From Risk-Averse to Opportunity-Led Ethics: Renegotiating Institutional Ethical Guidelines for Co-Creative Types of Research

Institutional review boards (IRBs) set ethical standards for research conduct, thereby contributing to a coherent framework for responsible research practice. However, their current focus on risk reduction has proven to be challenging for many researchers working in co-creative research where participants become co-researchers and play an active role in shaping, challenging, or controlling the research process. In this article, we identify challenges that risk-averse ethics pose for co-creative research. In response to these challenges, we illustrate how co-creative practices provide “workarounds” to ill-fitted, risk-averse-focused IRB questions received while remaining sensitive to the specific ethical concerns of co-creative research. We suggest ethical principles for co-creative research that are grounded in opportunity-based ethics, inspired by feminist new materialisms and critical theory. Instead of predetermining harms and instigating precaution, we argue for an ethics in co-creative research that recognizes ethical risks and opportunities as collaboratively emergent.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
Qualitative Inquiry
Published
2025-05-17
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1177/10778004251334057
Citations
1
Primary Topic
Ethics in Clinical Research
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
1.88

Funders

Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

From Risk-Averse to Opportunity-Led Ethics: Renegotiating Institutional Ethical Guidelines for Co-Creative Types of Research

Antje Jacobs, Karin Hannes, Syeda Sidra Idrees, Elien Stouten
1 citations
Qualitative Inquiry
Ethics in Clinical Research
1.88
article

From Risk-Averse to Opportunity-Led Ethics: Renegotiating Institutional Ethical Guidelines for Co-Creative Types of Research

Antje Jacobs, Karin Hannes, Syeda Sidra Idrees, Elien Stouten
article en
1 citations

Abstract

Institutional review boards (IRBs) set ethical standards for research conduct, thereby contributing to a coherent framework for responsible research practice. However, their current focus on risk reduction has proven to be challenging for many researchers working in co-creative research where participants become co-researchers and play an active role in shaping, challenging, or controlling the research process. In this article, we identify challenges that risk-averse ethics pose for co-creative research. In response to these challenges, we illustrate how co-creative practices provide “workarounds” to ill-fitted, risk-averse-focused IRB questions received while remaining sensitive to the specific ethical concerns of co-creative research. We suggest ethical principles for co-creative research that are grounded in opportunity-based ethics, inspired by feminist new materialisms and critical theory. Instead of predetermining harms and instigating precaution, we argue for an ethics in co-creative research that recognizes ethical risks and opportunities as collaboratively emergent.

Qualitative Inquiry
The University of Melbourne (AU), University of Edinburgh (GB), KU Leuven (BE)
Fonds Wetenschappelijk Onderzoek
Openalex Percentile: Top 16%
Ethics in Clinical Research
1.88
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.