4.3 Article

Researching with care: ethical dilemmas in co-designing focus group discussions

期刊

ENVIRONMENT AND URBANIZATION
卷 34, 期 2, 页码 430-445

出版社

SAGE PUBLICATIONS LTD
DOI: 10.1177/09562478221114024

关键词

care ethics; focus groups; intersectionality; knowledge co-production; research ethics; situated ethics

资金

  1. Global Challenges Research Fund

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This paper reflects on the ethics of research and knowledge co-production in addressing urban inequality, using a lens of feminist care ethics. It examines ethical challenges deriving from power asymmetry and inequality in research partnerships and focuses on dilemmas emerging during the planning stage of a research project in Tanzania conducted in collaboration between an NGO and a university. The authors argue for the importance of contextualizing knowledge co-production in generating transformation while addressing the immediate needs of marginalized research participants.
This paper reflects on the ethics of research and knowledge co-production aimed at addressing urban inequality. It draws on work within the Knowledge in Action for Urban Equality (KNOW) programme, which aimed to co-produce knowledge to activate transformation. We employ a lens of feminist care ethics to examine ethical challenges in research partnerships, which derive from interrelated layers of power asymmetry and inequality. We focus on ethical dilemmas that emerged during the planning stage of research work led by the NGO Centre for Community Initiatives (CCI), Tanzania, in collaboration with University College London's Institute of Global Prosperity (IGP). We argue that contextualizing the value of knowledge co-production in generating transformation in the long term reveals a necessity for simultaneously addressing the immediate needs of intersectionally marginalized research participants. We suggest that ethical awareness of both long- and short-term modes of caring for could better support initiatives for addressing urban inequalities in context.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.3
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据