Participatory works, by definition, involve engagement with people. As a consequence, participatory works will nearly invariably require close attention to ethics. Indeed, as Claire Bishop points out, 'ethics is the ground zero of any collaborative art’.[1]
As ethics is a broad and complex topic, which can vary depending on the regulations of each place, this chapter has no intention of being comprehensive, nor work as legal advice. Rather, this chapter will just present some of the learnings about ethics, taken from the case studies. More detailed and official information about ethics in participatory works, as well as specific guidance, should be obtained from your local ethics and/or privacy protection regulatory bodies.
As a very first approach toward understanding what ethics means and what it involves, we can think about Gundersen's concept, which states that ‘ethics is about how we relate to the world, and which impact we have on the world’.[2]
Therefore, participatory works must ensure that appropriate actions for respect, inclusion, and justice are put in place.[3] In practical terms, Williamon summarises the application of these ethical principles as:
- (1) Respect is put in practice by obtaining informed consent
- (2) Justice is put in practice by carrying out a fair selection of participants
- (3) Beneficence is put in practice by seeking to not harm and to maximise the benefits to the participants[4]
A cornerstone practice in the ethics of projects that involve humans is the requirement of ‘prior, free, informed, and ongoing consent of all those participating in research’.[5] It is crucial that each participant understands the purpose of the project, what their participation involves, any potential benefits and risks, and that they have the freedom to withdraw their participation.
Usually, it is a requirement in projects involving humans that participants read information sheets and sign an informed consent form.
According to the Norwegian National Research Ethics Committees, 'the ethical consent should safeguard the participants’ personal integrity and right to decide for themselves whether they want to participate.[6] Also, it is highlighted that the consent should be voluntary and without any kind of pressure.
Usually, consent should be obtained from people who are fully capable of responding for themselves. Generally, consent for the participation of children is obtained from their parents/guardians. In the case of participation of people with reduced or no ability to safeguard their own needs and interests, it is important to seek specific advice from the local regulatory bodies in charge of ethics and privacy protection of individuals.
Normally, consent forms should also include permission to create recordings and for dissemination of the material produced in the participatory process. As reminded by Williamon et.al, ‘transparency is important’,[7] therefore all the information about the project must be communicated clearly.
Confidentiality and protection of privacy are usually a priority in projects that involve humans. However, an interesting point is raised by Chevalier, who observes that ‘for some, recognition and ‘being heard’ may matter more than privacy and confidentiality’,[8] This in a relevant question, which, in our experience, can be discussed directly with the participants - would they prefer to be kept in anonymity so that their privacy is protected, or is it more valuable for them to be acknowledged? Chevalier advises that 'respect to individuals must be shown through proper quoting, acknowledgements, co-authorship, or the granting of intellectual property rights’.[9]
Regarding online concerts specifically, issues concerning ethics in the context of the internet may also emerge. Some challenges could emerge particularly in relation to data protection and the distinction between private and public.[10] Specifically, it is important, when thinking about the ethics in online participatory projects, to take into consideration that communication via the Internet 'is stored, it is searchable, it can be copied, and the nature of the audience is often unclear’.[11]
At the beginning of the music as an invitation project, it was stated that the aim of the participatory activities was to promote dialogues, collaboration, and a culture of compassion. Those principles were then the reference for the ethical standards put into practice during the development of the project.
[1] BISHOP, Claire. 2012. Artificial Hells: Participatory Art and the Politics of Spectatorship.
London; New York: Verso Books. P. 218
[2] GUNDERSEN, J., et al. 2021. Map ethics! A method for identifying and addressing ethical dimensions of artistic projects. Part of Erasmus+ project Advancing Supervision for Artistic Research Doctorates. Available at https://advancingsupervision.eu
[3]The three ethical principles that underlie the US Federal Policy for the Protection of Human Subjects, according to Williamon et. al., are: (1) respect for persons, (2) beneficence, and (3) justice. Ref.: Performing Music Research: Methods in Music Education, Psychology, and Performance Science by Aaron Williamon, Jane Ginsborg, et al.
[4] WILLIAMON, A., Ginsborg, J., Perkins, R., & Waddell, G. 2021. Performing music research: Methods in music education, psychology, and performance science. Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780198714545.001.0001
[5]CHEVALIER, Jacques M. And Buckles, Daniel J. (2021). Handbook for Patricipatory Action Research, Planning and Evaluation, SAS2 Dialogue, Ottawa. P. 23
[6] https://www.forskningsetikk.no/en/guidelines/social-sciences-and-humanities/guidelines-for-research-ethics-in-the-social-sciences-and-the-humanities/
[7]WILLIAMON, A., Ginsborg, J., Perkins, R., & Waddell, G. 2021. Performing music research: Methods in music education, psychology, and performance science. Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780198714545.001.0001
[8]CHEVALIER, Jacques M. And Buckles, Daniel J. (2021). Handbook for Patricipatory Action Research, Planning and Evaluation, SAS2 Dialogue, Ottawa. P. 23
[9]CHEVALIER, Jacques M. And Buckles, Daniel J. (2021). Handbook for Patricipatory Action Research, Planning and Evaluation, SAS2 Dialogue, Ottawa. P. 23
Case study 1: project music as an invitation (year 1 and year 2 online creative processes)
The project music as an invitation was a research project, therefore it followed the guidelines of the ethics committee of the institution where I was developing my postdoctoral research.
Firstly, the project was submitted for approval by the Research Ethics Committee at the University of Bergen. Because it involved the collection of personal data (such as names and emails), it was also submitted to the Norwegian Agency for Shared Services in Education and Research.
During the recruitment phase, I explained verbally, in introductory online meetings, the details of the project: the background to the research, the aims, the methods to be used, how their participation would happen, and the goals of the participatory process that they would be a part of. Then, the potential participants received an information sheet with details about the project, what their participation involved, a clear statement that their participation was voluntary, and that they had the right to withdraw their consent at any time with no need for explanations. They also received details about how their personal data would be stored, their rights, and who to contact if they had any questions or complaints about the project. A version of the information sheet was adapted to a teenage-friendly style (which included illustrations, for example) for the teenage participants.
Attached to the information sheet was a consent form, to be signed by the participant or by one of their parents/guardians (in the case of participants under 18 years old).
These documents were available in English and in Portuguese, but the participants (and the parents/guardians of the teenage participants) were informed that I could also arrange for translations to other languages to be made if that would make them feel more comfortable.
Additionally, in the online workshops, I would ask at the beginning of each meeting if all the participants would agree to have the session recorded.
Due to the characteristics of this project’s participants, the environment was naturally one of respect, and I tried to make sure that everyone could feel included and have their voice heard.
The primary goal of the participatory process in the music as an invitation project was to foster contexts where the participants felt accepted, valued, and empowered. To this end, my priority was to conduct the participatory process with social empathy, sensitivity, and appropriate facilitation techniques. For example, participants who were shier were kindly encouraged to participate in the discussion, yet they were respected in their individuality.
Case study 2: rsvp: piano, toy piano, electronics, and actions
The live-streamed concert of the second year of research involved the sensitive issue of recording images of people - in photo and video - and audio as well.
To address this question, there were signs put in visible places in the venue informing:
This concert is being photographed and filmed for documentation, research, and promotional purposes. If you do not feel happy to be photographed or filmed, please let me, the photographer, and/or one of the videographers know.
I announced this information verbally at the beginning of the concert as well. I also explained that, after the concert, audience feedback was going to be collected through audio recording. The recording of their feedback was going to be voluntary and anonymous, and would be used for research purposes only.