Hello 
and welcome to the NPTEL MOOC’s course on
development research methods.
This is lesson 3 of week 2.
In this lesson we will focus on the much talked
about issues of ethics in development studies
and development research.
Ethics is an important domain of concern when
we are following social subjects or when we
are following subjects for clinical trials
and so on.
However, the focus of today's lesson will
be on what are the different ethical issues
that we encounter when we are investigating
a social issue.
Now, anthropologists were one of the first
to raise concerns about ethics with regard
to their studies, and they were mostly concerned
about the ulterior motives for which applied
social sciences are undertaken.
The very famous anthropologist, Margaret Mead
is supposed to have said that if applied anthropology
is to become a profession like many other
professions then, instead of simply collecting
random activities, there is a need for professional
ethics, just as in the case of medical and
legal profession.
Now, among the social sciences, a statement
on ethics for the purposes of research was
first published by the Society for Applied
Anthropology in 1962.
And consequently, various other associations
pertaining to different disciplines of the
social sciences have also come up with similar
statements of ethics.
But strictly speaking, statements on ethics
were however, first formulated in medical
sciences.
It has proved difficult for the social sciences
to follow the ethical models of other disciplines.
For example, biomedical sciences, because
of significant differences in scope of work
and methodologies.
Now, the ethical codes of medicine and biomedicine
for example, must reflect controlled experiments
involving human beings, which is their primary
methodology.
A central principle in biomedical codes of
ethics is what is referred to as informed
consent.
And this is something which has been borrowed
by the social sciences from biomedical research.
Now, what is informed consent in the case
of biomedical research is that when subjects
should be aware of the fact and accept that
they are being studied or investigated, and
the potential subject must also understand
the intention of research and sign an informed
consent form, which incidentally must specify
that the subject also has the right to withdraw
from the investigation at any point of time,
if she so needs to.
However, if we have to stick on to these principles
of informed consent with regard to withdrawal
of the subject from the research investigation
process, then it is possible that it may lead
to a ban of covert research in social sciences
entirely and abolish a great deal of participant
observation research.
Now, both the medical sciences and social
sciences bear witness to numerous cases where
ethical codes of conduct have been violated.
For example, in the case of dumping of medicines
in the developing countries by the Western
countries, which have been banned in the Western
countries or trials of medicines undertaken
in the developing countries for the purpose
of family planning and so on.
And there are numerous such cases where there
have been violations of ethical codes of conduct.
However, if we have to look in terms of the
norms of ethical principles for social sciences,
the norms of ethical principles for social
sciences was first formulated in 1952, as
is shown on your slide, and are habitually
used as a reference point under the acronym
CUDOS, which is formed by putting together
the initial letters from the 4 norms that
constituted sociologist Robert Merton’s
‘original ethos of science’, they are
as follows.
The first one is Communalism alternatively
also referred to as communism in most literature,
which basically says that research results
are public property.
In other words, all scientists should have
equal access to scientific goods which is
intellectual property, and there should be
a sense of common ownership in order to promote
collective collaboration.
Secrecy is the opposite of this norm.
The second is Universalism, which basically
says that all scientists can contribute to
science regardless of race, nationality, culture
or gender.
The third is that of Disinterestedness, according
to which scientists are supposed to act for
the benefit of a common scientific enterprise
rather than for personal gain.
And Organized Skepticism, which means that
scientific claims must be exposed to critical
scrutiny before being accepted.
And in this context, it is also important
to mention that the professional associations
for different types of research, including
the Social Research Association, the Association
of Social Anthropologists of the Commonwealth,
the British Sociological Association, and
the British Psychological Association have
produced a variety of statements of ethical
practice, which govern their professions.
Now, with this background with regard to ethics,
let us see what we are going to cover in today's
lecture.
We will first look at the questions of ethics
in the process of research for development.
We will look at some of the codes of ethics
that are widely used in development research,
which is also applicable to the various other
social science disciplines.
There are certain responsibilities to the
respondents or the participants of research,
responsibilities towards colleagues as researchers
and the responsibilities to the society at
large or what is the wider accountability
mechanisms that exist.
This will be the content of our lesson today.
Let us have a look at how do we think through
ethical issues in design, data collection
and analysis.
Researchers such as Michael Quinn Patton have
come up with checklists as a starting point
in thinking through ethical issues and design
data collection and analysis.
Let us begin with explaining purpose.
Now, how will you explain the purpose of the
inquiry and methods to be used in ways that
are accurate and understandable?
What language will make sense to participants
in the study?
What details are critical to share and what
can be left out?
And what is the expected value of your work
to society and to the greater good?
These are certain questions that through which
you explain the purpose of research to the
participants as well as the society at large.
So, this is one of the checklists with regard
to the ethical issues in design, data collection
and analysis.
The second is that of promises and reciprocity.
Now in this we ask questions with regard to
what is in it for the interviewee, the respondent
or the participant or the subject who is the
subject matter of your inquiry?
What is in it for the interviewee?
Often when we go for survey research or field
work, we often get questions from the respondents
regarding ‘what do we get out of this research’.
And that is a primarily ethical question with
regard to what is to be told to the subject
with regard to the purpose and intent of the
research that we are carrying out.
And this is something that we will take up
in detail when we are looking at survey research
methods.
How to deal with the questions of the respondents
or the interviewees keeping in mind the ethical
question.
So, what is in it for the interviewee is why
should the interviewee participate in the
interview.
One should not make promises lightly such
as promising a copy of the audio tape or the
videotape that we record on the field.
And because if we cannot respect that commitment
of sharing our research findings with the
participants, it is best not to commit to
the participants regarding the sharing of
results.
But if we share, we must go back to the participants
and share the results with them.
And this is something action research formats
of doing research has been increasingly applying
to its research methodologies- going back
to the field and sharing the results of the
study with the participants, because that
is true collaboration and that enables the
participants to also bring about some kind
of a transformation within the locality that
the research is being done.
The third checklist is with regard to risk
assessment.
So, the questions that we ask here are- in
what ways if any, will conducting the interview
put people at risk?
Will there be psychological stress?
Will there be legal liabilities?
In evaluation studies will there be continued
program participation if certain things become
known?
For example, when we are doing an evaluation
study with regard to a certain government
program, let us say receiving of benefits
out of a social welfare program.
And suppose there is an inclusion error, meaning
that a beneficiary who should not be included
has been included in the program, then the
obvious next question by the respondent may
be that if I am reported as being a beneficiary,
although I should not have been a beneficiary,
will I receive the continuing benefits that
I am currently receiving?
So how do we deal with these kinds of questions
when we are doing research?
Will the interviewees face ostracism by peers,
program staff or others for talking?
Will there be political repercussions?
And how will you describe these potential
risks to the interviewees is how will you
handle them if they arise?
These are certain issues with regard to risk
assessment that must be kept in mind before
going to the field for carrying out development
research.
The fourth checklist is with regard to confidentiality
and this is an important one.
Now the questions that need to be asked here
is what are the reasonable promises of confidentiality
that can be fully honored?
Now, one must know here the difference between
confidentiality and anonymity, because confidentiality
means, you know, but you would not tell.
And this is something we usually carry out
in clinical trials when you are negotiating
consent with the patients or when you are
negotiating consent with participants of social
science research.
So, you know, but you would not tell.
Anonymity means you do not know.
So as in a survey, which is returned anonymously,
suppose when we are carrying out surveys,
through telephonic interviews or through emails,
often the responses which we receive as part
of a questionnaire that has been administered
are anonymously returned to us.
So, we do not know our participants, we are
only concerned about the sample responses
that we are getting from our respondents.
So, anonymity means you do not know as in
a survey returned anonymously.
So what thing can you not promise confidentiality
about that is also something which is very
important.
For example, there are illegal activities
or evidences of child abuse or neglect.
Will names locations and other details be
changed?
Or do participants have the options of being
identified?
Where will data be stored and how long will
data be maintained?
These are important issues with regard to
confidentiality.
Informed consent- what kind of informed consent,
if any, is necessary for mutual protection,
politically sensitive situations, example
party affiliation, private issues such as
income data, health data, family affairs,
tax avoidance, etc., they may require avoidance
of these issues in public.
Therefore, the researchers may consider a
public or a private place for interview and
a possible agreement with the respondent before
going ahead with the interviews.
Also, a possible agreement on the duration
of interview before going ahead with the interviews.
The next checklist is with regard to data
access and ownership.
So, the most obvious questions here are, who
will have access to the data, for what purposes,
who owns the data and this is particularly
important when we have video and audio recordings
of the participants from the field.
Who will benefit economically from published
data?
So, one needs to be very clear about this
in the contract of funding and clarify to
the respondents if we so wish.
So, who has the right of review before publication?
When we go out with the results for publications,
whether it is in peer reviewed journals, or
whether it is in the form of a government
report, or in the media, then who has the
right for review?
Do we take it back to the participants to
review the findings that we have as a part
of our study?
There is also interviewer need for debriefing.
So how are you and other interviewers likely
to be affected by conducting the interviews?
If interviews are conducted by an assistant
and not the researcher personally, then debriefing
by the assistant must be a routine for sharing
of data.
When we send out field assistants or research
assistants to the field while we are directing
the research questions or the project that
is being undertaken, then there is a routine
need for the assistant on the field to debrief
to the interviewer so that informed actions
can be taken if the need so arises.
There is also a need for a confidant and an
advisor who will be the researcher’s confidant
and counselor on matters of ethics during
the study.
And not all issues can be anticipated in advance.
One may think of some kind an agreement with
a confidant or a supervisor in advance.
There are issues with regard to data collection
boundaries, how hard will you push for data?
What lengths will you go to in trying to gain
access to data you want?
What would not you do?
And how hard will you push interviewees to
respond to questions about which they show
some discomfort?
And these are issues that we regularly face
when taking up studies with regard to the
sensitive issues.
For example, gender discrimination issues,
or even sensitive information with regard
to health information, sensitive information
with regard to HIV AIDS, with regard to child
abuse, and child neglect, sex trafficking
and so on.
There is also a clear distinction that needs
to be made between the ethical versus the
legal.
What ethical framework and philosophy informs
your work and ensures respect and sensitivity
for those you study beyond whatever may be
required by law.
So, what are the disciplinary or professional
code of ethical conduct that will guide you?
These are important things to keep in mind.
And to all of these points, we must also add
a checklist on permission to undertake research.
Often, the entrance to the field is as important
as the exit from the field.
And in most countries, there are regulations
for obtaining permission to conduct research.
And a breach of these has resulted in researchers
being expelled from the field and also from
the country and procedures differ from country
to country and over time, and sometimes it
may require many months to be able to get
the permission to conduct research.
So, these are a preliminary list of issues
that need to be kept in mind.
Guided by the questions that I have just discussed,
which will enable us to think through the
ethical issues in design, data collection
and analysis.
So, issues with regard to ethics must be kept
in mind not just during data collection, but
right from the beginning of research design
and designing of the study up till the end
of the analysis and dissemination of the results
of the study.
Now, let us look at some of the things that
needs to be kept in mind with regard to relations
with and responsibilities towards research
participants.
Often the close and lengthy association of
development researchers with people among
whom they carry out research entails personal
and moral relationships, trust and reciprocity
between the research and research participants.
It also entails a recognition of power differentials
between them, and such issues can be highlighted
under two heads.
One is ethics and methods, and second is ethical
issues and field studies.
Now let us have a look at some specific issues.
Let us look at protecting research participants
and honoring trust.
Development researchers should endeavor to
protect the physical, social and psychological
wellbeing of those whom they study and to
respect their rights, interest sensitivities
and privacy.
Most anthropologists, for example, would maintain
that their paramount obligation is to their
research participants, and that when there
is conflict, the interests and rights of those
studied should come first.
Under some research conditions, particularly
those involving contract research, it may
not be possible to fully guarantee research
participants’ interests.
In such cases, development researchers would
be well advised to consider in advance whether
they should pursue that particular piece of
research or not.
There are important things to keep in mind
when negotiating informed consent.
I began this lesson talking about informed
consent in cases of medical and biomedical
trials.
But the cases of informed, consent in the
field of social science research or development
research also needs to be constantly negotiated
and some of the important issues needs to
be kept in mind.
Now the principle of informed consent expresses
the belief in the need for truthful and respectful
exchanges between social researchers and the
people whom the study.
So negotiating consent entails communicating
information likely to be material to a person's
willingness to participate, such as the purpose
of the study, the anticipated consequences
of research, identity of funders and sponsors,
anticipated uses of data, possible benefits
and harm arising out of the study, degree
of anonymity and confidentiality which may
be afforded by informants and subjects.
Now, consent made after the research is completed
is not meaningful at all.
So because mostly, it will qualify as absence
of consent.
We cannot think of taking consent after the
research has been completed.
Further, the persons studied must have the
legal capacity to give consent, where subjects
are legally compelled, for example, by their
employer or government to participate in a
piece of research, consent cannot be said
to have been meaningfully given by the subjects.
So, the subjects need to voluntarily participate
in the research where questions are being
investigated with respect to their issues.
Now, consent in research is a process and
it is not a one-off event and may require
renegotiation over time.
When technical data gathering devices such
as audio visual recorders and photographic
records are being used, those studies should
be made aware of the capacities of such devices
and be free to reject their use.
So often, suppose we go for collection of
data with regard to certain HIV patients,
and we have audio-video recording of their
interviews, then the interviewees must be
made aware of their capacities of being able
to discard or the unusability of these devices
as well.
Also, when information is being collected
from proxies.
By proxies, we mean, when the respondent who
needs to be interviewed by the interviewer
is absent for some reason or the other, and
her space is filled by someone else who is
answering on behalf of the respondent who
should have been interviewed in the first
place.
So, when information is being collected from
proxies, we must take care not to infringe
on the private space of the original subject
or the relationship between subject and the
proxy.
And if there are indications that the person
concerned would object to certain information
being disclosed, such information should not
be sought by the proxy.
This usually happens when we are conducting
and there can be numerous examples of proxies
standing up for information to be provided
by the respondents.
Suppose we are going to the field to conduct
a research on migration issues and the concerned
respondent has migrated to some location for
conducting research work, then the proxy takes
the place of the migrant worker.
However, the interviewer might have questions
regard to incomes or assets of the respondent,
then in that case, it may not be possible
for the proxy to be able to answer these questions,
and the respondent himself or herself might
also request privacy with regard to giving
away of such confidential information to the
interviewer.
And therefore, this privacy should be maintained
by the interviewer.
Similarly the long period over which development
researchers make use of their data and the
possibility that unforeseen uses or theoretical
interests may arise in the future may need
to be conveyed to participants as should any
likelihood that the data may be shared in
some form or the other with other colleagues
or be made available to sponsors, funders
or other interested parties or deposited in
archives.
So therefore, that amount of ethical consideration
must enter into the collection of data, where
the data collected has been shared for future
use in the form of providing information to
other colleagues or to funders and interested
parties or deposited in archives.
Now, let us look at what are the rights to
confidentiality and anonymity.
Informants and other participants should have
the right to remain anonymous and to have
their rights to privacy and confidentiality
respected.
However, this can also pose problems for a
development researcher given the cultural
and legal variations between societies and
the various ways in which the real interest
of the researcher may not be realized due
to the invisibility of the participant over
time.
Often it is important that the participant
come out into the open and have a face to
face discussion with the interviewer so that
the significant amount of information and
crucial information can be recorded and brought
out into the public.
However, these anonymity issues can create
hurdles for the development researcher in
question.
However, care should be taken not to infringe
uninvited upon the private space, the private
space as locally defined or locally contextualized
by the subjects themselves.
As far as possible, researchers should anticipate
potential threats to confidentiality and anonymity,
and researchers should also strain to anticipate
problems likely to compromise anonymity, but
they may make clear to participants that it
may not be possible in field notes and other
records that are being maintained by the interviewers
to maintain this kind of secrecy or anonymity.
However, the point is that if guarantees of
privacy and confidentiality are made, they
must be honored, unless they clear and there
are overriding ethical reasons not to do so.
And similarly, development researchers may
respect the measures taken by other researchers
to maintain the anonymity of the research
field and participants.
The following slides give you an example of
consent and confidentiality
This example is taken from a case study which
studied the problems that girls face in Surkhet
in Nepal.
I will just read out the case to you to make
sense of what do we mean by consent, confidentiality,
and anonymity in case research.
So, a study of the difficulties girls face
in Ramghat and Ghusra villages of Surkhet
district Nepal produced a video documentary
of girls’ voices and a safe environment
for girls project in Ramghat.
Now the issue is how were ethical issues addressed.
First informed consent was obtained from village
development committees, school teachers and
NGOs before undertaking any field work.
Before starting the discussion with the various
groups, the objectives of the research were
outlined, the individual interviews with adolescent
girls were kept confidential and not disclosed
in their village.
So, look at the thing with ‘regarding to
informed consent was obtained from village
development committees.’
So basically, a consent from the functionaries
within the village was first taken school
teachers and NGOs.
Before starting the discussion with the various
groups, the objectives of the research were
outlined to these various groups, and the
individual interviews with adolescent girls
were kept confidential and not disclosed in
their village, which means the individual
interviews of these adolescent girls were
not disclosed to the village development committees,
and NGOs and other various groups that existed
within the village.
And the names of the informants were not given
in the report and pseudonyms were used.
So, these informants are basically the adolescent
girls.
The individual girls for case study were chosen
by the girls themselves.
So, the girls’ case studies were chosen
by the girls themselves, which means that
the girls had some agency 
with respect to choosing who becomes the informant.
And the reasons were explained in the group
before choosing the individual girls to reduce
the group's expectations.
To protect the girls, the draft video for
girls’ voices was shown to the children
whose ideas were documented in the filming.
So, this is where the research is taken back
to the respondents in the form of showing
the film, where research findings are discussed
with the respondents and once it was shown
to the children, they requested and were excited
to show the video to the parents too.
So, the children after ensuring that the video
documentation was up to the mark, they wanted
to take it back to their parents.
And the researchers again returned to the
village and filmed the parents talking about
the girls’ difficulties and then showed
them the film of girls’ voices.
So, in the video, lots of views were against
the parent’s behavior towards daughters,
and surprisingly, their brothers and parents
were convinced by the girls’ ideas and agreed
that what they said was happening in that
village, and then the parents agreed to the
video being shown to any audience.
So, this is a very clear example of informed
consent, confidentiality, anonymity and, therefore
smooth dissemination of findings.
This is how research findings when following
the rules of confidentiality and anonymity
can lead to better outcomes.
Now, there is also a responsibility of the
interviewer towards the research community
or the colleagues that the researchers are
dealing with themselves.
Now, development researchers derive their
status and privileges of access to research
participants not only by virtue of their personal
standing, but also by virtue of their professional
citizenship, and this is what we refer to
as research community.
Therefore, we owe obligations to the research
community who largely are our colleagues and
development researchers bear responsibility
to the good reputation of the discipline and
its practitioners.
So for example, if I am a development economist,
which I am, and I go to the field for carrying
out investigations with regard to a certain
problem, let us say women's incomes or household
incomes or out of pocket expenses on health,
and there is a certain discipline and respect
that my profession of being in development
economics carries.
And therefore, I carry the responsibility
of that on my shoulders when I am going to
the field.
And therefore, I must respect the ethics that
the profession of development economics carries,
and conduct my research in such a manner such
that I do not that violate the respect that
the profession carries itself.
So, in considering methods, procedures, content
and reporting of inquiries, behavior in the
field, and relations with research participants
and field assistants, when should try to ensure
that our activities does not jeopardize others’
future.
And this is an immense responsibility that
we carry when we go to the field.
And we are interviewing participants, there
is an immense responsibility on our shoulders
of not corrupting, our participants of research,
because that poses serious problems for future
researchers in the field and this is an important
area of concern, given the changing landscape
of research particularly in the field of development
practice and development economics, where
we often come across with examples where participants
are bribed to give responses to the questions,
or participants are promised various kinds
of benefits to be able to come and answer
the questions.
And these are concerns that really distort
the research landscape in these areas of social
science research.
And therefore, the responsibility that individual
researchers bear with regard to the research
community is huge.
Now, there may be conflicts of interest, which
is professional and political between research
colleagues, particularly in case of cross-national
research and this must be recognized.
In such cases the vulnerability of long-term
research projects to inclusion may be recognized.
Often when we are entering into cross-national
research or research across countries, wherein
we are collaborating with researchers from
different countries, there may arise situations
of conflict of interest.
However, these conflicts of interest may jeopardize
the research project that is being pursued.
And therefore, there is a need to tread with
caution when we are dealing with conflicts
of interest with regard to cross-national
research.
And development researchers should give consideration
to ways in which research data and findings
can be shared with colleagues and research
participants.
In some cases, for example, researchers will
need to collaborate with researchers in other
disciplines, as well as with researchers and
field assistants, clerical staff, students,
etc.
And in such cases, they should make clear
their own ethical and professional obligations,
and similarly take account of the ethical
principles of their collaborators.
Often when we employ research staff with respect
to field assistants and research assistants
on the field, the people who are primarily
involved in collection of the data and cleaning
of the data, we might want to collaborate
with the field assistants and research assistants
and the clerical staff who are involved in
the data cleaning processes for the final
publications of the research materials, and
there must be a proper agreement that the
researchers themselves need to carry out with
the support staff to be able to ensure that
the data is handled properly and scientifically.
Academic supervisors and project directors
should ensure that students and assistants
are aware of the ethical guidelines and should
discuss with them potential as well as actual
problems which may arise during the fieldwork
and writing up of the research.
And these are a few things that needs to be
kept in mind when we are talking about responsibilities
towards the larger research community, which
includes the whole set of co-researchers,
colleagues, students, research students, field
assistants, technical assistants, and so on.
Now, similarly, there are obligations to sponsors,
funders and employers on the one hand, and
relations with own and host governments on
the other.
Researchers should recognize their general
and specific obligations to sponsors, funders
and employers, whether these are contractually
defined or are only the subject of informal
and often unwritten agreements.
Researchers should particularly be honest
about their qualifications and expertise,
the limitations, advantages and disadvantages
of their methods and data, and they should
acknowledge the necessity for discretion with
confidential information provided by sponsors
and employers.
In negotiating research space, researchers
are entitled to expect respect for professional
expertise and integrity of data from a sponsor
or funder irrespective of whether or not these
obligations are incorporated in formal contracts.
Even when contractual obligations may necessitate
the guarding of privileged information, the
methods and procedures that have been utilized
to produce the published data should not be
kept confidential.
Now, often, where access to subjects is controlled
by national or local gatekeepers, so by gatekeepers
here we mean regulators who appear in various
contexts while we are doing research.
So researchers should not devolve their responsibilities
on to the gatekeeper.
While respecting great gatekeepers’ legitimate
interest, researchers should adhere to the
principle of obtaining informed consent directly
from the participants themselves.
So, for example, when a researcher is working
within an institutional setup, and there are
agents within the institutional setup who
act as gatekeepers for smoothening the research
activities for the researchers themselves,
it should not so be the case that the researchers
depend upon these regulators for taking consent
from the participants.
The responsibility of taking consent from
the participants for participating in research
primarily lies with the researchers themselves.
Similarly, relations with own and host governments
with respect to conditions of access, cross-national
research, and legal and administrative constraints
must also be born in mind.
Moving on, there are responsibilities, there
are larger responsibilities to the society
as well.
Development researchers and practitioners
depend upon the confidence of the public,
and they should in their work attempt to promote
and preserve such confidence.
Practitioners should use the possibilities
open to them to extend the scope of social
inquiry and communicate their findings for
benefit of the widest possible community.
So, suppose as practitioners of research we
are conducting a study on complimentary feeding
practices of children in the age group of
0 to 2 years in a certain community, let us
say the tea garden communities of Assam.
And we have some information with us with
regard to specific feeding practices that
go on to determine morbidity and mortality
conditions among children.
Then it is our ethical responsibility to ensure
that the information with regard to this feeding
practices are disseminated to the larger public
and it is made known to the government functionaries,
and to the bureaucratic apparatus at large
so that interventions can be made at the right
places to deal with these kinds of feeding
practices.
And this is what we mean by the responsibility
of the researcher.
The ethical issues of the researcher bearing
responsibilities to the larger society.
So, practitioners should use the possibilities
open to them to extend the scope of social
inquiry, and communicate their findings for
the benefit of the widest possible community.
And social inquiry is predicated on the belief
that greater access to well-founded information
will serve rather than threaten the interests
of society.
We can have many more examples with regard
to this, however, will come to the specifics
of examples when we take up the methods of
research in the subsequent weeks.
Now, there is also a wider accountability
of research.
When we are talking about responsibility,
with responsibility comes accountability.
So how accountable are the researchers themselves,
keeping the research landscape in mind?
Now, consider this, that if our aim is to
study powerful people, such as the CEOs of
multinational corporations or companies, then
we cannot not be accountable in a certain
way.
But we can be sure that we will be made accountable
in a certain way because when we are publishing
the results or findings with regard to powerful
people within companies, then there will be
direct questions with regard to hampering
of public image of the CEOs.
But the same does not happen when we are conducting
studies on vulnerable sections of the population
or poorer sections of the population who do
not have that agency of challenging the researchers
with regard to their research findings.
So, what do we do in such cases?
So therefore, researchers need to set up structures
to assist in making themselves accountable
for their actions.
An advisory group for research involving key
stakeholders can be a good start, where there
are constant checks and balances with regard
to what is being published, what is being
disseminated, and how aware are the respondents
or the participants themselves with regard
to the research that is being conducted.
We should also remember that in most cases,
social science research data are not privileged
under law.
And there may be legal implications for the
kind of study that we are undertaking.
Now because of the particular risks of medical
research, there is a well-developed approach
within healthcare to scrutinize research proposals
for ethical implications.
Even institutions have ethical committees,
that look after the proposals that are provided
to them as to whether this research should
be carried out on humans and animals and so
on.
In many countries, including India research
proposals in the health field usually need
to be submitted to a research ethics committee
for approval before health service staff will
be able to assist in contracting service users
or staff.
However, this does not seem to be in place
for social sciences researchers, or development
practitioners and development researchers.
Because we are also dealing with as development
practitioners and researchers, we are also
dealing with people's lives, when we are conducting
research on the field.
And it is important that such kinds of advisory
committees are in place to inform the researchers
regarding the legal, extra legal and ethical
complications of taking up questions for investigating
the subjects.
Now researchers’ relationship with the community
cannot be over emphasized.
Development work aims to empower communities
and research needs to work in the same direction.
If anyone is to learn from our work, it is
essential that findings and information about
methodology be published or otherwise made
available to others.
So therefore, the researchers bear a larger
responsibility to the community that we are
studying and primarily because we are dealing
with community at large, our unit of analysis
begin with the community moving on to the
households and families and so on.
Lastly, let us look at some ethical issues,
checklist in development research, which can
be a starting point for early researchers
in the field of development.
The questions that need to be kept in mind
are as follows.
Is the research necessary?
Is the research that we have embarked upon
necessary to be carried out?
Is the research well planned as a project
and integrated into a program of practical
work?
Have you considered the specific ethical issues
raised by the project and how to address them?
How well-informed consent be obtained from
the respondents?
Are you providing accessible information about
your project?
What levels of confidentiality and anonymity
can you offer to participants?
And how can they be effectively informed about
this?
Is there appropriate stakeholder participation
in the project?
Are you offering appropriate return for assistants?
So, assistants meaning the field assistants
and technical assistants.
Are respondents able to see your version of
the information they have given you?
As in are you sharing the research findings
with the respondents who have given the information
to you?
How will you ensure that the information is
appropriately fed back to those who are researched?
What systems are in place to ensure that you
learn from your experience?
How are respondents to be informed of or consulted
on the results of the research?
Now, this is an important question.
Often when the research project ends, and
most research projects are based upon of funding
or sponsorship.
And when the sponsorship or funding of the
project ends, it often becomes difficult to
go back to the field to share the results
with the respondents as that involves a cost
aspect as well.
Therefore, it is important that while designing
of the research, these aspects are kept in
mind.
Taking the results back to the respondents
should also be budgeted when the research
design is being carried out.
And lastly, assess any risks to field researchers
and work out ways to minimize them.
Let me end this lesson on ethics by saying
that in the final run, development researchers
need to be honest in their intent and accountable
in their actions.
Honesty in intent and accountability in actions
is very important with regard to the way the
research has been designed, data has been
collected, the analysis of the data and finally
communication of that research for not just
for research publications or to the funders,
but also getting the results back to the participants
who are the subjects of the study.
These are a list of references that I have
used for this lecture.
The first three references I have extensively
used for this lesson and it is advised that
those who are interested in looking up ethical
issues surrounding research, look up these
references in detail.
Thank you very much.
I will see you in the next class.
