Considering the inherent complexity resulting from the connection of participation with ethics, how should participation be organised and framed? Rather than providing a list of criteria only, this Ethics Framework offers a broad list of questions that should be addressed, and which encompass criteria, classifications and reflections to be undertaken. The purpose of the PRO-Ethics Tools & Guidelines is to provide a roadmap in the form of questions following which, the design, the implementation and the evaluation of R&I processes, participatory practices can be tailored in accordance with the specificities of each context. Because different contexts offer different opportunities and constraints, this Framework functions as guidelines rather than rigid rules. In the criteria, taxonomies and considerations presented below as part of the main questions, there is no hierarchy of participatory processes. The different sections below are addressing main ethical considerations and questions helping to determine the participants and the participation modes: who? when? how? and what for?
The consideration of these questions is meant to define how stakeholders can be invited to participate in R&I processes, both according to an ethical approach and with an added value. In that vein, ethical issues are guiding these tools, comprising a list of dimensions and questions to address in order to have a roadmap for the diversity of methods and options of participatory approaches. Considering that there is no universal ideal solution but principles and norms to be contextualised, the purpose of this Framework is to provide tools and guidelines to decide upon whether ethical participation is warranted and what actions and considerations should be undertaken in order to reach it. Since participation is not taken for granted, this Framework suggests taking a step backwards and discussing our very assumptions regarding participation. The most suitable participatory path in each specific case derives from the combination of the context and the specific needs both of the institution undertaking it and of the R&I process that it is applied to. Although this Framework is designed for RFOs, it may likewise prove valuable for other organisations.
Below, we offer a set of questions and associated actions to consider when designing, implementing and evaluating a participatory process:
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 the ethical issues and risks?
E. How can equal and meaningful dialogue be fostered?
F. How should participatory processes be monitored and reflected upon?
Each of these sections includes timeline indications, that are visually highlighted in the box of each specific subset. These indications serve to identify when a specific action is to be undertaken: these timelines may be cumulative in the case of an iterative action (at different stages):
- before participation (design phase of the participatory event);
- during participation (implementation of the participatory event);
- after participation (feedback following the completion of the participatory event).
Also included is a glossary of key terms frequently used in the context of participation in R&I processes, to help develop shared understandings and a common language to discuss these topics.
These guidelines are intended to guide the design, implementation and follow-up of participatory processes in accordance with an ethical approach, as a common roadmap encompassing all types of participatory activities and participants. As such, these guidelines may be relevant for researchers, call programmers, or scientific/ethics evaluators, for instance. The structure of these guidelines offers common steps and considerations that form a common ground of questions and actions to undertake.
| A) How should participatory processes be structured? [before] [during] [after] |
|---|
| Action A1: Identify and clarify the expected contributions. [before] |
| Identify why you are interested in certain types of knowledge and perspectives. This allows for a focused design of discussions and ensures that the overall intention of the participatory process is framed, justified, and outlined. In addition, be aware that potential participants likewise have assumptions that may need to be addressed. Transparently clarifying these in a code of conduct helps align expectations. |
| Action A2: Allow for flexibility when planning the participatory process. [before] [during] [after] |
| R&I processes should be interconnected with the design of the participatory process. Organizing stakeholder participation is often characterized by learning-by-doing. Unexpected nuances and concerns of participants may reveal themselves during the project. Organizational flexibility is therefore helpful. Participatory processes should hence allocate (more than) enough resources to the participatory process. These resources and the selected participatory methods (1) contribute to flexibility and therefore require explicit consideration. |
| Action A3: Explore impacts of R&I processes and design a participatory process that relates to these concern. [before] [during] |
| This action aims to address social, economic, environmental, cultural, political, legal and scientific concerns. Impacts can be best identified in inclusive manners, and can be better understood by involving those stakeholders that are potentially affected. Impacts should be listed and related to the (design of) the participatory process. |
| B) Which type of activity is targeted by the participatory process? [before] |
|---|
| Action B: Define for which type of activity a participatory approach is undertaken. [before] |
| After outlining and structuring the above-mentioned intent, flexibility, feedback loops, and impacts, an appropriate participatory process has to be selected (see below), in terms of type and timing of interaction. The type of process chosen furthermore depends on the stakeholders’ relationship and potential contribution to the R&I process. Possible contexts for participatory processes are: * Stakeholder engagement in research funding * Stakeholder engagement in innovation projects * Stakeholder engagement within agency’s processes * Stakeholder engagement in evaluation processes Several types of activities are possible, such as: (2) * General consultation * Evaluation(of projects) * Information/knowledge sharing * Monitoring * Programme design * Social impact evaluation * Project execution |
| C) Which types of participants are targeted?[before] |
|---|
| Action C1: Determine which stakeholders to engage and why, followed by interlinking the participatory process, context, and stakeholder types. [before] |
| The actor categorisation is important both from the perspective of the general distinction of categories and also regarding their proximity with the R&I process (3). These two specifications allow for a better identification of groups that may have been overlooked, and different types of participants that may require a different treatment. In order to accommodate the needs of actors, it is helpful to better understand their backgrounds prior to stakeholder participation. This preliminary identification ensures that the type of participatory process is compatible with the context and the stakeholders involved (4). |
| Action C2: Determine how actors should be recruited, taking into account stakeholder representation, selection bias, and feasibility [before] |
| After potential participants are identified, it is crucial to consider how these can be best recruited, taking into account both stakeholder representation, selection bias, and feasibility. While recruitment can be challenging, stakeholders are more inclined to participate if the process is in their direct interest. Practical approaches/mediums for recruitment are: The RFO’s network:* The existing stakeholder network of the organizer provides the opportunity to recruit participants. Stakeholders can for example be contacted through social media or newsletters. * Snowballing techniques: Asking participants for referrals to other potential participants can enlarge the existing pool of participants. * Multiplier actors: External actors (e.g., municipalities, intermediaries, and influencers) can help recruitment efforts by providing access to their stakeholder network. Persuading these multipliers to collaborate tends to be easier when they share similar interests with the participatory process. |
| D) What are the ethical issues and risks? [before] |
|---|
| Action D: Identify the ethical issues, and tackle them appropriately. [before] |
| Once the participatory process and participants are defined (5), potential ethical issues should be considered to determine the need for an adaptation of the participatory process. Ethics experts can help identify, understand, and mitigate ethical issues. Consider the following potential issues in relation to your R&I processes: * In project proposals: Issues of human dignity, privacy, and data protection, transparency, and biases (e.g. gender bias) should be considered when planning the process and outcomes of research and innovation. * In project execution: Issues relating to: personal data; discrimination; stigmatisation; fixation on technology acceptance; vulnerable groups; privacy; safety; social responsibility of researchers; social roles in the application context; use of ethically sensitive findings; manipulation and guardianship through technology. * In evaluation processes: Common ethical risks in relation to stakeholder’s legitimacy, lack of ethical expertise; communication of funding calls. Consider the following issues that may return in general: * Conflicting interests: * Avoid conflict of interests (conflicts with existing funding structures and processes; or internal conflicts related for instance to doubts regarding the planned participatory process); * Strive for a diverse representation of stakeholders; * Identify potential issues of legal capacity (impartiality; partiality; external conflicts). * Methods: * Consider that when participation is made a mandatory requirement for funded projects, this raises the hurdle for diverse and new institutions to access funding; * Identify the level of adequacy of the selected participatory process, in regard to: i) if participation warranted in the given project; ii) if the involvement of participants would benefit from adequate support; * Knowledge / awareness: * Consider what resources and dissemination strategy are needed to help participants understand R&I. For example, participants should be given enough time to process information; * Identify what knowledge is needed (scientific/technical background) for the participatory process; foresee what type of group dynamics may emerge as a result of information asymmetries; and ensure that potential ethical problems that have been spotted find the required expertise. * Disadvantaged stakeholders * Identify which, and how, stakeholders are disadvantaged. * Engage with disadvantaged stakeholders prior to the participatory process to understand their needs. * Customize participatory processes to disadvantaged stakeholders’ so that they can participate in a meaningful way. * Scientific integrity: * Identify if (and how) participatory process might affect the researchers? * Align the participatory process with the scientific community and their values. |
| E) How can equal and meaningful dialogue be fostered? [before] [during] |
|---|
| Action E: Consider how equal and meaningful dialogue can be established and safeguarded in light of the participants’ vulnerabilities and characteristics. [before] [during] |
| Ensure that the design and implementation of participatory process foster equality in, and meaningfulness of, dialogues between participants. Try to foresee what forms of representation, participant types, and reciprocal relationships are applicable, taking into account expected power imbalances and the desirability hereof. The following non-exhaustive list of considerations are important: * Representation: Consider who is excluded and included by reflecting on the balance between diversity and representation (proportionality); composing a set of participants while taking into account the possible (over)representation of minorities. * Power: Make sure all participants are heard, and try to reduce power imbalances. These imbalances may result from the participants’ differences in personality, ability, knowledge, and resources. It can, for instance, help to reduce information asymmetries by providing or withholding information. In addition, try to identify (potential) conflicts that need to be navigated. * Exploitation: When including minorities and vulnerable stakeholders, ensure that they are not disproportionally burdened with the participatory process. If needed, provide forms of compensation either before, during, or after the process. * Vulnerability: Recognize that there are many aspects to vulnerability that are often difficult to identify. Pay specific attention to aspects that give rise to vulnerabilities such as one’s experiences, abilities, identity, resources, values and worldviews. Participants themselves know best whether they are vulnerable. Trust their judgement and accommodate adequately for their vulnerability. |
| F) How should participatory processes be monitored and reflected upon? [before] [during] [after] |
|---|
| Action F1: Monitor and collectively reflect on the participatory process and outcomes. [before] [during] [after] |
| To safeguard ethical aspects of participation, it is important to monitor critical factors during the process’ implementation and evaluation. This can be done through the use of performance indicators, and through continuous feedback from participants. Continuously and collectively reflecting on (un)expected performances and outcomes helps improve current and future participatory processes. Expectations may be adapted if needed, following a possible deviation from pre-set monitoring indicators (6). |
| Action F2: Reflect on the following aspects. [after] |
| * Verify if matters of representation and inclusion were addressed throughout the participatory process; * Consider input from participants in the final decisions of participatory processes; * Take into account the justification of participation to link the quality and functionality of participation with societal needs. |
| Action F3: Launch a transparent process allowing participants to interact. [after] |
| Depending on the size of the participatory activity and the organisational capabilities, a collective reflection on the participatory process helps to learn about the participants’ experiences. This feedback should be used as the main assessment of the process, indicating potential needs for improvement. |
| Action F4: Communicate how the input of participants is used. [after] |
| Reflect on the input of participants, its added value, and how this did (not) feed into outcomes. Communicate this with participants, and ensure they feel valued. In some cases, this may include a financial compensation or an official acknowledgement. |
| Action F5: In view of future reference, all reflections answering the Framework’s actions could be saved. [after] |
| Future participatory processes can learn from the current stakeholder participation when monitoring and archiving answers to the above-mentioned actions. It furthermore supports matters of accountability. |
Footnotes
-
Regarding the diversity of participatory methods to choose from, please refer to section 3.2.1 (above). ↩
-
The definitions of this classification are to be found in the Glossary (last section of this Framework). ↩
-
See previous section (B), above. ↩
-
In particular, the balances between roles of researchers and stakeholders should be taken into account, so as to properly address research integrity issues (in the event of conflicting views, for instance). ↩
-
See section B and section C (respectively). ↩
-
This action is complementary with A2 and A3 (see above, section A). ↩