This weeks challenge is to go through 3 scenarios and decide if they would be classed as lowm medium or high risk.
Scenario 1
“A researcher plans to interview eight artists / curators / designers for her thesis. She offers a letter of introduction about the project, gains written informed consent for the interview from each interviewee, later checks the contents of the transcription with each interviewee, allows the interviewee to withdraw comments / approve the interview record. The interviews will be used as attributed statements within the thesis. A recognised approach from oral history / social sciences / ethnography / art and design criticism and history is part of the methodology. The interviews will involve travel in the UK and abroad, the researcher has discussed her travel plans and personal safety with her supervisors.” (Falmouth, 2021)
To start with, this scenario is at least a medium risk because it involves 8 individuals and anything involving other people is in the medium risk cateogory, based on Parker’s (2021) video. Everything seems to be done well, such as getting written consent and letting the interviewee’s check,change what they want and approving it. This reduces stress and anxiety about what is being published as they have had full control. I don’t think there is anything that would put it in the high risk category, except possibly travelling abroad but the travel plans and safety have been discussed so I would say this is medium risk.
Scenario 2
“A researcher plans to interview around 30 producers of legitimate graffiti at the Southbank Undercroft. Participants were to be interviewed about their opinions and ideas regarding activities and future possibilities for the Undercroft, and also where relevant, their own graffiti habits and key trends in graffiti practices.” (Falmouth, 2021)
Same as above, there is a group of people involved which would made this at least medium risk. A potential for the high risk category is that graffiti is often done illegally but it has been specified that the graffiti they’re doing is legitimate meaning they are not breaking any laws and have had approval to do this. Although I would say it’s medium risk, it isn’t specified if the interviewees have been given a consent form beforehand which is required.
Scenario 3
“The research, for a practice-based PhD, involves engaging online presences in social networking sites under a pseudonym. It aims to explore the ways in which identity is constructed online. The research is such that it cannot be revealed in advance to those involved. The core of the research involves developing a community of online presences into a community of offline friends.” (Falmouth, 2021)
Like the other two scenarios, I would put this in at least medium risk category as it will involve other peoplem, given that they are developing online communities. The issue is that it doesn’t seem that the people are going to know about the experiment. Parker (2021) explains that people need to give informed consent to be involved in an experiment which means that it is deemed unethical, unless they put a case together for it to explain why it’s necessary. Deception is often used in experiments, Parker (2021) says that it may be the only way to reveal something real. This is deception on quite a big scale as it involves hiding their true purpose and making friends with them in real life. I would put this in the high risk category as the deception is very high. They will also be meeting people they met online which could cause further dangers which haven’t been talked about in the scenario.
Reflections on Research
The discussion of the case studies were interesting. I found many problems with the studies before going through the content which I believe was intentional, getting us to think about these issues more. Looking at Kristian and Lavina’s posts, we all seemed to agree with the issues that both of these scenarios presented.
After going through the content and challenge activity I have learned that if I am to host play tests of my game it will be a medium risk which means I will need to fill out a full ethics review form. I have also learned that I’d need to put together a consent form, considering age and culture of the people that will be involved. I was naive in thinking I could just get someone to give my game a test without any formal procedure so I am glad I have learned these lessons early on. Whilst developing a game I will keep this in mind as depending on the content, the risk could change e.g. if there’s flashing lights it could trigger a seizure, making it high risk.
Geelhoed (2021), explains that people are different and that they may not find things obvious that I would which means they could give some really good insight on what works/ doesn’t work in a game. I will make sure to do some play tests in the future to get this kind of information.
References
Falmouth, 2021. Challenge Activity. [online] Learn.falmouth.ac.uk. Available at: <https://learn.falmouth.ac.uk/courses/240/discussion_topics/2983?module_item_id=9191> [Accessed 8 November 2021].
Geelhoed, E., 2021. User and Audience Research. [online] Learn.falmouth.ac.uk. Available at: <https://learn.falmouth.ac.uk/courses/240/pages/week-8-user-and-audience-research?module_item_id=9189> [Accessed 8 November 2021].
Parker, A., 2021. Challenge Activity. [online] Learn.falmouth.ac.uk. Available at: <https://learn.falmouth.ac.uk/courses/240/discussion_topics/2983?module_item_id=9191> [Accessed 8 November 2021].
Richard Charles Ellis 