There are different ‘accepted’ research methods, tools and procedures used in research. However, many of these may have been developed by researchers and for participants in the Global North¹. Research in the field of inclusion and diversity has particularly made visible the importance of having approaches that engage with voices from different backgrounds. Due to common aims and values, participatory approaches in recent years have become closely associated with inclusive education research. Participatory research contributes to the development of democratic and inclusive contexts by enabling the participation of those who are underprivileged, challenging existing power relations and fostering development of competencies needed for social change^2,3.

This discussion panel will start from Santos’ concept of Global South: ‘The global South is not a geographical concept (...). The South is rather a metaphor for the human suffering caused by capitalism and colonialism on the global level, as well as for the resistance to overcoming or minimising such suffering. It is, therefore, an anti-capitalist, anti-colonialist, anti-patriarchal, and anti-imperialist South. It is a South that also exists in the geographic North (Europe and North America), in the form of excluded, silenced and marginalised populations, such as undocumented immigrants, the unemployed, ethnic or religious minorities, and victims of sexism, homophobia, racism and islamophobia’⁴.

We will consider the challenge of doing research in the Global South following traditions and ethical procedures developed by and for the Global North. The ethical procedures currently in place in the Global North are a result of historical processes (e.g. Milgram Experiment, Jane Elliott's exercise), and we will argue that they are not appropriate to develop participatory/ inclusive approaches to research, particularly in Global South contexts.

The panel will bring together researchers who have worked with Syrian and Eritrean refugees, mothers of autistic girls in Algeria, refugees in Turkey, disabled and ‘disadvantaged’ children/ young people. We will take into account the dominant and counter-dominant views of research ethics, with a shared understanding that research ethics is always situated in the specific socio-political-historical context, dialogic in its nature and political in its intentions⁵. The panel will discuss the need for:

1) culturally sensitive approaches to research, given the threatening nature of Global North ethical procedures. The ‘ethical’ research procedures including consent forms, participant information sheets, and privacy notices create feelings of uneasiness and anxiety for some (e.g. when researching Syrian families’ opinions of education in Scotland, some families withdrew due to concerns about their citizenship applications, despite being told that their data would be anonymous and confidential). So, some aspects of an ‘ethical’ research process could result in the exclusion of the participants from the Global South, who are already disadvantaged and marginalised in the societies they live in. We will also problematise research that seems to not only document but reinforce the present growth of prejudice and hate in Turkey towards refugees^7,8 by making local participants (non-refugee) feel neglected.

2) questioning ethically approved research as ‘There is no direct or necessary relationship between ethics committee approval of a research project and what actually happens when the research is undertaken (...) responsibility falls back to the researchers’ themselves – they are the ones on whom the conduct of ethical research depends’⁹. And more importantly, we will question ethically approved participatory/ inclusive research considering individualistic, extractionary approaches, failure to address issues of knowledge production, ownership, and (re)distribution of power, epistemology, researcher positionality, research integrity (e.g. an Eritrean refugee stated: ‘We narrate our stories in the hope that a solution would be found to our suffering. The truth is that, often nothing happens’).

1 Pidgeon, M., & Riley, T. (2021). Understanding the Application and Use of Indigenous Research Methodologies in the Social Sciences by Indigenous and Non-Indigenous Scholars. International Journal of Education Policy and Leadership, 17(8). 2 Hall, B. L. (1992). From margins to center? The development and purpose of participatory research. The American Sociologist, 23(4), 15–28. 3 Bergold, J., & Thomas, S. (2012). Participatory Research Methods: A Methodological Approach in Motion. Historical Social Research/Historische Sozialforschung, 37(4), 191–222. 4 Santos, B. S. (2016). Epistemologies of the South and the future. From the European South. 1. 17-29 5 Renold, E., Holland, S., Ross, N. J., & Hillman, A. (2008). `Becoming Participant’: Problematizing `Informed Consent’ in Participatory Research with Young People in Care. Qualitative Social Work, 7(4), 427–447. 6 Filibeli, T.E., & Ertuna, C. (2021). Sarcasm beyond hate speech: Facebook comments on Syrian refugees in Turkey. International Journal of Communication, 15(24) 8 Ozduzen, O., Korkut, U., & Ozduzen, C. (2021). ‘Refugees are not welcome’: digital racism, online place-making and the evolving categorization of Syrians in Turkey. New Media & Society. 9 Guillemim, M. & Gillam, L. (2004). Ethics, Reflexivity and “Ethically Important Moments” in Qualitative Research’. Qualitative Inquiry 10(2), 261–280.