Experiences with the ethics framework

Ethics Framework and Guidelines:

A guide for research funding organizations implementing participatory activities

Experiences with the ethics framework

In the context of the PRO-Ethics project, nine RFOs experimented with this ethics framework for their stakeholder participation processes. Collective reflections on the framework’s use revealed challenges and potential solutions that may prove valuable for future participatory processes. These ‘lessons learned’ related to: the recruitment of participants; managing commitment and expectations; fostering of dialogue and equal participation; accommodation of vulnerable groups; creation of funding themes with participants; lack of expertise in participatory ethics; and planning, flexibility, and resources.

RFOs indicated difficulties in relation to the recruitment of participants. While they generally aimed for heterogeneous groups that appropriately represented all relevant stakeholders, these were often difficult to determine and subsequently assemble. In piloting participatory processes, the project’s RFO partners selected stakeholders on various criteria, such as their socio-economic background, education, age, religion, ethnicity, and gender (identity). This in turn posed challenges in terms of intersectionality, as participants may identify with multiple stakeholder groups. A possible way forward is to allow stakeholders to self-categorize according to their own understanding of their identity. In addition, because the understanding of ‘correct’ representation tends to vary among different stakeholders, this question cannot be addressed in a standardized manner, but must be considered in the context of each specific participatory process. Still, RFOs must consider whether representation that ‘accurately’ reflects society is desirable at all, given that the politics among participants will then likely reflect the dynamics found in society. For instance, it may be desirable in some cases to give minorities a stronger voice to mitigate power imbalances.

RFOs also found recruitment of their targeted stakeholders more difficult than anticipated. In practice, there is often a disparity between which stakeholders should be involved (in terms of desired representation), and which can be recruited (in terms of willingness, capacity, resources, recruitment efforts, etc.). Not every stakeholder potentially affected by R&I is interested in participation. The RFO partners therefore relied on practical solutions, such as snowball sampling and using multiplier organizations to recruit participants, while acknowledging the drawbacks of such methods (e.g. selection bias). Employing the support of experienced recruiters may also help address some of these challenges.

Managing commitment and expectations posed challenges as stakeholders have different views on R&I, RFOs, and concrete participatory processes. Experiments suggest it is important to understand, and to accommodate, the needs of participants. Some stakeholders may require different forms of participation or may need financial compensation. It proved helpful to transparently communicate everyone’s expectations regarding the roles, scope, purpose, process, and outcomes of the participatory activity. Such expectations may also be made explicit in a (co-created) code of conduct.

Difficulties also emerged during the participation process in relation to organizing meaningful dialogue and equal participation. Equal participation is deemed important to gather values and worldviews relevant to the R&I process, but because stakeholder participation is often characterized by diverse perspectives, this poses the risk of misinterpretation and conflict. Furthermore, some perspectives might dominate discussions as a result of personalities, knowledge, or institutional roles (e.g. citizens vs. scientists). Mitigating knowledge-based domination may require a thematic ‘warm-up’ for both citizens and scientists. Deploying a facilitator who is gender- and diversity-competent could also help mitigate conflict and imbalances by steering discussions and safeguarding the involvement of less vocal participants. Mutual trust among participants can be fostered by choosing an external mediator who takes on a neutral role during discussions. It can also be beneficial to reduce information asymmetries by either offering or withholding information.

The RFO partners also indicated challenges in the accommodation of vulnerable groups²⁴.This is particularly relevant as participatory processes in research funding often relate to solving real-life problems. The stakeholders affected by these problems may therefore be subject to social injustice, financial issues, or other pressures and risks. Because vulnerability is difficult to define and understand, it is useful to consider the factors that make stakeholders vulnerable, such as their resources, abilities, experiences, identities, values, and worldviews. As stakeholders generally have the best insight into their own vulnerability, it can be helpful to gain their perspective rather than rely on assumptions made by the RFO. RFOs could also help accommodate vulnerable groups by listening to their suggestions, and by addressing the underlying issues that give rise to disadvantages, e.g., through financial compensation, the use of translators, or the enhanced accessibility of meetings.

In the case of stakeholder participation for the creation of funding themes/priorities, some RFOs experienced difficulties determining how to involve both traditional stakeholders (scientists and innovators) and non-traditional stakeholders (e.g. citizens). The RFOs recognized three possible ways to involve both groups: (1) traditional stakeholders propose themes, which non-traditional stakeholders select and contextualize; (2) non-traditional stakeholders propose themes, which traditional stakeholders then select; or (3) themes are proposed and selected collectively. While all three approaches may yield results, RFOs found that collective discussions tended to give rise to power imbalances (e.g. based on expertise and status). Allowing non-traditional stakeholders to propose themes yielded many socially relevant topics, but these were not always considered scientifically relevant. On the other hand, streamlining the process, by allowing traditional stakeholders to propose themes for non-traditional stakeholders to select, ran the risk of tokenism due to the limited decision-making power of the latter group. As such, all approaches have advantages and drawbacks, and the appropriate approach likely remains context dependent.

While skills and knowledge on ethics and participation are believed to improve stakeholder participation, RFOs frequently lacked ethical and participatory expertise. RFOs indicated that the ethics framework is helpful, but that external support from ethicists, facilitators, and recruitment agencies can improve the quality of participation. It is nevertheless helpful to recognize that organizing stakeholder participation benefits from a ‘learning-by-doing’ approach that is flexible and open to feedback from its participants. RFOs subsequently benefit from people with the right mind-set, i.e., openness, social skills, and the willingness to learn and engage.

Lastly, it is important to stress that, while the ethics frameworkstrives for the highest ethical standards, it may not always be possible to meet these in practice. Organizing stakeholder participation is an uncertain process that does not always unfold according to plan. One RFO remarked that “these processes seem way more resource consuming than thought in the beginning”. Participatory processes are also dependent on external factors (e.g. regulations, operational planning). All these challenges indicate that it is helpful to have a surplus of resources available, and to have back-up plans in case flexibility is needed.

Table of Contents »

Cookie-Informationen

Ethics Framework and Guidelines:

Table of Contents

Experiences with the ethics framework