Article Review: Ethics

​The value of the Tri-Council Policy Statement course on research ethics (TCPS 2) is “of respect for human dignity” which is “expressed through the three core principles”: 1) Respect for Persons, 2) Concern for Welfare and 3) Justice.  As a researcher it is our obligation to fulfill these principles, however, Manzo and Brightbill bring up an excellent point that the standard policies that govern the Research Ethics Board (in the USA this is termed the Institutional Review Board) do not suit Participatory Action Research (2007).  In order to have human subjects as part of a research study, the researcher must act in an ethical way that protects the human subjects, ultimately the REB and IRB sees that the only way this can be done is to have neither a negative nor a positive influence on the participants (Manzo and Brightbill 2007).  Participatory Action Research (PAR) on the other hand aims “to instigate change and to create benefits for participants” (Manzo and Brightbill 2007).  Should researchers have the power to make these decisions?  How does one know whether their perceived positive impact will in fact benefit the people involved?  Although PAR attempts to answer this by including the participants in the research process, do we still run the risk of unintentionally making a negative impact on innocent bystanders?  As practitioner researchers using PAR this brings about a moral dilemma.
 
Works Cited
Battiste, M. (2008). Research ethics for protecting indigenous knowledge and heritage: institutional and researcher responsibilities. In Denzin, N. K., Lincoln, Y. S. & Smith, L. T. Handbook of critical and indigenous methodologies (pp. 497-510). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications Ltd. doi: 10.4135/9781483385686
 
Manzo, L. C., & Brightbill, N. (2007). Toward a Participatory Ethics. In S. L. Kindon, R. Pain, & M. Kesby (Eds.), Participatory action research approaches and methods: connecting people, participation, and place. (pp.33040) Oxon: Routledge.