A Network for Rethinking Academic Research Ethics Frameworks and Processes in the Humanities

研究伦理框架旨在促进伦理研究并保护参与者和研究人员。然而，在人文学科背景下，大学伦理委员会（UECs）如何应用这些框架存在问题。其结果是，在最具挑战性和最必要的人文学科领域的研究被阻止了。这种预先阻止研究的风险适用于有关难民、宗教和极右翼话语、妇女的性行为、种族、犯罪和暴力、毒品使用的工作，以及有关儿童、遭受个人或国家暴力的人以及残疾人等任何弱势群体的工作。相反，人文学科的研究被引向了“安全”的方向，而不是具有挑战性的研究，并且远离了更具道德挑战性的领域。我们回避了这个问题，而不是接受复杂的道德要求的挑战，承担紧急的工作。其结果是，学术界以外的潜在受益者，以及更广泛的社会，无法从具有挑战性、创新性和严谨的研究成果中受益。进一步的后果是，当研究继续进行时，就错过了充分支持这项研究的机会。问题是，各机构使用的伦理框架最初是为科学设计的，其主要目的是防止对参与者的身体虐待和医疗事故。其结果是，应用的医学和心理学模型和原则不适合学科的多样性，不适合参与人文学科工作的参与者和研究人员。对这种“不合适”的反应往往是过度监管，而不是引导；结束讨论，而不是刺激讨论。实际的结果是，过度的形式和程序最终会阻碍在具有挑战性的领域（例如难民营的研究）的实地工作中脆弱但必要的信任关系，从而使研究无法进行。uec必须并且可以理解地关注规则的应用，但是“硬性规定”并不是处理方法和伦理的最佳方式，特别是在不可能通过公开方法访问的领域，并且必须根据研究背景有一定程度的灵活性。通过跨越学科，找出每个领域特有的问题，以及识别跨学科、理论和方法边界的共同问题和影响，我们将建立一个网络，以了解如何改革研究伦理框架和过程，以更好地适应人文学科。为此，该网络将注重外地经验和需要的多样性，并确定具有挑战性的工作的受益者并使其参与。研讨会和两个讲习班在提供这一机会方面将是独一无二的。这种影响将是广泛的，它将促使科研文化从关注商业和法律可行性转向支持过程，从而鼓励有利于更广泛的社区和研究人员的工作。

Research ethics frameworks are designed to facilitate ethical research and to protect both participants and researchers. Yet in the humanities context there are problems with how these frameworks are applied by University Ethics Committees (UECs). The consequence is that research in the most challenging and necessary areas of humanities disciplines is prevented from taking place. This risk of forestalling research applies to work on refugees, religious and far-right discourse, women's sexuality, race, crime and violence, drug use and work on any vulnerable group such as children, those who have suffered personal or state violence, and those with disabilities. Research in the humanities disciplines is instead steered towards 'safe' rather than challenging investigations, and away from areas that are more ethically challenging. Rather than rising to the challenge of complex ethical demands to undertake urgent work, we sidestep the problem. The consequence is that potential beneficiaries outside of academia, and society more widely, do not benefit from the findings of challenging, innovative and rigorous research. A further consequence is that when research does go ahead, an opportunity is missed to adequately support this research.The problem is that ethical frameworks used by institutions were designed originally for the sciences and their primary aim was to prevent physical abuse of participants and medical malpractice. The consequence is that medical and psychological models and principles are applied which are not appropriate for the diversity of disciplines, participants and researchers involved in humanities work. The response to this lack of 'fit' is often to over-regulate, rather than guide and to close discussion rather than to stimulate it. The practical outcome is that excessive forms and procedure can end up hampering the fragile yet necessary trust relationship in fieldwork in challenging areas, such as research in refugee camps, thereby making the research impossible. UECs necessarily and understandably focus on the application of rules, yet 'hard and fast' rules are not the best way to approach methodology and ethics, particularly in areas where access is impossible by overt methods and there must be a degree of flexibility depending on the research context.By reaching across disciplines to draw out the problems specific to each field, as well as identifying common problems and impact across disciplinary, theoretical and methodological boundaries, we will establish a Network for understanding how research ethics frameworks and processes might be reformed to better fit the humanities. The Network will do this by focusing on the diversity of experiences and needs of the field and identifying and engaging the beneficiaries of challenging work. The seminar and two workshops will be unique in allowing this opportunity. The impact will be wide-ranging, initiating a shift in research culture from a focus on commercial and legal viability to supportive processes that encourage work that benefits a more inclusive set of communities and researchers.