What are research ethics?

There are three broad categories of ethical requirements that guide research in any field where human behaviour is the subject of study. These cover:

1. Safeguarding participants, and those conducting the research.
2. Treating participants with respect.
3. Maintaining high standards of integrity and professionalism in conducting research.

So how are these ethical principles relevant to designers working with communities? The first category, safeguarding participants and those conducting the research, means taking responsibility for a duty of care for people attending events and participating in activities, and for staff involved. This refers to ensuring physical safety and avoiding emotional distress, and might typically include:

• Assessing potential risks to participants and staff engaged on the project, and taking necessary measures to protect their health and safety.
• Informed consent. Provide all the information people need to decide whether to participate at the outset, including what will be involved, times, venue and any risks or benefits.
• Not doing harm. No research should involve any physical or emotional suffering for participants, or any potential loss of privacy, dignity or reputation.
• Staff being competent to respond appropriately to sensitive topics or difficult situations that arise. For example, discussions about local crime or antisocial behaviour could bring up feelings of anxiety and fear for some, or be a reminder of distressing experiences. Emotive topics, or those where opinion is sharply divided, can become heated and staff need to know when and how to intervene.

The second set of ethical requirements relates to treating participants with respect. This is about recognising their rights, creating optimum conditions for them to contribute to the programme and designing out barriers (discussed in more detail in section 9.3). They cover aspects such as:

• Looking at the event from the point of view of a range of different prospective participants to identify any obstacles or deterrents to participation, whether physical, logistical, cultural or cognitive.
• Giving particular consideration to measures to maximise the participation of people with additional needs and marginalised groups – not just removing barriers but actively seeking their participation.
• Designing and conducting programmes that acknowledge participants’ concerns, values, needs, expertise and dignity, which involve activities in which all are fully able to participate.
• Staff being courteous, approachable and professional at all times.
• Voluntary participation: assure participants that they’re under no obligation to get involved, and have the right to withdraw at any time and for any reason.
• Checking the findings and analysis with participants if possible, and keeping them informed of the research outcomes.
• Making sure participants benefit in some way from their involvement.

The final set of ethical requirements refers to maintaining high standards of integrity and professionalism in conducting research, including good governance within the practice, so that for example:

• Lines of responsibility and accountability within the design-research team are clearly defined.
• Data is stored securely, treated confidentially and is accessible only to those who need it.
• Employers offer guidance and support to those conducting research, especially when it may involve challenging issues or situations.
• Staff are encouraged to reflect on and discuss the participation process, and ethical issues in particular. This makes the project a learning opportunity for staff, and develops their insight and skills.
• Research projects are conducted impartially and free from personal, organisational and political bias. This can be a grey area when a practice designing a project is also consulting on it and the client is keen to see it implemented in line with their wishes. But the principle stands that the research strategy should be as bias-free as possible (refer to the Appendix for sources of bias), and aim to obtain reliable, valid data that supports evidence-based decision-making, with as much meaningful community input as circumstances permit.

Ethical project planning

Building ethical practice into a research project starts at the outset by creating a process that’s inclusive, representative, transparent and as impartial as it can be. If possible, bring local people into designing the programme and advising on approaches that are likely to succeed. Make use of local knowledge and experience, and talk with groups who have already been involved in previous programmes (yours won’t be the first, remember) to find out what works and what doesn’t before deciding how to proceed; this saves time and energy for everyone. The more involvement people have from the start, the greater the likelihood that trust, goodwill and positive working relationships will follow.

Inclusivity involves proactively engaging with those who might not otherwise participate, whether due to physical, cultural or language barriers. Even with less participative methods like exhibitions and meetings, personally invite groups who are less likely to attend. Better still, take the exhibition or meeting to them. Also remember that any development can be an emotive issue for people. They can feel anxious or angry about proposed changes to their local environment, even more so if they believe they aren’t being fully informed. Good communication and transparency can help allay these concerns. Present the facts clearly from the outset and aim to inform rather than persuade.

Ethical data gathering

To recap some ethical aspects of the data collection methods covered in previous chapters:

• Observation. Photography and video recording in a public space require discretion and sensitivity. Respect personal privacy, and don’t record people in difficulties or engaged in illicit acts.
• Photo and video diaries. Participants should be asked not to photograph or video friends or family members for confidentiality reasons, and should be advised about personal safety and respecting others’ privacy.
• Focus groups. Participants should agree to the group’s confidentiality and privacy requirements, and any ground rules that need to be spelled out regarding respectful communication and behaviour. Staff have an ethical responsibility to report on events objectively, presenting as faithful an account as possible of the proceedings.
• Meetings, exhibitions and collaborative processes. Larger scale and more impersonal public events perhaps have fewer ethical factors to consider; the imperative is to make the event welcoming and inclusive to all, and to make sure everyone has an equal chance to put their views across. Again, staff should report the proceedings objectively and present an impartial analysis that acknowledges any possible bias.

Informed consent is important in diary studies and focus groups. Participants must be clear about the purpose of the research and any potential risks or benefits to them. They should freely agree to participate and understand that they can withdraw any time for any reason. They should also be clear about confidentiality rules and any publication or reporting of the research. These are standard informed consent conditions for any formal research involving human subjects, and while they may sound a little draconian in a design context, they’re a useful reminder of the rights and responsibilities on both sides.

Finally, get participants’ feedback on the process at every step of data gathering for evaluation. This benefits the project and gives the programme credibility, as well as demonstrating an ethical, collaborative approach to stakeholders such as the client, local authority or funders.

Ethical analysis and reporting

After data has been collected, ethical practice continues to inform the process of analysing and communicating the findings. Muratovski (2016) lists four cardinal sins for designers to avoid in this phase of work:

1. Data fabrication: adjusting data or filling gaps to support a desired outcome.
2. Data elimination: excluding data that’s atypical or contrary to the prevalent view. Consider and report the full range of opinions or behaviour, not just the majority.
3. Data exploitation: making undue claims for findings or overstating their significance.
4. Plagiarism: representing another’s work or data as your own. Always give credit where it’s due.

This advice echoes the UK Research Integrity Office’s policy on research conduct (2009), a standard widely adopted in many research areas. This policy additionally includes:

• Falsification of data, by the manipulation and/or selection of data, imagery, or consents.
• Misrepresentation by not reporting relevant findings and/or data accurately, or presenting a flawed interpretation of data, knowingly or otherwise (see ‘How to lie (unintentionally) with statistics’, below, for examples).
• Failure to exercise due care by allowing unreasonable risk or harm to people, or mismanaging privileged or private information collected during the research.

Physical and cognitive barriers

There are around 13 million people with disabilities in the UK, or almost 1 in 5 of the population (Department for Work and Pensions, 2017). Under the Equality Act 2010, this means anyone reporting a long-standing illness, disability or impairment that causes substantial difficulty with day-to-day activities. This includes a vast array of conditions and needs, some visible and many not. It’s essential to engage with people with a range of disabilities to discuss relevant issues in the proposal. Designers need to design with people with disabilities not for them, and excellent design can only come about when these groups are involved. A sighted or hearing designer cannot know what it’s like to be visually or hearing impaired, for instance. They can gain useful awareness from temporarily experiencing being unable to see or hear and trying to navigate the streets, but it’s a world of difference from living with permanent sensory impairment and enduring the everyday frustrations created by poor design. Physical obstructions can also present insurmountable barriers, such that people with disabilities are ‘designed out’ completely.

Diary studies or photo or video journals can provide invaluable insight into these issues, showing designers how they can make environments usable and welcoming, and avoid including needlessly disabling features. There’s also a strong argument for designers to spend time accompanying people with physical, sensory or cognitive impairments on their day-to-day local activities, such as shopping, using public transport and generally negotiating public space, to appreciate the obstacle courses they routinely encounter, and the strategies and information they bring to navigating this unnecessarily difficult terrain.

Furthermore, designers tend to focus on visual quality, but as Whyte’s studies show, people aren’t drawn to a space by aesthetics alone (Whyte, 1980). Other sensory factors, such as tactile, acoustic and olfactory qualities are also important, particularly to visually impaired users. Above all, people want comfort, shelter, a choice of sun or shade, good seating options and spaces where they can be sociable or solitary.

Spatial design that works for people with disabilities and impairments works for everyone, and the same applies to public events. This means ensuring venues are fully accessible, putting in helpful signage, and asking people if they’d like assistance rather than making assumptions or unsolicited interventions. In terms of information, keep words to a minimum and let self-explanatory images do the talking as much as possible. By exercising some empathy and common sense, it should be possible to make participation programmes accessible and relevant to all, with and without disabilities, with a resulting positive effect on design outcomes.

Figure 9.1 Good public space offers more than visual quality

Social and cultural barriers

Rapidly changing cities need new thinking about social space. Recent profound economic and demographic shifts have major consequences for many aspects of urban infrastructure and public space: a rapidly growing older population, increased longevity, more single-person and small households, high levels of transience in urban areas, less secure employment and housing … the list goes on. Add to the mix loss of funding for local amenities like parks, libraries and children’s play facilities, while public space is privatised by stealth, and spaces that were once open to all are now ‘for customer use only’. Not forgetting gentrification, which can further erode local space as run-down areas are transformed into upmarket destinations, with established communities often the losers. In this context of irreversible major change, it’s arguable that placemaking for inclusive, accessible and free public space has never been so important in urban life.

By focusing on placemaking that works for existing communities as well as for those who developers hope to draw in, it’s feasible for regeneration to create successful, inclusive new spaces and amenities. Areas that are seen as ripe for development tend, of course, to be inhabited by greater concentrations of marginalised and impoverished communities, and this has to be factored into designing a meaningful participation programme. As I’ve already stressed, this means proactively contacting specific groups to invite them to contribute, and if possible working out a programme with them to increase engagement. Refer back to the High Line example on p. 9 for a reminder of why this matters.

A huge range of issues come under the heading of social and cultural barriers, so start by thinking about how different groups might respond to aspects of the programme. Try and see things from their perspective, identify deterrents that can be removed, consider how extra support and encouragement can be given to those who might welcome it, and aim to make events as relevant and engaging as possible for everyone.

Permission and consent

The guidance makes a vital distinction between ‘permission’ and ‘consent’ as they pertain to children’s participation in a project, and sets out a two-stage process to obtain these:

1. Parent’s permission. The researcher asks a parent or responsible adult’s permission to invite the child to take part.
2. Child’s consent. If the adult agrees, the researcher can then approach the child, giving them all the information they need to give their informed consent. The child may agree or decline to participate, as they freely choose.

The text box below suggests some basic information that could be needed for informed consent to be given. The guidance emphasises that although a responsible adult may give permission for a child to participate in a research project, the child isn’t obliged to take part. While a formal process of seeking adults’ permission and children’s informed consent may not be practicable or necessary for every project involving working with children in a design context, the spirit of the guidance still stands, if not the letter. Adults and children need to know what the project involves, any potential risks, costs or other consequences, and children should be free whenever possible to decide whether they want to take part. It’s a fundamental research principle that participants have the right to withdraw from a project at any stage, and this right extends equally to children and young people. If a project involving children is being conducted in partnership with a local school, as is often the case, it’s recommended that if a teacher or other staff member acting in loco parentis gives their agreement, permission should still also be sought from parents or guardians.

Data collection

Collecting data from children and young people differs from collecting data from adults. Whatever the method, whether using photo or video diaries, group discussions, design workshops, events, classroom-based or outdoor activities, there are some specific issues to bear in mind.

Information-gathering questions and activities should be age-appropriate; in other words, don’t ask children about things they may not know about or understand, and keep language simple and clear. Use the methods best suited to gathering the required information. If statistics about children’s opinions, preferences or regular activities are needed, then questionnaires, quizzes, polls and voting exercises are good ways to gather this. Insights into feelings, experiences and beliefs require qualitative approaches, such as group discussion, observation, games and creative activities. Most projects, as with adult participants, will benefit from a mixture of qualitative and quantitative methods. If possible, give participants the opportunity to contribute in a range of ways; some children will express themselves more easily through drawing or making things, whereas others will enjoy writing and quizzes more.

Participants of any age should never be steered towards giving certain responses, and this is particularly important when working with children and young people who are less likely to spot leading questions. There should be no suggestion that questions have right or preferred answers. While carved in tablets of stone for social researchers, realistically this is a less clear-cut matter in the built environment. Designers can be required to consult on and generate support for a scheme at the same time if the client’s keen to persuade the local community of the proposal’s merits. Nonetheless, ethical practice requires that whatever the client’s desired outcomes, participants receive correct, complete and impartial information about the development, and the views they contribute are treated equally, whether positive or negative. This applies to children and young people as much as adults.

Child protection and safeguarding issues

The agencies to contact at the time of writing regarding working with children and vulnerable groups were the Disclosure and Barring Service (DBS) in England and Wales, Disclosure Scotland and AccessNI in Northern Ireland. Beyond the legal safeguarding requirements, there are some precautions to consider in ensuring children’s safety and wellbeing as participants.

In terms of general safety, check for possible hazards first if events and activities are taking place outdoors or in premises with which the children aren’t familiar. This is common sense up to a point, but look at the environment from a child’s point of view and ensure it’s safe, accessible and suitably equipped for the group concerned. Provide parents/carers with full details of the event’s location and finish time if it’s not school-based, and a phone number if they need to contact a member of staff.

If refreshments are on offer, the MRS guidelines recommend avoiding anything that can cause allergic problems, sweets and snacks that are high in fat, salt or sugar. Only have physical contact with children and young people if it’s immediately needed to prevent harm or avert danger, or if they might require assistance, in which case ask first. Remembering the ‘do no harm’ requirement, think carefully about questions and activities that could cause young participants distress or anxiety. For instance, talking with children about problematic aspects of their local environment can bring up unpleasant experiences or fears, which will require sensitive handling. Finally, anonymise material before adding it to the data library, along with any family members’ or friends’ identifying details. If demographic information is required (and it shouldn’t be collected unless it is needed), it’s best if parents/carers give this at the permission and consent stage rather than asking participants. None of these concerns should deter designers at all from working with children and young people. They have so much to contribute, and participation provides great opportunities to excite children and young people about their environment and about design, so make the most of what they can offer and what you can offer them.

Figure 9.2