Abstract
AbstractIn this paper, I investigate how the development of ethics and methods in beyond human and posthuman research have largely been ignored within institutional ethical frameworks. Specifically, I argue that the ethical review process for research needs critical consideration in light of emerging multispecies methodologies. The inclusion and consideration of animals in geography should go further than “bringing animals in” to the discipline; instead they must seek to rethink geographical theory as with and for non‐humans. The ethics, politics, and practices of animals’ inclusion in research have been differentially attended to across geographical scholarship. To do this, I investigate how institutional ethical review operates as a disciplining and shaping tool in the neoliberal university. In doing so, I contend that ethical review processes shape the narratives and structures of what kinds of research are possible for not only animal geographers, but across the discipline. I then explore how multispecies research specifically is affected by and can affect institutional ethical review, revealing how these processes fall short against the heightened backdrop of species difference. Where posthumanist ethics is in tension with institutional ethical frameworks, I argue that ethical approval does not necessarily indicate that researchers have successfully grappled with complex moral dilemmas. Particularly, the acquiring of ethical approval prioritises outmoded forms of knowledge that prioritise homogenised ethical and methodological practice over ethical innovation and questioning. Finally, I offer three propositions drawing on posthumanist ethics and informed by innovative and exploratory multispecies research: the inclusion of animals as participants in research; the reimagination of multispecies ethical and methodological practice; and the reform of institutional ethical review processes. By exploring how radical ethics might be mobilised in multispecies research, I argue that we can further geographical theory and practice to reconfigure who matters as a geographical and ethical subject.
Highlights
In 2018, Erika Cudworth asked: “What would it mean for a dog to give their consent to be involved in research? Are dogs vulnerable subjects in that they cannot give consent in ways traditionally understood? Alternatively, might we need to revise our understanding of how we register and monitor consent in the research process?” (2018, p. 500)
The methodological de-c entring of the human, and the ethics of grappling with beyond human research practice, are becoming more commonly discussed in human geography (Asker & Andrews, 2020)
The disciplining and standardisation of research is not a one-off negotiation within individual research projects but has longer implications for homogenising disciplinary ethical and methodological practice (Simpson, 2011). Drawing on both my own and others’ multispecies research, I offer three suggestions –revisiting who counts as research participants; the reimagination of ethical and methodological practice; and the reform of ethical review –for subverting, challenging, and improving ethical review processes
Summary
In 2018, Erika Cudworth asked: “What would it mean for a dog to give their consent to be involved in research? Are dogs vulnerable subjects in that they cannot give consent in ways traditionally understood? Alternatively, might we need to revise our understanding of how we register and monitor consent in the research process?” (2018, p. 500). Animal geographies, beyond-human ethics, institutional ethical reviews, multispecies geographies, posthuman methodologies
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Free) 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a call
