Search results

The editors of this volume would like to thank the authors whose contributions to this area have broken new ground for human considerations in a system that is often mistaken as unmanned. We would also like to thank the attendees of our two workshops on human factors of UAVs who shared their insights and scientific accomplishments with us as well as for those from the development community who conveyed to us the constraints and needs of their community. Thanks also to the sponsors of these workshops who include the Air Force Research Laboratory, the Air Force Office of Scientific Research, NASA, US Positioning, FAA, and Microanalysis and Design. We also thank the many individuals including Leah Rowe, Jennifer Winner, Jamie Gorman, Preston Kiekel, Amanda Taylor, Dee Andrews, Pat Fitzgerald, Ben Schaub, Steve Shope, and Wink Bennett who provided their valuable time and energy to assist with the workshops and this book. Last but not least, we wish to thank ROV operators, those who have attended our workshops, those who we have come to know only through anecdotes, and those who we will never know. It is this group that truly inspired the workshops and the book. We dedicate this effort to them.

The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) states in 2018 that safeguarding “civil liberties is critical” to their official duties. The Office for Civil Rights and Civil Liberties within DHS, as its website explains,

reviews and assesses complaints from the public in areas such as: physical or other abuse; discrimination based on race, ethnicity, national origin, religion, gender, sexual orientation, or disability; inappropriate conditions of confinement; infringements of free speech; violation of right to due process … and any other civil rights or civil liberties violation related to a Department program or activity.

My chapter tracks the centrality of deportability in shaping the civil liberties and rights that DHS is tasked with enforcing. Over the course of the twentieth century, people on US soil saw an expanding list of civil liberties and civil rights. Important scholarship concentrates on the role of the courts, state and federal governments, advocacy groups, social movements, and foreign policy driving these constitutional and cultural changes. For instance, the scholarship illustrates that coming out of World War I, the US Supreme Court ruled that the First Amendment did not protect something the Justices labeled “irresponsible speech.” The Supreme Court soon changed course, opening up an era ever since of more robust First Amendment rights. What has not been undertaken in the literature is an examination of the relationship of deportability to the sweep of civil liberties and civil rights. Starting in the second decade of the twentieth century, federal immigration policymakers began multiplying types of immigration statuses. A century later, among many others, there is the H2A status for temporary low-wage workers, the H2B for skilled labor, and permanent residents with green cards. The deportability of each status constrains access to certain liberties and rights. Thus, in 2016, when people from the Office for Civil Rights and Civil Liberties within DHS act, they are not enforcing a uniform body of rights and liberties that applies equally to citizens and immigrants, or even within the large category of immigrants. Instead, they do so within a complicated matrix of liberties and rights attenuated by deportability, which has been shaped by the history of the twentieth century.

Purpose – This chapter presents a preliminary conceptualisation of the effects that unequal power relationships have on the integrity of social science research and the safety of researchers.Methodology/approach – We begin by presenting a review of the current literature on risk to research outputs and researcher safety. In this review, we offer a conceptual framework of the factors of safety and autonomy of researchers developed in conjunction with extent stakeholder theory scholarship.Findings – We argue that, in the event of a threat to researchers’ autonomy while complying with university ethics committee requirements, or when faced with uneven power differentials between the researcher and various stakeholders, one of two actions may occur: (1) the researcher may alter the project in order to comply or (2) the researcher may feel so compromised that the research project is abandoned. In both of these instances, research that addresses power/structural inequalities is avoided. In the event of a threat to the researcher’s physical and emotional safety, three actions can result if the researcher is harmed: (1) the incident may not be reported, which in turn may result in further harm to the researcher; (2) counselling may be undertaken to resolve and debrief emotional stress; or (3) a worker’s compensation claim may be lodged.Social implications – As academics, research is the core business of the organisations of which we are members. The issues introduced and discussed in this chapter are serious; however, our conceptualisation requires further research. We outline why this set of issues is significant and deserving of more study than it has previously received.Originality/value of  chapter – Previous research that links research in the area of protection for researchers and research autonomy is very limited in Australia, and therefore our conceptualisation provides value to the research agenda on this topic. We also propose that the issue of researcher safety and autonomy is common to most academic environments and merits further academic study.