TY - JOUR
T1 - Ethical Issues in Participatory Action Research on Covid-appropriate Behaviour and Vaccine Hesitancy in India
T2 - A Case with Commentaries
AU - Narayanan, Pradeep
AU - Brear, Michelle
AU - Shabangu, Pinky
AU - Groot, Barbara
AU - van den Eijnde, Charlotte
AU - Banks, Sarah
N1 - Publisher Copyright:
© 2023 The Author(s). Published by Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group.
PY - 2023
Y1 - 2023
N2 - This article starts with a case outlining ethical challenges encountered in participatory action research (PAR) on vaccine hesitancy in rural India during Covid-19. Community researchers were recruited by a not-for-profit organisation, with the aim of both discovering the reasons for vaccine hesitancy and encouraging take-up. This raised issues about the roles and responsibilities of local researchers in their own communities, where they might be blamed for adverse reactions to vaccination. They and their mentor struggled with balancing societal protection against individual rights to make choices. These themes are explored in two commentaries discussing the difficulties in balancing ethics in public health (prioritising societal benefits), social research (protecting participants from harm and respecting their rights not to be involved) and participatory research practices (maximising democratic participation and decision-making). As discussed in the first commentary, often these cohere, but tensions can arise. The second commentary also raises the issue of epistemic justice, questioning the extent to which the villagers could have a say in the design, implementation and interpretation of the research, and the dangers of not hearing the voices and arguments of people who reject vaccination. The case and commentaries highlight the complexities of PAR and additional challenges in a public health context.
AB - This article starts with a case outlining ethical challenges encountered in participatory action research (PAR) on vaccine hesitancy in rural India during Covid-19. Community researchers were recruited by a not-for-profit organisation, with the aim of both discovering the reasons for vaccine hesitancy and encouraging take-up. This raised issues about the roles and responsibilities of local researchers in their own communities, where they might be blamed for adverse reactions to vaccination. They and their mentor struggled with balancing societal protection against individual rights to make choices. These themes are explored in two commentaries discussing the difficulties in balancing ethics in public health (prioritising societal benefits), social research (protecting participants from harm and respecting their rights not to be involved) and participatory research practices (maximising democratic participation and decision-making). As discussed in the first commentary, often these cohere, but tensions can arise. The second commentary also raises the issue of epistemic justice, questioning the extent to which the villagers could have a say in the design, implementation and interpretation of the research, and the dangers of not hearing the voices and arguments of people who reject vaccination. The case and commentaries highlight the complexities of PAR and additional challenges in a public health context.
KW - Covid-19
KW - ethics
KW - India
KW - participatory health research
KW - Vaccine hesitancy
UR - https://www.scopus.com/pages/publications/85159564335
UR - https://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=85159564335&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1080/17496535.2023.2209363
DO - 10.1080/17496535.2023.2209363
M3 - Article
AN - SCOPUS:85159564335
SN - 1749-6535
VL - 17
SP - 221
EP - 228
JO - Ethics and Social Welfare
JF - Ethics and Social Welfare
IS - 2
ER -