Abstract
No research project involving fieldwork can proceed without the securing of approval from an ethics committee, or institutional review board—and rightly so. Obtaining ethical clearance can often be, however, a deeply frustrating experience. Review boards may have little experience of the realities of working in conflict-affected spaces or in authoritarian settings, and sometimes give the impression that their primary concern is not, in fact, research ethics but rather protecting the university from future lawsuits. This chapter reflects upon some of the key challenges posed to researchers in this regard, drawing on the author’s own experiences. It delineates a number of approaches to resolving complex “stand-offs” with review boards, based on real-world cases, and cautions patience, understanding and dialogue on all sides.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Similar content being viewed by others
Notes
- 1.
More often referred to as Institutional Review Boards (IRBs) in North America.
- 2.
- 3.
Much of the information on Uganda’s ethical clearance process provided here remains the case at the time of writing, though in recent years an additional layer of review has been incorporated into the process, undertaken by a nominated—and UNCST-approved—Ugandan research institution.
- 4.
More information on the Series can be found at https://www.birmingham.ac.uk/schools/government-society/departments/international-development/events/from-data-to-knowledge/index.aspx. Accessed 1 May 2018.
- 5.
Information correct as of May 2018, see https://www.gov.uk/foreign-travel-advice/somalia. Accessed 1 May 2018.
- 6.
A summary of the discussion can be found at https://www.birmingham.ac.uk/schools/government-society/departments/international-development/events/from-data-to-knowledge/2017-09-05-bunkers-bubbles.aspx. Accessed 1 May 2018.
References
Autesserre, Séverine. 2014. Peaceland: Conflict resolution and the everyday politics of international intervention. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Bosk, Charles, and Raymond De Vries. 2004. Bureaucracies of mass deception: Institutional Review Boards and the ethics of ethnographic research. The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science 595 (1) (September): 249–263.
Clark, Phil. 2013. Must academics researching authoritarian regimes self-censor? Times Higher Education, November 28.
Duffield, Mark. 2010. Risk management and the fortified aid compound: Everyday life in post-interventionary society. Journal of Intervention and Statebuilding 4 (4) (December): 453–474.
Duffield, Mark. 2014. From immersion to simulation: Remote methodologies and the decline of area studies. Review of African Political Economy 41 (S1) (December): S75–S94.
Fisher, Jonathan. 2011. International perceptions and African agency: Uganda and its donors, 1986–2010. Unpublished DPhil thesis, St. Antony’s College, University of Oxford.
Fisher, Jonathan. 2015. “Does it work?” Work for whom? Britain and political conditionality since the cold war. World Development 75 (November): 13–25.
Haggerty, Kevin. 2004. Ethics creep: Governing social science research in the name of ethics. Qualitative Sociology 27 (4) (December): 391–414.
Honey, Christine. 2007. Rethinking ethics review as institutional discourse. Qualitative Inquiry 13 (3) (April): 336–352.
Perera, Suda. 2016. Viewing the fourth world: Removed research and remote populations. Presentation at ESRC Seminar Series workshop on “Remote-Gathering and Local Needs” held at the University of Birmingham, UK, on 24 February 2016. Podcast of presentation available at https://www.birmingham.ac.uk/schools/government-society/departments/international-development/events/from-data-to-knowledge/2016-02-24-unpacking-digital-security-nexus.aspx. Accessed 1 May 2018.
Perera, Suda. 2017. To boldly know: Knowledge, peacekeeping and remote data gathering in conflict-affected states. Journal of Intervention and Statebuilding 24 (5) (October): 803–822.
Stark, Laura. 2012. Behind closed doors: IRBs and the making of ethical research. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
White, Ronald. 2007. Institutional Review Board mission Creep: The common rule, social science and the nanny state. The Independent Review 11 (4) (Spring): 547–564.
Acknowledgements
This chapter draws on discussions held between 2016 and 2018 across a range of events as part of an ESRC Seminar Series (“From data to knowledge: Understanding peace and conflict from afar”). The author is grateful to the ESRC for funding this programme (Grant number ES/N008367/1). Versions of this chapter were presented at a workshop on “Fieldwork in (Post-) Conflict Settings” held at Radboud University on 18 May 2017 and at a panel on “Regulating Data: The Background Institutions and Political Economy of the Data Revolution in Aid” held at the International Studies Association annual conference in San Francisco on 6 April 2018. The author is grateful to the organizers and participants in these two events for their valuable feedback and comments.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2021 The Author(s)
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Fisher, J. (2021). How I Dealt with My Ethics Committee, and Survived. In: Mac Ginty, R., Brett, R., Vogel, B. (eds) The Companion to Peace and Conflict Fieldwork. Palgrave Macmillan, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-46433-2_2
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-46433-2_2
Published:
Publisher Name: Palgrave Macmillan, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-030-46432-5
Online ISBN: 978-3-030-46433-2
eBook Packages: Political Science and International StudiesPolitical Science and International Studies (R0)