Abstract

Researchers in the Humanities sector are increasingly required to address the ethical implications of their research, taking into consideration the technological developments, political concerns, and data protection policies arisen in the last decades. In response to this need, the University of Bologna has extended its centralized support services during the last decade: the scope of its Bioethics Committee (initially STEM-oriented) has been broadened and specialised legal advisors and data stewards have been appointed. These services are essential for ensuring compliance with up-to-date standards and for developing procedural solutions.
However, ethical assessment is often seen as a bureaucratic step, with researchers engaging with the abovementioned services mainly when applying for external funding. While concerns for research participants are generally adequately addressed, awareness of more subtle ethical issues, such as misuse and unintended consequences, is still limited.
The Research Managers who interact closely with researchers and are familiar with their work, play thus a key role in helping them to focus on traditionally overlooked ethical aspects and to implement such considerations on the practical level. A successful example of collaboration between a research team, the Research Managers of the Department and the centralized services is the drafting of ethical deliverables for the ERC-funded geography project 'TheGAME', which focuses on the sensitive topic of the Balkan migrant route.
Starting from this experience, this discussion table addresses three key questions concerning the relationship among Humanities scholars, the Research Managers who support them, their institutions, and the evolving research landscape:
1. How can we raise awareness of the ethical issues, overcoming resistance to change and taking into account the challenges deriving from the increasing trans- and interdisciplinarity?
2. How can we better guide researchers through the ethics assessments during the different phases of project lifecycle, in order to ‘de-bureaucratise’ the process and encourage deeper reflection?
3. How can we help researchers to accurately identify and analyse the potential ethical consequences of their work, without running into a scenario where every risk is overestimated?