A Fool’s Errand? Exercising Critique through Ethics in EU Security Research

Posted February 25, 2019 by Matthias Leese, Kristoffer Lidén and Blagovesta Nikolova & filed under Author's Blog

Claims about being “critical” as academics seldom explain what being critical actually means for us, or what it implies for our professional and personal conduct. Sometimes, it is associated with distanced observation “from above”, while at other times it is about descending from the Ivory tower and engaging with political problems for a good cause. In our article, we explore these questions through a discussion of critique and ethics vis-à-vis security.

What unites us as authors, apart from the fact that we see ourselves as academics in the tradition of critical security studies, is that we share a professional history of being involved in EU security research projects as experts in ethics. More specifically, we share a history of being sought out to guide ongoing research processes within these projects to keep them in line with ethical and legal principles and provisions – such as those of the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights or the principles of Responsible Research and Innovation (RRI).

EU security research usually combines a number of participants from the academic world (predominantly technical disciplines), the security industry, and the so-called end-users of such research (for example police, civil protection agencies, or border guards). The main goal of most EU security research projects is to find “smart” and “innovative” solutions to security problems, while at the same time producing potentially commodifiable products. Examples include systems for automated surveillance, data mining, or predictive policing for the sake of counterterrorism.

These systems can be deeply problematic from an ethical perspective and are often subjected to harsh criticisms in critical security studies. On the one hand, this warrants ethical engagement. On the other, it presents us with a tough “dirty hands” dilemma of either entering the projects to reduce the harm or staying away to avoid personal implication and possible co-optation.

In our article, we explore the opportunities for critique that such ethics work offers. The ethics part of EU security research projects is usually supposed to act as the first point of contact for all kinds of normative questions, including ones that speak to conceptualizations of threat and security and what security solutions should look like. This presents us with opportunities to engage with involved communities and, potentially, to spark reflexivity about security and the ways in which it becomes produced. In other words, these can be opportunities to “put critique to work” through ethics.

“Ethics should not be misunderstood as a moral imperative, but instead as a reflection on values in concrete contexts.“

In this sense, ethics should not be misunderstood as a moral imperative, but instead as a reflection on values in concrete contexts. As we show through examples from our professional experience, this is however not so easy. Facing challenges of power, communication, conflicting interests and flawed expectations, ethics experts can end up legitimizing projects through their very participation without having a genuine impact. Based on an incremental account of these constraints, we propose a set of conditions that should be met for ethicists to exercise critique in EU security research.

In this way, we hope to inform a debate on concrete political measures that could be taken in this respect, as well as contributing to a broader reflection on the complicated connections between ethics and scholarly critique in practice.

Share this:

Tags: critical engagement critique ethics EU projects European Union security research technology

Related posts

  • Migrant deaths in the name of law – posted by Shoshana Fine and Thomas Lindemann on January 31, 2025
  • Book Review: On Posthuman War: Computation and Military Violence – posted by Italo Brandimarte on February 13, 2023
  • Book review: Ethics of Drone Strikes. Restraining Remote-Control Killing – posted by Chantal Lavallée on September 14, 2021
  • Governing Border Security Infrastructures: Maintaining Large-Scale Information Systems – posted by Georgios Glouftsios on January 15, 2021

Security Dialogue

  • Security Dialogue is on Twitter
  • Security Dialogue is on Facebook
  • Security Dialogue at Sage
  • Security Dialogue at PRIO.org
  • Current Security Dialogue issue
  • View our Open Access collection

Search

Subscribe

Enter your email address to receive notifications about new posts.

Recent Posts

  • Poison: The politics behind pesticides and chemical weapons
  • Migrant deaths in the name of law
  • Can Videogames Shape Public Understandings of Weaponized Artificial Intelligence?
  • Technopolitics of Security
  • Private Security Contractors and the porousness of International Enclaves

Categories

  • Author's Blog
  • Book reviews
  • Editorial
  • Rejoinders

Archives

  • February 2025
  • January 2025
  • June 2023
  • February 2023
  • January 2023
  • June 2022
  • May 2022
  • January 2022
  • December 2021
  • October 2021
  • September 2021
  • June 2021
  • April 2021
  • February 2021
  • January 2021
  • November 2020
  • October 2020
  • September 2020
  • July 2020
  • May 2020
  • April 2020
  • March 2020
  • February 2020
  • January 2020
  • November 2019
  • September 2019
  • August 2019
  • July 2019
  • March 2019
  • February 2019
  • January 2019
  • December 2018
  • November 2018
  • October 2018
  • August 2018
  • July 2018
  • June 2018
  • May 2018
  • April 2018
  • March 2018
  • February 2018
  • January 2018
  • December 2017
  • October 2017
  • July 2017
  • June 2017
  • May 2017
  • April 2017
  • February 2017

Security Dialogue aims to combine cutting-edge advances in theory with new empirical findings across a range of fields relevant to the study of security. The journal is edited at the Peace Research Institute Oslo (PRIO).