[Coral-List] Ethical science within community-based projects

[Mael IMIRIZALDU]

Dear colleagues, 



I already forward this survey few weeks ago so sorry for the recurrence,
this will be the last time I publish this topic on the list.


As part of a “Science for Action strategy" Conservation International
New-Caledonia and the Loyalty Islands Province are implementing for the
management of the World Heritage Site of Ouvea & Beautemps-Beaupré (New
Caledonia), we’re trying to establish a research ethic for an ethical
science within community-based projects. The main objectives are 1) To
respect the expectations from local communities in terms of information,
awareness, involvement, appropriate behavior, etc
 2) To Ensure that science
feeds back into decision making and address management issues and 3) To
Facilitate the studies in site while connecting researchers to local
communities/stakeholders and simplifying the process (traditional protocol,
site access, key-person). In order to develop a Letter of Agreement that
reaches these goals for Ouvéa Island’s specific context, several surveys
will be conducted with local communities, decision-makers and scientists
from New Caledonia. 

Prior to this, we would like to share experience with international
scientists & experts with experience of community-based management projects.
Through this preliminary survey we would like to get general feedback
(Benefits / Difficulties) over projects linking scientists, managers and
communities. Your answers and suggestions will help us to strengthen our
“Science to Action” Strategy. 

 

If you are interested in participating (or forwarding to colleagues), just
copy/paste the following text in a Word document (.doc/.docx) and send the
completed form to the following contact. f you need any more detail about
our project or if you have any question/comments concerning this survey,
please feel free to contact: 

 

Maël IMIRIZALDU – Consultant for Conservation International  New-Caledonia
Contact:  <mailto:mael.imirizaldu at hotmail.fr> mael.imirizaldu at hotmail.fr 

 

Thank you for your help. As far as possible, try to develop in a few
sentence (if wanted) your answers so we can better understand your
perception.

 

 

* All information collected through this survey will remain private and
anonymous.

 




 

1)       First of all, what is your perception of such a “Research Ethic”
for projects implemented in a locally managed area?

 

2)       When going on the field : 

 

a.        What are your own major constraints when preparing a fieldtrip?
(Related to your current projects, schedules, funds, deadlines, etc
)

 

b.       What are your expectations toward the different stakeholders
(Managers, Communities’ leaders)? (Logistic, facilitation, information, site
access 
.)

 

c.        What are the main issues/difficulties you can encounter while
working with local communities?

 

3)       Involving local people as part of a capacity-building strategy : 

 

a.        Does the involvement of member(s) from the community represent for
you a constraint or a benefit?

 

b.       What level of involvement do you usually share with people from the
communities (sharing information, guiding, involving in
surveys/monitoring/experimentation
)? Would you be keen for more involvement
and if so, under which conditions?

 

c.        Is it normal to anticipate as part of the study project, a minimum
rate to provide for any member of the community involved in the project
implementation?

 

4)       Keeping the communities informed : 

 

a.        When first contacting a community or individual to seek access, is
it important to take time explaining in a meeting the nature and purpose of
proposed research, its foreseeable consequences for resources, people and
accessors? What benefits and constraints from such a meeting?

 

b.       Before leaving the community, do you usually provide a short
preliminary description of the finding of the work? Again, do you see any
benefits / constraints in taking time for this?

 

c.        Prior to any peer-review publication and even if the research are
still ongoing, is it an important thing to come back into communities to
provide the main results and discuss implications in terms of management?
Again, do you see any benefits / constraints in taking time for this? How
soon after the end of the study seem reasonable to ensure that restitution?

 

d.       What difficulties will you face in coming back to community to
present your results ?

 

e.       When coming back to communities for restitution, do you usually
provide awareness materials such as main result summary (or anything else)? 

 

5)       Taking part to the decision-making process :

 

a.        When working with Decision-maker, do you usually take part to
anticipate meeting to better define the project guidance accordingly to
policy strategies and information needed? Do you think it’s an important
step?

 

b.       More than just recommendations in a final report, do you think that
it is important to provide proper restitution to better influence the
decision-making?

 

c.        Does providing the results’ key points through supportive
materials prior to any scientific publication could represent a constraint?

 

 

 

We gratefully thank you for helping us.

Best regards