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(UEC)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。这种先发制人的风险适用于难民、宗教和极右翼话语、妇女的性取向、种族、犯罪和暴力、毒品使用以及任何弱势群体的工作，如儿童、遭受个人或国家暴力的人以及残疾人。相反，人文学科的研究被引导到“安全”的方向，而不是具有挑战性的调查，而不是更具伦理挑战性的领域。我们没有勇敢地面对复杂的道德要求来开展紧急工作，而是回避了这个问题。其结果是，学术界和更广泛的社会以外的潜在受益者无法从具有挑战性、创新性和严谨的研究结果中受益。另一个后果是，当研究继续进行时，就错失了充分支持这项研究的机会。问题是，机构使用的伦理框架最初是为科学设计的，它们的主要目标是防止对参与者的身体虐待和医疗事故。其结果是，医学和心理学模型和原则的应用不适合参与人文工作的学科、参与者和研究人员的多样性。对这种“适合性”缺失的反应往往是过度监管，而不是引导和密切讨论，而不是刺激它。实际结果是，过度的形式和程序可能最终阻碍在具有挑战性的领域，如难民营研究的实地工作中脆弱但必要的信任关系，从而使研究变得不可能。UEC必须而且可以理解地将重点放在规则的应用上，但“硬性”规则并不是接近方法和伦理的最佳方式，特别是在那些通过公开方法无法获得的领域，而且必须有一定程度的灵活性，具体取决于研究背景。通过跨学科来找出每个领域特定的问题，以及确定共同问题和跨越学科、理论和方法边界的影响，我们将建立一个网络，了解如何改革研究伦理框架和程序，以更好地适应人文学科。为此，该网络将侧重于外地经验和需求的多样性，并查明和参与具有挑战性的工作的受益者。研讨会和两个讲习班将是提供这一机会的独特之处。其影响将是广泛的，启动研究文化的转变，从关注商业和法律可行性转向鼓励工作，使更具包容性的社区和研究人员受益。

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.