| Title |
Ethics in Community-University-Artist Partnered Research: Tensions, Contradictions and Gaps Identified in an ‘Arts for Social Change’ Project
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Journal of Academic Ethics, April 2016
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s10805-016-9257-7 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Annalee Yassi, Jennifer Beth Spiegel, Karen Lockhart, Lynn Fels, Katherine Boydell, Judith Marcuse |
| Abstract |
Academics from diverse disciplines are recognizing not only the procedural ethical issues involved in research, but also the complexity of everyday "micro" ethical issues that arise. While ethical guidelines are being developed for research in aboriginal populations and low-and-middle-income countries, multi-partnered research initiatives examining arts-based interventions to promote social change pose a unique set of ethical dilemmas not yet fully explored. Our research team, comprising health, education, and social scientists, critical theorists, artists and community-activists launched a five-year research partnership on arts-for-social change. Funded by the Social Science and Humanities Research Council in Canada and based in six universities, including over 40 community-based collaborators, and informed by five main field projects (circus with street youth, theatre by people with disabilities, dance for people with Parkinson's disease, participatory theatre with refugees and artsinfused dialogue), we set out to synthesize existing knowledge and lessons we learned. We summarized these learnings into 12 key points for reflection, grouped into three categories: community-university partnership concerns (n = 3), dilemmas related to the arts (n = 5), and team issues (n = 4). In addition to addressing previous concerns outlined in the literature (e.g., related to consent, anonymity, dangerous emotional terrain, etc.), we identified power dynamics (visible and hidden) hindering meaningful participation of community partners and university-based teams that need to be addressed within a reflective critical framework of ethical practice. We present how our team has been addressing these issues, as examples of how such concerns could be approached in community-university partnerships in arts for social change. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 5 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Canada | 2 | 40% |
| Netherlands | 1 | 20% |
| Australia | 1 | 20% |
| Unknown | 1 | 20% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 4 | 80% |
| Scientists | 1 | 20% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 129 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 129 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 21 | 16% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 16 | 12% |
| Researcher | 15 | 12% |
| Student > Bachelor | 9 | 7% |
| Professor | 7 | 5% |
| Other | 20 | 16% |
| Unknown | 41 | 32% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Social Sciences | 17 | 13% |
| Psychology | 14 | 11% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 10 | 8% |
| Arts and Humanities | 9 | 7% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 8 | 6% |
| Other | 22 | 17% |
| Unknown | 49 | 38% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 4. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 07 October 2016.
All research outputs
#8,078,484
of 24,532,617 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Academic Ethics
#143
of 252 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#109,456
of 306,015 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Academic Ethics
#2
of 2 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,532,617 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 66th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 252 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 8.4. This one is in the 43rd percentile – i.e., 43% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 306,015 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 64% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 2 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one.