The Palgrave Handbook of Ethics in Critical Research Catriona Ida Macleod Full Chapter

The Palgrave Handbook of Ethics in
Critical Research Catriona Ida Macleod

Visit to download the full and correct content document:
https://ebookmass.com/product/the-palgrave-handbook-of-ethics-in-critical-research-c
atriona-ida-macleod/
THE PALGRAVE HANDBOOK OF
ETHICS IN CRITICAL RESEARCH
Edited by
Catriona Ida Macleod, Jacqueline Marx,
Phindezwa Mnyaka, Gareth J. Treharne
The Palgrave Handbook of Ethics in Critical
Research
Catriona Ida Macleod
Jacqueline Marx
Phindezwa Mnyaka
Gareth J. Treharne
Editors
The Palgrave
Handbook of Ethics in
Critical Research
Editors
Catriona Ida Macleod Jacqueline Marx
Critical Studies in Sexualities and Critical Studies in Sexualities and
Reproduction, Department of Psychology Reproduction, Department of Psychology
Rhodes University Rhodes University
Grahamstown, South Africa Grahamstown, South Africa
Phindezwa Mnyaka Gareth J. Treharne

Department of History Department of Psychology
University of the Western Cape University of Otago
Bellville, South Africa Dunedin, New Zealand
ISBN 978-3-319-74720-0 ISBN 978-3-319-74721-7 (eBook)

https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-74721-7
Library of Congress Control Number: 2018936138
© The Editor(s) (if applicable) and The Author(s) 2018

This work is subject to copyright. All rights are solely and exclusively licensed by the Publisher, whether the
whole or part of the material is concerned, specifically the rights of translation, reprinting, reuse of illustrations,
recitation, broadcasting, reproduction on microfilms or in any other physical way, and transmission or informa-
tion storage and retrieval, electronic adaptation, computer software, or by similar or dissimilar methodology
now known or hereafter developed.
The use of general descriptive names, registered names, trademarks, service marks, etc. in this publication does
not imply, even in the absence of a specific statement, that such names are exempt from the relevant protective
laws and regulations and therefore free for general use.
The publisher, the authors and the editors are safe to assume that the advice and information in this book are
believed to be true and accurate at the date of publication. Neither the publisher nor the authors or the editors
give a warranty, express or implied, with respect to the material contained herein or for any errors or omissions
that may have been made. The publisher remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps
and institutional affiliations.
Cover illustration: Manu Prats/gettyimages
Printed on acid-free paper
This Palgrave Macmillan imprint is published by the registered company Springer International Publishing AG
part of Springer Nature.
The registered company address is: Gewerbestrasse 11, 6330 Cham, Switzerland
Not My Science
Watch me as I decolonise
Undress
Seek redress
I am going to regress
Be irrational
Be subjective
Look at me
You will see
That I cannot be known
Through method
I am not based in evidence
I am not quantifiable
Theory does not drive me
I am not a man
I am dark
Not white
I will not be replicated.

You will not clone me.
I am not parsimonious
I am not generalisable therefore…
I am not valid
I am a foreigner in my own territory
v
vi
Yet, I have value,

My unique vantage point.
I will not let White, Male, Science
Cloud my lens
Block my view
So difficult to do
When most white men
Are taller than you
Thirusha Naidu
This poem was composed on 20 September 2017 at the First Pan African
Psychology Union Congress during a roundtable discussion on the Science of
Psychology in Africa and the Global South.
Acknowledgements
The idea for this handbook was born at the 9th Biennial International Society
of Critical Health Psychology Conference that was held in Grahamstown,
South Africa, in July 2015. As such, our first acknowledgement goes to the
International Society of Critical Health Psychology (ISCHP), especially
members of the Executive Committee and the Conference Organising
Committee, for creating the kind of space in which innovative and critical
debates and dialogues are fostered and in which like-minded people from
across the globe may collaborate.
We thank all the chapter authors, who were willing to engage with a project
that required a deep level of reflexivity in relation to the conduct of ethical
research. All authors engaged constructively with feedback from the peer
reviewers, thereby ensuring the depth and quality of their inputs.
We thank the peer reviewers, who engaged rigorously with the chapters,
providing constructive and insightful input: Anita Padmanabhanunni, Audrey
Graham, Brigit Mirfin-Veitch, Carla Rice, Clare Harvey, Clifford van
Ommen, Elizabeth Peel, Elizabeth Thornberry, Emmanuel Mayeza, Garth
Stevens, Hlonelwa Ngqangweni, Jacob Ashdown, Jacqueline Akhurst, Jean
Hay-Smith, Jessica Rucell, Judy McKenzie, Kevin Durrheim, Kimberly
Walters, Kopano Ratele, Leslie Swartz, Lindsay Kelland, Lynley Anderson,
Lisa Saville Young, Martin Tolich, Mary van der Riet, Merran Toerien,
Monique A. Guishard, Natalie Edelman, Nokuthula Shabalala, Nolwazi
Mkhwanazi, Patti Henderson, Penny Jaffray, Rachelle Chadwick, Robin
Palmer, Roxanne Mykitiuk, Sharli Paphitis, Sisa Ngabasa, Thirusha Naidu,
Tracey Feltham-King, Werner Böhmke, and Will C. van den Hoonaard.
Wendy Jacobson, Professor Emerita of Rhodes University, South Africa,
did a wonderful job of copy-editing and indexing the chapters. Thank you,
vii
viii Acknowledgements
Wendy, for your thoroughness and willingness to work with the impossible
deadlines we set for you.
Ulandi du Plessis, Elizabeth Chitiki, and Megan Reuvers provided admin-
istrative assistance to the editors. Thank you for taking on this task and for
your efficiency in following up on necessary administrative issues.
Joanna O’Neill from Palgrave Macmillan liaised with us throughout the
process. Thank you for your support and for your patience with our delays.
Akihiro Nakayama is responsible for the wonderful cover photograph. Thank
you for working with our ideas and producing such an eye-catching
photograph.
Administrative and copy-editing support was financed by Catriona
Macleod’s SARChI Chair in Critical Studies in Sexualities and Reproduction
(CSSR) at Rhodes University. The funding for this Chair comes from the
South African Department of Science and Technology and the National
Research Foundation. Thanks to the CSSR for this support.
Finally, each of the editors is supported by the wonderful family, partners,
and friends in our lives (John Reynolds, Liam Macleod Reynolds, Aidan
Macleod Reynolds, Renée Marx, Samuel Carrington, Jean Hay-Smith,
Mnyaka family). Thank you for listening to our ongoing discussion of the
finer points of ethics and critical research.
Contents
1 Ethics in Critical Research: Stories from the Field 1

Catriona Ida Macleod, Jacqueline Marx, Phindezwa Mnyaka, and
Gareth J. Treharne
Section 1 Encounters with Systems 15
2 Introduction: Encounters with Systems Within Which Critical

Research Is Conducted 17
Gareth J. Treharne and Jacqueline Marx
3 Ethics in Theory and Pseudo-Ethics in Practice 29

Pam Carter, Sarah Chew, and Elizabeth Sutton
4 Researching Sexual Healthcare for Women with Problematic

Drug Use: Returning to Ethical Principles in Study Processes 47
Natalie L. Edelman
5 Contesting the Nature of Young Pregnant and Mothering

Women: Critical Healthcare Nexus Research, Ethics
Committees, and Healthcare Institutions 63
Tracey Feltham-King, Yolisa Bomela, and Catriona Ida Macleod
ix
x Contents
6 Ethics in Transdisciplinary Research: Reflections

on the Implications of ‘Science with Society’ 81
Jessica Cockburn and Georgina Cundill
7 Non-human Animals as Research Participants: Ethical Practice

in Animal Assisted Interventions and Research in Aotearoa/
New Zealand 99
Catherine M. Smith, Emma Tumilty, Peter Walker, and Gareth J.
Treharne
8 Critical Enquiry in the Context of Research-Ethics Review

Guidelines: Some Unique and Subtle Challenges 117
Will C. van den Hoonaard
Section 2 Blurring Boundaries 131
9 Introduction: Blurring Boundaries 133

Phindezwa Mnyaka and Catriona Ida Macleod
10 Blurred Researcher–Participant Boundaries in Critical

Research: Do Non-clinicians and Clinicians Experience
Similar Dual-Role Tensions? 145
Jean Hay-Smith, Melanie Brown, Lynley Anderson, and Gareth J.
Treharne
11 Blurring Boundaries Between Researcher and Participant:

The Ethical Use of a Psychoanalytically Informed Research
Interview 163
Clare Harvey
12 Bearing Witness to ‘Irreparable Harm’: Incorporating

Affective Activity as Practice into Ethics 179
Kim Barker and Catriona Ida Macleod
Contents
xi
13 In the Red: Between Research, Activism, and Community

Development in a Menstruation Public Health Intervention 195
Sharli Anne Paphitis and Lindsay Kelland
14 Living in a Rural Community and Researching HIV

and AIDS: Positionality and Ethics 211
Jacqueline Akhurst, Mary van der Riet, and Dumisa Sofika
Section 3 The Politics of Voice, Anonymity, and Confidentiality 225
15 Introduction: The Politics of Anonymity and Confidentiality 227

Catriona Ida Macleod and Phindezwa Mnyaka
16 To Be or Not to Be…Revealing Questions of Anonymity

and Confidentiality 241
Thirusha Naidu
17 Cripping the Ethics of Disability Arts Research 257

Carla Rice, Andrea LaMarre, and Roxanne Mykitiuk
18 The Ethics of Allowing Participants to Be Named in Critical

Research with Indigenous Peoples in Colonised Settings:
Examples from Health Research with Māori 273
Jacob Ashdown, Paris Pidduck, Tia N. Neha, Elizabeth Schaughency,
Brian Dixon, Claire E. Aitken, and Gareth J. Treharne
19 Ethics Review and the Social Powerlessness of Data: Reflecting

on a Study of Violence in South Africa’s Health System 291
Jessica Rucell
20 Erasure: A Challenge to Feminist and Queer Research 307

Jacqueline Marx and Catriona Ida Macleod
xii Contents
Section 4 Researching ‘Down’, ‘Up’, and ‘Alongside’ 325
21 Introduction: Researching ‘Down’, ‘Up’, and ‘Alongside’ 327

Jacqueline Marx and Gareth J. Treharne
22 Ethical Research and the Policing of Masculinity: Experiences

of a Male Researcher Doing Ethnography with Young School
Children 339
Emmanuel Mayeza
23 Challenging Methodological and Ethical Conventions

to Facilitate Research That Is Responsive to People
with Learning Disabilities 355
Brigit Mirfin-Veitch, Jenny Conder, Gareth J. Treharne, Leigh Hale,
and Georgina Richardson
24 Whose PARty Was This? The Dilemmas of a Participatory

Action Research Process of Evaluating a Social Enterprise 371
Jacqueline Lovell and Jacqueline Akhurst
25 When Ethical Procedures Can’t Do the Job: Ethical Dilemmas

of Undertaking Critical Organisational Ethnographies
in Social and Health Research 385
Jason Bantjes and Leslie Swartz
26 The Ethics of Covert Ethnographic Research 399

Marco Marzano
27 Subjects and Objects: An Ethic of Representing the Other 415

Eric Stewart
28 Traversing Ethical Imperatives: Learning from Stories

from the Field 429
Gareth J. Treharne, Phindezwa Mnyaka, Jacqueline Marx, and
Catriona Ida Macleod
Index 455
Contributors
Claire Aitken is from Dunedin, New Zealand/Aotearoa. She is the Programme

Director of the Moana House therapeutic community and coordinator of the Te
Taketake diploma in applied addictions counselling. Claire is of Scottish, Irish, and
Spanish descent, and has been in the addictions field for many years; she is passionate
about working with individuals and their families. Claire completed her MHSc in
nursing at the University of Otago and has a research background in group work and
addictions.
Jacqueline Akhurst is a professor of Psychology at Rhodes University, South Africa.

As a counseling psychologist with a PhD in Psychotherapy, her research focuses on
community-based interventions, often utilising action research or activity theory. She
is registered with the Health Professions Council of South Africa (HPCSA) in both
Counselling and Educational Psychology and is also a chartered psychologist and an
associate fellow of the British Psychological Society (BPS) and a fellow of the UK
Higher Education Academy.
Lynley Anderson trained and practised as a Physiotherapist, moving into medical

ethics after completing a PhD in that field. Her PhD utilised a qualitative methodol-
ogy to examine in depth the ethical concerns of sports doctors working with elite
athletes and teams in Aotearoa/New Zealand. This work led to assisting clinical
groups develop ethical codes. Her research experiences have led to a strong interest in
the management of ethical challenges in research and to roles on research ethics com-
mittees. She also supervises postgraduate students, many of whom are clinicians car-
rying out research into an aspect of their clinical role.
Jacob Ashdown is a Māori mental health and addictions practitioner at the Moana
House therapeutic community in Dunedin New Zealand/Aotearoa. He is of Māori
descent and has affiliations to the tribes of Ngati Kahu, Te Aupouri, and Ngai Takoto.
xiii
xiv Contributors
He has a BA majoring in Māori studies and Psychology, and has an MSc in Psychology
from the University of Otago. He has interests in indigenous research, particularly in
the area of Māori offending.
Jason Bantjes is a Counselling Psychologist and Senior Lecturer in the Department

of Psychology at Stellenbosch University, South Africa. He holds a Master’s degree in
Counselling Psychology, a Master’s degree in Research Psychology, and a D Lit et Phil
in Psychology.
Kim Barker is a Pastoral Therapist and Teacher at the Diocesan School for Girls in
Grahamstown. She is a doctoral candidate in the Critical Studies in Sexualities and
Reproduction research programme, Rhodes University, South Africa. Her research
focuses on survivors’ responses to participation in the Silent Protest at Rhodes University.
Yolisa Bomela is a PhD candidate in Critical Studies in Sexualities and Reproduction

at Rhodes University, South Africa. Her research topic is the ‘Maternal Health Service
Nexus and Teenage Mothers: A Foucauldian Ethnographic Analysis’. This research
investigates the reproductive health service nexus surrounding teenaged mothers
accessing postnatal care, including the interface between these individuals and health
service providers. The study focuses on the formal and informal practices that cohere
around reproductive health provision, resistance to or compliance with injunctions
around reproductive health, and the discourses that underpin the notion of ‘teenage
motherhood’. Yolisa is a counselling psychologist registered with HPCSA.
Melanie Brown is a Research Fellow in the Department of Medicine, University of

Otago, Wellington. She holds a Master’s in Health Science (Rehabilitation). She is
experienced in qualitative and quantitative research, with a particular interest in qual-
itative exploration of illness beliefs and treatment-seeking behaviours in people with
musculoskeletal pain. She is also involved in research on undergraduate education
programmes for interdisciplinary approaches to health care. Melanie has a back-
ground in remedial massage therapy and health coaching. She mentors students with
non-mainstream health training, who are undertaking mainstream postgraduate
health research, some of whom appear to encounter dual-role experiences when
researching in their areas of clinical interest.
Pam Carter has research interests in health, well-being, and social justice that derive
from experience of working in disadvantaged areas for local government and the
National Health Service of the United Kingdom. Of particular interest to her is how
language as well as mundane and apparently benign practices are used to govern and
control. Pam has a PhD in Public Policy and Management from Keele University.
While working as a research fellow at Leicester University, Pam has pursued her inter-
ests in ethnography and has published on patient and public involvement in health,
Contributors
xv
policy implementation, project management, governance, and governmentality.

Pam’s first academic article won the 2012 Herbert Gottweis Prize.
Sarah Chew is interested in research methodology and ethics, health, and language.
Sarah ventured into academia as a ‘second career’ and, since receiving her PhD, has
worked as a researcher at the University of Leicester, United Kingdom. Sarah has
worked as an ethnographer on a broad range of projects designed to improve the
quality of health-care delivery and patient outcomes, and this has inspired her critical
perspective towards governance arrangements.
Jessica Cockburn is a PhD candidate in the Department of Environmental Science

at Rhodes University in South Africa. She graduated from Rhodes University with a
BSc (Hons) in Botany and Entomology. She completed her MSc research in an
applied agricultural research setting, where she worked on the implementation of
ecologically sustainable pest management in sugarcane. She has experience working
at the research–practice interface in sustainable agriculture and land-use planning,
and is particularly interested in the ethical challenges at this interface. In her PhD
research, she is taking a transdisciplinary approach to exploring collaboration and
environmental stewardship in agricultural landscapes.
Jenny Conder is a Senior Researcher with the Donald Beasley Institute and Senior
Lecturer with the Centre for Postgraduate Nursing Studies, University of Otago,
New Zealand/Aotearoa. She completed a Master’s degree in Bioethics and, for her
PhD, studied elements of women with learning disabilities’ identity. She has been
engaged in research with people with learning disabilities for over 15 years. Her
research has encompassed participatory and other qualitative methods that align with
her preference to enable research that gives voice to people who might otherwise not
be heard in social policy planning.
Georgina Cundill is a Senior Program Officer at the International Development

Research Centre in Canada, and a Research Associate at Rhodes University in South
Africa. She has 14 years of experience working with transdisciplinary research pro-
cesses in the context of environmental governance. She has worked in Chile, Peru,
and South Africa, and oversees large-scale transdisciplinary research networks work-
ing on climate change adaptation across the African continent and South-East Asia.
She has published more than 45 academic publications on related topics.
Brian Dixon works as an independent clinical psychology consultant in Dunedin,

New Zealand/Aotearoa, and as a professional practice fellow in the Department of
Psychology at the University of Otago. Brian is a fellow of the New Zealand
Psychological Society and a foreign affiliate of the American Psychological Association.
Brian’s interests include community-based interventions, and his consultancy work
in that area reflects a background in the development of community programmes in
xvi Contributors
the corrections setting. He has a strong interest in the contributions that psychology
can make in promoting social justice and fair service delivery.
Natalie Edelman is a Senior Research Fellow at the University of Brighton, United

Kingdom. Her work focuses on the use of epidemiological and qualitative methods
for health services research. She specialises particularly in community-based sexual
health interventions, psychosocial predictors of sexual health, critical epidemiology,
and patient and public involvement. She is an associate member of the South African
Sexual Health and HIV Programme and an affiliate of the Health Protection Research
Unit in Blood Borne and Sexually Transmitted Infections.
Tracey Feltham-King is a Senior Lecturer and research co-ordinator in the Psychology

Department of the University of Fort Hare in South Africa. She is a Research Associate
of the Critical Studies in Sexualities and Reproduction Unit at Rhodes University. Her
research focus examines the reproductive health nexus between antenatal health service
providers and pregnant teenagers. She was awarded the WMIER Doctoral Essay
Award by the Contemporary Ethnography across the Disciplines in November 2016.
Leigh Hale is the Dean of the School of Physiotherapy/Centre for Health, Activity,
and Rehabilitation Research at the University of Otago, New Zealand/Aotearoa.
Leigh graduated as a physiotherapist from the University of Cape Town (South
Africa), attaining her MSc (Neurorehabilitation) and PhD from the University of the
Witwatersrand. She worked as a clinical physiotherapist before pursuing an academic
career. Leigh researches community-based physiotherapeutic rehabilitation for people
living with disability and neurological conditions. She uses quantitative and qualita-
tive methodologies and focuses on how physiotherapists enable people to live healthy
and engaging lives, and physiotherapy interventions that are universally accessible.
Clare Harvey is a Clinical Psychologist, Lecturer, and Researcher in Psychology at

the University of the Witwatersrand, South Africa. Clare’s research interests are pri-
marily in disability studies and motherhood, and she is completing her PhD, entitled
Mothering a Child with a Physical Disability: A Psychoanalytic Exploration of
Maternal Subjectivity and Meaning Making. She is the recipient of the National
Research Foundation Thuthuka grant. Clare has published locally and internation-
ally, including in Disability & Society and the British Journal of Psychotherapy. Clare is
a regular reviewer of the African Journal of Disability.
Jean Hay-Smith trained and practised as a physiotherapist; she transitioned from

clinical practice to full-time academia after PhD completion. She uses systematic
review methods to summarise evidence and is interested in the applications and chal-
lenges of this methodology in quantitative and qualitative research synthesis. She also
undertakes qualitative research and supervises clinicians from a range of registered
health professions engaged in research with patient-participants. Jean is, at heart, a
Contributors
xvii
pragmatist, and the original typology development featured in her chapter was
undertaken to address a practical need—as a supervisor—to prepare and support
postgraduate clinician-researchers well.
Will C. van den Hoonaard is professor emeritus at the University of New Brunswick
(UNB), Canada. He is a longstanding field researcher whose current areas of teaching
and research cover qualitative and ethnographic research, research ethics, the Baha’i
community, and the world of mapmakers. He has served on the (Canadian)
Interagency Advisory Panel on Research Ethics, SSHRC Standard Grants Committees,
the Aid to Scholarly Publications Programme, and as Book-Review Editor of several
journals. Before coming to UNB, he represented an international NGO at the United
Nations in New York and conducted fieldwork in Iceland. His book The Seduction of
Ethics was listed by Hill Times as one of the top 100 Canadian non-fiction books of
2011. It also received ‘Honorable Mention’ by the Charles H. Cooley Award
Committee of the Society for the Study of Symbolic Interaction in 2012.
Lindsay Kelland is a feminist philosopher based in the Allan Gray Centre for
Leadership Ethics, Rhodes University (South Africa), where she works on the transfor-
mation of pedagogy within ethics, philosophy, and higher education. Her research also
covers gender, sexualities, and sexual violence. She has written numerous articles in
this area, culminating in a recent article in Hypatia entitled ‘A Call to Arms: The
Centrality of Feminist Consciousness-Raising Speak-Outs to the Recovery of Rape
Survivors’. In 2015, she was a joint recipient of the Vice Chancellor’s Distinguished
Community Engagement Award for her work in community-based action research
with the Siyahluma project.
Andrea LaMarre is a PhD candidate in the Department of Family Relations and

Applied Nutrition at the University of Guelph, Canada. Her research is focused on the
experiences of people in recovery from eating disorders and their supporters. She uses
qualitative and arts-based approaches to explore eating disorders and embodiment.
Jacqueline Lovell is a social activist and critical community psychologist living and
working in the north east of England. Lovell has recently completed her PhD using
creative arts-based participatory approaches to evaluation within a community organ-
isation that was led and run by people (like herself ), with lived experience of mental
distress. She is attempting to understand more about ethics as a continual and never-
ending process in order to inform her work with diverse people, using ‘bottom-up’
approaches to social change.
Catriona Ida Macleod is Distinguished Professor of Psychology and SARChI Chair

of Critical Studies in Sexualities and Reproduction at Rhodes University, South
Africa. She has written extensively in national and international journals in relation to
teenage pregnancy, abortion, sex education, feminist psychology, and postcolonial-
xviii Contributors
ism. She is author of the multi-award winning book ‘Adolescence’, Pregnancy and
Abortion: Constructing a Threat of Degeneration (Routledge, 2011) and co-author
(with Tracy Morison) of the book Men’s Pathways to Parenthood: Silence and Heterosexual
Gendered Norms (HSRC Press, 2015). She is editor-in-chief of the journal Feminism
& Psychology and co-founder of the Sexual and Reproductive Justice Coalition.
Jacqueline Marx is a Research Psychologist and Senior Lecturer at Rhodes University,

and collaborator in the SARChI Critical Studies in Sexualities and Reproduction
research programme. Jacqueline is interested in how dimensions of social difference
shape sexual subjectivities. Jacqueline is chair of the Research Projects and Ethics Review
Committee of the Psychology Department and co-chair of the Rhodes University
Ethics Committee. She has extensive experience in reviewing ethics protocols and in
providing mentorship to colleagues and students in ethical conduct of research.
Marco Marzano is Professor of Sociology at the University of Bergamo, Italy. His

research focuses on religion, Catholicism, cancer, illness narratives, and organisation
theory. In terms of methodological approaches, he is interested in investigative meth-
ods and covert research.
Emmanuel Mayeza is a Senior Lecturer in the Sociology Department, University of

the Free State, South Africa. Previously he was employed as a postdoctoral research
fellow in the School of Education, University of KwaZulu-Natal, South Africa. His
research interests include childhood and youth cultures and social identities, qualita-
tive methods, education, gender violence in and around schools, inequalities, mascu-
linities, sexualities, and issues of gender and identity.
Brigit Mirfin-Veitch is the Director of the Donald Beasley Institute, an indepen-

dent charitable trust that conducts research and education in the field of learning
disability. She is also a Senior Research Fellow with the Centre for Post Graduate
Nursing Studies, University of Otago, New Zealand/Aotearoa. Brigit has a strong
interest in understanding the social lives of people with learning disability and is
committed to achieving social change through research. She has been involved in
research on a range of topics, including de-institutionalisation, health and well-being,
parenting, and the legal system. Brigit is particularly experienced in qualitative and
inclusive research methodologies.
Pindezwa Elizabeth Mnyaka is a Senior Lecturer in the History Department at the

University of the Western Cape, South Africa. She completed her doctorate in
History at University of Fort Hare. She has taught Art History at Rhodes University.
She has also held the Dulcie September Post-Doctoral Research Fellowship at the
University of the Western Cape. She teaches courses on colonial African history, gen-
der, and slavery. Her research has focused on visuality in Africa. She is also interested
in experimental forms of academic writing.
Contributors
xix
Roxanne Mykitiuk is a Professor and Director of the Disability Law Intensive clini-
cal programme at Osgoode Hall Law School, York University, Canada. An active,
engaged, and collaborative researcher, Roxanne is the author/co-author of numerous
articles, book chapters, and books investigating the legal, ethical, and social implica-
tions of reproductive and genetic technologies and the legal construction and regula-
tion of embodiment and disability. More recently, her research has begun to create
and investigate arts-based methods—digital stories and drama-based narratives—as a
means of challenging and re-representing experiences, images, and conceptions of
disability and normalcy.
Thirusha Naidu is a Clinical Psychologist at King Dinuzulu Hospital Complex and

a Lecturer in the Department of Behavioural Medicine at University of KwaZulu-
Natal, South Africa. She is interested in the training and practice of psychotherapy
and counselling in low- and middle-income countries and the Global South. She is
conducting research in creative expression in research practice, health humanities and
communication in health-care practice. Some of her work has been published in local
and international journals. She has co-edited a recent book titled Talk Therapy Toolkit:
Theory and Practice of Counselling and Psychotherapy.
Tia Neha is a Māori and Indigenous Lecturer in the School of Psychology at Victoria
University of Wellington, Aotearoa/New Zealand. Tia comes from four tribes in the
North Island of New Zealand. Tia has a BSc, a BA (Hons), and an MA, and obtained
a PhD in Psychology at the University of Otago. She is a member of Ngā Pae o te
Māramatanga, the New Zealand Psychological Society, the International Association
of Cross-Cultural Psychology, and the North American Society of Research in Child
Development. She has a wide array of interests in Māori and Indigenous and devel-
opmental psychology.
Sharli Anne Paphitis is Senior Lecturer in Community Engagement at Rhodes

University, South Africa. She completed her doctorate in Philosophy and has lectured
in applied ethics, law, philosophy, and community engagement at Rhodes University
and the University of Fort Hare. She leads an National Research Foundation (NRF)–
funded project on ‘Epistemic Justice in Community-Based Participatory Research’ as
well as the ‘Community-Based Digital Story Telling’ work package on an Erasmus+
project. She was jointly awarded the Rhodes University Vice Chancellor’s
Distinguished Medal for Community Engagement in 2015 for her work in a critical
health community-based participatory research (CBPR) project, Siyahluma. Her
research focuses on identity, human agency, gender, epistemic justice, engaged learn-
ing, service-learning, and CBPR methods.
Paris Pidduck is from Te Atiawa ki Whakarongotai. She has an MSc in Psychology

and a postgraduate diploma in Clinical Psychology from the University of Otago in
xx Contributors
Aotearoa/New Zealand. Paris is working as Kaiāwhina at Victoria University,

Wellington, where she supports Māori and Pasifika students studying psychology. She
is also working as a Clinical Psychologist at a Health and Oncology Service. Paris is
passionate about Hauora (well-being) and is working with Māori to achieve their goals.
Carla Rice is a Professor and Canada Research Chair at the University of Guelph in
Ontario, Canada, specialising in body image/embodiment and subjectivity studies and
in arts-based and research creation methodologies. She recently founded Re•Vision:
The Centre for Art and Social Justice as a leading-edge social science centre with a
mandate to use arts-informed and community-engaged research methods to foster
inclusive communities, well-being, equity, and justice within Canada and beyond. She
has published widely and received awards for advocacy, research, and mentorship.
Georgina Richardson is an Assistant Research Fellow in the Department of General

Practice and Rural Health, University of Otago, New Zealand/Aotearoa. Georgina
explores counter-hegemonic qualitative research and meaningful participation of public
and minority voices in academia and organisations. She has special interests in applied
moral philosophy, medical ethics, human rights and justice, and the maintenance of
social categories and hierarchies through inter-group relations and societal structures.
Georgina completed a BA in Philosophy and English before completing a graduate
diploma in Bioethics and Health Law and a Master’s in Peace and Conflict Studies.
Jessica Rucell is a Research Fellow in Sociology, University of Cape Town, South

Africa. She is also a PhD candidate in Politics and International Development,
University of Leeds, United Kingdom. Her research focuses on the relationship
between current violence and the social and political conditions of colonial and neoco-
lonial periods. Empirically, it engages with forms and expressions of violence in repro-
ductive health in South Africa. This research is supported by the European Commission
and the Economic Social Science Research Council, United Kingdom. Prior to her
postgraduate research, Jessica spent ten years in international advocacy with non-gov-
ernmental and civil society–led organisations in the United States and Asia.
Elizabeth Schaughency is a Senior Lecturer in the Department of Psychology at the

University of Otago in Aotearoa/New Zealand. Elizabeth has a BS from the University
of Pittsburgh and an MS and a PhD from the University of Georgia, United States,
where she completed specialised training in Clinical Child Psychology. She has inter-
ests in understanding children’s development, social and health factors related to
development, and facilitating partnerships to enhance resilience and reduce barriers
to positive developmental outcomes for children.
Catherine Smith is a Lecturer and Chair of the Departmental Ethics Committee at

the School of Physiotherapy at Otago University, New Zealand/Aotearoa. She teaches
neurorehabilitation to undergraduate students. In 2010, she completed her PhD,
Contributors
xxi
entitled How Does Exercise Influence Fatigue in People with Multiple Sclerosis? She
noticed how often dogs just kept ‘cropping up’ in her ongoing research into physical
activity programmes for people with long-term health conditions. She continues to
develop a dog-walking research programme using innovative methods to capture
data. She would ultimately like to see more recognition and endorsement of the
health-promoting role that dogs play in the lives of those living with illness.
Dumisa Sofika is a researcher in the Critical Studies in Sexualities and Reproduction

research unit of Rhodes University. He is completing his PhD in Research
Psychology at the University of KwaZulu-Natal. His research interests focus on self-
management strategies, with a special interest in youth self-management practices
around sex and sexual relationships.
Eric Stewart is an associate professor of Psychology and Cultural Studies in the

School of Interdisciplinary Arts & Sciences at the University of Washington Bothell,
United States. He has written articles on community-based HIV/AIDS interven-
tions, self-help and mutual support, and qualitative methodology, and the book
Living with Brain Injury: Narrative, Community & Women’s Renegotiation of Identity
(2014).
Elizabeth Sutton has been a qualitative researcher for over 16 years, first in social
policy and disadvantage, and then in health research. She has interests in inequality,
health and participation, and patient involvement in patient safety. During her time
at the University of Leicester, United Kingdom, Liz has been extensively involved in
conducting and analysing a number of ethnographic evaluations. Her research is
exploring the ‘weekend effect’ in 20 hospitals in England. Liz is also a part-time PhD
student and is exploring the ways that clinicians and patients perceive safety. Liz has
published in the BMJ Open and Public Management Review.
Leslie Swartz is a Clinical Psychologist and Distinguished Professor of Psychology

at Stellenbosch University, South Africa. His work is in the area of mental health and
disability studies. He publishes widely in these fields and has an interest in the devel-
opment of research and writing skills in sub-Saharan Africa.
Gareth J. Treharne is a Senior Lecturer in the Department of Psychology at the

University of Otago in Aotearoa/New Zealand. Gareth has a BSc (Hons) and a PhD
in Psychology from the University of Birmingham, United Kingdom. He is an associ-
ate fellow of the BPS and Chair of the International Society of Critical Health
Psychology. Gareth is of Welsh ancestry and is now a dual citizen of the United
Kingdom and Aotearoa/New Zealand. He has diverse interests in critical research
centred on the application of qualitative methods to issues of social justice in relation
to health, ethnicity, gender, and sexuality.
xxii Contributors
Emma Tumilty is a Postdoctoral Fellow at the Institute for Translational Sciences in

Research Ethics at the University of Texas Medical Branch and adjunct research fel-
low in the Department of General Practice and Rural Health at the University of
Otago, New Zealand/Aotearoa. She has a PhD in Bioethics and has experience as a
member and vice-chair of research ethics committees/institutional review boards.
Her interests include health and social justice in the research and health-care setting,
research ethics review, public/community engagement, and animal ethics.
Mary Van der Riet is a Researcher and Senior Lecturer in Psychology in the School
of Applied Human Sciences at the University of KwaZulu-Natal, South Africa. Her
research interests include vulnerabilities related to HIV and AIDS, young people’s
management of sexual and reproductive health, and participatory research approaches.
Peter Walker is a Senior Lecturer in the Department of Sociology, Gender and

Social Work at the University of Otago in Aotearoa/New Zealand. Peter has a PhD,
an MCApSc, and a graduate diploma from the University of Otago. His research
interests include animals within social work, ethics, and the use of assistance and
therapeutic animals, community development, and organisational understanding of
social work delivery.
List of Figures
Fig. 6.1 Conceptual model of a TDR process which bridges the gap
between societal and academic domains and seeks to co-generate
socially relevant, solution-oriented knowledge (modified from
Lang et al. 2012; Jahn et al., 2012) 83
Fig. 24.1 Body mapping evaluation tool (Bm-ET) 376
xxiii
List of Tables
Table 7.1 Application of ethical principle to human and non-human

animals111
Table 10.1 Summary of the typology of clinician-researcher dual-role
tension147
xxv
1
Ethics in Critical Research: Stories
from the Field
Catriona Ida Macleod, Jacqueline Marx,
Phindezwa Mnyaka, and Gareth J. Treharne
This handbook is about researchers’ encounters with ethical dilemmas in the

conduct of social and health research in which a critical approach is being
applied. Each chapter in the handbook is a story from the field in which
authors, writing from different countries, in a range of disciplines, and using
varying methodologies, narrate the ethical dilemmas that confronted them as
well as the ways in which they navigated these dilemmas. Authors highlight a
range of issues, including: struggles that require critical researchers, at times,
to traverse traditional ethical imperatives; ethics conventions that unravel in
the face of power relations encountered in the field; the blurring of boundaries
between researchers and participants, and between the different roles research-
ers inhabit; how critical research that is declared ethical on paper can be judged
by standards of social justice as unethical; how cross-national standards of
research ethics may fall apart in local interpretations and adaptations; and the
ways in which institutional power relations can hinder ethical practice.
C. I. Macleod (*) • J. Marx

Critical Studies in Sexualities and Reproduction, Department of Psychology,
Rhodes University, Grahamstown, South Africa
e-mail: [email protected]; [email protected]
P. Mnyaka
Department of History, University of the Western Cape, Bellville, South Africa
e-mail: [email protected]
G. J. Treharne
University of Otago, Dunedin, New Zealand
© The Author(s) 2018 1

C. I. Macleod et al. (eds.), The Palgrave Handbook of Ethics in Critical Research,
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-74721-7_1
2 C. I. Macleod et al.
There are four sections to the handbook, each focussing on particular ethi-
cal quandaries encountered by critical researchers. In the first section, entitled
Encountering Systems, chapter authors explore the challenges posed by the sys-
tems with which social and health researchers engage during the course of
conducting research. The ethics committees1 set up to preview ethics proto-
cols have become one of the most foundational systems that critical research-
ers have to navigate. Given the biomedical history of ethics review processes,
critical researchers may face many challenges in seeking approval from ethics
committees. In addition, authors in this section reflect on the institutions and
wider social systems within which social and health research is often con-
ducted, and which regulate and shape what is possible in critical research. The
second section of the handbook is entitled Blurring Boundaries. Authors of
chapters in this section tackle the question of when and how it becomes ethi-
cal to blur the boundaries imposed by conventional models of ethical research,
in particular the relationships between researchers and participants. Some
critical methodologies encourage this blurring, and this can result in chal-
lenges for the researcher while carrying out research and when ‘exiting’ the
field. Chapters in the third section, The Politics of Voice, Anonymity and
Confidentiality, speak to situations in which the requirements of anonymity
and confidentiality may not be appropriate ethically or possible for individual
participants or institutions, especially when participants want to be recog-
nised for their contribution to the research. Authors outline a range of cir-
cumstances and considerations demonstrating how different responses are
needed in order to work through alternatives to anonymity and confidential-
ity. The final section is entitled Researching ‘Down’, ‘Up’, and ‘Alongside’ to
capture the various structural positions participants can have in relation to the
researcher(s). The authors address ethical complexities when conducting criti-
cal research that questions the framing of participants as being subject to
research. Critical research continues to develop ethical ways of researching
with the marginalised or with the elite, and deeply engaging with co-
researchers who can research alongside academics.
The dilemmas raised in each section of the handbook are summarised in
the introductory chapters to the section. In the rest of this overarching intro-
ductory chapter we outline what we mean by critical research and why the
consideration of ethics in conducting critical research needs to be nuanced
and complex. We discuss the potential of speaking simultaneously to
overarching ethics principles whilst grounding ethics in local realities. Finally,
we highlight why drawing on stories from the field in a range of geographical,
social, and discursive spaces is useful in bringing key ethical issues to the sur-
face. We argue that the challenges posed by authors featured in this handbook
Ethics in Critical Research: Stories from the Field 3
provide fertile ground for thinking through cross-national ethics principles in

critical research, including the need for relational and situated ethics
approaches.
Critical Approaches to Research

What it means to be a ‘critical’ researcher continues to be debated. Don Foster
(2008), a South African psychologist, characterised critical psychology as ‘a
rather loose, undisciplined and rag-tag headboard for quite a number of
diverse streams of theorising and practices’ (p. 92), and the same may be said
about ‘critical’ research in the range of disciplines, departments, and other
categorisations of fields of research evident in this handbook. While a research-
er’s field (anthropology, psychology, sociology, etc.), career position in the
hierarchies of academia, and subject positioning within ‘real-world’ systems
may play a role in taking up critical research, the researcher’s epistemological
and methodological positions are key. Indeed, critical researchers from very
different fields may have more in common with each other intellectually than
with their respective colleagues in the same field. This is because a number of
theories that enable critical research (e.g., Marxism, feminism, postcolonial-
ism, poststructuralism, critical realism) have been taken up in a range of
disciplines.
But what exactly are we talking about when we say ‘critical research’?
Perhaps the first clue is that critical researchers are rehearsed in defending
their knowledge claims against ‘mainstream’ hegemony, which is often cast in
the shadow of biomedical and/or positivist research, as indicated throughout
the stories in this handbook. As argued by Painter, Kiguwa, and Böhmke
(2013), however, creating neat categories of ‘critical’ or ‘mainstream’ research
along the lines of ‘us’ and ‘them’ may be neither possible nor useful. That said,
one of the hallmarks of critical research is to be critical of the mainstream and
to find better ways of doing ethical, meaningful research which contributes to
social justice. In this handbook we address the long-standing marginalisation
of critical research in many fields by giving prominence to rich examples of a
diversity of critical approaches and their relation to research ethics.
Critical research also draws attention to mainstream assumptions about
specific fields that become naturalised and shored up as the default. For
example, in relation to health psychology, Murray (2014) noted that ‘there is
a tendency to ignore the very historicity of the field’ (p. 7), which has been
grounded in natural science and biomedicine. If mainstream approaches to
particular fields are founded on taken-for-granted epistemologies, then how
do these foundations shape what is considered ethical in research? And how

does critical research develop a critical awareness of research methods with
origins in fields antithetical to the critical endeavour? The central way in
which this handbook addresses the latter question is through stories from the
numerous fields of critical research.
Critical approaches to research are also characterised by reflexivity and self-
criticality in relation to the purpose, methods, and ethics of the research.
Reflexivity has been conceptualised as the ongoing application of critical
reflection in research praxis (Finlay, 2002). It ‘involves taking an explicit look
at the broader consequences of practices within a discipline’ (Lyons &
Chamberlain, 2006, p. 26). More precisely, the consequences and enmesh-
ment of power relations between researchers and participants, researchers, and
ethics committees, as well as the range of social and historical systems, are
acknowledged and unpacked.
This kind of deep reflexivity is neatly demonstrated in the poem featured at
the beginning of this handbook by Thirusha Naidu, also the author of one of
our chapters. These verses were penned during a round-table discussion on
the Science of Psychology in Africa and the global South hosted at the first
Pan-African Psychology Union congress that took place in Durban, South
Africa, in September 2017. In the poem, Naidu voices her frustration with
assumptions about what counts as science; how research inscriptions capture,
define, and reduce the ‘other’; and the blindness of certain methodologies,
based in White masculinist science, to particular experiences and ways of
being. Using metaphors of irrationality, foreignness, regression, the subjec-
tive, and undress, she highlights the colonialist, raced, and gendered nature of
much research. She demands a space to do research differently, refusing to let
particular understandings of research ‘cloud my lens’. Simultaneously, she
demands that researchers see her, as a potential research participant, on her
own terms. Poignantly, she concludes that neither of these is easy: ‘When
most White men Are taller than you’.
The signifier ‘critical’, demonstrated so clearly in this poem, contains the
exact processes that underpin the approach that we take in this handbook,
namely that what appears most obvious should and can be questioned; debates
and contestations of issues are important; and difficult questions should be
asked and thought about deeply. Murray (2014) argued that ‘[t]here are dif-
ferent meanings of the term critical. One the one hand, critical is the concern
with meanings; while on the other, it is the concern with issues of power and
exploitation’ (p. 9). Broadly speaking, we view ‘critical’ research as seeking to
unpack power relations, promote social justice, and highlight inequities.
Although ‘critical’ research is often associated with qualitative methods,

this is not necessarily the case. Indeed, some of the studies featured in this
handbook used both quantitative and qualitative methods (e.g., Edelman,
Section 1; Paphitis & Kelland, Section 2; Mirfin-Veitch, Conder, Treharne,
Hale, & Richardson, Section 4). A number of studies featured in this hand-
book commit to criticality by using methodologies that are designed to pro-
mote social justice and healing, including participatory methods that imply
patient and public involvement (Edelman, Section 1; Paphitis & Kelland,
Section 2; Lovell & Akhurst, Section 4), transdisciplinary research (Cockburn
& Georgina Cundill, Section 1), and arts-based methods such as poetry, sto-
rytelling, and theatre (Naidu, Section 3; Paphitis & Kelland, Section 2; Rice,
LaMarre & Mykitiuk, Section 3). In others, interventions are combined with
research, such as critical health interventions (Akhurst, van der Riet, & Sofika,
Section 2; Paphitis & Kelland, Section 2), poetry therapy (Naidu, Section 3),
and home-based care (Naidu, Section 3).
Critical Approaches to Ethics

The literature on ethics in the context of research is extensive. It reveals a wide
variety of approaches informed by different epistemological traditions and
political commitments. Despite this pluralism, most formal processes of eth-
ics review are dominated by a principlist approach to research ethics, based on
the principles of respect for autonomy, beneficence, non-maleficence, and jus-
tice (see Beauchamp & Childress, 2009). The dominance of a principlist
approach to research ethics has been linked to the involvement of the state in
the development of ethics governance (Evans, 2000). In the past two decades,
an increasing number of countries around the world have developed national
policies governing the ethical conduct of academic research. This has been
done in an attempt to establish similar ethical standards for research con-
ducted both in and between countries. In the context of the development of
ethics governance, the presumed ‘calculability and simplicity in ethical
decision-making’ (Israel & Hay, 2006, p. 18) that a principlist approach sug-
gests has an obvious appeal to those tasked with drafting national guidelines
(Evans, 2000). The mandate of ethics committee members is, after all, to
provide guidance that can ‘be understood with relative ease by members of
various disciplines’ (Beauchamp, 2010, p. 36).
There is, however, considerable criticism of principlism, partly as a result of
the prominence of this approach in the regulatory ethics context. It is argued,
for example, that the assumed universality of the principles has imperialist
undertones (Dawson & Garrard, 2006) and limited applicability, particularly

when individuals are not autonomous (Baines, 2008). Competing ethical
imperatives can sometimes occasion deadlock in ethical decision-making
(Baum, 1994), and critics argue that if principlism cannot provide sufficient
guidance in the moments in which it is most needed, then it is inadequate to
the task (Clouser & Gert, 1990). Although far from settled, one outcome of
these sorts of debates is that few still view principlism as a ‘straightforward
framework for problem solving’ (Israel & Hay, 2006, p. 19). It is now gener-
ally agreed that ethics principles provide guidelines for ethical decision-
making that have to be ‘interpreted and made specific’ (Beauchamp, 1995,
p. 184, italics in the original).
The chapters making up this handbook are a response to this challenge. In
fact, the idea for the book came to us at the 2015 International Society of
Critical Health Psychology conference, where a significant number of pre-
senters spoke about their experiences of the limitations of principlism for
guiding ethical conduct in research. They spoke about how critical researchers
are compelled to engage with principlism because it dominates the ethics gov-
ernance assemblage in international conventions, national guidelines, profes-
sional codes of conduct, institutional policies, funding eligibility, gatekeeping,
and so on; it is now almost impossible to proceed with the conduct of research
without first successfully navigating ‘procedural’ ethics that arise from princi-
plism. Speakers at the conference, many of whom feature in this handbook,
also highlighted the contextual challenges of conducting ethical research,
challenges that are not always foreseen or accommodated in bureaucratic eth-
ics assemblages.
So, grounded in stories from the field, in different geographic locations, in
different social and political contexts, and in the complexities of real-world
research informed by different disciplinary and epistemological approaches,
the chapters in this book offer critical engagement with the establishment of
certain conventions in the interpretation of ethics principles. For example,
authors interrogate common assumptions about what constitutes ‘vulnerabil-
ity’ (Feltham-King, Bomela & Macleod, Section 1), ‘risk’ and ‘harm’
(Edelman, Section 1), and the way in which these are deployed by powerful
stakeholders (Marzano, Section 4). Mindful of histories of colonialism, apart-
heid, and other systems of oppression, authors highlight the significance of
the imperative for democratic ‘collaboration’ (Lovell & Akhurst, Section 4;
Paphitis & Kelland, Section 2) and the rights of participants to claims of
‘ownership’ of data (Mayeza, Section 4). Others trouble some of the assump-
tions underpinning the requirement to obtain ‘informed consent’ (van den
Hoonaard, Section 1; Cockburn & Cundill, Section 1; Rice et al., Section 3;
Mirfin-Veith et al., Section 4), and demonstrate how identity masking can
undermine ‘respect’ for persons (Naidu, Section 3) and the ‘justice’ impera-
tive (Ashdown et al., Section 3; Marx & Macleod, Section 3). The chapters
illustrate why it is important to challenge ‘conventional’ wisdom and to avoid
complacency which is unlikely to lead to ethically responsible research. In this
regard, the chapters in our book constitute an arsenal of carefully considered
and well-argued responses to many of the standard interpretations of ethics
principles.
As each chapter is a story from the field, this handbook grapples not only
with the frustrations of procedural ethics but also with the ethically important
moments that arise in the actual conduct of research. Authors discuss, for
example, the ethical complexities of inhabiting multiples roles (Barker &
Macleod, Section 2), of positioning oneself and being positioned by others
(Harvey, Section 3; Akhurst et al., Section 2; Mayeza, Section 4), of the blur-
ring of boundaries between researcher and researched in participatory (Lovell
& Akhurst, Section 4) and arts-based research (Rice et al., Section 3).
Underpinning these and a range of other issues are deep concerns about the
significant power differentials that exist among and between various stake-
holders in research, including our own investments in what can be referred to
as the bourgeois simulation of research excellence (Stewart, Section 4).
Ill-prepared by deliberations characterising procedural ethics, and frus-
trated by the limitations of principlism, authors were motivated to seek guid-
ance in alternate approaches to ethics. These included relational (Barker &
Macleod, Section 2) and situated (Marx & Macleod, Section 3) approaches to
ethics, as well as insights informed by psychoanalytic (Harvey, Section 3;
Stewart, Section 4), feminist (Feltham-King et al., Section 1), and postcolo-
nial theory (Stewart, Section 4), and critical disability studies (Rice et al.,
Section 3; Mirfin-Veitch et al., Section 4). In each instance, authors grounded
their discussions of the usefulness of alternative approaches in the specific
situational and relational dimensions of their research, effectively eliminating
distinctions between applied ethics and ethics in theory, which is so often
what undermines the usefulness of an ethical perspective. Indeed, the useful-
ness of this handbook lies in the careful balance recommended by authors of:
the universal versus the specific; principle-based versus reflexive actions;
abstract versus grounded reasoning; and rigid versus flexible practices.
The chapters featured in this handbook point to the necessity of con-
structing and practising research ethics in a ‘both/and’ rather than an ‘either/
or’ fashion: both cross-national principles and contextual responsiveness.
This is in contrast to some authors who advocate what they call situated or
situational ethics in opposition to principlist approaches (Piper & Simons,
2005; Usher, 2000). For example, in their edited book on ethics in educa-
tional research, Simons and Usher (2000, p. 2), argue, ‘Researchers cannot
avoid weighing up often conflicting considerations and dilemmas which are
located in the specificities of the research situation and where there is a need
to make ethical decisions but where those decisions cannot be reached by
appeal to unambiguous or univalent principles or codes’. While being sensi-
tive to sociopolitical contexts, as well as taking account of the ethical impli-
cations of different research methods and practices, is clearly important in
critical research, this in no way implies, we believe, the wholesale abandon-
ment of ethics principles that have cross-contextual and cross-national
significance.
tories from the Field: Complicating Ethical

S
Imperatives
A number of national and international conventions have tackled the ques-
tion of how to conduct ethical research. Most notable among these are the
Nuremberg Code (1947), the Declaration of Helsinki (World Medical
Association, 1964), and the Belmont Report (National Commission for the
Protection of Human Subjects of Biomedical and Behavioral Research, 1978).
These guidelines were developed in the context of concerns about atrocities
carried out in the name of research, the lack of regulation of research, and the
potential to do harm. In particular, research conducted by Nazi scientists on
concentration camp inmates and the Tuskegee experiments in which African
American subjects were kept ignorant of being infected with syphilis and left
untreated underlined the need to regulate medical research that is conducted
within wider social, political, and economic inequalities (Fairchild & Bayer,
1999). Importantly, the necessary corrective to these grossly unethical prac-
tices came from stories from the field. Students of research ethics are often
inducted into the necessity of research ethics principles through the telling of
these historical narratives.
In thinking deeply and in a nuanced fashion about ethics in research, espe-
cially critical research, it is important that lessons are learnt from researchers’
stories. Drawing on the experience of researchers in the field helps to surface
important ethical quandaries that require consideration in critical research.
The power relations that play themselves out in, firstly, creating these
quandaries and, secondly, in working towards some form of resolution are
highlighted.
The point of departure for each story narrated in the book is the extent to
which experiences of conducting research generate unforeseen crises. Stories
from the field outline significantly the ways ethical guidelines or principles are
translated in practice in both predictable and unpredictable ways. Arguably, it
is through their application that the textures and fissures of ethics guidelines
are apparent. In turn, in their being based on concrete examples, the chapters
indicate how practice can have bearing on the theorisation of ethical research
practice.
It is worth considering the extent to which a notion of criticality lies dor-
mant in the notion of ethics, and how this is activated through translation
into praxis in the field. As an unpredictable space, interactions in the field can
highlight the limits of the ‘prevention of harm’ model that underpins ethical
guidelines. Each story in the book draws attention to contingency in the field
and highlights the constraints of both a forecasting and an instrumentalist
approach to ethical practice.
In the first section of the handbook, authors tell stories that unpack the
constraints of systems, both institutional and otherwise, on research practices.
Their narratives ask whether there may be divergences between critical research
methods and the commitment to beneficence. As the stories in the chapters
suggest, political values as abstractions do not readily translate to the preven-
tion of harm when encountering participants and the more dynamic space of
the field. Researchers may encounter individuals and organisations that medi-
ate access both physically and discursively, as narrated in Section 1. What
happens, therefore, if researchers find themselves having to take on an author-
itative position that reinscribes a particular power dynamic in order to under-
take empirical work while, simultaneously, committing to critical practice?
Implicit in the construction and application of ethical guidelines are pre-
scribed research roles, as highlighted by authors in Section 2. After all, it is the
researcher who is tasked with finding strategies to minimise harm, to ensure
confidentiality and anonymity, and so on. Contingency in the field means
that such roles may be disrupted. Participants may have expectations unfore-
seen by the researcher prior to undertaking research; the role as primarily a
researcher, written into the contract between researchers and participants,
may be dislodged temporarily. Sensitivity to context, as the stories suggest,
means a continual interpretation of one’s ethical guidelines while remaining
committed to their core principles. In a number of chapters throughout the
handbook, authors provide insights into different strategies employed to
negotiate the unexpected.
Changing contexts also means rethinking prior assumptions about harms
when considering confidentiality and anonymity from the perspective of
articipants, as highlighted in Section 3. While standard practice may take for

p
granted anonymity as a preventative measure, participants may feel differ-
ently. Chapters in Section 3 draw on a range of stories from the field to high-
light the complexities of navigating a way through contested anonymity and
confidentiality practices.
In different inflections, stories from the field draw attention to the circuits
of power in the process of undertaking research. If the writing of ethical prin-
ciples grants the researcher responsibility, what is one to make of the relation-
ship between responsibility and power? Ethical guidelines may be inscribing
both actual and imagined participants as powerless in a preventative frame-
work. A number of authors of chapters in Section 4 reflect on their experi-
ences of consciously negotiating power. For the reader, this lays bare dynamics
that may be concealed when the ‘doing’ of ethics remains in preliminary
bureaucratic processes. In short, while researchers are tasked with foreground-
ing ethics prior to entering the field, this abstracted process remained indebted
to ongoing, and particular, stories that provide feedback in the act of
translation.
Going Forward
As a result of the complexity of conducting critical research, researchers are
called upon in innumerable ways to re-evaluate what it means to be doing
ethical research. Critical social science researchers, students, and teachers of
research ethics increasingly find themselves navigating the dilemma of choos-
ing between doing good (being ethically responsive to the people being
researched) and doing good research (maintaining pre-approved protocols).
In understanding research ethics as a process that is responsive to the com-
plexities of the field, researchers may find themselves in a quandary in relation
to the administrative necessities of ethical clearance.
The increasing regulation of research ethics has led to some scholars noting
that ‘the regulatory concerns are more technical than ethically substantive. …
the format of review can readily induce a ‘tick-box’ mentality: a preoccupation
with filling in the forms correctly’ (Posel & Ross, 2014, p. 3). The bureau-
cratic process, which engages a priori with imagined ethical dilemmas, is often
viewed as a hoop through which researchers must leap before getting on with
the real business of gathering data. But, as pointed out by Posel and Ross
(2014), ethics and research is ‘often unruly and abidingly ambiguous, their
complexities resistant to simple and neat formal assurances’ (p. 3). As research-
ers approach gatekeepers, enter research sites, interact with participants, and
engage with groupings of people and institutions, so the messiness of life, the
quandaries of unforeseen actions and circumstances, and the complexities of
power relations make themselves felt.
The completion of ethical clearance applications is useful in inducting new
researchers into research ethics and in focussing a research team’s initial con-
ceptualisation of ethics on a particular project. If, on the other hand, ethics
considerations are limited to administrative processes, then it is likely that
researchers will not be prepared properly for the ethical dilemmas that inevi-
tably arise in the field, especially when conducting critical research. The sto-
ries from the field told by the authors of the chapters in this handbook may
resonate with challenges faced by many researchers. A number of pertinent
questions are posed in these narratives: what are the implications of power
relations within the various systems relating to the conduct of research
(Section 1)? How do we draw lines between research and other relationships
(Section 2)? Who has the responsibility of defining ‘harms’? How do anonym-
ity and confidentiality assist or potentially impede social justice research
(Section 3)? How are power relations between researchers and participants
navigated (Section 4)? How do researchers ensure that ethics and methods are
responsive to the situations within which the research is conducted? As such,
these stories provide spaces for nuanced and reflective thinking about the
complexities of conducting critical research.
The research featured in these chapters all received ethical clearance from
the relevant ethics committees and/or other institutional gatekeepers. While
critical of established interpretations and applications of a principlist approach,
authors do not shun procedural ethics entirely. Instead, their stories demon-
strate the contextualised and multifaceted ways in which the principles
implied in ethics review may be stitched together with situated and grounded
ethical praxis in the field, a praxis that is necessarily circular in its reflection
and action cycle. We continue our cycle of discussion of the chapters and
overarching themes of ethical critical research in the introductions to each
section and also in the final reflection chapter of the handbook.
Notes
1. The bodies tasked with reviewing research ethics prior to researchers’ engage-
ment in the field have different names, depending on context. In this hand-
book, authors have been free to use the names pertinent to their context (e.g.,
Internal Review Board in the United States). We use a generic term, ethics
committees, in our introductions and conclusions.
References
Baines, P. (2008). Medical ethics for children: Applying the four principles to paedi-
atrics. Journal of Medical Ethics, 34(3), 141–145. https://doi.org/10.1136/
jme.2006.018747
Baum, M. (1994). The four principles may clash. British Medical Journal, 309(6962),
1159–1160. Retrieved from http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/
PMC2541918/
Beauchamp, T. (1995). Principlism and its alleged competitors. Kennedy Institute of
Ethics Journal, 5(3), 181–198. https://doi.org/10.1353/ken.0.0111
Beauchamp, T. (2010). Standing on principles: Collected essays. Oxford: Oxford
University Press.
Beauchamp, T., & Childress, J. (2009). Principles of biomedical ethics (6th ed.).
New York: Oxford University Press.
Clouser, D., & Gert, B. (1990). A critique of principlism. The Journal of Medicine
and Philosophy: A Forum for Bioethics and Philosophy of Medicine, 15(2), 219–236.
https://doi.org/10.1093/jmp/15.2.219
Dawson, A., & Garrard, E. (2006). In defence of moral imperialism: Four equal and
universal prima facie principles. Journal of Medical Ethics, 32(4), 200–204. https://
doi.org/10.1136/jme.2005.012591
Evans, J. (2000). A sociological account of the growth of principlism. Hastings Center
Report, 30(5), 31–39. https://doi.org/10.2307/3527886
Fairchild, A. L., & Bayer, R. (1999). Uses and abuses of Tuskegee. Science, 284(5416),
919–921.
Finlay, L. (2002). “Outing” the researcher: The provenance, process, and practice of
reflexivity. Qualitative Health Research, 12(4), 531–545.
Foster, D. (2008). Critical psychology: A historical overview. In D. Painter & C. Van
Ommen (Eds.), Interiors: A history of psychology in South Africa (pp. 92–122).
Pretoria: Unisa Press.
Israel, M., & Hay, I. (2006). Research ethics for social scientists: Between ethical conduct
and regulatory compliance. London: Sage.
Lyons, A. C., & Chamberlain, K. (2006). Health psychology: A critical introduction.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Murray, M. (Ed.). (2014). Critical health psychology (2nd ed.). London: Palgrave
Macmillan.
National Commission for the Protection of Human Subjects of Biomedical and
Behavioral Research. (1978). The Belmont report: Ethical principles and guidelines
for the protection of human subjects of research. Washington, DC: United States
Government Printing Office. Retrieved September 7, 2017, from https://videocast.
nih.gov/pdf/ohrp_belmont_report.pdf
Nuremberg Code. (1947/1949). Trials of War Criminals before the Nuremberg
Military Tribunals under Control Council Law No. 10. Vol. 2, pp. 181–182.
Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.
Painter, D., Kiguwa, P., & Böhmke, W. (2013). Contexts and continuities of cri-
tique: Reflections on the current state of critical psychology in South Africa.
Annual Review of Critical Psychology, 13, 849–869.
Piper, H., & Simons, H. (2005). Ethical responsibility in social research. In
B. Somekh & C. Lewin (Eds.), Research methods in the social sciences (pp. 56–63).
London: Sage Publications.
Posel, D., & Ross, F. C. (2014). Opening up the quandaries of research ethics:
Beyond the formalities of institutional ethical review. In D. Posel & F. C. Ross
(Eds.), Ethical Quandaries in Social Research (pp. 1–26). Pretoria: HSRC Press.
Simons, H., & Usher, R. (Eds.). (2000). Situated ethics in educational research.
London: Psychology Press.
Usher, P. (2000). Feminist approaches to a situated ethics. In H. Simons & R. Usher
(Eds.), Situated ethics in educational research (pp. 22–38). London: Psychology
Press.
World Medical Association. (1964). Declaration of Helsinki: Ethical principles for
medical research involving human subjects. Retrieved September 7, 2017, from
https://www.wma.net/policies-post/wma-declaration-of-helsinki-ethical-
principles-for-medical-research-involving-human-subjects/
Section 1
Encounters with Systems
2
Introduction: Encounters with Systems
Within Which Critical Research Is
Conducted
Gareth J. Treharne and Jacqueline Marx
How can critical researchers simultaneously work within and resist systems and
institutions that often do not comprehend critical methodologies? The aim of
this introduction is to set the scene for the stories from the field featured in this
section. These stories focus on how critical research is shaped by researchers’
encounters with systems. Each chapter in this section tells a story of encounters
with an ethics committee or committees. But many other systems are also
encountered by critical researchers, and the chapters in this section raise ques-
tions about how critical researchers navigate hierarchal power relations inherent
in the variety of systems and institutions within which critical research is con-
ducted. These systems and institutions include hospitals and larger healthcare
organisations, non-governmental organisations (NGOs), schools, and universi-
ties. Many of these systems and institutions have formal policies on research with
a range of specificity and complexity all the way up to an ethics committee.
Ethics committees have many different names and specifiers in interna-
tional settings. For example, in Canada they are known nationally as ‘research
ethics boards’ (REBs), and within US academic institutions they are com-
monly known as ‘institutional review boards’ (IRBs) (van den Hoonaard,
2011). In Aotearoa/New Zealand, there are the Health and Disabilities Ethics
G. J. Treharne (*)
University of Otago, Dunedin, New Zealand
J. Marx
Critical Studies in Sexualities and Reproduction, Department of Psychology,
Rhodes University, Grahamstown, South Africa
© The Author(s) 2018 17

C. I. Macleod et al. (eds.), The Palgrave Handbook of Ethics in Critical Research,
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-74721-7_2
18 G. J. Treharne and J. Marx
Committees (Ministry of Health, 2017). Like some other nations, these

health-only ethics committees work in parallel with ethics committees of ter-
tiary institutions, with evolving boundaries around which kinds of research
are reviewed by which committee (Ministry of Health, 2017). In England
specifically, the term ‘research ethics committee’ has been formally adopted by
Research Councils (e.g., Economic & Social Research Council, n.d.) and the
National Health Service Health Research Authority (n.d.). The label of
‘research ethics committee’ is also applied in South Africa within the national
guidelines on ethical health research (Department of Health, 2015). These
names and constitutions have solidified over recent decades but will continue
to shift under changing climates of research, and so we use the shorthand label
of ethics committee.
Ethics committees are the lynchpin of ethics approval assemblages (Reubi,
2010). These assemblages of bureaucratic processes are known also as ‘the eth-
ics regime’ in some critical scholarship (see van den Hoonaard, 2011). The
approval processes of ethics committees are not necessarily equivalent across
countries, institutions, or disciplines. But health and social researchers are
now almost universally required to go through a process of seeking approval
for research, and a certain neoliberal bureaucracy has become normalised in
academic research involving human participants (van den Hoonaard, 2011).
This bureaucracy, as Denzin and Giardina (2007, p. 27) highlight, may reflect
a troubling shift in which ‘there seems to be a move away from protecting
human subjects and toward increased monitoring and censuring of projects
that are critical of right-wing ideologies’.
In this introduction we draw on four thematic distinctions that underlie
the stories shared in this section. These distinctions help to demonstrate some
of the very real implications for critical researchers when inevitably working
within systems and institutions. The first of these distinctions is a comparison
between the realms of research that are broadly labelled as health research and
social research. Within both of these realms we also highlight a second distinc-
tion: the contrast between research and practice. To practice can refer to the
provision of healthcare and other caregiving professions. But to practice can
also refer to critical praxis: the politically conscious work done to challenge
the status quo through radical ethical methods (Denzin & Giardia, 2007).
The third distinction we make is between risk avoidance models of ethics
bureaucracy and relational models of ethical researching that support situa-
tional adaptation in the field. In the fourth and final distinction we return to
the abrasion between critical research and biomedical models of research. We
also summarise recommendations that arise across the chapters in this section
by outlining how the authors speak to working within, and resisting, con-
straining research ethics systems that critical researchers encounter.
Introduction: Encounters with Systems Within Which Critical… 19
Regardless of the global location or name of a particular ethics committee,

health and social researchers commonly become all too familiar with the pro-
cess of proposing research, receiving feedback, and amending or defending
the proposed protocol. For critical researchers, the ethics review process is
often marred by a disconnection between critical research methods and the
research ethics assemblage, a concern that features across the stories in this
section and subsequent sections. These stories are reflexively critical of the
authors’ own research practices whilst also revealing ways in which critical
research can come to be constrained through the ethics review processes. As
Denzin and Giardia (2007) note, ethics committees have a reputation for
being ‘routinely ignorant of or unsympathetic to new developments in inter-
pretive approaches’ (p. 13). This misunderstanding of critical research often
spills over into the encounters critical researchers’ experience when accessing
or working within systems other than the ethics committee (e.g., the hospital
that is required to follow research ‘governance’ or the NGO with diverse for-
mal or informal responses to research).
Another diverse but central aspect of the ethical approval assemblage is the
ethics codes and principles that serve as the benchmarks used by ethics com-
mittees when reviewing proposed research. These codes include national
projects such as the ‘ethical standards’ determined by the National Ethics
Advisory Committee in Aotearoa/New Zealand (Ministry of Health, 2017),
Canada’s Tri-Council Policy Statement on Ethical Conduct for Research
Involving Humans (Canadian Institutes of Health Research, Natural Sciences
and Engineering Council of Canada, & Social Sciences and Humanities
Research Council of Canada, 2014), and the principles outlined in the
Belmont Report (National Commission for the Protection of Human Subjects
of Biomedical and Behavioral Research, 1978) and enacted by the ‘Common
Rule’ procedures that are applied by IRBs in the US (see also van den
Hoonaard, 2011). Denzin and Giardia (2007) critique the Belmont Report’s
three principles for drawing on conflicting moral philosophies and for being
decontextualised from local settings and international declarations such as
the United Nations (2006) Convention on the Rights of Persons with
Disabilities. The three principles are respect (commonly achieved by informed
consent processes), beneficence (commonly achieved by attempting to predict
a balance of useful outcomes outweighing risk of harm), and justice (attempt-
ing fairness in participation and distribution of benefits). These closely reflect
the four principles of biomedical research ethics proposed by Beauchamp and
Childress (2001): autonomy, beneficence, non-maleficence, and justice.
Likewise, there are international principles that speak to the ethics of health-
care and health research such as the Hippocratic Oath and the Declaration of
Helsinki (World Medical Association, 1964). But what ethical challenges

occur when these principles are applied to critical research on health or social
issues?
Critical Research on Health or Social Issues

The chapters in this section of the handbook feature stories on a range of criti-
cal research projects on health and social issues. There is no simple distinction
between health research and social research because health research is socially
located and social research so often addresses well-being. But what is evident
in these stories is how biomedical research governance has ‘crept’ (Haggerty,
2004) into critical research. Pam Carter, Sarah Chew, and Elizabeth Sutton
(2018, this section) discuss their experiences of the ‘pseudo-ethics’ of the
English research governance of clinical trials that has crept into a requirement
that critical researchers engage in tangentially relevant training. Natalie
Edelman (2018, this section) critically analyses her experience of multiple
ethics approvals from a university, the UK health system, and an NGO all of
whom had to review and approve and thus shape her research with a ‘vulner-
able’ group of participants who were users of illicit drugs. This exemplifies the
important questions about which health and social issues are considered
‘problematic’ and by whom. Likewise, Tracey Feltham-King, Yolisa Bomela,
and Catriona Macleod (2018, this section) provide a Foucauldian perspective
on their experiences of recruiting ‘problematised’ subjects (i.e., subjects in the
discursive sense, not just people subjected to biomedical research). Their work
on teenage pregnancy in South Africa again involved multiple research ethics
systems in gaining approval from a university ethics committee and a state
healthcare organisation; this necessitated navigating contradictory social con-
structions of teenage pregnancy and ongoing challenges in recruiting women
through gatekeepers within the healthcare organisation.
The later chapters in this section move outside the regulatory realms of clini-
cal research governance but continue to detail encounters with systems under-
pinned by the ‘ethics creep’ (Haggerty, 2004) of objectivist biomedical research
into the diverse fields of critical research. Jessica Cockburn and Georgina Cundill
(2018, this section) outline transdisciplinary approaches to research in sharing
their research on environmental stewardship in South Africa. Transdisciplinary
research requires a participatory form of research that is inherently social,
often action oriented, and again requires encounters with multiple research
ethics systems in working with community organisations whilst being governed
by academic research ethics committees. Their work speaks to the wider
project of critical research in asking who benefits from research and what
improvements communities desire.
Catherine Smith, Emma Tumilty, Peter Walker, and Gareth Treharne
(2018, this section) question the differentiation between the ethical attention
paid to human participants and non-human animal participants with a focus
on domestic and service dogs. Research on the interactions of humans with
other animals is by no means new but it frequently foxes disconnected research
ethics systems that are attuned to protecting either human participants or
non-human animals subjected to experimental methods. In asking what
research ethics might look at within a system that could support an integrated
ethical approach to human–animal interaction research, Smith et al.’s work
highlights some of the intricacies of research ethics systems and assumptions
about sentience and ethics. Will van den Hoonaard (2018, this section) closes
the section with a focus on the state of sociological research and argues that
such research inherently is, or should be, critical. Drawing on his research
alongside Canadian REBs and an analysis of the ethics code laid out in the
Canadian Tri-Council Policy Statement (Canadian Institutes of Health
Research et al., 2014), van den Hoonaard provides a tour of the facets of criti-
cal research that raise ethical challenges in a range of examples from health
and social research.
Research as Praxis but Distinct from Practice

Engaging in research is distinct from engaging in practice when fulfilling roles
such as a health professional or NGO worker. In addition, critical research is
a form of praxis in the Marxist tradition and more recent interpretations (see,
e.g., Barnard, 1990; Lazar, 2005). Critical research moves beyond the model
of research as merely serving to inform evidence-based practice, although
healthcare practice can itself be a fruitful focus of critical research. Health
professional practice and health research praxis have ethics systems that are
often organised around a split between ‘clinical governance’ and ‘research gov-
ernance’ (Carter et al., 2018, this section). But health professional practice
and research praxis might be described as sharing a goal to change the well-
being of an individual or a community. The methodologies applied by the
authors in this section of the handbook include a range of qualitative and
ethnographic approaches leading to a multiplicity of perspectives on research
embedded in healthcare practice and other social settings.
Carter et al. (2018, this section) analysed how good clinical practice train-
ing is a form of ‘ceremonial conformity’ (Dingwall, 2008). This semi-regulated
and very brief form of training is commonly required of health researchers

who are not employed by the UK National Health Service but is not about
inducting researchers into the world of healthcare practice. Instead, it is a way
of attempting to ensure that all researchers know the ethics and bureaucracy
of a ‘good’ clinical trial regardless of their own intended methodology.
Edelman (2018, this section) reflects on the pragmatic aims of her research in
which she explored the reasons women with ‘problematic drug use’ do not
attend sexual health services. Edelman’s aim was not directly to provide the
women with a clinical service, although through critical research it is possible
to reorient services to better meet the lives of marginalised groups. Feltham-
King et al. (2018, this section) reflect on their research praxis in experiencing
gatekeeping of pregnant teenagers receiving care in a clinical setting that med-
icalises and problematises young women. The aim of the research was not to
provide a second layer of care for the young women but this was a presump-
tion that needed to be corrected and which shaped the accessibility of partici-
pants. Likewise, van den Hoonaard (2018, this section) outlines critical
sociological praxis and reiterates many of the broad concerns critical research-
ers have about how their research is viewed by ethics committees as a colonis-
ing bureaucracy.
Cockburn and Cundill (2018, this section) share their experiences of trans-
disciplinary praxis including the pre-proposal phase during which academics
and community members discuss the problems both parties want to address.
Building relationships and opening the conversation about what participatory
research might achieve is a form of praxis as are the ongoing phases of trans-
disciplinary research and many engaged forms of participatory research. Smith
et al. (2018, this section) explore the place of interactions between dogs and
humans. This raises questions about how researchers might reconceptualise
sentience and attend to signs of assent or its absence during research with
those who cannot verbalise or necessarily understand conventional notions of
consent to participate in research.
Reactive Bureaucracy Versus Proactive Ethics

Another tension across the chapters in this section is the way that ethics com-
mittees as we know them arose in reaction to ‘unethical’ research with the
aim of avoiding the same injustices being repeated (see Denzin & Giardia,
2007; Neill, 2016; Smith, 2012; van den Hoonaard, 2011). Rather than
instilling ethics in a way that is appropriate for all forms of research, the eth-
ics systems that have emerged enforce a constrained set of recommended
research procedures to avoid unethical research. Moreover, authors in this

section argue that these procedural ethics have become a barrier to proactive
ethics during the journey of critical research. Although not an absolute begin-
ning to unethical research, it is possible to trace the current state of concerns
about research ethics to the atrocities of research carried out on prisoners in
Nazi death camps in the name of science and in ways that apply many of the
principles and narratives of experimental research as being for the benefit of
the people (Smith, 2012). Medicine, psychology, sociology, and other disci-
plines all have their own subsequent fables of unethical research that are cited
as warnings and woven into the fabric of ethics systems. Two of the fabled
examples of unethical research in psychology are somewhat ironic as
Zimbardo and Milgram were attempting to understand how ‘regular’ people
could be responsible for wartime atrocities using a mock prison or attempt-
ing to convince people they were punishing someone with deadly electric
shocks (see Neill, 2016, for details of these fabled studies). The fable of
unethical research has a corollary that researchers need to consider the bal-
ance of harm enacted against knowledge gained. The argument goes that if
the research enhances our understanding of issues such as compliance and
torture then the gain in knowledge might be said to be worth it. But who
does the resulting knowledge serve? When we ask who benefits from research
and from the knowledge that is generated and disseminated, then we can
often be left with the concerning realisation that commonly only academia
and academics benefit from research findings whilst individual participants
or communities bear the brunt of harm from unethical research practices.
The chapters in this section all speak to some of the ways that research ethics
are upheld by critical researchers resisting the rigid ethical procedures that orig-
inate from biomedical research by engaging in proactive ethics, also known as
micro-ethics, everyday ethics, ethical mindfulness, or applying an ethical sense
(see in particular Carter et al., 2018, this section; Cockburn & Cundill, 2018,
this section). In the same way that critical researchers often cannot know the
scope of their findings before the research is undertaken, it is not always pos-
sible for critical researchers to know what ethical challenges they might face.
These challenges cannot be categorised in the same way as can ‘adverse events’
in pharmaceutical research, and yet that very model is all too often applied to
critical research, as emphasised by Carter et al. (2018, this section).
In many of the chapters in this section, the authors also discuss research
with people who might be labelled ‘vulnerable’ and thus problematised. This
includes people with moderate literacy (Carter et al., 2018, this section),
women who use illicit drugs and are likely to be inebriated during participa-
tion (Edelman, 2018, this section), pregnant teenagers (Feltham-King et al.,
Another random document with
no related content on Scribd:
In speaking thus of the midshipmen’s birth, and of their occasional
ruggedness of manners, I should be doing wrong to leave an
impression that they were a mere lawless set of harumscarum
scamps. Quite the contrary; for we had a code of laws for our
government, which, for precision and distinctness of purpose, might
have rivalled many of those promulgated by the newest-born states
of the world, in these days of political parturition. I observe, that
young countries, like young people, whether in a midshipman’s
mess, or any where else, delight in the indulgence of the fond and
false idea, that it is easy to regulate the fluctuations of human nature
exactly as they please, by the mere force of written constitutions.
They always ‘remember to forget,’ that institutions, to be in the
smallest degree effective in practice, must be made to fit the existing
state of society, and that society cannot possibly be made to fit them.
They almost all run away, however, with the vainest of vain notions,
that established habits, old prejudices, with all the other fixed and
peculiar circumstances of the time and place in which they find
themselves, have become, of a sudden, so pliable, that they can be
essentially and speedily modified by artificial legislation alone! On
this fallacious principle we framed a set of regulations for our mess,
of which I recollect only one, giving, I admit, rather a queer idea of
the state of things in our maritime world. It ran thus:—“If any member
of the larboard mess shall so far forget the manners of a gentleman
as to give the lie direct to one of his messmates, he shall be fined
one dollar.”
This fine, it must be observed, was intended purely as a
propitiation to the offended dignity of the mess, and was quite
independent of the personal arrangements which, on such
occasions, generally took place in the cock-pit outside. These battles
royal were fought across a chest,—I don’t mean with pistols, but with
good honest fisty-cuffs. The only difficulty attending this method of
settling such matters consisted in the shifts to which the parties were
compelled to resort, to conceal the black eyes which, in most cases,
were the result of these single combats. It would, of course, have
been quite incorrect in the commanding officer to have overlooked
such proceedings—even supposing the parties to retain a sufficiency
of optics to do their duty. The usual resource was to trust to the
good-nature of the surgeon, who put the high contending parties on
the sick list, and wrote against their names “Contusion;” an entry he
might certainly make with a safe conscience!
This innocent way of settling disputes was all very well, so long as
the mids were really and truly boys; but there came, in process of
time, a plaguy awkward age, when they began to fancy themselves
men, and when they were very apt to take it into their heads that, on
such occasions as that just alluded to, their dignity, as officers and
gentlemen, would be compromised by beating one another about the
face and eyes across a chest, and otherwise contusing one another,
according to the most approved fashion of the cock-pit. Youths, at
this intermediate age, are called Hobbledehoys, that is, neither man
nor boy. And as powder and ball act with equal efficacy against
these high-spirited fellows as against men of more experience, fatal
duels do sometimes take place even amongst midshipmen. I was
once present at a very foolish affair of this kind, which, though it
happily ended in smoke, was so exceedingly irregular in all its parts,
that, had any one fallen, the whole party concerned would most
probably have been hanged!
A dispute arose between three of these young men, in the course
of which, terms were bandied about, leaving a reproach such that
only the ordeal of a duel, it was thought, could wipe out. It was late in
the day when this quarrel took place; but as there was still light
enough left to fire a shot, the party went on deck, and quietly asked
leave to go on shore for a walk. I happened to be the only person in
the birth at the time who was not engaged in the squabble, and so
was pressed into the service of the disputants to act as second.
There would have been nothing very absurd in all this, had there
been another second besides me, or had there existed only one
quarrel to settle—but between the three youths there were two
distinct disputes!
One of these lads, whom we shall call Mr. A, had first to fight with
Mr. B, while Mr. C was second to Mr. B; and then Mr. A, having
disposed of Mr. B, either by putting him out of the world, or by
adjusting the matter by apologies, was to commence a fresh battle
with Mr. C, who, it will be observed, had been second to his former
antagonist, Mr. B! The contingency of Mr. A himself being put hors
de combat appears not to have been contemplated; but the strong
personal interest which Mr. C (the second to Mr. A’s first antagonist)
had in giving the affair a fatal turn, would have been the ticklish point
for our poor necks, in a court of justice, had Mr. A fallen. Poor fellow!
he was afterwards killed in action.
More by good luck than good management, neither of the first
shots took effect. At this stage of the affair, I began to perceive the
excessive absurdity of the whole transaction, and the danger of the
gallows, to which we were all exposing ourselves. I therefore
vehemently urged upon the parties the propriety of staying further
proceedings. These suggestions were fortunately strengthened by
the arrival of a corporal’s guard of armed marines from the ship,
under the orders of an officer, who was directed to arrest the whole
party. There was at first a ludicrous shew of actual resistance to this
detachment; but, after some words, the affair terminated, and the
disputants walked off the field arm in arm, the best friends in the
world!
CHAPTER VIII.
MAST-HEADING A YOUNG GENTLEMAN.
On the 8th of January, 1804, we sailed from Halifax, and, after a long
and tedious passage, arrived at Bermuda. The transition from the
intense frost of a Nova Scotian winter, during which the mercury was
generally below zero, to a temperature of 70° or 80°, was
exceedingly agreeable to those who had constitutions to stand the
sudden rise of more than half a hundred degrees of the
thermometer. After a few days’ stay at Bermuda, we set off for the
United States, where we were again frozen, almost as much as we
had been at Halifax. The first land we made was that of Virginia; but
owing to calms, and light foul winds, we failed in getting to Norfolk in
the Chesapeak, and therefore bore up for New York, which we
reached on the 19th of February, and there anchored about seven
miles from that beautiful city.
It was not thought right to let any of us young folks visit the shore
alone; but I was fortunate in being invited to accompany one of the
officers. To the friendship of this most excellent person, at the
periods of most need, I feel so much more indebted than I can
venture to express without indelicacy, that I shall say nothing of the
gratitude I have so long borne him in return. Perhaps, indeed, the
best, as being the most practical, repayment we can ever make for
such attentions is, to turn them over, again and again, to some other
person similarly circumstanced with ourselves at those early periods.
This would be acting in the spirit with which Dr. Franklin tells us he
used to lend money, as he never gave it away without requiring from
the person receiving such assistance, a promise to repay the loan,
not to himself, but to transfer it, when times improved, to some one
else in distress, who would enter into the same sort of engagement
to circulate the charity. On this principle, I have several times, in the
course of my professional life, rather surprised young middies by
giving them exactly such a lift as I myself received at New York—
shewing them strange places, and introducing them to the
inhabitants, in the way my kind friend adopted towards me. These
boys may perhaps have fancied it was owing to their own uncommon
merit that they were so noticed; while all the time I may have merely
been relieving my own conscience, and paying off, by indirect
instalments, a portion of that debt of gratitude which, in spite of these
disbursements, I find only increases in proportion as my knowledge
of the world gives me the means of appreciating its value.
That it is the time and manner of doing a kindness which constitute
its chief merit, as a matter of feeling at least, is quite true; and the
grand secret of this delicate art appears to consist in obliging people
just at the moments, and, as nearly as possible, in the particular way,
in which they themselves wish the favour to be done. However
perverse their tastes may be, and often, perhaps, because they are
perverse, people do not like even to have favours thrust upon them.
But it was my good fortune on this, and many other occasions in life,
early and late, to fall in with friends who always contrived to nick the
right moments to a hair’s-breadth. Accordingly, one morning, I
received an invitation to accompany my generous friend, one of the
lieutenants, to New York, and I felt, as he spoke, a bound of joy, the
bare recollection of which makes my pulse beat ten strokes per
minute quicker, at the distance of a good quarter of a century!
It would not be fair to the subject, nor indeed quite so to myself, to
transcribe from a very boyish journal an account of this visit to New
York. The inadequate expression of that period, compared with the
vivid recollection of what I then felt, shews, well enough, the want of
power which belongs to inexperience. Very fortunately, however, the
faculty of enjoying is sooner acquired than the difficult art of
describing. Yet even this useful and apparently simple science of
making the most of all that turns up, requires a longer apprenticeship
of good fortune than most people are aware of.
In the midst of snow and wind, we made out a very comfortless
passage to New York; and, after some trouble in hunting for
lodgings, we were well pleased to find ourselves snugly stowed
away in a capital boarding house in Greenwich Street. We there
found a large party at tea before a blazing wood fire, which was
instantly piled with fresh logs for the strangers, and the best seats
relinquished for them, according to the invariable practice of that
hospitable country.
If our hostess be still alive, I hope she will not repent of having
bestowed her obliging attentions on one who, so many years
afterwards, made himself, he fears, less popular in her land, than he
could wish to be amongst a people to whom he owes so much, and
for whom he really feels so much kindness. He still anxiously hopes,
however, they will believe him when he declares, that, having said in
his recent publication no more than what he conceived was due to
strict truth, and to the integrity of history, as far as his observations
and opinions went, he still feels, as he always has, and ever must
continue to feel towards America, the heartiest good-will.
The Americans are perpetually repeating, that the foundation-
stone of their liberty is fixed on the doctrine, that every man is free to
form his own opinions, and to promulgate them in candour and in
moderation. Is it meant that a foreigner is excluded from these
privileges? If not, may I ask, in what respect have I passed these
limitations? The Americans have surely no fair right to be offended
because my views differ from theirs; and yet, I am told, I have been
rudely enough handled by the press of that country. If my motives
are distrusted, I can only say I am sorely belied; if I am mistaken,
regret at my political blindness were surely more dignified than anger
on the part of those with whom I differ; and if it shall chance that I am
in the right, the best confirmation of the correctness of my views, in
the opinion of indifferent persons, will perhaps be found in the
soreness of those who wince when the truth is spoken.
Yet, after all, few things would give me more real pleasure than to
know that my friends across the water would consent to take me at
my word; and, considering what I have said about them as so much
public matter—which it truly is—agree to reckon me in my absence,
as they always did when I was amongst them—and I am sure they
would count me if I went back again—as a private friend. I differed
with them in politics, and I differ with them now as much as ever; but
I sincerely wish them happiness individually; and as a nation, I shall
rejoice if they prosper. As the Persians write, “What can I say more?”
And I only hope these few words may help to make my peace with
people who justly pride themselves on bearing no malice. As for
myself, I have no peace to make; for I have studiously avoided
reading any of the American criticisms on my book, in order that the
kindly feelings I have ever entertained towards that country should
not be ruffled. By this abstinence, I may have lost some information,
and perhaps missed many opportunities of correcting erroneous
impressions. But I set so much store by the pleasing recollection of
the journey itself, and of the hospitality with which my family were
every where received, that, whether it be right, or whether it be
wrong, I cannot bring myself to read any thing which might disturb
these agreeable associations. So let us part in peace! or rather, let
us meet again in cordial communication; and if this little work shall
find its way across the Atlantic, I hope it will be read there without
reference to any thing that has passed between us; or, at all events,
with reference only to those parts of our former intercourse which are
satisfactory to all parties.
After leaving the American coast, we stood once more across the
gulf stream for Bermuda. Here I find the first trace of a regular
journal, containing a few of those characteristic touches which, when
we are sure of their being actually made on the spot, however
carelessly, carry with them an easy, familiar kind of interest, that
rarely belongs to the efforts of memory alone. It is, indeed, very
curious how much the smallest memorandums sometimes serve to
lighten up apparently forgotten trains of thought, and to bring vividly
before the imagination scenes long past, and to recall turns of
expression, and even the very look with which these expressions
were uttered, though every circumstance connected with them may
have slept in the mind for a long course of years.
It is, I believe, one of the numerous theories on the mysterious
subject of dreams, that they are merely trains of recollections,
touched in some way we know not of, and influenced by various
causes over which we have no sort of control; and that, although
they are very strangely jumbled and combined, they always relate,
so exclusively, either to past events, or to past thoughts, that no
ideas strictly new ever enter our minds in sleep.
Be this true or false, I find that, on reading over the scanty notes
above alluded to, written at Bermuda more than six-and-twenty years
ago, I am made conscious of a feeling a good deal akin to that which
belongs to dreaming. Many objects long forgotten, are brought back
to my thoughts with perfect distinctness; and these, again, suggest
others, more or less distinctly, of which I possess no written record.
At times a whole crowd of these recollections stand forward, almost
as palpably as if they had occurred yesterday. I hear the well-known
voices of my old messmates—see their long-forgotten faces—and
can mark, in my memory’s eye, their very gait, and many minute and
peculiar habits. In the next minute, however, all this is so much
clouded over, that by no effort of the imagination, assisted even by
the journal, can I bring back the picture as it stood before me only a
moment before. It sometimes also happens in this curious
retrospect, that a strange confusion of dates and circumstances
takes place, with a vague remembrance of hopes, and fears, and
wishes, painful anticipations, and bitter passing thoughts, all long
since gone. But these day dreams of the past sometimes come
rushing back on the fancy, all at once, in so confused a manner, that
they look exceedingly like what is often experienced in sleep. Is
there, in fact, any other difference, except that, in the case of
slumber, we have no control over this intellectual experiment, and, in
the other, we have the power of varying it at pleasure? When awake
we can steer the mental vessel with more or less precision—when
asleep our rudder is carried away, and we must drift about at the
capricious bidding of our senses, over a confused sea of
recollections.
It may be asked, what is the use of working out these
speculations? To which I would answer, that it may often be highly
useful, in the practice of life, for people to trace their thoughts back,
in order to see what have been the causes, as well as the effects, of
their former resolutions. It is not only interesting, but may be very
important, to observe how far determinations of a virtuous nature
had an effectual influence in fortifying us against the soft
insinuations, or the rude assaults of temptation; or how materially
any original defect or subsequent omission in such resolutions may
have brought us under the cutting lash of self-reproach.
It would probably be very difficult, if not impossible, for any person
to lay open his own case so completely to the view of others, that the
rest of the world should be enabled to profit, as he himself, if he
chooses, may do, by his past experience in these delicate matters. I
shall hardly attempt such a task, however; but shall content myself
with saying, that, on now looking back to those days, I can, in many
instances, lay my hand upon the very hour, the very incident, and the
very thought and feeling, which have given a decided direction to
many very material actions of the intervening period. In some cases,
the grievous anguish of remorse has engraved the lesson so deeply
on the memory, that it shews like an open wound still. In others, it
has left only a cicatrice, to mark where there has been suffering. But
even these, like the analogous case of bodily injuries, are liable to
give their twitches as the seasons vary.
It is far pleasanter, however, and a still more profitable habit, I am
quite sure, to store up agreeable images of the past, with a view to
present and future improvement, as well as enjoyment, than to
harass the thoughts too much by the contemplation of opportunities
lost, or of faculties neglected or misused. Of this cheerful kind of
retrospect, every person of right thoughts must have an abundant
store. For, let the croakers say what they please, ‘this brave world’ is
exceedingly fertile in sources of pleasure to those whose principles
are sound, and who, at all times and seasons, are under the
wholesome consciousness, that while, without higher aid, they can
essentially do nothing, there will certainly be no such assistance lent
them, unless they themselves, to use a nautical phrase, ‘bend their
backs like seamen to the oar,’ and leave nothing untried to double
the Cape of their own life and fortunes. It is in this vigorous and
sustained exertion that most persons fail—this ‘attention suivie,’ as
the French call it, which, as it implies the absence of self-distrust,
gives, generally, the surest earnest of success.
It has sometimes struck me as not a little curious, that, while we
have such unbounded faith in the constancy of the moon’s motions,
and rest with such confidence on the accuracy of our charts and
books, as to sail our ships, in the darkest nights, over seas we have
never before traversed; yet that, in the moral navigation of our lives,
we should hesitate in following principles infinitely more important,
and in which we ought to have a faith at least as undoubting. The old
analogy, indeed, between the storms of the ocean, and those of our
existence, holds good throughout this comparison; for the half-
instructed navigator, who knows not how to rely on his chart and
compass, or who has formed no solid faith in the correctness of the
guides to whom he ought to trust his ship, has no more chance of
making a good passage across the wide seas, than he whose petty
faith is bounded by his own narrow views and powers, is likely to be
successful in the great voyage of life.
There is a term in use at sea called ‘backing and filling,’ which
consists at one moment in bracing the yards so that the wind shall
catch the sails in reverse, and, by bringing them against the masts,
drive the ship stern-foremost; and then, after she has gone far
enough in that direction, in bracing up the yards so that the sails may
be filled, and the ship again gather headway. This manœuvre is
practised in rivers when the wind is foul, but the tide favourable, and
the width of the stream too small to admit of working the vessel
regularly, by making tacks across. From thus alternately approaching
to the bank and receding from it, an appearance of indecision, or
rather of an unwillingness to come too near the ground, is produced,
and thence the term is used to express, figuratively, that method of
speaking where reluctance is shewn to come too near the abrupt
points of the subject, which yet must be approached if any good is to
be done. I confess, accordingly, that, just now, I have been ‘backing
and filling’ with my topic, and have preferred this indirect method of
suggesting to my young friends the fitting motives to action, rather
than venturing to lecture them in formal terms. The paths to honour,
indeed, every man must trace out for himself; but the discovery will
certainly be all the easier if he knows the direction in which they lie.
The following brief specimen of a midshipman’s journal will shew,
as well as a whole volume could do, the sort of stuff of which such
documents are made. The great fault, indeed, of almost all journals
consists in their being left, like Chinese paintings, without shading or
relief, and in being drawn with such a barbarous perspective, that
every thing appears to lie in one plane, in the front of the picture.
“Bermuda, Sunday, April 22.
“Wind south. Last night I had the first watch. Turned out
this morning at seven bells. Breakfasted on a roll and
some jelly. Wind blowing pretty hard at south. Struck lower
yards and top-gallant masts. After breakfast read one or
two tales of the Genii. Dressed for muster, and at six bells
beat to divisions. I asked leave to go on shore to dine with
Capt. O’Hara, but was refused. So I dined upon the Old
thing—salt junk and dough. The captain landed in the
pinnace. Employed myself most of the afternoon in
reading Plutarch’s Lives. Had coffee at four o’clock.
Blowing harder than ever, and raining very much. Read
the Bible till six; then went on deck. At nine went to bed.
Turned out at four in the morning.
“Monday, 23d April.—Made the signal for sailing. At
noon, the same old dinner—salt horse! The two pilots,
Jacob and Jamie, came on board. Employed getting in the
Admiral’s stock.”
These two names, Jacob and Jamie, will recall to people who
knew Bermuda in those days many an association connected with
that interesting island. They were two negroes, pilots to the men-of-
war, who, in turn, took the ships out and in. Their wives, no less
black and polished than themselves, were the chief laundresses of
our fleet; while at their cedar-built houses on shore, we often
procured such indifferent meals as the narrow means of the place
allowed. I only remember that our dinner, nine times in ten, consisted
of ham and eggs. I forget whether or not these men were slaves; I
think not: they were, at all events, extremely good-natured fellows,
and always very kind and obliging to the midshipmen, particularly to
those who busied themselves in making collections of shells and
corallines, the staple curiosities of the spot.
It is needless to quote any more from the exact words of this
matter-of-fact journal. I find it recorded, however, that next morning a
boat came to us from the Boston, a frigate lying near the Leander.
The captain of that ship was then, and is now, one of my kindest and
steadiest friends. And right well, indeed, did he know how to confer a
favour at the fitting season. The boat contained one of the most
acceptable presents, I will answer for it, that ever was made to
mortal—it was truly manna to starved people—being no less than a
famous fat goose, a huge leg of pork, and a bag of potatoes!
Such a present at any other time and place would have been
ludicrous; but at Bermuda, where we had been starving and growling
for many months without a fresh meal—it was to us hungry, salt-fed
boys, the ‘summum bonum’ of human happiness.
Next day, after breakfast, the barge was sent with one of the
lieutenants for the Admiral, who came on board at eleven o’clock.
But while his excellency was entering the ship on one side, I quitted
my appointed station on the other, and, without leave, slipped out of
one of the main-deck ports into the pilot-boat, to secure some conch
shells and corals I had bespoken, and wished to carry from Bermuda
to my friends at Halifax. Having made my purchases, in the utmost
haste and trepidation, I was retreating again to my post, when, as my
ill stars would have it, the first lieutenant looked over the gangway.
He saw at a glance what I was about; and, calling me up, sent me as
a punishment to the mast head for being off deck when the Admiral
was coming on board. As I had succeeded in getting hold of my
shells, however, and some lumps of coral, I made myself as
comfortable as possible in my elevated position; and upon the whole
rather enjoyed it, as a piece of fun.
We then hove up the anchor, and as we made sail through the
passage, I could not only distinguish, from the mast head, the
beautifully coloured reefs under water, but trace with perfect ease all
the different channels between them, through which we had to
thread our winding, and apparently dangerous, course. As the ship
passed, the fort saluted the flag with twelve guns, which were
returned with a like number; after which we shaped our course for
Norfolk, in Virginia.
So far all was well. I sat enjoying the view, in one of the finest days
that ever was seen. But it almost makes me hungry now, at this
distance of time, to tell what followed.
From the main-top-mast cross-trees, on which I was perched for
my misdeeds, I had the cruel mortification of seeing my own
beautiful roast goose pass along the main-deck, on its way to the
cock-pit. As the scamp of a servant boy who carried the dish came
abreast of the gangway, I saw him cock his eye aloft as if to see how
I relished the prospect. No hawk, or eagle, or vulture, ever gazed
from the sky more wistfully upon its prey beneath, than I did upon the
banquet I was doomed never to taste. What was still more
provoking, each of my messmates, as he ran down the quarter-deck
ladder, on being summoned to dinner, looked up at me and grinned;
and one malicious dog patted his fat paunch—as much as to say,
‘What a glorious feast we are to have! Should not you like a bit?’
CHAPTER IX.
KEEPING WATCH.
With a few exceptions, every person on board a man-of-war keeps

watch in his turn: and as this is one of the most important of the
wheels which go to make up the curious clock-work of a ship’s
discipline, it seems to deserve a word or two in passing.
The officers and midshipmen are generally divided into three
watches—First, Second, and Third. As the senior lieutenant does not
keep watch, the officer next in rank takes the First, the junior
lieutenant the Second, and the master the Third watch, in ships
where there are not more than three lieutenants. Under each of
these chiefs there is placed a squad of midshipmen; the principal
one of whom is mate of the watch, the next in seniority is stationed
on the forecastle, and after him comes the poop mid. The youngsters
remain on the lee-side of the quarter-deck, along with the mate of
the watch. For it must be observed, that no one but the captain, the
lieutenants, the master, surgeon, purser, and marine officer, is ever
allowed, upon any occasion whatsoever, to walk on the weather
side. This custom has become so much a matter of course, that I
hardly remember asking myself before, what may have been the
origin of the regulation? The chief purpose, no doubt, is to draw a
strong line of distinction between the different ranks; although,
independently of this, the weather side is certainly the most
convenient to walk upon when the ship is pressed with sail: it is also
the best sheltered from wind and rain; and the view both low and
aloft is more commanding than it is from to leeward.
Every person, also, not excepting the captain, when he comes on
the quarter-deck, touches his hat; and as this salutation is supposed
to be paid to this privileged spot itself, all those who at the moment
have the honour to be upon it are bound to acknowledge the
compliment. Thus, even when a midshipman comes up, and takes
off his hat, all the officers who are walking the deck, the Admiral
included, if he happens to be of the number, touch their hats
likewise.
So completely does this form grow into a habit, that in the darkest
night, and when there may not be a single person near the
hatchway, it is invariably attended to, with the same precision.
Indeed, when an officer of the Navy happens to be on board a
merchant ship, or a packet, he finds it difficult to avoid carrying his
hand to his hat every time he comes on deck. I, for one, at least, can
never get over the feeling, that it is rude to neglect this ceremony,
and have often, when on board passage vessels, wondered to see
gentlemen so deficient in good breeding, as to come gaping up the
hatchway, as if their hats were nailed to their heads, and their hands
sewed into their breeches-pockets!
Of course, each person in the watch has a specific duty to attend
to, as I shall endeavour to describe presently; but, first, it may be
well to mention the ingenious arrangement of the hours by which the
periods of watching are equally distributed to all.
In speaking of the three watches, it will perhaps avoid confusion,
and rather simplify the description, to call them, for a moment, not
First, Second, and Third, as they are named on board ship, but to
designate them by the letters A, B, and C.
Let us begin, then, by supposing that A’s watch commences at 8
o’clock in the evening; the officer and his party remain on deck till
midnight, four hours being one period. This is called the First watch.
B is next roused up, and keeps the Middle watch, which lasts from
midnight till 4 o’clock. C now comes up, and stays on deck till 8,
which is the Morning watch. A then returns to the deck, where he
walks till noon, when he is relieved by B, who stays up till 4. If C
were now to keep the watch from 4 to 8, of course A would again
have to keep the First watch on the second night, as he did at first
starting; and all the others, in like manner, would have to keep, over
again, exactly the same watches, every night and day. In order to
break this uniform recurrence of intervals, an ingenious device has
been hit upon to produce a constant and equitable rotation. When or
where this plan was invented, I do not know, but I believe it exists in
the ships of all nations.
The period from 4 o’clock in the afternoon till 8 in the evening,
instead of constituting one watch, is divided into two watches, of a
couple of hours each. These, I don’t know why, are called the Dog
watches. The first, which lasts from 4 to 6 o’clock, belongs, on the
second day, according to the order described above, to C, who is, of
course, relieved at 6 o’clock by A. This alteration, it will be observed,
gives the First watch (from 8 to midnight) to B, on the second night;
the Middle (from midnight to 4) to C; and the Morning watch (from 4
to 8) to A; the Forenoon watch (from 8 to noon) to B; and the
Afternoon (from noon to 4) to C. The first Dog watch (from 4 to 6) will
now be kept by A, the second Dog watch (from 6 to 8) by B, and so
on, round and round. By this mechanism, it will easily be perceived,
the officers, on each succeeding day, have a watch to keep, always
one stage earlier than that which they kept on the day before. Thus,
if A have the Morning watch one night, he will have the Middle watch
on the night following, and the First watch on the night after that
again. The distribution of time which this produces is very unequal,
when the short period of twenty-four hours only is considered; but
the arrangement rights itself in the course of a few days. On the first
day, A has ten hours’ watch to keep out of the twenty-four, B eight,
and C only six. But on the next day, A has only six hours, while B
has ten, and C eight; while, on the third day, A has eight, B six, and
C ten hours’ watching; and so on, round and round, from year’s end
to year’s end.
This variety, to a person in health and spirits, is often quite
delightful. Each watch has its peculiar advantages; and I need hardly
add, that each likewise furnishes an ample store of materials for
complaining, to those discontented spirits whose chief delight is to
coddle up grievances, as if, forsooth, the principal object of life was
to keep ourselves unhappy, and to help to make others so!
The First watch (8 o’clock to midnight) which comes after the
labour of the day is done, and when every thing is hushed and still,
carries with it this great recommendation, that, although the hour of
going to bed is deferred, the night’s rest is not afterwards broken in
upon. The prospect of ‘turning in’ at midnight, and being allowed to
sleep till seven in the morning, helps greatly to keep us alive and
merry during the First watch, and prevents the excitement of the past
day from ebbing too fast. On the other hand, your thorough-bred
growlers are apt to say, it is a grievous task to keep the First watch,
after having gone through all the toil of the day, and, in particular,
after having kept the Afternoon watch (noon to 4 o’clock,) which, in
hot climates, is always a severe trial upon the strength. Generally
speaking, however, I think the First watch is the least unpopular; for,
I suppose, no mortal, whatever he might think, was ever found so
Quixotic as to profess openly that he really liked keeping watch.
Such a paradox would be famously ridiculed on board ship!
The Middle watch is almost universally held to be a great bore;
and certainly it is a plague of the first order, to be shaken out of a
warm bed at midnight, when three hours of sound sleep have sealed
up our eyelids all the faster, and steeped our senses in forgetfulness,
and in repose, generally much needed. It is a bitter break, too, to
have four good hours sliced out of the very middle of the night’s rest,
especially when this tiresome interval is to be passed in the cold and
rain, or, which is often still more trying, in the sultry calm of a smooth,
tropical sea, when the sleepy sails, as wet with dew as if they had
been dipped overboard, flap idly against the masts and rigging, but
so very gently as barely to make the reef points patter-patter along
the canvass, with notes so monotonous, that the bare recollection of
their sound almost sets me to sleep, now.
Nevertheless, the much-abused Middle watch has its advantages,
at least for those ardent young spirits who choose to seek them out,
and whose habit it is to make the most of things. There are full three
hours and a half of sound snooze before it begins, and as long a
‘spell of sleep’ after it is over. Besides which, the mind, being rested
as well as the body, before the Middle watch begins, both come to
their task so freshly, that, if there be any hard or anxious duties to
execute, they are promptly and well attended to. Even if there be
nothing to do but pace the deck, the thoughts of an officer of any
enthusiasm may contrive to find occupation either in looking back, or
in looking forward, with that kind of cheerfulness which belongs to
youth and health usefully employed. At that season of the night every
one else is asleep, save the quarter-master at the conn, the
helmsman at the wheel, and the look-out men at their different
stations, on the gangways, the bows, and the quarters. And except,
of course, the different drowsy middies, who, poor fellows! keep
tramping along the quarter-deck backwards and forwards, counting
the half-hour bells with anxious weariness; or looking wistfully at the
sand-glass, which the sentry at the cabin-door shakes ever and
anon, as if the lazy march of time, like that of a tired donkey, could
be accelerated by jogging.
But the joyous Morning watch is very naturally the universal
favourite. It is the beginning of a new day of activity and enterprise.
The duties are attacked, too, after a good night’s rest; so that, when
the first touches of the dawn appear, and the horizon, previously lost
in the black sky, begins to shew itself in the east, there comes over
the spirits a feeling of elasticity and strength, of which even the
dullest are not altogether insensible. In war time, this is a moment
when hundreds of eyes are engaged in peering all round into the
twilight; and happy is the sharp-sighted person who first calls out,
with a voice of exultation—
“A sail, sir—a sail!”
“Whereabouts?” is the eager reply.
“Three or four points on the lee-bow, sir.”
“Up with the helm!” cries the officer. “Set the top-gallant and royal
studding-sails—rig out the fore-top-mast studding-sail boom!
Youngster, run down and tell the captain there is a stranger on the
lee-bow—and say that we are making all sail. She looks very
roguish.”
As the merry morning comes dancing gloriously on, and other
vessels hove in sight, fresh measures must be taken, as to the
course steered, or the quantity of sail to be set. So that this period of
the day, at sea, in a cruising ship, gives occasion, more perhaps
than any other time, for the exercise of those stirring qualities of
prompt decision, and vigour in the execution of every purpose,
which, probably, form the most essential characteristics of the
profession.
The Morning watch, also, independent of the active employment it
hardly ever fails to afford, leaves the whole day free, from eight
o’clock till four in the afternoon. Many a previously broken resolution
is put off to this period, only to be again stranded. To those, however,
who choose to study, the certainty of having one clear day in every
three, free from the distraction of all technical duties, is of the
greatest consequence; though, it must be owned that, at the very
best, a ship is but a wretched place for reading. The eternal motion,
and the infernal, noise, almost baffle the most resolute students.
For a hungry midshipman (when are they not hungry!) the Morning
watch has attractions of a still more tender nature. The mate, or
senior man amongst them, is always invited to breakfast with the
officers at eight o’clock; and one or two of the youngsters, in turn,
breakfast with the captain at half-past eight, along with the officer of
the morning watch and the first lieutenant, who, in many ships, is the
constant guest of the captain, both at this meal and at dinner.
The officer of the Forenoon watch, or that from eight to noon,
invariably dines with the captain at three o’clock; and as the ward-
room dinner is at two, exactly one hour before that of the captain, the
officer who has kept the Forenoon watch again comes on deck, the
instant the drum beats “The Roast Beef of Old England,” the well
known and invariable signal that the dinner of the officers is on the
table. His purpose in coming up is to relieve, or take the place of his
brother officer who is keeping the Afternoon watch, till three o’clock
arrives, at which hour the captain’s dinner is ready. The same
interchange of good offices, in the way of relief, as it is called, takes
place amongst the midshipmen of the Forenoon and Afternoon
watches. It is material to observe, however, that all these
arrangements, though they have the graceful air of being pieces of
mutual and voluntary civility, have become quite as much integral
parts of the ordinary course of nautical affairs as any other
established ordinance of the ship.
On Sunday, the captain always dines with the officers in the ward-
room; and although ‘shore-going people’ sometimes take upon
themselves to quiz these periodical, and, Heaven knows! often
formal, dinner parties, there can be no doubt that they do contribute,
and that in a most essential degree, to the maintenance of strict
discipline on board ship. Indeed, I believe it is now generally
admitted, that it would be next to impossible to preserve good order
in a man-of-war, for any length of time, without this weekly
ceremonial, coupled, of course, with that of the officers’ dining, in
turn, with their captain.
We know that too much familiarity breeds contempt; but, in
situations where there is of necessity much intercourse, too little
familiarity will as inevitably breed ill-will, distrust, apprehension, and
mutual jealousy. The difficulty lies in regulating with due caution this
delicate sort of intimacy, and in hitting the exact mean between too
much freedom and too much reserve of manner. The proverb points
out the evil clearly enough, but leaves us to find the remedy. In the
Navy, long experience seems to have shewn, that this important
purpose can be best accomplished by the captain and his officers
occasionally meeting one another at table—not capriciously, at
irregular intervals, or by fits and starts of favour, as the humour suits,
but in as fixed an order, as if the whole of this social intercourse were
determined by Admiralty regulation.
It will readily be understood by any one who has attended much to
the subject of discipline, and will be felt, I should think, more or less,
by all persons who have been engaged personally in the
management of a house, a regiment, a ship, a shop, or any other
establishment in which distinctions of rank and subdivisions of labour
prevail, that nothing ever does, or can go on well, unless, over and
above the mere legal authority possessed by the head, he shall carry
with him a certain amount of the good-will and confidence of those
under him. For it is very material, in order to balance, as it were, the
technical power with which the chief of such establishment is armed,
that there should be some heartiness—some real cheerfulness,
between him and those he commands. Accordingly, the obedience
which they yield to him should not be entirely the result either of

The Palgrave Handbook of Ethics in Critical Research Catriona Ida Macleod Full Chapter

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

The Palgrave Handbook of Ethics in Critical Research Catriona Ida Macleod Full Chapter

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

The Palgrave Handbook of Ethics in Critical Research Catriona Ida Macleod Full Chapter

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

The Palgrave Handbook of Ethics in

Critical Research Catriona Ida Macleod

Phindezwa Mnyaka Gareth J. Treharne

ISBN 978-3-319-74720-0 ISBN 978-3-319-74721-7 (eBook)

Library of Congress Control Number: 2018936138

© The Editor(s) (if applicable) and The Author(s) 2018

Cover illustration: Manu Prats/gettyimages

Printed on acid-free paper

I will not be replicated.

Yet, I have value,

1 Ethics in Critical Research: Stories from the Field 1

Section 1 Encounters with Systems 15

2 Introduction: Encounters with Systems Within Which Critical

3 Ethics in Theory and Pseudo-Ethics in Practice 29

4 Researching Sexual Healthcare for Women with Problematic

5 Contesting the Nature of Young Pregnant and Mothering

6 Ethics in Transdisciplinary Research: Reflections

7 Non-human Animals as Research Participants: Ethical Practice

8 Critical Enquiry in the Context of Research-­Ethics Review

Section 2 Blurring Boundaries 131

9 Introduction: Blurring Boundaries 133

10 Blurred Researcher–Participant Boundaries in Critical

11 Blurring Boundaries Between Researcher and Participant:

12 Bearing Witness to ‘Irreparable Harm’: Incorporating

13 In the Red: Between Research, Activism, and Community

14 Living in a Rural Community and Researching HIV

Section 3 The Politics of Voice, Anonymity, and Confidentiality 225

15 Introduction: The Politics of Anonymity and Confidentiality 227

16 To Be or Not to Be…Revealing Questions of Anonymity

17 Cripping the Ethics of Disability Arts Research 257

18 The Ethics of Allowing Participants to Be Named in Critical

19 Ethics Review and the Social Powerlessness of Data: Reflecting

20 Erasure: A Challenge to Feminist and Queer Research 307

Section 4 Researching ‘Down’, ‘Up’, and ‘Alongside’ 325

21 Introduction: Researching ‘Down’, ‘Up’, and ‘Alongside’ 327

22 Ethical Research and the Policing of Masculinity: Experiences

23 Challenging Methodological and Ethical Conventions

24 Whose PARty Was This? The Dilemmas of a Participatory

25 When Ethical Procedures Can’t Do the Job: Ethical Dilemmas

26 The Ethics of Covert Ethnographic Research 399

27 Subjects and Objects: An Ethic of Representing the Other 415

28 Traversing Ethical Imperatives: Learning from Stories

Claire Aitken is from Dunedin, New Zealand/Aotearoa. She is the Programme

Jacqueline Akhurst is a professor of Psychology at Rhodes University, South Africa.

Lynley Anderson trained and practised as a Physiotherapist, moving into medical

Jason Bantjes is a Counselling Psychologist and Senior Lecturer in the Department

Yolisa Bomela is a PhD candidate in Critical Studies in Sexualities and Reproduction

Melanie Brown is a Research Fellow in the Department of Medicine, University of

policy implementation, project management, governance, and governmentality.

Jessica Cockburn is a PhD candidate in the Department of Environmental Science

Georgina Cundill is a Senior Program Officer at the International Development

Brian Dixon works as an independent clinical psychology consultant in Dunedin,

Natalie Edelman is a Senior Research Fellow at the University of Brighton, United

Tracey Feltham-King is a Senior Lecturer and research co-ordinator in the Psychology

Clare Harvey is a Clinical Psychologist, Lecturer, and Researcher in Psychology at

Jean Hay-Smith trained and practised as a physiotherapist; she transitioned from

Andrea LaMarre is a PhD candidate in the Department of Family Relations and

Catriona Ida Macleod is Distinguished Professor of Psychology and SARChI Chair

Jacqueline Marx is a Research Psychologist and Senior Lecturer at Rhodes University,

1 Ethics in Critical Research: Stories from the Field 1

Section 1 Encounters with Systems 15

2 Introduction: Encounters with Systems Within Which Critical

3 Ethics in Theory and Pseudo-Ethics in Practice 29

4 Researching Sexual Healthcare for Women with Problematic

5 Contesting the Nature of Young Pregnant and Mothering

6 Ethics in Transdisciplinary Research: Reflections

7 Non-human Animals as Research Participants: Ethical Practice

8 Critical Enquiry in the Context of Research-Ethics Review

Section 2 Blurring Boundaries 131

9 Introduction: Blurring Boundaries 133

10 Blurred Researcher–Participant Boundaries in Critical

11 Blurring Boundaries Between Researcher and Participant:

12 Bearing Witness to ‘Irreparable Harm’: Incorporating

13 In the Red: Between Research, Activism, and Community

14 Living in a Rural Community and Researching HIV

Section 3 The Politics of Voice, Anonymity, and Confidentiality 225

15 Introduction: The Politics of Anonymity and Confidentiality 227

16 To Be or Not to Be…Revealing Questions of Anonymity

17 Cripping the Ethics of Disability Arts Research 257

18 The Ethics of Allowing Participants to Be Named in Critical

19 Ethics Review and the Social Powerlessness of Data: Reflecting

20 Erasure: A Challenge to Feminist and Queer Research 307

Section 4 Researching ‘Down’, ‘Up’, and ‘Alongside’ 325

21 Introduction: Researching ‘Down’, ‘Up’, and ‘Alongside’ 327

22 Ethical Research and the Policing of Masculinity: Experiences

23 Challenging Methodological and Ethical Conventions

24 Whose PARty Was This? The Dilemmas of a Participatory

25 When Ethical Procedures Can’t Do the Job: Ethical Dilemmas

26 The Ethics of Covert Ethnographic Research 399

27 Subjects and Objects: An Ethic of Representing the Other 415

28 Traversing Ethical Imperatives: Learning from Stories

Critical Approaches to Research

Critical Approaches to Ethics

tories from the Field: Complicating Ethical

articipants, as highlighted in Section 3. While standard practice may take for

Critical Research on Health or Social Issues

Research as Praxis but Distinct from Practice

Reactive Bureaucracy Versus Proactive Ethics