From Paper Ethics to Real-World Research: Supervising Ethical Reflexivity When Taking Risks in Research with ‘the Risky’

Abstract

In real-world research, ethics are not fixed. Ethnographic researchers require flexibility to negotiate the ambiguities of ethical compromise and honour ethical values. Indeed, in what has been termed a `reflexive turn' (Brewer 2000), it is now more common than previously for researchers to engage reflexively with the fieldwork process, acknowledging knowledge produc- tion as both situated and partial (Lumsden 2012) and emotional (Ruby 1980; Israel and Hay 2006; Jewkes 2011). Less common is expressed reflex- ivity regarding the ethics of particular studies, acknowledging how the implementation of ethical safeguards is also situated, partial and sometimes compromised in the field (but see McGraw et al. 2000; Guillemin and Gillam 2004). This is especially taboo because of the heightened ethical concerns of work with `vulnerable populations' in the field of criminology. This chapter considers how powerful institutions can utilise ethical procedures designed to both define and protect `the vulnerable' to inhibit research that aims to encounter these individuals within the risky realities of their lives. We delib- erate on what Israel and Hay (2006) outline as the two difficulties facing social scientists: (i) the need to engage in ethical conduct while (ii) also ensuring regulatory compliance. We argue that researchers seeking to con- form to ethical review procedures can design methodological safeguards that, in practice, may numb their ethical sensibilities and discourage honest engagement in and reflexive deliberation of `ethically important moments' (Guillemin and Gillam 2004).