Search results

AbstractConceptualising and operationalising ethical principles like beneficence (maximise benefits, minimise risks) is complex. We contribute to understanding beneficence by critically analysing data documenting participatory international development research processes in Eswatini and India, informed by capabilities theory. Our results problematise (i) conceptualising beneficence solely in relation to either local or academic norms and (ii) offsetting economic, social and cognitive, or individual, group and societal benefits and/or harms, as either practice risks perpetuating unjust economic and/or epistemological hierarchies. Our results suggest that beneficence will be optimally achieved if it is conceptualised and operationalised considering diverse stakeholder perspectives and social justice theory. © 2020 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Theoretically, community participation decolonises research ethics in settings where a 'coloniality of power' persists. We used ethnographic methods to document our experiences of 'ethics in practice', and interrogate the (de)colonising outcomes, of community participation in voluntary informed assent and consent (VIAC) procedures with 16–17-year-old Black South African youth and parents. Community participation decolonised by: (1) disrupting and problematising the power dynamics of written VIAC procedures and (2) minimally shifting power to youth and parents. However, community participation sometimes reinforced existing power hierarchies. In postcolonial qualitative research settings, community participation has potential to, but will not necessarily, decolonise ethics in practice.

Recognition that structural factors influence participation decisions and have potential to coerce participation, emerged relatively recently in research ethics literature. Empirical evidence to elucidate the nature of "structural" coercion and influence is needed to optimise respect for autonomy through voluntary informed consent. We present findings from ethnographic data about community co-researchers' experiences designing and implementing demographic and health survey consent procedures in participatory health research in Eswatini. Informed by Bourdieu's sociological theory of multiple types of capital/power, our findings detail structural influences on research participation decisions, highlight the inherently power-laden dynamics of consent interactions, and suggest that to be optimally ethical, research ethics principles and practices should consider and account for structural power dynamics.

© 2019, The Author(s). This paper concludes a special feature of Sustainability Science that explores a broad range of social value theoretical traditions, such as religious studies, social psychology, indigenous knowledge, economics, sociology, and philosophy. We introduce a novel transdisciplinary conceptual framework that revolves around concepts of 'lenses' and 'tensions' to help navigate value diversity. First, we consider the notion of lenses: perspectives on value and valuation along diverse dimensions that describe what values focus on, how their sociality is envisioned, and what epistemic and procedural assumptions are made. We characterise fourteen of such dimensions. This provides a foundation for exploration of seven areas of tension, between: (1) the values of individuals vs collectives; (2) values as discrete and held vs embedded and constructed; (3) value as static or changeable; (4) valuation as descriptive vs normative and transformative; (5) social vs relational values; (6) different rationalities and their relation to value integration; (7) degrees of acknowledgment of the role of power in navigating value conflicts. In doing so, we embrace the 'mess' of diversity, yet also provide a framework to organise this mess and support and encourage active transdisciplinary collaboration. We identify key research areas where such collaborations can be harnessed for sustainability transformation. Here it is crucial to understand how certain social value lenses are privileged over others and build capacity in decision-making for understanding and drawing on multiple value, epistemic and procedural lenses.