Skip to main content
Login
  1. Home
  2. The Field Guide to Mixing Social and Biophysical Methods in Environmental Research
  3. 5. Expanding research ethics for inclusive and transdisciplinary research
Open Book Publishers

Expanding research ethics for inclusive and transdisciplinary research

  • Alison M. Meadow(author)
  • Hailey Wilmer(author)
  • Daniel B. Ferguson(author)
Chapter of: The Field Guide to Mixing Social and Biophysical Methods in Environmental Research(pp. 59–86)
  • Export Metadata
  • Metadata
  • Locations
  • Contributors
  • References

Export Metadata

Metadata
Title Expanding research ethics for inclusive and transdisciplinary research
ContributorAlison M. Meadow(author)
Hailey Wilmer(author)
Daniel B. Ferguson(author)
DOIhttps://doi.org/10.11647/obp.0418.05
Landing pagehttps://www.openbookpublishers.com/books/10.11647/obp.0418/chapters/10.11647/obp.0418.05
Licensehttps://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/
CopyrightAlison M. Meadow; Hailey Wilmer; Daniel B. Ferguson;
PublisherOpen Book Publishers
Published on2025-02-25
Long abstract

The societal and environmental problems that arise from stressors such as climate change, biodiversity loss, and the escalation of resource extraction and pollution have driven many toward research approaches that reach beyond standard Western science to include multiple knowledges, multiple disciplines, and multiple methods of collecting and interpreting data. We refer to these research approaches collectively as transdisciplinary (Td) research. In this chapter we describe four interrelated but distinct themes (representation, self-determination, deference, and reciprocity) and two cross-cutting themes (ethics beyond human dimensions and research skills) that we believe can be used to guide researchers and research teams toward a more expansive approach to research ethics. While our focus is explicitly on Td, much of what we describe below is relevant to interdisciplinary science or engaged and collaborative research more broadly.

Page rangepp. 59–86
Print length28 pages
LanguageEnglish (Original)
Locations
Landing PageFull text URLPlatform
PDFhttps://www.openbookpublishers.com/books/10.11647/obp.0418/chapters/10.11647/obp.0418.05Landing pagehttps://books.openbookpublishers.com/10.11647/obp.0418.05.pdfFull text URL
HTMLhttps://www.openbookpublishers.com/books/10.11647/obp.0418/chapters/10.11647/obp.0418.05Landing pagehttps://books.openbookpublishers.com/10.11647/obp.0418/ch5.xhtmlFull text URLPublisher Website
Contributors

Alison M. Meadow

(author)
Associate Research Professor – Office of Societal Impact at University of Arizona
https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0315-5799

Hailey Wilmer

(author)
https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0810-9687

Daniel B. Ferguson

(author)
Associate Professor of Environmental Science at University of Arizona
https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2197-4424
References
  1. The Protection of Human Subjects. 45 C.F.R. 46.
  2. AlShebli, B.K., T. Rahwan, and W.L. Woon. 2018. ‘The preeminence of ethnic diversity in scientific collaboration’, Nature Communications, 9.1, pp. 5163, https://www.doi.org/10.1038/s41467-018-07634-8
  3. Briske, D.D., D.L. Coppock, A.W. Illius, and S.D. Fuhlendorf. 2020. ‘Strategies for global rangeland stewardship: Assessment through the lens of the equilibrium–non‐equilibrium debate’, Journal of Applied Ecology, 57.6, pp. 1056–1067.https://doi.org/10.1111/1365-2664.13610
  4. Britton, J. and H. Johnson. 2023. ‘Community autonomy and place-based environmental research: recognizing and reducing risks’, Metropolitan Universities, 34.2, pp. 118–137, https://www.doi.org/10.18060/26440
  5. Brydon-Miller, M. 2008. ‘Ethics and action research: deepening our commitment to principles of social justice and redefining systems of democratic practice’, in The Sage Handbook of Action Research, ed. by P. Reason and H. Bradbury (Sage Publications), pp. 199–210.
  6. Bullard, R. 2000. Dumping in Dixie (Routledge).
  7. Campbell, A. and S. Goundwater-Smith. 2007. ‘Introduction’, in An Ethical Approach to Practitioner Research: Dealing with Issues and Dilemmas in Action Research, ed. by A. Campbell and S. Groundwater-Smith (Routledge), pp. 1–7.
  8. Campbell, S.P. 2017. ‘Ethics of research in conflict environments’, Journal of Global Security Studies, 2.1, pp. 89–101. https://doi.org/10.1093/jogss/ogw024
  9. Carroll, S., I. Garba, O. Figueroa-Rodríguez, J. Holbrook, R. Lovett, S. Materechera, M. Parsons, K. Raseroka, D. Rodriguez-Lonebear, and R. Rowe. 2020. ‘The CARE principles for Indigenous data governance’, Data Science Journal, 19, p. 43. https://doi.org/10.5334/dsj-2020-043
  10. Chief, K., A. Meadow, and K. Whyte. 2016. ‘Engaging Southwestern tribes in sustainable water resources topics and management’, Water, 8.8, p. 350. https://doi.org/10.3390/w8080350
  11. CLEAR. 2021. CLEAR Lab Book: A Living Manual of Our Values, Guidelines, and Protocols, https://civiclaboratory.nl/clear-lab-book
  12. Coppock, D.L. 2016. ‘Cast off the shackles of academia! Use participatory approaches to tackle real-world problems with underserved populations’, Rangelands, 38.1, pp. 5–13. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rala.2015.11.005
  13. Davis, K.P., D.J. Augustine, A.P. Monroe, and C.L. Aldridge. 2021. ‘Vegetation characteristics and precipitation jointly influence grassland bird abundance beyond the effects of grazing management’, The Condor, 123.4, pp. 1–15. https://doi.org/10.1093/ornithapp/duab041
  14. del Campo, F.M., J. Casado, P. Spencer, and H. Strelnick. 2013. ‘The development of the Bronx Community Research Review Board: a pilot feasibility project for a model of community consultation’, Progress in Community Health Partnerships, 7.3, pp. 341.
  15. Djenontin, I.N.S. and A.M. Meadow. 2018. ‘The art of co-production of knowledge in environmental sciences and management: Lessons from international practice’, Environmental Management, 61.6, pp. 885–903.
  16. Eigenbrode, S.D., M. O’rourke, J. Wulfhorst, D.M. Althoff, C.S. Goldberg, K. Merrill, W. Morse, M. Nielsen-Pincus, J. Stephens, and L. Winowiecki. 2007. ‘Employing philosophical dialogue in collaborative science’, BioScience, 57.1, pp. 55–64.
  17. Ferguson, D.B., A.M. Meadow, and H.P. Huntington. 2022. ‘Making a difference: planning for engaged participation in environmental research’, Environmental Management, 69.2, pp. 227–243.
  18. Helmer, M., M. Schottdorf, A. Neef, and D. Battaglia. 2017. ‘Gender bias in scholarly peer review’, eLife, 6.
  19. Hoffman, J.S., V. Shandas, and N. Pendleton. 2020. ‘The effects of historical housing policies on resident exposure to intra-urban heat: a study of 108 US urban areas’, Climate, 8.1, p. 12.
  20. Hoover, D.L., B. Bestelmeyer, N.B. Grimm, T.E. Huxman, S.C. Reed, O. Sala, T.R. Seastedt, H. Wilmer, and S. Ferrenberg. 2020. ‘Traversing the wasteland: a framework for assessing ecological threats to drylands’, BioScience, 70.1, pp. 35–47.
  21. Hudson, M., N.A. Garrison, R. Sterling, N.R. Caron, K. Fox, J. Yracheta, J.Anderson, P. Wilcox, L. Arbour, and A. Brown. 2020. ‘Rights, interests and expectations: Indigenous perspectives on unrestricted access to genomic data’, Nature Reviews Genetics, 21.6, pp. 377–384.
  22. Krlev, G. and A. Spicer. 2022. ‘Reining in reviewer two: how to uphold epistemic respect in academia’, Journal of Management Studies, 60.6, pp. 1624–1632.
  23. Kwon, D. 2022. ‘The rise of citational justice: how scholars are making references fairer’, Nature, 603.7902, pp. 568–571.
  24. Lane, S.N., Chapter 8, this volume. ‘The environmental impacts of fieldwork: making an environmental impact statement’.
  25. Lomawaima, K.T. 2000. ‘Tribal sovereigns: Reframing research in American Indian education’, Harvard Educational Review, 70.1, pp. 1–23.
  26. Martin, V.Y. 2020. ‘Four common problems in environmental social research undertaken by natural scientists’, BioScience, 70.1, pp. 13–16.
  27. McGregor, H.E. 2013. ‘Situating Nunavut education with indigenous education in Canada’, Canadian Journal of Education, 36.2, pp. 87–118.
  28. Mikesell, L., E. Bromley, and D. Khodyakov. 2013. ‘Ethical community-engaged research: a literature review’, American Journal of Public Health, 103.12, pp. 7–14.
  29. Mokos, J., Chapter 36, this volume. ‘Participatory methods’.
  30. Moon, K., C. Cvitanovic, D.A. Blackman, I.R. Scales, and N.K. Browne. 2021. ‘Five questions to understand epistemology and its influence on integrative marine research’, Frontiers in Marine Science, 8, pp. 1–9.
  31. Murveit, A.M., S. Delphin, C. Domingues, S.D. Bourque, S.D. Faulstich, G. Garfin, N. Huntly, A.M. Meadow, and V. Preston. 2023. ‘Stories as data: Indigenous research sovereignty and the “Intentional Fire” podcast’, Environment and Planning F, 2.1–2, pp. 180–202.
  32. National Institutes of Health. 2015. PHS Policy on Humane Care and Use of Laboratory Animals (U.S. Department of Health and Human Services).
  33. National Research Council. 2011. Guide for the Care and Use of Laboratory Animals: Eighth Edition (The National Academies Press).
  34. Norgaard, K.M. 2014. ‘The politics of fire and the social impacts of fire exclusion on the Klamath’, Humboldt Journal of Social Relations, 36, pp. 77–101.
  35. Pahl-Wostl, C., M. Craps, A. Dewulf, E. Mostert, D. Tabara, and T. Taillieu. 2007. ‘Social learning and water resources management’, Ecology and Society, 12.2.
  36. Patton, M.Q. 2015. Qualitative Research and Evaluation Methods (Sage Publications).
  37. Plaut, E. 2009. ‘Tribal-agency confidentiality: a Catch-22 for sacred site management?’, Ecology Law Quarterly, 36.1, pp. 137–166.
  38. Ranganathan, M., and E. Bratman. 2021. ‘From urban resilience to abolitionist climate justice in Washington, DC’, Antipode, 53.1, pp. 115–137.
  39. Said, E.W. 1979. Orientalism (Vintage).
  40. Shore, N. 2006. ‘Re-conceptualizing the Belmont Report: A community-based participatory research perspective’, Journal of Community Practice, 14.4, pp. 5–26.
  41. Simon, G. and S. Dooling. 2016. Cities, Nature and Development: The Politics and Production of Urban Vulnerabilities (Routledge).
  42. Star, S.L. and J.R. Griesemer. 1989. ‘Institutional ecology, ‘translations’ and boundary objects: amateurs and professionals in Berkeley’s Museum of Verebrate Zoology’, Social Studies of Science, 19.3, pp. 387–420.
  43. Stern, M. J., D.D. Briske, and A.M. Meadow. 2021. ‘Opening learning spaces to create actionable knowledge for conservation’, Conservation Science and Practice, 3.5, p. e378.
  44. Tachera, D. 2021. ‘Reframing funding strategies to build reciprocity’, Eos, 102.
  45. Tress, G., B. Tress, and G. Fry. 2005. ‘Clarifying integrative research concepts in landscape ecology’, Landscape Ecology, 20.4, pp. 479–493.
  46. Tuck, E. 2009. ‘Suspending damage: A letter to communities’, Harvard Educational Review, 79.3, pp. 409–427.
  47. UCLA School of Law Tribal Legal Development Clinic. (2020). The Need for Confidentiality Within Tribal Cultural Resource Protection, https://law.ucla.edu/sites/default/files/PDFs/Native_Nations/239747_UCLA_Law_publications_Confidentiality_R2_042021.pdf
  48. Ulibarri, N., A.E. Cravens, A.S. Nabergoj, and A. Royalty. 2019. Creativity in Research (Cambridge University Press).
  49. Virapongse, A., R. Gupta, Z.J. Robbins, J. Blythe, R.E. Duerr, and C. Gregg. 2022. ‘How can earth scientists contribute to community resilience? Challenges and recommendations [policy and practice reviews]’, Frontiers in Climate, 4, pp. 1–18.
  50. Walter, M., T. Kukutai, S.R. Carroll, and D. Rodriguez-Lonebear. 2021. Indigenous Data Sovereignty and Policy (Taylor and Francis).
  51. Wenger, E. 2000. ‘Communities of practice and social learning systems’, Organization, 7.2, pp. 225–246.
  52. Whyte, K.P. 2018. ‘Critical investigations of resilience: A brief introduction to indigenous environmental studies and sciences’, Daedalus, 147.2, pp. 136–147.
  53. Whyte, K.P. 2017. ‘Systematic discrimination in peer review: Some reflections’, Daily Nous, May, 7.
  54. Whyte, K.P. and P.B. Thompson. 2012. ‘Ideas for how to take wicked problems seriously’, Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics, 25, pp. 441–445.
  55. Wiessner, S. 2008. ‘Indigenous sovereignty: A reassessment in light of the UN declaration on the rights of Indigenous People’, Vand. J. Transnat’l L., 41, pp. 1141.
  56. Wilmer, H., J.D. Derner, M.E. Fernández-Giménez, D.D. Briske, D.J. Augustine, and L.M. Porensky. 2018. ‘Collaborative adaptive rangeland management fosters management-science partnerships’, Rangeland Ecology and Management, 71.5, pp. 646–657.
  57. Wilmer, H., A.M. Meadow, A.B. Brymer, S.R. Carroll, D.B. Ferguson, I. Garba, C. Greene, G. Owen, and D.E. Peck. 2021. ‘Expanded ethical principles for research partnership and transdisciplinary natural resource management science’, Environmental Management, 68.4, pp. 453–467.
  58. Wilmer, H., L.M. Porensky, M.E. Fernández-Giménez, J.D. Derner, D.J. Augustine, J.P. Ritten, and D.P. Peck2019. ‘Community-engaged research builds a nature-culture of hope on North American Great Plains rangelands’, Social Sciences, 8.1, pp. 1–26.

Export Metadata

UK registered social enterprise and Community Interest Company (CIC).

Company registration 14549556

Metadata

  • By book
  • By publisher
  • GraphQL API
  • Export API

Resources

  • Downloads
  • Videos
  • Merch
  • Presentations
  • Service status

Contact

  • Email
  • Bluesky
  • Mastodon
  • Github

Copyright © 2026 Thoth Open Metadata. Except where otherwise noted, content on this site is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International license.