Ethics Framework and Guidelines:
Table of Contents
Ethics Framework and Guidelines »List of Abbreviations »Preamble »Introduction »
Part I: General Consideration »On ethics »General considerations on ethics »Ethical assessment procedures and the ethics review »On participation »General considerations on participatory practices »Experiences with the ethics framework »
Part II: Tools & Guidelines »A. How should participatory processes be structured? »B. Which type of activity is targeted by the participatory process? »C. Which types of participants are targeted? »D. What are ethical issues and risks? »E. How can equal and meaningful dialogue be fostered? »F. How should participatory processes be monitored & reflected upon? »
Glossary »EC Reference Documents »Endnotes »
A. How should participatory processes be structured?
ACTION A1:
Understand the structural constraints you are operating under
Reflect on the structural context you are operating in and outline existing dependencies that affect the implementation of your participatory process. Identify existing rules and procedures relevant to your process (institutional, legal, and other) and investigate how much flexibility you have to adapt these. Determine what decisions you may make independently, where you need to secure buy-in from other institutional actors, and how much decision-making power you may relay to participants. Secure a mandate and resources (time, budget, personnel) to implement the participatory process.
ACTION A2:
Identify and clarify the expected contributions
Identify why you and potential participants are interested in collaborating, what roles each stakeholder might have, and what types of knowledge and perspectives are sought. This also needs clarity on the expected goals and impacts of the process. Transparently clarifying these from the beginning and throughout the process helps to manage and align expectations on both sides, particularly regarding the impact of the process and how interactions should be structured. This also helps frame, justify, and outline participatory processes for more focused, ethical, and appropriate implementation.
ACTION A3:
Allow for flexibility when planning the participatory process
Stakeholder participation benefits from being organized in an iterative and agile process. Due to its complexity, unexpected nuances and concerns usually arise in the making. This calls for organizational flexibility, which can be fostered by proactive approaches to risk management. Sufficient time and resources must be allocated to the participatory process. These resources and chosen participatory methods25 contribute to the flexibility and quality of the process and need careful consideration.
Identify the potential social, political, institutional, economic, environmental, or other impacts that R&I processes may have, including potential negative impacts stakeholders would like to avoid. Try to be comprehensive and cover all potential stakeholder groups in your assessment. Impacts are best anticipated in inclusive settings and can be better understood by involving the stakeholders that may be affected. Impacts should be listed and related to the design and outcomes of participatory processes. Consider collectively what steps should be taken to mitigate risks and realize desirable outcomes.
Be mindful of the fact that all impact assessment models have a specific scope and a limited focus. They are best seen as tools to support a better structure and understanding of your participatory process and the outcomes you want to achieve. Good online resources to consult on impact assessment include:
https://www.betterevaluation.org/ https://www.fasttrackimpact.com/https://impact.nwo.nl/en/working-with-an-impact-plan
--LINK FEHLERHAFT
https://www.europarl.europa.eu/RegData/etudes/STUD/2021/690031/EPRS_STU(2021)690031_EN.pdf
https://commission.europa.eu/system/files/2021-11/swd2021_305_en.pdf
SHOWCASE
VDI/VDE-IT learned that the identification of expectations should be one of the first steps when structuring participatory processes. Participants in their pilot expected concrete solutions that would solve their everyday problems. Yet, in many cases this was deemed too optimistic by the funding organization. Recurring clarifying conversations and codes of conduct helped align expectations about the process, its scope and goal, the intended outcomes, and everyone’s concrete responsibilities.
Table of Contents »