Abstract
In the spirit of open engagement we respond to the article published in the last issue of Acta Academia by Mareli Stolp entitled “Report to the Academy: Power and ethics in humanities research”. This article raises many important issues but also requires, in our opinion, the presentation of an alternative perspective or narrative of the events chronicled. In responding to Stolp’s discussion of this incident, four aspects will be discussed: (1) the conceptual delineation of the scope of research misconduct, research integrity and research ethics, (2) Research ethics and integrity at Stellenbosch University and the allegation that it used as a managerial tool to supress academic freedom (3) the investigation process itself, and finally (4) the question of innocence or guilt. In conclusion we believe that a limited knowledge and understanding of research ethics particularly as it applies to autoethnography, a context of intra-departmental conflict and a specific historical context led to the conflation of numerous issues and to this series of events.
Highlights
The article “Report to the Academy: Power and ethics in humanities research” published in 2016 by Acta Academia, (Stolp 2016) raises important questions about managerialism and ethics in universities, questions which should be debated and considered carefully
Mareli Stolp notes, and it is important to raise and discuss them. It is in this spirit of open engagement that we respond to the article
We believe that a limited knowledge and understanding of research ethics, a context of intra-departmental conflict and a particular historical context led to the conflation of numerous issues and to this series of events
Summary
The article “Report to the Academy: Power and ethics in humanities research” published in 2016 by Acta Academia, (Stolp 2016) raises important questions about managerialism and ethics in universities, questions which should be debated and considered carefully. It is important to note that Stolp’s research proposal did not go through any formal process of ethics review or approval, despite the fact that the SU Policy in place at the time stated the following: International guidelines for the need for ethics approval of nonhealth related research e.g. social science research involving human participants are less clear. Stolp’s dissertation did not include a section on ethical considerations related to her chosen research methodology and it does seem that she did not consider the persons that she named and reported on in her dissertation to be research participants This is perhaps the issue at the heart of this incident: the complainant and those involved in investigating the complaint did and still do regard many of the persons mentioned in Stolp’s dissertation as research participants and deserving protection by research ethics principles implemented by a responsible and accountable researcher. Many if not most of these projects seek to explore the perspective of students coming from previously disadvantaged and previously excluded backgrounds
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary 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 callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
