge” entanglement But assuming stable context naive What seems harmless todaymay be dangerous tomorrow I learned firsthand Crimea article criticalwest framing annexationimmediately pickedup Russian media used politically Used snippets identifying mehighlightedmy backgrounduncomfortable visibility Lost control Risks include empowering occupationforcesdiscredit methodology Though anonymizedparticipants did not consent Such unintended consequences highlight complexities Research impact spansfar beyond academia Funders encourage demonstrating impact But impact brings responsibility We must weigh benefitvs risk honor participant rights Despite intentions naivety persists Graduate training needs frank talkson dissemination dangersmethods taughtshould cover reflexivitybeyond basicconsent training The goal isnottomake clairvoyantsbut prepareresearchers adapt responsiblyanticipate instabilityforesee impactsbetter safeguardall partiesinvolved.
Going Back To The Site?
Leaving Crimea mid-2013I planned returnsinvestments madecontacts builtfriendships formedknowledge acquired Future projects brewing Sharing resultspart reciprocitykey ethicbenefits flow back Those involved made everything possible Thencame annexationreturns unlikelyunder current circumstances Most visiting scholars now Russian citizensoffer somewhat safer passage You’d think it’d be interestingprofessionally rewardingto study changes firsthand I leavethat decisionto others Returning supports deepening understandingresolving tensionsbuilding truststronger relations It fulfills obligations respects contributors Yet risks remainharder gaugepotential harms Shifts widenpolitical stakes Security weaker Identities transformed Researchers exposed Too Many unknowns Visitingnowmeans hazardsto selfand participants Visibility heightened Politics sensitive Our presence politicizedeven prior publications stirred controversy So weighing costs benefits essential Inaccessibility hampers giving back Stories told academicpolicy audiencesreach far less those lived them Returning also raises issuesabout carryingthe ‘field’with you Social media blurs boundaries Conferences invite riskeg Russia bans anti-annex critics Attending implies takingfield along Connections never severed Field extends past geography Recognizingthis enlargesresponsibilities enduringly.
Transparency Versus Ethics With Data Sharing
Finally Let’s consider openness pushdata sharing DA-RT supporters claim openness strengthens discipline Ethics include fair analysisprocessaccountability Yet concerns loomparticularly re dangerouscontexts Sensitive info mishandlingharms real Safety becomes paramount Redacting transcripts pre uploadhelps but doesn’t solve All sensitive content dependsontimecontext Researchers may face constant editingas situations evolve Changing sensitivesubjects tricky Raw uploadsrarely suffice Better strategyis reflexive writing Preserving contextenables readers graspmethods Location Research stance Good ethnography holds “scaffolding” intactas Pachirat notes Ensuring transparencywithout sacrificing privacy Protecting participantrights convincing peersabout rigor Reflectivity key More than rawdataaccessit revealsprocess nuances Supports responsible scholarshipespecially qualitative Givenchangingfields reflexivity trumps rawsharing. Trainingneededacrossmethodsexperimentalistsincluded.
Wrapping Up Thoughts
Expect unexpected-they say Sadlyoften treated last minute Fieldwork gets usout armchairfacing surprises Real life dynamic unpredictable Politics fluid yet ethic discourses try smooth edges Tackling shifting obligations dauntingbut ignoring worse Institutional review starts dialogueinsufficient alone Need candid talks sharing struggleslearning Through mentoringstudents prepared Better conversations encouraged Especiallypre Ph D stage We owe stakeholderscareful considerationon engagementpublicationreturn All demandingthoughtfulness Reflexivity offers solution Not magic crystalballpowerfully locatingselfimpact Helps anticipatemanage consequences Whether researcheror subject imagining role flips clarifiesrisks Boost trustworthiness Trainshonesty Every scholar deserves toolshandleethics practice fully across entire journey. Not just start finishbut whole path forward.
Source link
