Content area
Full Text
Abstract
Edge walkers are thought to be people who walk between worlds, building bridges between different worldviews. Applying this concept to ethics review, when one is both a researcher and committee member, edge work provides a window for sight and a bridge for crossing between the review committee and the academy, students and supervisors, as well as researchers and research participants. In this article I draw on examples from teaching, research and chairing an ethics committee to highlight some of the ways that I have personally had the opportunity to use my edge walking skills. I use examples to also show how the discipline I belong to Development Studies is in many ways an edge walking discipline. By demystifying various processes and engaging in knowledge exchange, stronger relationships between academics and ethics review are being built. This idea of ethics as means and end is being reinforced.
Edge walking ethics
There is a disconnect between university ethics review committees and certain parts of the academy (Edwards, Kirchin, & Huxtable, 2004; Eikeland, 2006; Fitzgerald, 2005; Haggerty, 2004; Tolich & Smith, 2015; Wall & Overton, 2006). Israel and Hay (2006) sum up the disconnect succinctly:
[s]ocial scientists are angry and frustrated. They believe their work is being constrained and distorted by regulators of ethical practice who do not necessarily understand social science research (p.1).
Part of this frustration stems from social science researchers experience with the minutiae of ethics review procedures, the tick box application forms and the ensuing questions it generates (Halse & Honey 2007; Hammersley 2006; Hoecht 2011; Israel & Hay 2006; Tinker & Coomber 2004). Collectively social scientists perceive there to be minimal risk of physical harm to their participants (van den Hoonaard 2001; see van den Hoonaard 2002; 2006) and they have issue with ethics review being underpinned by a bio-medical paradigm. Hence many social science researchers have to reconcile their understandings of planning and doing research which is ethical, with processes and principles which speak to bio- medical based ethics codes (Tolich & Smith, 2015). At times the review process does not fully capture the dynamic and complex nature of research with human beings (Kindon & Latham, 2002; Reid & Brief. 2009; Tauri, 2014). At other times the review system does...