If only ethics approvals came as standard

I’m getting ready to start the part of the research where I can talk to and question actual people – really very exciting indeed. As part of this process I have to put together the documentation setting out my approach to identifying and managing the ethics implications of the research. Particularly given what’s happening more widely in the world, I can’t help but think this is an approach which should be much more widely adopted.

Getting ethics approval seems to be equivalent in part to a risk assessment in a programme or project management context. Looking at what are the risks I think could arise when delivering the project and setting out how I propose to mitigate, manage or remove them. Putting together the risks means that you have to think through how the activity is going to unfold in more detail. Drawing upon past experience and guidance from other experts, a first pass is developed.

More broadly though, the fact it’s called an ‘ethics approval’ rather than a risk management one feels meaningful. The word ethics carries with it a weight and dignity, a sense of morality which is beautiful indeed. I’m sure there could be contexts in which the word gets used, or abused, in a way that makes it feel hollowed out. So far it hasn’t felt like that.

The ethics process beyond the risk management then involves trying to actively think about ways in which the research might be conducted in ways that are respectful of those who are involved in it. My research around the social and cultural aspects of home unsurprisingly doesn’t require the use of physical human materials but the form I have to fill in allows for that possibility. For those who are conducting research using those materials, it is right that they have to properly account for the ethical approaches to doing so that go beyond a narrow risk management approach.

In relation to my own research, there have been discussions about how the information I give to prospective participants is presented so it can be accessible and easy to understand for different audiences. We’ve also talked about recognising and valuing the time people are giving up to support the research and how I can make sure people feel like it’s being conducted in a safe way.

The draft ethics proposal is then reviewed by my supervisors and updated following their feedback. This gives an opportunity to learn from their experiences, get more insights into practicalities and best practice. The proposal is then submitted and considered, feedback given and amendments made as needed before it’s signed off by the Ethics Committee.

That sense of care, consideration and support feels very fortunate indeed. Everyone involved is trying to make the proposal better, trying to ensure I can do a good and safe piece of work and that participants are treated respectfully. This is my first ethics approval rodeo so perhaps I might feel less enamoured of it if I go through it more times.

Nonetheless, the contrast with how so many decisions are made in work, politics and life more generally has felt noticeable. The centring of ethics shouldn’t feel rare but it does. Of course in lots of situations it is there but more implied, or wrapped up in different language. As I suggested above, there are analogies with the risk assessment process but the tenor of the discussions in relation to the ethics proposal have felt different to the risk assessment ones I’ve been party to. The explicit nature of the reference matters though, it sets a frame for the discussions and an expectation about what the process is trying to do.

The collective input on the ethics proposal looks very different to much of what’s currently unfolding in the news. The cruelty and violence being unleashed with no respect and no plan, so many lives at the whim of one unhealthy, unethical man is brutal to watch. As Ian Dunt articulated, the normalising and sane-washing isn’t being checked by other forces, instead it is serving to feed the chaos further.

Of course history, and the present, are full of examples of situations where lots of people are involved in decision making and bad things still happen, so I don’t want to pretend it’s as simple as more oversight leading to a better decision. Those issues instead provide compelling arguments to try and have better, more meaningful and ethical approaches, giving space for the better angels of our nature to prevail.

Lists of lists

Recently the reading I’ve been doing is about the meaning of home or, really, the meanings of home. Cumulatively it can feel a bit like the scene in ‘Being John Malkovich’ where John is in a restaurant surrounded by people who are all variations of him, all talking but the only word they say is Malkovich. The word ‘home’ starts to blur as it gets repeated over and over and over and. It feels like the words fold into each other, until the meaning starts to go or it all becomes quite Malkovich, Malkovich. That could just be because I’m marinating myself in the subject but it’s also made me reflect on what turns those lists and frameworks into things that are useful and used.

Reading Jeanne Moore’s (2000) piece ‘Placing home in context’, I think she’s great at setting out a variety of ways in which the meaning of home has shifted over time, and how it can vary across countries. How different disciplines have engaged with the idea of home and how meanings of and feelings about home have been represented. It’s a bit of a speedy romp through the subject so it’s more about breadth than depth.

She does draw together lots of lists and frameworks that have been developed to try and capture the meaning of home. Seeing so many of them together in one short article makes her reflection that lists ‘imply all meanings are equally experienced, and do not encourage a focus on the relationships between items’ more apt. A sense there are so many different ways of describing what comes through as quite a consistent set of messages. Lots of overlap and commonality between them, with Putnam & Newton (1990) finding that privacy; security; family; intimacy; comfort, and control consistently appear in research about the meaning of home. Other lists have the same words or similar meanings, which perhaps isn’t so surprising, at least for those lists and frameworks that are talking about a suggested ideal of home.

I went to the Museum of Home for their event ‘More Than a Place: Centre for Studies of Home Annual Lecture 2026’ which was a talk and Q&A with Katie McCrory exploring what she describes as the eight universal emotions that come together to create ‘a feeling of home’. This work is based upon the Life at Home report by IKEA, and in the book she identifies ‘comfort, control, security, accomplishment, belonging, nurture, enjoyment and aspiration’ as the eight emotions. Plenty of venn diagram overlap there with other lists and frameworks too.

Within an academic context I can see that lists and frameworks provide scaffolding for thought and a way to organise and reflect findings. A drawing together of what’s been learned and found, a chance to reflect on how those findings relate to the wider literature – findings suggested x which differs from the previous literature in y scenarios. Trying to represent and honour what’s been found in a way that some other literature might not quite feel it does, even that which can appear to be similar. So if people talk about security rather than privacy, it would make sense that security is the word that’s used, even though the sentiments might be analogous to another piece of research where people talked in the language of privacy. The weight of different words can vary from person to person and so when analysing the research, in the absence of anything within the wording which explicitly suggests one or other of those choices, different researchers might lean towards one rather than the other. Over time, the development of the frameworks and lists helps build up an understanding of an area and that can develop into recommendations and more directional proposals.

From a policy and practitioner perspective, I’m conscious that lots of reading I’ve done which suggests a framework has been developed, has seemed hard to translate into practice. Thinking about frameworks I’ve used in a policy or delivery context, they would be ones that have some actions or processes attached to them. There would have been underpinning research which led to the development of the list of criteria. No doubt there could be the same questions about why some options or wording were selected rather than others but when it’s accompanied by input which allows the framework to be used, rightly or wrongly, that can feel less of a pressing concern. Or at least, if the framework itself feels useful, if it seems totally bonkers then that’s obviously something else altogether.

Having a sense of who I want the work to help and what they might need, then helps shift some of that Malkovich, Malkovich energy. Given I’m intending to develop a framework as part of the outputs of my research it’s useful to have in mind more of a sense of where I want to be aiming towards. It helps explain why lots of the ones I’ve seen haven’t felt very satisfactory, that I find myself asking ‘and then what?’ about them. Being able to take a step back from the lists and lists, and indeed the lists of lists, to see the aspects that are common across those and why and where there might be gaps. Holding in mind that it is about being able to translate those lists and frameworks into action and activity that’s useful, rather than feeling like what I’m trying to do is come up with one list to rule them all. How to do that is another question, for another day, but having a sharper idea of what I’m away towards is very clarifying.

Separated by a common language

In making the shift from policy and delivery to academia, I definitely wanted, want, to try and share the learning as I go. Keep the connections up with those I worked with in what now feels like a whole other lifetime. Make sure the work that I’m doing is useful and can help to increase the considered and urgently needed action. Share the fascinating research that lots of colleagues in the sector would be interested in, find useful and are probably unaware of. Helping to find ways to avoid the groups from talking about the same things in different ways and often not to or with each other.

I’ve asked around around for ideas on how I can share the learning as I go – glazed expressions on all sides when I say this.

Policy and delivery people don’t seem to have any frame of reference for this concept. Which I can’t be surprised by. I’m unable to think of many examples from my own experience in policy and delivery to draw upon. A previous organisation I was at explored doing an Area of Research Interest in the subject I was working on but the decision was taken not to proceed. Given we had found it hard to identify something suitable that both needed to be done and could justify time, yet could wait at least 6 months until it was done, it was hard to argue with that. Academic work can feel too abstract, too wrapped up in complicated, impenetrable language for many people in policy or delivery roles to engage with

On the academia side of things, when I asked one of the Professor’s at my Uni about external activities, networks and dissemination he said it was the first time he had been asked that by any student. That said, there is some work going on trying to bridge the gap and I’m keen to get in amongst it where it is possible and seems to make sense to do so.

There’s still plenty of disconnects though. So much great research I’ve seen, which I’m obviously not going to name, is seemingly aimed at policy makers. Referencing policy implications either directly in the title of the piece or within the framing of the article. Yet it’s really hard to see what the recommendations are, beyond the classic more research is needed. Setting aside the fact that lots of articles include or present content in ways which don’t seem aimed at policy makers, I’m only scratching the surface of the work that’s been done and yet there are very few pieces I’ve read which make it clear what they think the policy implications are of the work. Of course there are lots of reasons why that might be the case, from a reluctance of academics to be seen to be political or proscriptive, to not feeling comfortable asserting something unless it’s clearly evidenced. Yet policy makers have to take action and make decisions, even when they are dealing with imperfect information.

I’ve not yet found a clear template for how I can share as I go, how I can help to bridge the gap. So it’s a question of exploring and seeing, trying and connecting up with others. Looking at where and how I can start to make that intention true. What existing things are a good fit and where I can helpfully add to those or where I can make my own. Let’s see…