Over the past six months we had numerous conversations with experts on these methods. We also ran a couple of action learning tracks on collective intelligence and solution mapping, to demonstrate the value of these methods as well as testing a prototype of a learning offer. During these conversations, and learning activities, various issues were raised. For example, if we engage with communities and find solutions that help them to address a development issue, and a big corporation picks up on these ideas, who owns the intellectual property rights on these solutions at the end, who should be benefiting from any financial revenue streams? Or, what if we track people’s movements through mobile phone data to get real time data on people’s movements and prevent diseases from spreading (e.g.
https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-019-01679-5), what is more valuable? People’s privacy? Or people’s lives?
With these questions in mind, and a few more, we sense there is a need for an ethical framework to guide the AccLab teams and their partners in their decisions.
The most obvious thing to do would be to develop a guidebook that is pushed down from the top. Yet, we believe this is not the way to go because thorny ethical issues don’t always have a right answer.
*Firstly, the teams will be working in very different parts of the world, where cultural norms and values might be very different. What is acceptable in one region, may not be acceptable in another.
*Secondly, we are putting together various methods into a new practice, which means this practice involves an amalgamation of various ontological, epistemological, axiological and methodological assumptions, where different ethical framework may not necessarily be compatible.
*Thirdly, we feel it is important that the AccLabs own the ethical framework. Instead of prescribing the guidelines, we believe it will be far more effective to co-create the framework with the stakeholders involved.