Reciprocity Module

By the end of this module, you will:
· Develop some understanding about the role that reciprocity, benefits, and risks have played in ethical thinking.
. Consider the value of relationships and how they can be their own benefit or reward.
· Describe and reflect on how reciprocity might impact you and your class’s contributions to community engagement.
· Apply your knowledge about the above concepts to case studies involving local and international communities.

When people think about ethics they often think about precepts like the Golden Rule “Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.” (1) While variations of this rule show up in diverse religious traditions, the concept is also familiar in non-religious contexts. The relevance for our purposes is that this principle is widely taken to be an instance of a reciprocity framework and to have an egalitarian flavor: everyone is supposed to factor in the interests of others before deciding what to do. For others, reciprocity is understood in terms of a contract or agreed upon set of rules and aims for mutual benefit.  These benefits are understood, not so much by reflecting on one’s own desires (e.g. doing to others what I’d like done to me), but from learning about what all impacted parties would reasonably agree to (e.g. figuring what we owe one another when we are responsive to one another’s value, standing, and expressed interests). We learn about how to treat one another by 1) reflecting on which actions are beneficial, respectful, and fitting given the contexts we find ourselves in, and 2) by learning why actions are desired by the individuals and communities with which we are interacting.

An example from research ethics discussed by Indigenous bioethicist, Krystal Tsosie, can help to explain both points. In 2002, the Navajo Nation placed a moratorium that rules out analyzing the DNA of Navajo tribe members. This ban on genetic research arose, in part, because of a failure of reciprocity, including a failure to fully consider the desires of research participants. Many non-Indigenous researchers misused the relevant genetic material not just by making profits from the DNA that were not shared with the Navajo tribes, but also by failing to ensure that the Navajo people (and not just third parties) could access medical benefits that arose from the research. While the ban on genetic research has recently been reconsidered, clearer attempts to ensure that the original research aligned with the desires of the Navajo people might have increased the odds of achieving reciprocity (not to mention trust and consent) and made the ban unnecessary.

To be sure, moral ideals are diverse and context-sensitive. Conceptions of reciprocity are no exception. While a benefits and harm framework might be central to doing ethical research on human beings, along with consent or respecting desires, these concepts might not translate naturally into every context. For instance, imagine you’re doing a project in an environmental setting and are wondering about how to give and not just take from the Earth. How might you conceive of reciprocity in this context?    

Robin Wall Kimmerer (Citizen Potawatomi Nation) is a Environmental and Forest biologist who thinks of reciprocity as a way of correcting the shortcomings of sustainability-talk—which can sometimes understate our relatedness to the natural world and potentially invoke images of dominion and “ownership” that have been part of some traditional frameworks. As Kimmerer puts it, “reciprocity actually kind of broadens this notion to say that not only does the Earth sustain us, but that we have the capacity and the responsibility to sustain her in return. So it broadens the notion of what it is to be a human person, not just a consumer. And there’s such joy in being able to do that, to have it be a mutual flourishing instead of the more narrow definition of sustainability so that we can just keep on taking.” This mutual flourishing involves, among other things, the recognition of having been given various gifts and as having gifts we can return. 

The above environmental example suggests that there isn’t a single story to tell about reciprocity for every setting. That said, in many contexts we are connecting to human beings in ways that might pose undue risk. Considerations of reciprocity can improve our relationships in professional and research settings. This explains why reciprocity as a broad framework has long underpinned key concepts  in research ethics and continues to play a role in Institutional Review Boards (IRB’s) today. Here the aim is to improve, or at the very least not lower, the wellbeing of those you are interacting with, or researching, while also gaining something of value for yourself. In short, we want everyone in a social relationship to benefit and no one to be put at undue risk of harm. Translated into the terms of a moral test, it is often said that a study is permissible to start only if identifiable benefits apply to both researchers and to research participants, and only if the benefits collectively outweigh the risks of harm. (For more information on IRB’s and ethical research, including a list of glossary terms, see https://wp.stolaf.edu/irb/ | https://www.hhs.gov/sites/default/files/checklist-for-irb-member-general-final-508c.pdf).

The need for reciprocity arises here, in part, because of a vulnerability that is inherent within the relationship between researcher and research participants: since participants have less knowledge, relative to the research question, and since they also face greater risks, during the study, appeals to reciprocity in this context can look like appeals to avoid exploitation. Stated negatively, researchers should not put research participants at undue risk of harm, which is sometimes defined as risk of harm beyond what they might reasonably encounter in their daily lives. (2) Stated positively, studies can only be justified if there is a clear social benefit (e.g. beneficial knowledge, such as a medical discovery) and if there is some, even if modest, expected benefit to research participants (e.g. the knowledge that they have helped science, financial compensation, or perhaps having their health closely monitored during a medical study). Either way, given a reciprocity framework, notice that it is not enough to consent to being involved in a study for someone’s participation to be deemed permissible. Some kind of reciprocity must also be aimed at.

As you might have guessed, calls for reciprocity also apply to the context of community engagement. Even if these experiences do not typically go through a formal IRB review, we want them to be beneficial for each of the parties involved. On the student side of the equation, there is the benefit of a uniquely experiential kind of knowledge, one that is deeply communal in ways that are not possible in a traditional classroom setting. These intentional experiences, along with the self-reflection and projects they inspire, can prepare you for future internships, research opportunities, and forms of work. On the community side of the equation, while it is often said that community partners do far more for us than we do for them, there is the benefit of having students help out with tasks or identified needs. There is also a benefit to communities in being part of the generation of knowledge, perhaps by helping vibrant students to shape a research project or by sharing their expertise on some topic. On the faculty side, there is the value of seeing their students in relationship with the community, while doing work that is rewarding in all of the aforementioned ways.

Of course, there are risks to ponder as well. Whether at the level of communication, or miscommunication, time management, resource allocation, privacy, opportunity costs, project design, or data collection, all relationships and projects face potential challenges and can go off track in a host of ways. Further risks can arise when there are differences in power or differences in cultural understanding at play in a given setting (see identity module). The call for reciprocity is a reminder to try to minimize these and other risks by reflecting on the shape they might take in advance of your experience and by communicating effectively (see communication module). It’s also a reminder to correct harms, if they arise, restoring stability to our relationships. Even if one does all of that, another important risk is simply running out of time before a project can be fully completed or having your experience wrapped up, after an impossibly brief semester, only to wonder if your work was sufficiently impactful. What do we do if that happens?

This last challenge is worth reflecting a bit more. We often focus on tangible outcomes, and whether they are mutually beneficial for all relevant parties. That’s reasonable to consider for all of the reasons described above: it helps to minimize the risk of harm and also helps to create value in the world. But many ethicists think that solely focusing on outcomes risks obscuring the inherent value of our connection to others, including in the context of community engagement; it risks reducing these relationships to an overly simplistic risk-benefit analysis. From this point of view, it is important to consider that relationships (like persons) are valuable in themselves, independently of whatever external goods they produce for us or for others – whether that be knowledge, research experience, resources, a line on a resume, etc.

This is not to downplay the importance of seeking external benefits. It is rather to say that the relationships you form with your community partner, fellow students, and professor can remain valuable even if the other benefits fall short of your expectations. If relationships matter for their own sake, in other words, then they are their own reward. As for a practical upshot: even if you feel your project has less impact than you hoped, it may be worth keeping in mind that the relationships you formed along the way can have value and meaning independently of such outcomes. Something similar goes for the communities with which you are working. They might remember you, and how you are treated and related to them, even more than the projects you produced, the service you completed, or the time you put in. Like you, they might get more out of the relationship itself than from the other benefits.

(1) https://iep.utm.edu/goldrule/#:~:text=More%2C%20in%20any%20relevant%20context,recipient%20of%20another’s%20similar%20action
(2) Though such a conception of “minimal risk”, it might be noted, is controversial. Some find talk of “minimal risk” and the “daily life risks” standard ambiguous and offer other ways of thinking about which risks are tolerable. https://jme.bmj.com/content/31/1/35, https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/15265161.2011.568579

(3) On Being podcast episode, “The Intelligence of Plants,” (25 Feb 2016). For additional context, see Robin Wall Kimmerer’s Braiding Sweetgrass https://milkweed.org/book/braiding-sweetgrass

These activities may be done individually, with classmates/group members, and/or with community partners. There is a set of questions and topics for before or at the beginning of the community engagement and another set that can be used during and/or after the experience. The questions are a labeled below for their suggested use.

1. What is your experience with reciprocity, as defined in this module? Give at least one example of reciprocity that you have observed directly, and briefly explain how it affected you.

1. What are the potential benefits of this community engagement experience? Consider tangible and intangible benefits, including knowledge, feelings, skills, and resources for:
   a. The community partner (staff and/or community members)
   b. Yourself
   c. Other students in your class or communities on campus
   d. Your professor or other people who work at St. Olaf
2. What do you imagine might be the potential risks or harms of this community engagement experience? Consider tangible and intangible risks or harms, including both physical and emotional impact on:
   a. The community partner (staff and/or community members)
   b. Yourself
   c. Other students in your class or communities on campus
   d. Your professor or other people who work at St. Olaf

1. What are some specific actions you can/will/plan to take during this community engagement experience to:
   a. Maximize the benefits for all participants?
   b. Minimize the risks or harms for all participants?
2. How much do you know at this point about your community engagement experience? What context do you have regarding the population they are working alongside? How might you be able to learn more before you begin working alongside others in this experience?

1. How does your experience with reciprocity in this class compare with reciprocity in your previous experiences (academic, volunteer, or paid) with community engagement?
2. How will you share what you’ve learned about reciprocity with the learning community within the class and with the community at large?
3. What is your own conception of reciprocity? How, if at all, does it differ from those presented in this module?

1. How has this experience added benefit to you (academically, ethically, emotionally, socially, etc.)? How have you added benefit to others through this experience (think your classmates, other groups on campus, and the community partner)?
2. Given the knowledge you have gained from your community partner about their  ideas and values, briefly describe how suspect they might define and measure “success” for the community engagement experience.  
3. Based on your answers above, to what extent has this community engagement experience been successful? Briefly describe how you define “success” and ideas for how to measure “success”.

1. What are some specific actions you have taken during this community engagement experience to:
   a. Maximize the benefits for all participants?
   b. Minimize the risks or harms for all participants?