Article

Reflexive Research Ethics for Environmental Health and Justice: Academics and Movement-Building.

Sociology Department, Brown University, Providence, USA.
Social movement studies 04/2012; 11(2):161-176. DOI: 10.1080/14742837.2012.664898
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT Community-engaged research on environmental problems has reshaped researcher-participant relationships, academic-community interaction, and the role of community partners in human subjects protection and ethical oversight. We draw on our own and others' research collaborations with environmental health and justice social movement organizations to discuss the ethical concerns that emerge in community-engaged research. In this paper we introduce the concept of reflexive research ethics: ethical guidelines and decision-making principles that depend on continual reflexivity concerning the relationships between researchers and participants. Seeing ethics in this way can help scientists conduct research that simultaneously achieves a high level of professional conduct and protects the rights, well-being, and autonomy of both researchers and the multiple publics affected by research. We highlight our research with community-based organizations in Massachusetts, California, and Alaska, and discuss the potential impacts of the community or social movement on the research process and the potential impacts of research on community or social movement goals. We conclude by discussing ways in which the ethical concerns that surface in community-engaged research have led to advances in ethical research practices. This type of work raises ethical questions whose answers are broadly relevant for social movement, environmental, and public health scholars.

0 Followers
 · 
125 Views
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Science on emerging environmental health threats involves numerous ethical concerns related to scientific uncertainty about conducting, interpreting, communicating, and acting upon research findings, but the connections between ethical decision making and scientific uncertainty are under-studied in sociology. Under conditions of scientific uncertainty, researcher conduct is not fully prescribed by formal ethical codes of conduct, increasing the importance of ethical reflection by researchers, conflicts over research conduct, and reliance on informal ethical standards. This paper draws on in-depth interviews with scientists, regulators, activists, industry representatives, and fire safety experts to explore ethical considerations of moments of uncertainty using a case study of flame retardants, chemicals widely used in consumer products with potential negative health and environmental impacts. We focus on the uncertainty that arises in measuring people's exposure to these chemicals through testing of their personal environments or bodies. We identify four sources of ethical concerns relevant to scientific uncertainty: 1) choosing research questions or methods, 2) interpreting scientific results, 3) communicating results to multiple publics, and 4) applying results for policy-making. This research offers lessons about professional conduct under conditions of uncertainty, ethical research practice, democratization of scientific knowledge, and science's impact on policy.
    Sociological Forum 09/2013; 28(3). DOI:10.1111/socf.12034 · 0.91 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Health research has relied on ethical principles, such as those of the Belmont Report, to protect the rights and well-being of research participants. Community-based participatory research (CBPR), however, must also consider the rights and well-being of communities. This requires additional ethical considerations that have been extensively discussed but not synthesized in the CBPR literature. We conducted a comprehensive thematic literature review and summarized empirically grounded discussions of ethics in CBPR, with a focus on the value of the Belmont principles in CBPR, additional essential components of ethical CBPR, the ethical challenges CBPR practitioners face, and strategies to ensure that CBPR meets ethical standards. Our study provides a foundation for developing a working definition and a conceptual model of ethical CBPR. (Am J Public Health. Published online ahead of print October 17, 2013: e1-e8. doi:10.2105/AJPH.2013.301605).
    American Journal of Public Health 10/2013; 103(12). DOI:10.2105/AJPH.2013.301605 · 4.23 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: The characterization and remediation of contaminated sites are complex endeavors fraught with numerous challenges. One particular challenge that is receiving increased attention is the development and encouragement of full participation by communities and community members affected by a given site in all facets of decision-making. Many disciplines have been grappling with the challenges associated with environmental and risk communication, public participation in environmental data generation, and decision-making and increasing community capacity. The concepts and methods developed by these disciplines are reviewed, with a focus on their relevance to the specific dynamics associated with environmental contamination sites. The contributions of these disciplines are then synthesized and integrated to help develop Environmental Research Translation (ERT), a proposed framework for environmental scientists to promote interaction and communication among involved parties at contaminated sites. This holistic approach is rooted in public participation approaches to science, which includes: a transdisciplinary team, effective collaboration, information transfer, public participation in environmental projects, and a cultural model of risk communication. Although there are challenges associated with the implementation of ERT, it is anticipated that application of this proposed translational science method could promote more robust community participation at contaminated sites.
    Science of The Total Environment 08/2014; 497-498C:651-664. DOI:10.1016/j.scitotenv.2014.08.021 · 3.16 Impact Factor

Preview

Download
0 Downloads
Available from