Vanclay. Principles For Ethical Research
Vanclay. Principles For Ethical Research
Vanclay. Principles For Ethical Research
Principles for ethical research involving humans: ethical professional practice in impact
assessment Part I
Frank Vanclay1*, James T. Baines2 and C. Nicholas Taylor2
1
Department of Cultural Geography, Faculty of Spatial Sciences, University of Groningen, PO Box 800, 9700AV Groningen, The
Netherlands; 2Taylor Baines & Associates, Riccarton, Christchurch, New Zealand
(Received 14 October 2012; accepted 27 September 2013)
Drawing on various national statements on the ethical conduct of research, the codes of ethics of professional associations
and international agencies, and ethical guidelines in social research methods textbooks, this paper identifies current
principles for ethical research involving humans and discusses their implications for impact assessment practice generally
and social impact assessment specifically. The identified ethical principles include: respect for participants, informed
consent, specific permission required for audio or video recording, voluntary participation and no coercion, participant right
to withdraw, full disclosure of funding sources, no harm to participants, avoidance of undue intrusion, no use of deception,
the presumption and preservation of anonymity, participant right to check and modify a transcript, confidentiality of
personal matters, data protection, enabling participation, ethical governance, provision of grievance procedures,
appropriateness of research methodology, and full reporting of methods. Topics such as a conflict of interest, moral hazard
and duty of care are also considered. Also discussed are Indigenous peoples’ rights and their implications for ethical impact
assessment processes.
Keywords: ethics in practice; social research ethics; professional ethics; ethical social research; reflexive practice; code of
ethics
Introduction: The need for competency in ethics goals of ethics education for practising professionals:
Ethical issues and dilemmas arise in all forms of
professional practice. Academic research in various 1. Stimulating and broadening the moral imagination
disciplines, especially in the social sciences, also – practitioners need to learn about ethics, to
encounters ethical issues. While there has been an understand ethical issues, to gain an empathy for
increasing codification of research ethics and professional people, and to interpret contexts in moral terms.
practice ethics with the establishment of institutional 2. Recognizing ethical issues – practitioners need to
ethics committees, views about the ethical implications of be aware of when and how ethical issues occur.
various research methods and practices vary across 3. Developing analytical skills – practitioners need to
disciplines and in different cultural settings (Castellano learn the vocabulary of ethics and moral argument,
2004; Hoeyer et al. 2005). For example, much concern has and to develop skills in analysing and addressing
been expressed by social scientists about the dominance of ethical situations.
biomedical thinking in research ethics discussions (Israel 4. Eliciting a sense of moral obligation and respon
& Hay 2006; Shore 2007; Dyer & Demeritt 2009; Amon sibility – practitioners need to develop an under-
et al. 2012). Therefore, with evolving practice in impact standing of their personal obligations and
responsibilities.
assessment practice generally and social impact assess-
5. Coping with moral ambiguity – practitioners need
ment (SIA) practice especially (Vanclay 2002, 2003a,
to be aware of and able to cope with situations in
2004, 2006, 2012; Esteves & Vanclay 2009; João et al.
which moral principles are in conflict with each
2011; Vanclay & Esteves 2011; Esteves et al. 2012; Franks
other and/or where there is no obvious moral
& Vanclay 2013), it is appropriate that ongoing
choice. Decisions in these cases should be based not
reconsideration be given to the topic of ethical practice
on personal preference or vested interest, but on
and to the kinds of ethical issues that can arise (Howitt
reasoned moral argument. The potential for moral
2005; Baines & Taylor 2011; Fuggle 2012). This is
ambiguity also means that individual practitioners
especially the case because ethical issues in professional
need to be able to negotiate ethical judgements with
practice rarely have simple right and wrong answers
others and be able to defend their decisions and
(Guillemin & Gillam 2004). An active awareness of the
actions on moral grounds.
ethical issues likely to be encountered is important for
reflexive and professional practice (Fisher 2008). This paper and its companion paper (Baines et al.
A hallmark of professionalism is an ongoing discus- 2013) seek to contribute to advancing these goals in the
sion of ethical issues within the professional group (Jowell impact assessment field. While the companion paper
1986; Savan 1989; Wolpe 2006; Zandvoort 2008). discusses a range of ethical issues from the basis of the
Jennings (2003) considers that there are five general authors’ experiences of professional SIA practice, this first
paper is relevant to all fields of impact assessment given consider how they should behave from a moral
that the principles of ethical human research are perspective, in other words, what they ought to do.
considered to apply to any research (i.e. data collection) Applied or professional ethics deals with ethical questions
process that involves human beings, whether humans are in many fields of professional practice, and many journals
the subject of the research or only the providers of data. have been established, including: Bioethics; Journal of
Thus, data collection for an (environmental) impact Business Ethics; Journal of Clinical Ethics; Journal of Law,
assessment that relies on asking people for opinions or
Medicine & Ethics; Journal of Medical Ethics; Nanoethics;
information about biophysical issues would still normally
and Science & Engineering Ethics. In addition, the
be expected to comply with ethical research principles and
procedures. The Australian national ethical research mainstream journals of the professions frequently discuss
statement, for example, requires that its ethical principles ethical issues. Ethics apply to all aspects of personal and
be used in conjunction with any human research funded by organizational practice and are therefore relevant to
any of the Australian government research funding individuals, small firms, large corporations, government
agencies. Furthermore, it states that: ‘in addition, the and non-government organizations, and to professions as a
National Statement sets national standards for use by any whole.
individual, institution or organisation conducting human The application of ethics in a professional context often
research. This includes human research undertaken by takes the form of a written code, document or agreement
governments, industry, private individuals, organisations, that stipulates morally acceptable behaviour by individuals
or networks of organisations’ (Australian Government within an organization or profession. In medicine and
2007, p. 7). Social research ethics therefore potentially health research, for example, the Helsinki Declaration
extend beyond SIA to all forms of impact assessment, and (World Medical Association 2000) is the defining
extend from academic to all organizational settings.
statement. The American Anthropological Association
While academic research in many countries is clearly
(2012), American Evaluation Association (2004), Associ
subject to the national generic and institution-specific
requirements of the particular university in which the ation of American Geographers (2009), American Planning
academic researcher resides, it is worth considering Association (1992), American Psychology Association
the extent to which research ethics might also apply (2010), American Sociological Association (1999) and
outside the context of formal research institutions, to the their equivalent organizations in many other countries of
professional practice settings in which most impact the world all have their various Codes of Ethics. Most
assessment professionals work. Although ethical research professional associations in most countries of the world,
principles are sometimes used by institutions to protect the including the International Association for Impact Assess
reputations of those institutions and to address risk ment (International Association for Impact Assessment
considerations, nevertheless there is a legitimate, widely 2009), have some form of a code of ethics – as stated
accepted, fundamental philosophical basis to the ethical before, consideration of ethical concerns is a defining
principles. To that extent, these principles also apply to all feature of being a profession. An excellent entry point for
practitioners, irrespective of their institutional setting.
links to codes of ethics is the CODEX website established at
Thus, good professional practice would mean complying
the University of Uppsala with the support of the Swedish
with ethical research as generally understood.
Research Council (http://www.codex.uu.se/en/etik9.
This paper (i.e. part I of a two-part paper) identifies the
currently accepted ethical principles that apply to research shtml). Another entry point is the Council of European
involving humans and reflects briefly on the extent to Social Science Data Archives (http://www.cessda.org/
which they apply to impact assessment. The companion sharing/rights/4/).
paper (Baines et al. 2013) considers specifically how the Rossouw (2002) provides a useful discussion of the
ethical principles apply to SIA practice, drawing on the various features requiring attention when organizations
practice perspective of the authors. This first paper starts develop a code of ethics, including consideration of
with a discussion of ethics and professional practice, purpose, process, form, content and implementation.
before considering a range of codes of ethical research and He notes that some codes put more emphasis on promoting
identifying the major ethical principles in those codes. good practice while others emphasize the avoidance of
A concluding section provides some reflections relating to malpractice. Some are aspirational in character, setting out
improving ethical conduct in impact assessment generally. ideal behaviours, while others are more directional, setting
out actual behavioural requirements. Some ethical codes
are more concerned with the implications of an individual’s
Morality, ethics and ethical practice behaviour for their professional colleagues within an
Ethics, or moral philosophy, is a branch of philosophy that organization, while others focus more on the importance of
seeks to address questions of morality. Morality refers to maintaining the confidence of external parties such as the
beliefs or standards about concepts like good and bad, public, the courts, the state, or key stakeholders. Rossouw
right and wrong (Jennings 2003). When used as the basis argues that, if the purpose of a code is to establish
for guiding individual and collective behaviour, ethics agreement about shared values between members of an
takes on a normative function, helping individuals organization, then a consensus-seeking process is required.
Impact Assessment and Project Appraisal 245
Professional practice and codes of ethics The Belmont Report differentiated between research
In any jurisdiction, one can conceive of various intersecting and practice; however, more recent codes tend not to make
sets of ethical codes and understandings. One sphere relates this distinction. The Australian National Statement
to the ethics of academic social science enquiry. Another (Australian Government 2007), for example, has a lengthy
sphere is associated with the ethics of professional practice discussion on the definition of ‘research’, making it clear
where consultants make a living implementing social that it should be understood in very broad terms.
research methods in commercial contexts. Another relates Nevertheless, Guillemin and Gillam (2004) make a case
to institutional guidelines of a government agency (the for ‘ethics in practice’ or micro-ethics, arguing that
regulator or competent authority) or, in the few situations practitioners need assistance for dealing with what happens
where they have them, the codes of conduct of the private at specific individual encounters. The general view,
sector commissioning party. Yet another sphere relates to however, is that ethical guidelines should not be prescriptive
the provision of expert advice in judicial or quasi-judicial and that they will sometimes be contradictory. Rather than
situations where there are often specific legal requirements have specific rules for micro-situations, practitioners should
pertaining to the nature of evidence and disclosure of be equipped with (and trained in) ethico-analytical skills to
sources. Another sphere is the expectations of the affected be able to make their own ethical decisions at the micro level
population and/or of any significant subgroups within and to be able to defend them at the macro level.
society at large. A final sphere might be the concerns of It is generally understood that professionals (and thus
certain key stakeholder groups in society at large, including impact assessment practitioners) have ethical obligations
NGOs and watchdog groups, who might have particular to: society generally; employers, clients and/or funders;
ethical perspectives or expectations that need to be fellow colleagues, employees and in the case of academics
considered, not just about the process of assessment but to students; the professional community to which they
also about the planned changes (or project) overall. What belong and/or operate; and research participants and the
people consider to be ‘best practice’, ‘ethical’, ‘pro communities to which they (the participants and arguably
fessional’ or even ‘acceptable’ practice usually depends on the professionals) belong (Marcuse 1976; Jowell 1986;
what standpoint they come from. This phenomenon is Social Research Association (UK) 2003; Social Policy
known as ‘framing’ (Kaufman & Smith 1999; Wynne Association (UK) 2009).
2001; Shmueli et al. 2006; Oughton & Bracken 2009). The obligation to society was originally seen as being
Nevertheless, although these spheres do not necess paramount, leading to a primary obligation ‘to protect the
arily share the same understandings of ethics or ethical safety, health, property and welfare of the public’
obligations, some general and arguably universal prin (Holemans & Lodewyckx 1996, p. 22). The obligation to
ciples can be inferred from moral and philosophical society requires impact assessment professionals to act
foundations. For example, one of the first national with integrity, and to be committed to the fair and proper
statements on research ethics to be implemented (although conduct of their research in terms of the collection of
see Israel & Hay 2006 for a longer discussion on the accurate data and the use of appropriate and valid
origins of research ethics) was the Belmont Report (United analytical methods. They are expected to avoid real or
States National Commission for Protection of Human perceived conflicts of interest (situations where they could
Subjects of Biomedical and Behavioral Research 1978), personally benefit) and to be mindful of moral hazard
which arose in part in response to public outcry about (i.e. situations where the professional does not bear the
various medical experiments, specifically the now consequences of any risks they take and may therefore be
notorious Tuskegee Syphilis Study which exploited, excessive in their suggestions or actions). They would be
deceived and withheld medical treatment from rural expected to restrict their activities to remain within their
black men in Alabama (Thomas & Quinn 1991; Shore area of competence (Jamal & Bowie 1995; American
2007). The Belmont Report (United States National Evaluation Association 2004). They have a duty of care,
Commission for Protection of Human Subjects of that is, ‘an obligation to take reasonable care to avoid
Biomedical and Behavioral Research 1978; also see causing foreseeable harm to another person or their
Freed-Taylor 1994), which continues to be the basis of property’ (Legal Aid Queensland 2012, online). They also
institutional ethics procedures in the USA, established that need to ensure the provision of procedural and natural
there are three overarching scientific norms that govern all justice (Morrison-Saunders & Early 2008). The primary
research involving humans: duty to society also means that there is an expectation that
results of social research would be publicly available.
(1) respect for persons – requiring both that the With the maturing of discussions about ethical
autonomy of persons is respected and that professional practice in the different spheres mentioned
individuals with diminished autonomy are pro above, a gradual change in the emphasis in the codes of
tected; ethics can be discerned. Earlier codes tended to focus on
(2) beneficence – by which they mean non-malefi obligations to society and to the proper conduct of research,
cence (i.e. an obligation to do no harm) as well as a whereas newer codes tend to focus on obligations to
need to maximize well-being; and research participants. Another way of expressing this
(3) justice – ensuring reasonable, non-exploitative change is that there has been a shift from normative ethics to
and carefully considered procedures with fair procedural ethics (Kenny & Giacomini 2005). A specific
distribution of costs and benefits. example of this is in the Australian Government (1999,
246 F. Vanclay et al.
p. 11) National Statement, where Clause 1.4 states that or stated in the documents considered. In the language of
‘Each research protocol must be designed to ensure that qualitative research, the set of principles represents the
respect for the dignity and well being of the participants themes that emerged from the analysis.
takes precedence over the expected benefits to knowledge’, Although social scientists do not regard the principles
although this statement was not repeated in the 2007 as strict rules but rather as general principles to inform
version of the document. The 2012 version of the American discussion and practice, institutional ethics committees
Anthropological Association (2012, p. 9), however, clearly have tended to interpret and implement them rigidly,
states ‘obligations to research participants are usually resulting in resistance in various quarters (e.g. Adler &
primary’. Adler 2002; Haggerty 2004; Israel & Hay 2006; Shore
2007; Dyer & Demeritt 2009).
Because of the wide use of social research methods in
Principles for ethical social research SIA, the ethical principles applying to social research
Despite these varied contexts (spheres) discussed above, it might be considered as also applying to SIA practitioners.
is possible to distil a number of inter-related principles that They also arguably apply to impact assessment prac
are generally considered to be the basis of ethical research titioners who derive or access any form of data from
involving humans. This set of principles was identified by people. We therefore present these principles in order to
undertaking an in-depth literature review and a document encourage discussion about ethical practice amongst all
analysis of key documents in the ethics in research field, impact assessment practitioners.
specifically: The principles below are given in our words, but fairly
reflect how they are understood in the social research field
. national and regional statements from governments
generally. Comments about their implications for SIA
or government agencies about research involving
follow in the companion paper (Baines et al. 2013). While
humans – for example, Australian Government
all principles potentially apply to SIA practice in general,
(2007), AIATSIS (2011), the UK Economic and
there may be occasions when there is contradiction. In
Social Research Council (2012), Institute for
these situations, a practitioner would need to make a
Employment Studies (2004), UK Civil Service
reasoned decision based on a balanced ethical judgement.
(2005), United States National Commission for
The first two principles, respect for participants and
Protection of Human Subjects of Biomedical and
informed consent, are the foundational principles from
Behavioral Research (1978);
which all other principles cascade down. As the essence of
. the ethical guidelines of various professional
associations – for example, in addition to the ethical research, they are thus reflected in the other
American associations mentioned earlier, the principles. Please note that the word ‘researcher’ is used in
Sociological Association of Aotearoa (New Zeal the principles, but this refers to anybody involved in a
and) (1990), The Australian Sociological Associ data-collection process and in the context of impact
ation (2003), the Social Research Association (UK) assessment therefore equates with practitioner.
(2003), the Social Policy Association (UK) (2009), 1. Respect for participants – A researcher should
the (UK) Royal Anthropological Institute (2012), always demonstrate respect in terms of all their
and the International Association for Impact
interactions with participants including not jud
Assessment (2009);
ging them, not discrediting them, in ensuring that
. the ethical guidelines of various international
their views are faithfully recorded and given due
agencies – for example, United Nations Edu
consideration in the assessment process. Part of
cational Scientific and Cultural Organization
this respect is implied by the terminology of
(UNESCO) (1994), Tropenbos International (Per
‘participant’ (rather than ‘respondent’ or ‘sub
soon & Minter 2011) and the Convention on
ject’). An important dimension of this respect
Biological Diversity (2004);
relates to ensuring the protection of persons with
. the discussion around research ethics as presented in
diminished autonomy, and those who are margin
social research methods textbooks – for example,
alized or vulnerable. Special recognition and
Babbie (1989), Bulmer (1982, 2001), Hay (2010a,
procedures may also be required in the case of
b) and Hennink et al. (2011); and
Indigenous peoples (see below).
. recent books and key journal articles specifically on
2. Informed consent – Participation should be the
professional ethics or ethics in research – for
voluntary choice of the participants and should be
example, Gregory (2003), Guillemin & Gillam
based on sufficient information and an adequate
(2004), Haggerty (2004), Hoeyer et al. (2005),
understanding of the research and the conse
Richardson (2005), Israel & Hay (2006), Resnik
quences of their participation. This implies that the
(2008), Amon et al. (2012) and Hoekveld &
researcher must disclose all relevant information
Needham (2013).
and any possible risks of participation, especially
The identified principles are described below. Not all any issues around what will happen to the data
sources mentioned above include all the principles obtained. It is usually expected that informed
described below, but rather the principles presented here consent be recorded in writing (as signed consent
represent an analytical summary of the principles implied forms) and be producible by the researcher in the
Impact Assessment and Project Appraisal 247
event of an audit up to several years after the only of those matters that are relevant to the issues
research was completed. Israel and Hay (2006) under research and that enquiries should be
provide an extensive discussion of what constitu- confined to those issues. It implies a respect for
tes informed consent. the personal lives of participants and that
3. Specific permission required for audio- or video- researchers should be cognizant of what is
recording – If the researcher intends to audio- personal and private.
record (i.e. ‘tape’), videorecord (i.e. ‘film’) or 9. No use of deception – The principle of respect for
photograph any participant, their specific approval participants and professional integrity implies that
for this must be given in advance (and may in fact the use of deception or covert methods should only
be a legal requirement under the privacy be used under certain circumstances and only
legislation of most countries). when approved by a duly appointed ethics
4. Voluntary participation and no coercion – committee.
As implied by the principle of informed consent, 10. Presumption and preservation of anonymity –
participation must be voluntary and not subject to There is an assumption of anonymity, that is,
any coercion or threat of harm for non- people participate in research on the presumption
participation. Non-coercion is not taken to mean that they will be anonymous and that their
that there should not be payments for partici- anonymity will be protected, unless they have
pation; however, any such payment should be given permission to be named. Thus, there is a
commensurate with the amount of time and requirement for the expressed permission from
normal income expectations of the participants, participants for any use of the real names of people
and should not be excessive such that it would or where a person’s identity would be evident from
constitute a bribe or inappropriate inducement. the context (for example, the mayor or other public
5. Right to withdraw – Consistent with the principle figure identified by the public role).
of voluntary participation, participants must know 11. Right to check and modify a transcript – Where
that they can withdraw at any time and have any of people are named or identifiable, those partici
their data already recorded removed from the pants have the right to check how they are quoted
analysis where this is possible. and to make changes to a transcript and any draft
6. Full disclosure of funding sources – An publication that may be prepared to ensure they
implication of the principle of informed consent agree with the way they are recorded. Some codes
is that there must be full disclosure of the sources (e.g. Australian Government 2007, clause 3.1.15)
of funding for the research. suggest that respect for participants means that all
7. No harm to participants – It is fundamental that no participants should be able to check their transcript
harm must come to participants as a result of their for accuracy and completeness.
participation in the research. This means not only 12. Confidentiality of personal matters – Respect for
that participants must not be exposed to pain or participants means that confidentiality (i.e. non-
danger in the course of the research (such as in a disclosure of information) should be accorded to
psychological experiment or medical trial), but all private or personal matters or views, or when
also that there must be no adverse consequences to any such undertaking is given. This means that
a person as a result of their participation. This there is a responsibility on the researcher to make
latter issue can be complicated. For example, a judgements about what should be reported and
researcher cannot guarantee that an employer what should not be publicly disclosed. The fact
would not take action against an employee for that something was revealed to the researcher does
their participation or for comments they might not automatically entitle the researcher to make it
make, although such a risk should be addressed by public. When information is entrusted to a
ensuring the anonymity and/or confidentiality researcher in confidence, such confidentiality
measures discussed below. At the very least, the must be protected.
researcher must do their utmost to protect 13. Data protection – Because of the confidentiality of
participants from any harm, and to ensure under data, care must be taken to ensure that the data are
the principle of informed consent that the stored securely and safe from unauthorized access.
participant is fully appraised of all possible risks It is also expected that there be a stated timeline
from participation. Sometimes, participation in for safe disposal of the data. However, because of
social research will necessarily cause a participant other institutional requirements that researchers be
to reflect on personal issues, bringing about able to produce raw data in the event of an audit or
emotional distress. Here the researcher’s obli- complaint and to safeguard against fraud, typically
gation is to ensure that the research interaction this would be a number of years after completion
does not finish until there is some resolution of the of the project.
emotional distress that has arisen, and that there is 14. Enabling participation – Researchers have an
recourse to follow-up assistance or counselling. ethical responsibility to ensure that all relevant
8. Avoidance of undue intrusion – Respect for individuals and groups are included in the
participants means that there will be discussion research, and where they might ordinarily be
248 F. Vanclay et al.
excluded by reasons of language, access or cost to Because of past serious cases of unethical research
participate, that there be a genuine attempt to practice by various professions (Cochran et al. 2008), and
enable participation by providing appropriate because of the growing assertion of Indigenous peoples’
means of access such as translation, transportation, rights as manifested in, for example, the United Nations
or payments to offset the cost of attendance. Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (United
15. Ethical governance – For the proper functioning Nations General Assembly 2007), various organizations,
of ethical procedures it is necessary that there be a including the IAIA (Croal et al. 2012) have been
system of ethical governance in place. There needs developing codes of practice for research or other
to be a committee or other facility that can review interactions involving Indigenous peoples (e.g. Castellano
research protocols prior to the research taking 2004; Convention on Biological Diversity 2004; Persoon
place, oversee and/or monitor research activities, & Minter 2011). One example of such a code was
provide advice to researchers and participants, and developed by the Australian Institute of Aboriginal and
make judgements in relation to complaints.
Torres Strait Islander Studies (AIATSIS 2011), with the
16. Grievance procedure – Good ethical governance
key principles in that code being presented in Box 1.
requires that participants have access to a
grievance procedure and recourse to corrective
action. The grievance procedure must be procedu
Box 1: Principles for Research involving Indigen
rally fair, and properly disclosed to participants.
ous Peoples (AIATSIS 2011)
17. Appropriateness of research methodology –
Respect for participants as well as professional Principle 1: Recognition of the diversity and
probity means that the research procedure must uniqueness of peoples, as well as of individuals, is
have reliability and validity. Participants give their essential.
time (whether free or paid) on the presumption that Principle 2: The rights of Indigenous peoples to
the research is legitimate, worthwhile and valid. self-determination must be recognized.
18. Full reporting of methods – Research methods and Principle 3: The rights of Indigenous peoples to
analytical procedures must be fully disclosed to: their intangible heritage must be recognized.
enable replication of the research by another Principle 4: Rights in the traditional knowledge and
researcher; enable peer review of the adequacy and traditional cultural expressions of Indigenous
ethicality of the methodology; and to encourage peoples must be respected, protected and
critical self-reflection on the limitations of the maintained.
methodology and any implications for the results Principle 5: Indigenous knowledge, practices and
and conclusions. innovations must be respected, protected and
maintained.
These principles provide ethical guidance to research
Principle 6: Consultation, negotiation and free,
ers and practitioners and to the institutions in which they
prior and informed consent are the foundations for
work. Rather than being implemented uncritically, the
research with or about Indigenous peoples.
guidance is meant to encourage an understanding and
Principle 7: Responsibility for consultation and
critical reflection on ethical issues. It should be accepted
negotiation is ongoing.
that there will be circumstances that might obviate the
Principle 8: Consultation and negotiation should
rigid implementation of one or more of these principles, as
achieve mutual understanding about the proposed
discussed in the companion paper. However, all
research.
researchers and practitioners have an individual and
Principle 9: Negotiation should result in a formal
collective responsibility to ensure ethical practice, with the
agreement for the conduct of a research project.
team leader having overall responsibility and a specific
Principle 10: Indigenous people have the right to
role in ensuring compliance by all team members. Since
full participation appropriate to their skills and
ethical understandings will vary between individuals and
experiences in research projects and processes.
across professional groups, there needs to be discussion of
Principle 11: Indigenous people involved in
ethics in all team situations, especially given the
research, or who may be affected by research,
interdisciplinary work contexts that typically apply in
should benefit from, and not be disadvantaged by,
impact assessment.
the research project.
Principle 12: Research outcomes should include
specific results that respond to the needs and
Respecting Indigenous peoples interests of Indigenous people.
The first principle listed above, respect for participants, Principle 13: Plans should be agreed for managing
would also imply respect for the individual and societal use of, and access to, research results.
differences and beliefs of various peoples, and, for Principle 14: Research projects should include
example, expecting that researchers/practitioners would appropriate mechanisms and procedures for report
not regard or treat everyone as being homogenous. ing on ethical aspects of the research and complying
A specific application of this principle that is very relevant with these guidelines.
to impact assessment relates to Indigenous peoples.
Impact Assessment and Project Appraisal 249
Although the AIATSIS and similar codes typically Potential actions to improve the ethicality of
address the same issues as mentioned in the ethical professional practice
research principles presented in this paper, in the The commitment and adherence to ethical practice rely on
AIATSIS, IAIA (Croal et al. 2012) and related codes the efforts of practitioners, as well as those of their client
there is an explicit mention of the wider rights of organizations and professional associations. Professional
Indigenous peoples and the need for the researcher/ organizations such as the IAIA can promote and provide
practitioner to acknowledge and protect those rights. For active support for ethical practice. There is a suite of
example, the introduction to the AIATSIS (2011, p. 4) measures that can be undertaken to support ethical practice
guidelines starts with the words: at the individual and organizational level (extracted/
modified from Rossouw 2002), including:
Indigenous peoples have inherent rights, including the
right to self-determination. The principles in these 1. a participatory process for developing and
Guidelines . . . are founded on respect for their rights. reviewing a code of ethics for good practice;
These include rights to full and fair participation in any
2. a commitment to communicating the code of
processes, projects and activities that impact on them,
and the right to control and maintain their culture and ethics, regularly and in varied ways so that it is
heritage. AIATSIS considers that these principles are not reinforced amongst practitioners;
only a matter of ethical research practice but of human 3. a commitment to ensuring that new practitioners
rights. become acquainted with the code;
It is clear that the data collection processes (i.e. 4. the provision of opportunities for the open
research) being undertaken for impact assessments must discussion of ethical dilemmas and case studies;
5. a commitment to the ongoing enforcement of the
not only respect international understandings of ethical
code by positive enforcement rewarding or
social research, but must also comply with the expanding
acknowledging practitioners who behave in an
domain of human rights (Kemp & Vanclay 2013). The
exemplary fashion and by punishment of some
AIATSIS Principle 6 states that the principle of free, prior kind for those who violate the code;
and informed consent (FPIC) should be applied even to 6. an organizational procedure for addressing code
research with or about Indigenous peoples. The same is the violations and providing necessary support to
case with the code of conduct produced by the Nether monitor compliance;
lands-based development agency/NGO, Tropenbos Inter 7. public commitment to the code, especially on the
national (Persoon & Minter 2011). Thus, FPIC is not just a part of people who have high standing in the
concept pertaining to the development project for which an organization.
impact assessment is being done; the concept of FPIC also
The ethical performance of an association can be
applies to the impact assessment process itself. When
considered by using the criteria above. For example, the
applied to research, ostensibly FPIC would in practice be
IAIA can be evaluated against these criteria as follows:
no different to ‘informed consent’ as implied by the
guidelines for ethical research; however, FPIC arguably . Criterion 1 – the IAIA has developed and actively
has a more significant legal and international standing than promotes its ethical statement (see International
‘informed consent’. As FPIC, informed consent becomes Association for Impact Assessment 2009) and Code
elevated to a human rights discourse rather than being just of Conduct (see Box 2) amongst its members.
a matter of ethical research practice. . Criterion 2 – the IAIA vigorously communicates
The principles for research involving Indigenous the existence of the Code, and strongly encourages
peoples and the way they are put into effect are likely that practitioners endorse the Code by maintaining a
to have several consequences for researchers (and impact register of signatories. It also has a status
assessment professionals). It is important for practitioners designation of ‘Sustaining Member’ given to the
to realize that Indigenous participation cannot be IAIA members who have signed the Code of
presumed or demanded. Indigenous peoples will be Conduct and have four years or more of continuous
membership.
unlikely to accept the presumption that a researcher or
. Criterion 3 – the IAIA draws attention of new
practitioner has a right to do research or collect data.
members to the code in various ways, including by
A convincing case as to why Indigenous peoples should
making the Code prominent on the membership
participate will need to be made. The continued agreement pages of the website.
of Indigenous peoples to participate in the research will . Criterion 4 – the IAIA does provide opportunities
probably depend on the practitioner being genuine, in for the open discussion of ethical dilemmas at its
treating the participants as equal partners in the process, conferences, in its journal (such as in this and the
and in the practitioner demonstrating meaningful engage companion paper) and newsletter, and in the online
ment and reciprocity (AIATSIS 2011; Croal et al. 2012). discussion forums that belong to each section of the
This will mean that Indigenous peoples will want to IAIA;
negotiate about what research will be about, how it will be . Criterion 5 – Although the IAIA does have a suite
done, to what uses the results will be put, and how the data of awards given annually, there is no evidence that
will be stored. the IAIA has demonstrated positive enforcement by
250 F. Vanclay et al.
undertaken as part of impact assessments that involve Walking the tightrope: ethical issues for qualitative
people in any way whatsoever require that the ethical researchers. Toronto: University of Toronto Press. p. 34 – 42.
principles for research involving humans be considered. AIATSIS. 2011. Guidelines for ethical research in Australian
Indigenous studies. Canberra: Australian Institute of Abori
The broadening of the field of research ethics also ginal and Torres Strait Islander Studies [online]. Available
extends to the domains to which it applies. While from: http://www.aiatsis.gov.au/research/docs/ethics.pdf
institutional research ethics committees have typically [accessed 16 August 2013].
been associated with universities or government-funded American Anthropological Association. 2012. Statement on ethics:
research institutions, there is an increasing social principles of professional responsibilities. Arlington, VA:
American Anthropological Association [online]. Available
expectation that the ethical principles and procedures from: http://www.aaanet.org/profdev/ethics/upload/Statement
will be applied regardless of the setting of the research. on-Ethics-Principles-of-Professional-Responsibility.pdf
Thus, private sector consultants engaged to undertake data [accessed 21 July 2013].
collection for an impact assessment will increasingly be American Evaluation Association. 2004. Guiding Principles for
expected to comply with the same ethical principles as Evaluators [online]. Available from: http://www.eval.org/p/
cm/ld/fid¼51 [accessed 21 July 2013].
researchers in public sector agencies. Professional
American Planning Association. 1992. Ethical Principles in
associations such as the IAIA need to play a key role in Planning [online]. Available from: http://www.planning.org/
setting and enforcing these increasingly more exacting ethics/ethicalprinciples.htm [accessed 21 July 2013].
professional practice standards. American Psychology Association. 2010. Ethical Principles of
Best practice in impact assessment will essentially Psychologists and Code of Conduct [online]. Available from:
require full observance of the 18 principles documented in http://www.apa.org/ethics/code/principles.pdf [accessed 21
July 2013].
this paper: respect for participants, informed consent, American Sociological Association. 1999. Code of Ethics
specific permission required for audio or video recording, [online]. Available from: http://www.asanet.org/images/asa/
voluntary participation and no coercion, participant right docs/pdf/CodeofEthics.pdf [accessed 21 July 2013].
to withdraw, full disclosure of funding sources, no harm to Amon JJ, Baral SD, Beyrer C, Kass N. 2012. Human rights
participants, avoidance of undue intrusion, no use of research and ethics review: protecting individuals or
protecting the state? PLoS Med. 9(10):e1001325, doi:10.
deception, the presumption and preservation of anonym 1371/journal.pmed.1001325.
ity, participant right to check and modify a transcript, Association of American Geographers. 2009. Statement on
confidentiality of personal matters, data protection, Professional Ethics [online]. Available from: http://www.aag.
enabling participation, ethical governance, provision of org/cs/about_aag/governance/statement_of_professional_
grievance procedures, appropriateness of research meth ethics [accessed 21 July 2013].
odology and full reporting of methods. Australian Government. 1999. National statement on ethical
conduct in research involving humans. Canberra: National
The relatively recent rise in the recognition of human Health and Medical Research Council.
rights issues in impact assessment (Kemp & Vanclay Australian Government. 2007. National Statement on Ethical
2013), the increasing acknowledgement of the rights of Conduct in Human Research, developed jointly by the
Indigenous peoples (United Nations General Assembly National Health and Medical Research Council, the
2007; Croal et al. 2012), and specifically the concept of Australian Research Council, and the Australian Vice
Chancellors Committee.
‘free, prior and informed consent’ (Hanna & Vanclay The Australian Sociological Association. 2003. The Australian
2013), will also influence the consideration of ethical Sociological Association: Code of Ethics [online]. Available
issues that need to be considered in professional impact from: http://www.tasa.org.au/about-tasa/ethical-guidelines/
assessment practice in the future. [accessed 21 July 2013].
Through this paper and the companion paper, we hope Babbie E. 1989. The practice of social research. 5th ed.. Belmont
CA: Wadsworth.
to increase awareness of ethical considerations and to
Baines J, Taylor CN. 2011. Ethical issues and dilemmas. In:
improve the practice of impact assessment. Vanclay F, Esteves AM, editors. New directions in social
impact assessment: conceptual and methodological
advances. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar. p. 96 – 113.
Baines J, Taylor CN, Vanclay F. 2013. Social impact assessment
Acknowledgements and ethical research principles: ethical professional practice
This paper and its companion paper are a further development of in impact assessment Part II. Impact Assess Proj Appraisal.
a book chapter by James Baines and Nick Taylor published in 31(4):254– 260.
Frank Vanclay & Ana Maria Esteves (eds) 2011 New Directions Bond A, Morrison-Saunders A, Pope J. 2012. Sustainability
in Social Impact Assessment, Cheltenham: Edward Elgar. assessment: the state of the art. Impact Assess Proj Appraisal.
Comments were provided by Ana Maria Esteves, Philippe 30(1):53– 62.
Hanna, Lucy McCombes, Angus Morrison-Saunders and Bond A, Pope J. 2012. The state of the art of impact assessment in
students and staff of the Faculty of Spatial Sciences at the 2012. Impact Assess Proj Appraisal. 30(1):1 – 4.
University of Groningen. Bulmer M, ed. 1982. Social research ethics. London: Macmillan.
Bulmer M. 2001. The ethics of social research. In: Gilbert N,
editor. Researching social life. London: Sage. p. 45 – 57.
Canter L, Ross B. 2010. State of practice of cumulative effects
assessment and management: the good, the bad and the ugly.
References Impact Assess Proj Appraisal. 28(4):261– 268.
Adelle C, Weiland S. 2012. Policy assessment: the state of the art. Castellano M. 2004. Ethics of Aboriginal research. J Aborig
Impact Assess Proj Appraisal. 30(1):25 – 33. Health. 1(1):98 – 114.
Adler PA, Adler P. 2002. Do university lawyers and the police Cave B. 2012. Health impact assessment: principles and practice.
define research values? In: van den Hoonaard WC, editor. Impact Assess Proj Appraisal. 30(4):302– 303.
252 F. Vanclay et al.
Cochran PAL, Marshall CA, Garcia-Downing C, Kendall E, Hay I. 2010b. Ethical practice in geographical research. In:
Cook D, McCubbin L, Gover RMS. 2008. Indigenous ways Clifford N, French S, Valentine G, editors. Key methods in
of knowing: implications for participatory research and geography. 2nd ed.. London: Sage. p. 35 – 48.
community. Am J Public Health. 98(1):22– 27. Hennink M, Hutter I, Bailey A. 2011. Qualitative research
CODEX (website supported by the Swedish Research Council). methods. London: Sage.
2012. Professional Ethics Codes [online]. Available from: Hoekveld G, Needham B. 2013. Planning practice between ethics
http://www.codex.uu.se/en/etik9.shtml [accessed 21 July and the power game: making and applying an ethical code for
2013]. planning agencies. Int J Urban Reg Res. 37(5):1638– 1653.
Convention on Biological Diversity. 2004. Akwé: kon – voluntary Hoeyer K, Dahlager L, Lynöe N. 2005. Conflicting notions of
guidelines for the conduct of cultural, environmental and research ethics: the mutually challenging traditions of social
social impact assessment regarding developments proposed to scientists and medical researchers. Soc Sci Med. 61
take place on, or which are likely to impact on, sacred sites and (8):1741– 1749.
on lands and waters traditionally occupied or used by Holemans D, Lodewyckx H. 1996. A case study of conflicting
Indigenous and local communities. Montreal: Secretariat of interests: Flemish engineers involved in environmental
the Convention on Biological Diversity [online]. Available impact assessment. Sci Eng Ethics. 2(1):17 – 24.
from: https://www.cbd.int/doc/publications/akwe-brochure Howitt R. 2005. The importance of process in social impact
en.pdf [accessed 21 July 2013]. assessment: ethics, methods and process for cross-cultural
Croal P, Tetreault C, members of the IAIA IP Section. 2012. engagement. Ethics, Place Environ. 8(2):209 – 221.
Respecting Indigenous peoples and traditional knowledge. Institute for Employment Studies. 2004. The RESPECT Code of
Special Publication Series No. 9. Fargo, USA: International Practice [online]. Available from: http://www.respectproject.
Association for Impact Assessment [online]. Available from: org/code/index.php [accessed 21 July 2013].
http://www.iaia.org/publicdocuments/special-publications/ International Association for Impact Assessment. 2009. Vision,
SP9%20Indigenous%20Peoples%20and%20Traditional% Mission, Values, Professional Code of Conduct, and Ethical
20Knowledge_web.pdf [accessed 7 September 2013]. Responsibilities [online]. Available from: http://www.iaia.
Dyer S, Demeritt D. 2009. Un-ethical review? Why it is wrong to org/publicdocuments/miscdocs/Code-of-Ethics.pdf
apply the medical model of research governance to human [accessed 7 September 2013].
geography. Prog Hum Geog. 33(1):46 – 64. Israel M, Hay I. 2006. Research ethics for social scientists:
Economic and Social Research Council. 2012. ESRC framework between ethical conduct and regulatory compliance. London:
for research ethics (FRE) 2010. Updated September 2012. Sage.
Swindon UK: Economic and Social Research Council Jamal K, Bowie NE. 1995. Theoretical considerations for a
[online] Available from: http://www.esrc.ac.uk/about-esrc/ meaningful code of professional ethics. J Bus Ethics. 14
information/research-ethics.aspx [accessed 21 July 2013]. (9):703 – 714.
Jennings B, et al. 2003. Introduction: a strategy for discussing
Esteves AM, Franks D, Vanclay F. 2012. Social impact
ethical issues in public health. In: Jennings B, editor. Ethics
assessment: the state of the art. Impact Assess Proj Appraisal.
and public health: model curriculum. p. 1 – 12, [online].
30(1):34– 42.
Available from: www.asph.org/UserFiles/EthicsCurriculum.
Esteves AM, Vanclay F. 2009. Social development needs
pdf [accessed 21 July 2013].
analysis as a tool for SIA to guide corporate-community
João E, Vanclay F, den Broeder L. 2011. Emphasising
investment: applications in the minerals industry. Environ
enhancement in all forms of impact assessment: introduction
Impact Assess Rev. 29(2):137– 145.
to a special issue. Impact Assess Proj Appraisal. 29
Fisher R. 2008. Anthropologists and social impact assessment: (3):170 – 180.
negotiating the ethical minefield1. Asia Pac J Anthropol. 9 Jowell R. 1986. The codification of statistical ethics. J Off Stat. 2
(3):231 – 242. (3):217 – 253.
Franks DM, Vanclay F. 2013. Social impact management plans: Kaufman S, Smith J. 1999. Framing and reframing in land use
innovation in corporate and public policy. Environ Impact change conflicts. J Archit Plan Res. 16(2):164 –180.
Assess Rev. 43:40 – 48. Kemp D, Vanclay F. 2013. Human rights and impact assessment:
Freed-Taylor M. 1994. Ethical considerations in European cross- clarifying the connections in practice. Impact Assess Proj
national research. Int Soc Sci J. 142:523 – 532, [online]. Appraisal. 31(2):86 – 96.
Available from: http://www.unesco.org/most/ethissj.htm Kenny N, Giacomini M. 2005. Wanted: a new ethics field for
[accessed 21 July 2013]. health policy analysis. Health Care Analysis. 13
Fuggle R. 2012. Ethics. IAIA Fastip No. 2. Fargo: International (4):247 – 260.
Association for Impact Assessment [online]. Available from: Legal Aid Queensland. 2012. Dictionary of Legal Terms
http://www.iaia.org/publicdocuments/special-publications/ [online]. Available from: http://www.legalaid.qld.gov.au/
fast-tips/Fastips_2%20Ethics.pdf [accessed 21 July 2013]. legalinformation/Pages/Dictionary.aspx [accessed 21 July
Fundingsland Tetlow M, Hanusch M. 2012. Strategic environ 2013].
mental assessment: the state of the art. Impact Assess Proj Marcuse P. 1976. Professional ethics and beyond: values in
Appraisal. 30(1):15 – 24. planning. J Am Inst Plann. 42(3):264 –274.
Gregory I. 2003. Ethics in research. London: Continuum. Marshall R, Arts J, Morrison-Saunders A. 2005. International
Guillemin M, Gillam L. 2004. Ethics, reflexivity, and ‘ethically principles for best practice EIA follow-up. Impact Assess
important moments’ in research. Qual Inq. 10(2):261– 280. Proj Appraisal. 23(3):175– 181.
Haggerty KD. 2004. Ethics creep: governing social science Morgan RK. 2012. Environmental impact assessment: the state of
research in the name of ethics. Qual Sociol. 27(4):391 –414. the art. Impact Assess Proj Appraisal. 30(1):5 – 14.
Hanna P, Vanclay F. 2013. Human rights, Indigenous peoples Morrison-Saunders A, Early G. 2008. What is necessary to
and the concept of free, prior and informed consent. Impact ensure natural justice in environmental impact assessment
Assess Proj Appraisal. 31(2):146– 157. decision-making? Impact Assess Proj Appraisal. 26
Harris-Roxas B, Viliani F, Bond A, Cave B, Divall M, Furu P, (1):29 – 42.
Harris P, Soeberg M, Wernham A, Winkler M. 2012. Health Oughton E, Bracken L. 2009. Interdisciplinary research: framing
impact assessment: the state of the art. Impact Assess Proj and reframing. Area. 41(4):385– 394.
Appraisal. 30(1):43 – 52. Persoon G, Minter T. 2011. Code of conduct for working with
Hay I. 2010a. Qualitative research methods in human geography. Indigenous and local communities. Wageningen: Tropenbos
3rd ed.. Oxford: Oxford University Press. International.
Impact Assessment and Project Appraisal 253
Resnik D. 2008. Environmental health research involving human RES/61/295. New York (NY): UN General Assembly
subjects: ethical issues. Environ Health Insights. 2:27– 34. [online]. Available from: http://www.unhcr.org/refworld/
Richardson T. 2005. Environmental assessment and planning docid/471355a82.html [accessed 16 August 2013].
theory: four short stories about power, multiple rationality, United States National Commission for Protection of Human
and ethics. Environ Impact Assess Rev. 25(4):341– 365. Subjects of Biomedical and Behavioral Research. 1978. The
Rossouw D. 2002. Business ethics in Africa. 2nd ed.. Cape Town: Belmont report: ethical principles and guidelines for the
Oxford University Press. protection of human subjects of research. DHEW Publication
Royal Anthropological Institute. 2012. Ethical Policy [online] No. (OS) 78-0012. Washington, DC: Government Printing
Available from: http://www.therai.org.uk/about-the-rai/ Office [online]. Available from: http://www.hhs.gov/ohrp/
governance/ethical-policy/ [accessed 21 July 2013]. humansubjects/guidance/belmont.html [accessed 21 July
Savan B. 1989. Beyond professional ethics: issues and agendas. J
2013].
Bus Ethics. 8(2-3):179 – 185.
Vanclay F. 2002. Conceptualising social impacts. Environ
Shmueli D, Elliott M, Kaufman S. 2006. Frame changes and the
management of intractable conflicts. Conflict Resol Q. 24 Impact Assess Rev. 22(3):183– 211.
(2):207 – 218. Vanclay F. 2003a. International principles for social impact
Shore N. 2007. Re-conceptualizing the Belmont report: a assessment. Impact Assess Proj Appraisal. 21(1):5 – 12.
community-based participatory research perspective. J Vanclay F. 2003b. International principles for social impact
Community Practice. 14(4):5 –26. assessment: their evolution. Impact Assess Proj Appraisal. 21
Social Policy Association (UKUnited Kingdom). 2009. Social (1):3 – 4.
Policy Association Guidelines on Research Ethics [online]. Vanclay F. 2004. The triple bottom line and impact assessment:
Available from: http://www.social-policy.org.uk/downloads/ how do TBL, EIA, SIA, SEA and EMS relate to each other?
SPA_code_ethics_jan09.pdf [accessed 21 July 2013]. J. Env. Assmt. Pol. Mgmt. 6(3):265– 288.
Social Research Association (United Kingdom). 2003. Ethical Vanclay F. 2006. Principles for social impact assessment: a
Guidelines [online]. Available from: http://the-sra.org.uk/ critical comparison between the international and US
wp-content/uploads/ethics03.pdf [accessed 21 July 2013]. documents. Environ Impact Assess Rev. 26(1):3 – 14.
Sociological Association of Aotearoa (New Zealand). 1990. Vanclay F. 2012. The potential application of social impact
Code of Ethics [online]. Available from: http://ethics.iit.edu/ assessment in integrated coastal zone management. Ocean
ecodes/node/3219 [accessed 21 July 2013]. Coast Manage. 68:149– 156.
Thomas SCB, Quinn S. 1991. The Tuskegee syphilis study, 1932 Vanclay F, Esteves AM. 2011. Current issues and trends in social
to 1972: implications for HIV education and AIDS risk impact assessment. In: Vanclay F, Esteves AM, editors. New
education programs in the black community. Am J Public directions in social impact assessment: conceptual and
Health. 81(11):1498– 1505. methodological advances. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.
UK Civil Service. 2005. Ethical assurance for social research in
p. 3 – 19.
government. London: Civil Service Government Social
Wolpe PR. 2006. Reasons scientists avoid thinking about ethics.
Research Unit [online]. Available from: http://www.
civilservice.gov.uk/wp-content/uploads/2011/09/ethics_ Cell. 125(6):1023– 1025.
guidance_tcm6-5782.pdf [accessed 21 July 2013]. World Medical Association. 2000. World Medical Association
United Nations Educational Scientific and Cultural Organization Declaration of Helsinki Ethical Principles for Medical
(UNESCO). 1994. Ethical Guidelines for International Research Involving Human Subjects. JAMA. 284
Comparative Social Science Research in the Framework of (23):3043– 3045.
MOST [online]. Available from: http://www.unesco.org/ Wynne B. 2001. Creating public alienation: expert cultures of
most/ethical.htm [accessed 21 July 2013]. risk and ethics on GMOs. Sci Cult. 10(4):445– 481.
United Nations General Assembly. 2007. United Nations Zandvoort H. 2008. Preparing engineers for social responsibility.
Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. A/ Euro J Eng Educ. 33(2):133– 140.