Ethical standardization, the social utility of research and power dynamics
The principles of research ethics are formulated to protect participants, especially with regard to the expression of their freely-offered and informed consent, and with an underlying respect for their individual intentions and motivations. In practice, it is the signature on a declaration of consent that formalizes voluntary participation and defines research criteria and parameters, including all associated risks. But some research projects do not easily lend themselves to such strict legalities. This is particularly true of incognito research initiatives about which the scientific and social utility and significance are demonstrable. Research ethics committees, however, often have a discretionary authority to exempt formal requirements about consent and the free will of research participants. When put into practice, these discretionary powers can raise various concerns, such as those pertaining to interpretations of risk, the trust accorded to researchers, the particular characteristics of action-research, and other constraints specific to the community environment in which the research is conducted. In this article, I cite the example of an action-research project undertaken in a legal clinic to demonstrate that, despite the best of intentions, the standardization of research ethics reinforces the status quo. I argue that standardization facilitates research that primarily serves the interests of existing power structures and institutions while sidelining various projects and perspectives that are already marginalized.