Read on Twitter
Yesterday I attended #APSA2020's roundtable "Research #Ethics in Political Science: The Role of Journal Editors", organized by the ed team of APSR. I've put together a thread on some of the main points for those who missed it.
The roundtable asked if journal editors should be actively encouraging the adoption of APSA's 2020 "Principles and Guidance for Human Subjects Research"
https://www.apsanet.org/Portals/54/diversity%20and%20inclusion%20prgms/Ethics/Final_Principles%20with%20Guidance%20with%20intro.pdf?ver=2020-04-20-211740-153
https://www.apsanet.org/Portals/54/diversity%20and%20inclusion%20prgms/Ethics/Final_Principles%20with%20Guidance%20with%20intro.pdf?ver=2020-04-20-211740-153
For example, should journals require authors to demonstrate adherence to these guidelines to be considered for publication? Emphasis was placed on asking contributors to certify that the study underwent institutional ethical review. Editors raised a lot of questions:
1. IRB review is in many ways a US (& Global North) phenomenon. How might these requirements create barriers for scholars at institutions without IRBs? More generally, should the American Political Science Association determine ethical practice for political scientists globally?
2. A few editors posited that polisci's current ethics focus is a response to new ethical qs raised by new methods (eg field experiments). One comment cautioned against adopting disciplinewide standards based on method-specific issues that might not map onto the whole discipline.
One editor noted a need to scrutinize whether the solution (e.g. changing journal publishing requirements) would adequately address the underlying issues, and called on us to ask what new ethical issues such a change might generate.
4. Another editor asked: Is it possible to maintain open-ended guidance, or will a requirement for adherence to ethical principles necessarily become a checklist?
5. Might requirements to demonstrate ethical review weigh more heavily on some than others? How might seniority, access, funding, and geography shape who bears the burden of demonstrating compliance?
6. Who should ensure that manuscripts meet ethical standards? If it is reviewers, is this too much to ask of an already overburdened reviewer pool? Will editors be able to find reviewers with the relevant methodological or area studies expertise to assess ethics?
My own Qs: 1. Why ask for IRB review at all (rather than eg, an ethics statement from author/s)? The broad consensus seems to be that flexibility & adaptability are essential (see preamble to APSA's ethical principles). Why entrust that to US-centric bureaucratic ethics review?
2. There is a tendency to point out repeatedly that IRBs are poor fits for political science, and then to try to improve them instead of seeking an alternative. This is reasonable, but why do we think we seek evolution not revolution, given the stakes of ethical concerns?
Lots of food for thought, thanks to the @APSAtweets organizers and to the journal editors for this conversation!
