Consensus and Questions

We have now had a chance to transcribe the outputs from the workshop in Ann Arbor and identify areas of agreement, queries and challenges in developing a minimal code of ethics for ICTD research.

In the Ann Arbor workshop, participants reviewed 7 codes of ethics from different disciplines related to ICTD and picked out texts that should inform ethical guidelines for ICTD research.

We then separated this data into three categories corresponding to different responses to these inputs. We invite you to follow the links and join the discussions. In particular, please look at the issues that were ‘Raised for Discussion’:

  • Endorsed: consisting of statements that were marked up in green or yellow indicating support from the reader. Do you agree?
  • Raised for discussion: a list of statements and comments that were marked up in blue or purple indicating that these issues need careful thought in ICTD ethics. What are your thoughts?
  • Proposed for rejection: a list of statements marked up in red indicating that the reader was concerned that these should not be included in a code of ethics for ICTD research. Can we leave these items out?

The results have also been compiled into one master overview of the data.

The conference attendees also contributed to a ‘problem bank’ on ICTD ethics using post-it notes. These have been transcribed here.

Follow the links to join the debate(s).