This paper addresses the issue of how local and global norms and requirements are negotiated in the early stages of development of Social Science research ethics policy in a Global South context. A review of relevant literature followed by analysis of relevant national and institutional policies highlights both tensions and creative potential for ongoing research ethics initiatives. It was found that safety, trust and confidentiality issues are common problems reported by social science (...) researchers in Kyrgyzstan. National level documents do not directly address these ethical research issues, but the need for international research ethics principles is recognized. A limited number of institutional policies address research ethics issues, with the majority of relevant documents being codes of conduct focused on virtue ethics. The paper argues that this analysis of the current situation in Kyrgyzstan is likely to be of relevance to many countries, where those responsible for governance of research at all levels are grappling with the tensions of navigating research ethics in ways that are meaningful in local contexts while being congruent with Global North ethics requirements of funders and publishers. (shrink)

Research in the humanities and social sciences thrives on critical reflections that unfold with each research project, not only in terms of knowledge created, but in whether chosen methodologies served their purpose. Ethics forms the bulwark of any social science research methodology and it requires continuous engagement and reengagement for the greater advancement of knowledge. Each chapter in this book will draw from the empirical knowledge created through intensive fieldwork and provide an account (...) of ethical questions faced by the contributors, placing them in the context of contemporary debates surrounding the theory and practice of ethics. The chapters have been thematically organized into five sections: Feminist Ethics: Cross-Cultural Reflections and Its Implications for Change; Researching Physical and Sexual Violence in Non-Academic Settings: A Need for Ethical Protocols; Human Agency, Reciprocity, Participation and Activism: Meanings for Social Science Research Ethics; Emotions, Conflict and Dangerous Fields: Issues of “Safety” and Reflective Research; and Social Science Education: Training in Ethics or “Ethical Training” and “Ethical Publicizing." This inter-disciplinary volume will interest students and researchers in academic and non-academic settings in core disciplines of Anthropology, Sociology, Law, Political Science, International Relations, Geography, or inter-disciplinary degrees in Development Studies, Health Studies, Public Health Policy, Social Policy, Health Policy, Psychology, Peace and Conflict studies, and Gender Studies. The book features a foreword by His Holiness The Dalai Lama. (shrink)

The COVID-19 pandemic posed many ethical and practical challenges for academic research. Some of these have been documented, particularly in relation to health research, but less attention has been paid to the dilemmas encountered by educational and social science research. Given that pandemics are predicted to be more frequent, it is vital to understand how to continue crucial research in schools and other learning communities. This article therefore focuses specifically on research ethics (...) in educational and social science during the pandemic of 2020–2022. The research involved interviews and workshops with University College London (UCL) academics, professional staff and graduate students and encompassed those involved in reviewing ethics applications, researchers dealing with ethics in projects that continued despite disruptions caused by COVID-19, and successful research projects specifically designed to study the effects of COVID-19 in various contexts. The article discusses some of the crucial knowledge and practical experiences that were accumulated. The operational and epistemological lessons learned from this particular institution may have wider relevance to research ethics processes in higher education environments where academics and students are grappling with post-COVID-19 ethical dilemmas and inform broader debates about how research institutions can build institutional knowledge to improve practices of ethics review at the times of health emergencies in future. Our evidence points to the significance of inter- and multidisciplinary, collaborative approaches that flatten institutional hierarchies and to the crucial role played by professional staff. In addition, we argue that ethics review processes must be underpinned by critical debates about wider issues of unequal power relationships between research partners, the nature of knowledge production, ownership and utilisation. To enhance equity and epistemic justice in research practices, ethics education should be an ongoing integral part of research ethics within research institutions. (shrink)

Assuming that the purpose of research ethics review is to support the ethical conduct and dissemination of good quality research, a question can be raised concerning whether ethics review of research really improves the practice of researchers. Specifically, we might distinguish the activities that go on as part of the review process from those activities that constitute the data collection phase of the research, and ask under what conditions the former have a positive impact (...) on the latter. Two different models of ethics review can be distinguished, term them ‘compliance’ and ‘reflexivity’-based reviews. Compliance-based models of review require researchers to show how they are complying with a given set of rules or protocols for research. Reflexivity-based models require researchers to articulate the ethical issues involved in their research and to explain and justify the way in which they plan to manage them. It is suggested here that there is reason to think that reflexivity-based models of ethics review are more likely to have a positive effect on the practice of social science research than compliance-based reviews. (shrink)

The rapidly changing field of genetics affects society through advances in health-care and through implications of genetic research. This study addresses the impacts of new genetic discoveries and technologies on different segments of today's society. The book begins with a chapter on genetic complexity, and subsequent chapters discuss moral and ethical questions arising from today's genetics from the perspectives of health care professionals, the media, the general public, special interest groups and commercial interests.

Book reviewed in this article: Ethical Dilemmas and Social Science Research. By Paul Davidson Reynolds.

The research ethics committee is a key element of university administration and has gained increasing importance as a review mechanism for those institutions that wish to conduct responsible...

Zachary Schrag would like to put the burden of proof for continuation of research ethics review in the Social Sciences on those who advocate for research ethics committees (RECs), and asks that we take the concerns that he raises seriously. I separate his concerns into a principled issue and a number of pragmatic issues. The principled issue concerns the justification for having research ethics committees; the pragmatic issues concern questions such as the effectiveness (...) of review and the expertise of the committee members. I argue that RECs can be justified by their role in improving ethical practice and in reducing wrongs done to research participants. I propose a model of review for doing this, which I think would also address the pragmatic issues raised. I then offer an account of where the UK ethics review system is now and suggest three steps which could improve social science ethics review in the UK and move it in a perhaps more desirable direction. (shrink)

ABSTRACT Ethical thinking about social science research is dominated by a biomedical model whose salient features are the assumption that only potential harms to subjects of research are relevant in the ethical evaluation of that research, and in the emphasis on securing informed consent in order to establish ethical probity. A number of counter‐examples are considered to the assumption, a number of defences against these counter‐examples are examined, and an alternative model is proposed for the (...) ethical evaluation of social science research: a model which can cope with the systemic harms which have been identified. This model is based on John Rawls's idea of original position reasoning and treats social science research as an institutional feature of the basic structure of society. (shrink)

Ethics, Ethnocentrism and Social Science Research provides a timely and rich contribution to discussions on the dilemmas and challenges facing researchers in the social sciences. It addresses many...

This paper analyzes the ethics of social science research employing big data. We begin by highlighting the research gap found on the intersection between big data ethics, SSR and research ethics. We then discuss three aspects of big data SSR which make it warrant special attention from a research ethics angle: the interpretative character of both SSR and big data, complexities of anticipating and managing risks in publication and reuse of (...) big data SSR, and the paucity of regulatory oversight and ethical recommendations on protecting individual subjects as well as societies when conducting big data SSR. Against this backdrop, we propose using David Resnik’s research ethics framework to analyze some of the most pressing ethical issues of big data SSR. Focusing on the principles of honesty, carefulness, openness, efficiency, respect for subjects, and social responsibility, we discuss three clusters of ethical issues: those related to methodological biases and personal prejudices, those connected to risks arising from data availability and reuse, and those leading to individual and social harms. Finally, we advance considerations to observe in developing future ethical guidelines about big data SSR. (shrink)

The role of research ethics committees, and research ethics issues more broadly are often not viewed in the context of the development of scientific methods and the academic community. This topic piece seeks to redress this gap. I begin with a brief outline of the changes we experience within the social sciences before exploring in more detail their impact on research ethics and the practices of research ethics committees. I conclude with (...) recommendations for how the existing research ethics processes may be made more future-proof. (shrink)

Central Asian researchers are underrepresented in the global research production in social sciences, resulting in a limited Central Asian perspective on many social issues. To stimulate the production of local knowledge, it is important to develop strong research cultures, including knowledge of ethical practices in research with human participants. There is currently scarce evidence about research ethics regulations used by social science researchers working in the Central Asian region. This article reports (...) findings from an online survey conducted in Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, and Uzbekistan ( n = 296) from October 2021 to January 2022. Focusing on three Central Asian countries, this article addresses the following research questions: What are the attitudes and practices of social science researchers based in Central Asia toward research ethics regulations and research ethics committees (RECs)? Is research ethics training associated with improved attitudes and practices in relation to research ethics among social scientists based in Central Asia? Is research experience associated with improved attitudes and practices in relation to research ethics among social scientists based in Central Asia? Regression analyses results demonstrate that locally based social scientists with prior research ethics training implement ethical procedures in their empirical research practice more often compared to researchers without any prior research ethics training. The preliminary findings indicate that research ethics training is positively associated with Central Asia-based social science researchers’ engagement in ethical research, thus potentially increasing the amount and quality of empirical social science research produced in the region. (shrink)

In his article ‘The case against ethics review in the social sciences’, Schrag asserts that the social sciences should not be subject to ethical review. He recounts a number of examples where ethical review has seemingly failed. He further suggests some alternative models for dealing with ethical review in the social sciences. Finally, he concludes, and we concur, that there is a lack of empirical evidence as to the benefit of research ethics review.

This collection focuses on virtue theory and the ethics of social science research. A moral philosophy that has been relatively neglected in the domain of research ethics, virtue ethics has much to offer those who wish to go beyond the difficulties generated by the biomedical model of research ethics and positively engage with the ethics of social scientific research. As the chapters contained in this volume show, the perspective (...) provided by virtue ethics also exhibits a certain affinity with the emerging discourse regarding research integrity. Contributors develop various facets of virtue ethics in order to illuminate a range of issues in the practice and governance of social science, including integrity, the ethics of ethical review, ethics education, and the notion of phrónēsis (wisdom). (shrink)

In Brazil, social science research ethics is a field still under construction and subject to intense dispute. The aim of this paper is to discuss how accepted principles of biomedical research ethics can be incorporated into the ethical review of social sciences, particularly open interviews, ethnographic research, and participant observation. The paper uses a case study—the ethnographic documentary "Severina's Story"—as the basis for analysis of the methodological and ethical issues raised in (...) class='Hi'>social science research. To promote ethical social science research, based on principles such as human rights and the protection of vulnerable populations, institutional review boards must be sensitive to the epistemological and methodological particularities of all fields of human subjects research. (shrink)

In Brazil, social science research ethics is a field still under construction and subject to intense dispute. The aim of this paper is to discuss how accepted principles of biomedical research ethics can be incorporated into the ethical review of social sciences, particularly open interviews, ethnographic research, and participant observation. The paper uses a case study—the ethnographic documentary "Severina's Story"—as the basis for analysis of the methodological and ethical issues raised in (...) class='Hi'>social science research. To promote ethical social science research, based on principles such as human rights and the protection of vulnerable populations, institutional review boards must be sensitive to the epistemological and methodological particularities of all fields of human subjects research. (shrink)

In Brazil, social science research ethics is a field still under construction and subject to intense dispute. The aim of this paper is to discuss how accepted principles of biomedical research ethics can be incorporated into the ethical review of social sciences, particularly open interviews, ethnographic research, and participant observation. The paper uses a case study—the ethnographic documentary Severina’s Story—as the basis for analysis of the methodological and ethical issues raised in (...) class='Hi'>social science research. To promote ethical social science research, based on principles such as human rights and the protection of vulnerable populations, institutional review boards must be sensitive to the epistemological and methodological particularities of all fields of human subjects research. (shrink)

Deception of subjects is used frequently in the social sciences. Examples are provided. The ethics of experimental deception are discussed, in particular various maneuvers to solve the problem. The results have implications for the use of deception in the biomedical sciences.

Research Ethics, Volume 18, Issue 1, Page 24-38, January 2022. Are social science, cross-border research projects, where recruitment and data collection are carried out remotely, required to follow similar ethical and data-sharing procedures as ‘on-the-ground’ studies that use traditional means of recruitment and participant engagement? This article reflects on our experience of dealing with this question when we had to switch to online data collection due to the restrictions posed by the COVID-19 pandemic, such as (...) the inability to travel or work in person with local communities and collaborators. Using social media platforms and online data collection when conducting research brings many advantages, such as being able to communicate remotely but directly with gatekeepers and collaborators, and in reaching potential participants on a global scale. However, neither the guidelines and advice for conducting ethically sound internet-based research, nor the academic literature focussed on building equitable research partnerships between the Global North and the Global South, offer much information regarding the ethical concerns, or address the grey areas, posed by this type of digital and distanced transnational research. In our experience, conducting research remotely made negotiations of access very challenging due to the politics of positionality between Global North and South researchers, lack of clarity on ethical processes and perceptions of gatekeepers who we could not meet in person. We hope the reflections on, and discussion of, our experience encourage deliberation on the present ethical challenges posed by online and social-media-disseminated data collection, particularly in cross-border circumstances. (shrink)

Ethical conduct is a maxim in scholarly research as well as scholarly endeavour generally. In the case of research involving humans, few if any question the necessity for ethics approval of procedures by ethics boards or committees. However, concerns have been raised about the appropriateness of ethics approval processes for social science research arguing that the orientation of ethics boards and committees to biomedical and experimental scientific research, institutional risk aversion, (...) and other factors lead to over-protection of research participants and overly restrictive processes that delay and sometimes prevent important social science research. This is particularly significant when social science research is required to respond to social, environmental, or health emergencies and in contract research projects for the reasons explained. This analysis of an ethics approval case study adds to increasing concerns that ethics approval processes can have perverse effects in the social sciences. While a single case study does not provide generalizable findings, in-depth analysis of a significant case can identify issues that need to be further explored. Recommendations offer pathways for facilitating social science research including in emergency situations in which timeliness is important and in collaborative approaches such as participatory action research, while maintaining high ethical standards. (shrink)

Recital 33 GDPR has often been interpreted as referring to ‘broad consent’. This version of informed consent was intended to allow data subjects to provide their consent for certain areas of research, or parts of research projects, conditional to the research being in line with ‘recognised ethical standards’. In this article, we argue that broad consent is applicable in the emerging field of Computational Social Science (CSS), which lies at the intersection of data science (...) and social science. However, the lack of recognised ethical standards specific to CSS poses a practical barrier to the use of broad consent in this field and other fields that lack recognised ethical standards. Upon examining existing research ethics standards in social science and data science, we argue that they are insufficient for CSS. We further contend that the fragmentation of European Union (EU) law and research ethics sources makes it challenging to establish universally recognised ethical standards for scientific research. As a result, CSS researchers and other researchers in emerging fields that lack recognised ethical standards are left without sufficient guidance on the use of broad consent as provided for in the GDPR. We conclude that responsible EU bodies should provide additional guidance to facilitate the use of broad consent in CSS research. (shrink)

The global pesticide complex has transformed over the past two decades, but social science research has not kept pace. The rise of an enormous generics sector, shifts in geographies of pesticide production, and dynamics of agrarian change have led to more pesticide use, expanding to farm systems that hitherto used few such inputs. Declining effectiveness due to pesticide resistance and anemic institutional support for non-chemical alternatives also have driven intensification in conventional systems. As an inter-disciplinary network of (...) pesticide scholars, we seek to renew the social science research agenda on pesticides to better understand this suite of contemporary changes. To identify research priorities, challenges, and opportunities, we develop the pesticide complex as a heuristic device to highlight the reciprocal and iterative interactions among agricultural practice, the agrochemical industry, civil society-shaped regulatory actions, and contested knowledge of toxicity. Ultimately, collaborations among social scientists and across the social and biophysical sciences can illuminate recent transformations and their uneven socioecological effects. A reinvigorated critical scholarship that embraces the multifaceted nature of pesticides can identify the social and ecological constraints that drive pesticide use and support alternatives to chemically driven industrial agriculture. (shrink)

Research Ethics Committees or Institutional Review Boards are rapidly becoming indispensable mechanisms in the overall workings of university institutions. In fact, the ethical dimension is an important aspect of research governance processes present in institutions of higher learning. However, it is often deemed that research in the social sciences do not require ethical appraisal or clearance, because of the alleged absence of harm in conducting such research. This is an erroneous and dangerous assumption given (...) that research in social sciences poses various and complex dilemmas related to ethics. The article aims to gauge the importance of ethical appraisal at a particular institution of higher learning’s Faculty of Humanities. This is done by scrutinising its defunct REC, and the views that Heads of Departments of the Faculty have of ethics in research and the need for ethical appraisal by this REC. Finally, some suggestions are made to proceed to review and restructure the current REC with the ultimate objective to make it functional again. It was found that the development and discussion around ethics in research and ethical appraisal are part of a much needed thrust to sensitise the entire Faculty and the institution on the widespread beneficial repercussions of ethical awareness in research and beyond. (shrink)

This article looks at recent developments that have had an impact upon the way in which the ethical content of research is judged. It then goes on to look in some detail at the guidance offered to social science researchers in the Economic and Social Science Research Council's new Research Ethics Framework.

The use of deceptive techniques is common in social science research. It is argued that the use of such techniques is incompatible with the standard of informed consent, which is widely employed in the ethical evaluation of research involving human subjects. A number of proposals to justify the use of deceptions in social science research are examined, in the face of its apparent incompatibility with the standard of informed consent, and found to be (...) inadequate. An alternative method of justification is outlined, which enables some deceived participants in social science research to rationally and autonomously choose to participate in that research. The alternative method of justification appeals to the idea of indirect consent, which is introduced. It is argued that research subjects who receive reliable testimony regarding research procedures can sometimes be placed in a position to rationally and autonomously consent indirectly to participation in experiments and studies, even if these involve significant deceptions. (shrink)

This paper considers concerns that social care research may be stifled by health-focused ethical scrutiny under the Mental Capacity Act 2005 and the requirement for an ?appropriate body? to determine ethical approval for research involving people who are deemed to lack capacity under the Act to make decisions concerning their participation and consent in research. The current study comprised an online survey of current practice in university research ethics committees (URECs), and explored through semi-structured (...) interviews the views of social researchers engaged in or exploring work concerning people who may, under the Act, lack the capacity to make decisions to consent to participate in a research programme. The paper concludes that there was a lack of overt knowledge of and reference to the implications of the Act for research and some concerns that a restrictive focus on health-related scrutiny might prevent social care research from taking place. There was also a degree of creativity shown by social care researchers in responding to changing demands and a wish to assist people in making decisions to participate where possible. (shrink)

The book discusses the multiple issues of a digital research ethic in its interdisciplinary diversity. Digitization and mediatization alter social behavior and cultural traditions, thereby generating new objects of study and new research questions for the social sciences and humanities. Furthermore, mediatization and digitization increase the data volume and accessibility of research and proliferate methodological opportunities for scientific analyses. Hence, they profoundly affect research practices in multiple ways. While consequences concerning the subjects, objects, and (...) addressees of research in the social sciences and humanities have rarely been reflected upon, this reflection lies at the center of the book. (shrink)

Global health emergencies such as the COVID-19 pandemic are contexts in which it is critical to draw upon learning from prior research and to conduct novel research to inform real-time decision-making and pandemic responses. While research is vitally important, however, emergencies are radically non-ideal contexts for its conduct, due to exceptional uncertainty, urgency, disruption, health needs, and strain on existing health systems, amongst other challenges. This generates novel ethical challenges and a broader conception of research (...) class='Hi'>ethics is necessary to effectively address the complexity of pandemic research contexts. Going beyond traditional approaches to research ethics centring on the design of specific studies, this broader conception requires consideration of fundamental questions relating to the exercise of power and influence throughout research pathways, and a broader attention to both salient ethical issues, and the ethical responsibilities of stakeholders. These include important questions about responsibilities to gather evidence and generate knowledge systematically during emergencies, to implement policy responses in ways that are amenable to evaluation, and even potential moral obligations to participate in research. In situations of heightened uncertainty, additional questions arise about what constitutes sufficient evidence to justify the development and implementation of policy responses, and the responsibilities of scientific and social science researchers involved in policy-making processes. The four cases in this chapter prompt reflection on evolving and at times competing values and responsibilities of policy-makers, regulators, health authorities and researchers during the design and conduct of research, and proposed early implementation of research findings. These cases highlight issues arising when conducting research of national importance in a pandemic, where researchers are required to liaise with authorities responsible for pandemic responses and address complex ethical issues, including protecting the interests of participants and publics when tensions arise between prioritising the completion of research and accelerating the rollout of novel health interventions. This chapter invites reflection on the practical ethical implications of commitments to undertake research during emergencies, including the nature and scope of the relevant responsibilities of a range of stakeholders. (shrink)

Science and technology, as rational approaches to problem solving, are driving forces in the promotion of democracy at home and abroad. Science based decision-making is increasingly global as countries share technology, research results, and engage in joint studies on common problems. The widening rift between global wealth and poverty diminishes for many the opportunity for exposure to science, technology and social science based decision-making on issues that directly affect them. This paper outlines a model (...) for democratizing science by utilizing the interactive tools of the social sciences in a process that enables information-marginalized people to engage with the language, methods and results of social science for purposes of community empowerment and voice in science policy. The paper offers examples of approaches to implementation, citing various forms of research partnerships with communities, and discusses challenges including ethical considerations, the conflict between “local” and science-based knowledges and power differentials in practice. (shrink)

Concern for the rights and safety of individuals has caused clinical researchers to develop informed consent protocols for research involving human subjects. The applicapability of these regulations to social science research is often tenuous, since such research usually focuses on populations rather than individuals, and potential damage is apt to be political rather than personal. In cross-cultural social research, the protocols developed by Western clinical researchers may be not only ludicrously inapplicable, but intrusive (...) and disruptive within the cultural context, raising questions of the intellectual imperialism of Western research ethics. (shrink)

Certain critical accounts of conventional research practices in business and the social sciences are explored in this essay. These accounts derive from alternative social paradigms and their underlying assumptions about appropriate social inquiry and knowledge construction. Among these alternative social paradigms, metatheories, mindscapes, or worldviews are social constructionist, critical, feminist, and postmodern or poststructural thinking. Individuals with these assumptions and values for knowledge construction are increasingly challenging conventional scholarship in what has been referred to (...) as paradigm debates or wars. Issues of incommensurability or cross-paradigmatic communication potentials, as well as reflexivity, are raised in terms of moral education and development potentials for applied social science fields. Barriers and suggestions for increased moral development in academic and professional communities are discussed. In particular, moral forums in which participants have enhanced intrapersonal and interpersonal communication skills appear to be needed to surface and share often taken-for-granted assumptions concerning moral knowledge construction. (shrink)

Balancing speed and quality during crises pose challenges for ensuring the value and utility of data in social science research. The COVID-19 pandemic in particular underscores the need for high-quality data and rapid dissemination. Given the importance of behavioural measures and compliance with measures to contain the pandemic, social science research has played a key role in policymaking during this global crisis. This study addresses two key research questions: How FAIR ( findable, accessible, (...) interoperable and reusable) are social science data on the COVID-19 pandemic? Which study features are related to the level of FAIRness scores of datasets? We assess the FAIRness of n = 1131 articles, retrieved through a keyword search in the Web of Science database, employing both automated and manual coding methods. Our study inclusion criteria encompass empirical studies on the COVID-19 pandemic published between 2019 and 2023 with a social science focus and explicit reference to the underlying dataset(s). Our analysis of n = 45 datasets reveals substantial differences in FAIRness for different types of research on the COVID-19 pandemic. The overall FAIRness of data is acceptable, although particularly Reusability scores fall short, in both the manual and the automatic assessment. Further, articles explicitly linked to the Social Science concept in the OpenAlex database exhibit a higher mean overall FAIRness value. Based on these results, we derive recommendations for balancing ethical obligations and the potential tradeoff between speed and data (sharing) quality in social-scientific crisis research. (shrink)

The Milgram obedience experiments called into question the limits of obedience to authority figures. The perverse consequences of concerns over the Milgram experiments are that researchers must now submit to the authority of ethics review boards and that researchers are considered prima facie to be threats to participants. These assumptions are questioned widely by social science researchers, but this article argues that these assumptions seem to have blinded analysts to the possibility that there may be a group (...) of participants that might also be threatened by the power of authority figures in a research situation—researchers. Regarding the second point, social science researchers “interviewing up” may themselves be threatened, whether overtly or covertly, by their participants’ relative authority and power. In cases where researchers work with extraordinarily powerful respondents, what might IRBS and the researchers they work for learn from the Milgram experiments? (shrink)

Despite advances in theory, often driven by feminist ethicists, research ethics struggles in practice to adequately account for and respond to the agency and autonomy of people considered vulnerable in the research context. We argue that shifts within feminist research ethics scholarship to better characterise and respond to autonomy and agency can be bolstered by further grounding in discourses from the social sciences, in work that confirms the complex nature of human agency in contexts (...) of structural and other sources of vulnerability. We discuss some of the core concepts and critiques emerging from the literature on women and children's agency in under‐resourced settings, highlighting calls to move from individualistic to relational models of agency, and to recognise the ambiguous, value‐laden, and heterogeneous nature of the concept. We then draw out what these conceptual shifts might mean for research ethics obligations and guidance, illustrating our analysis using a case vignette based on research ethics work conducted in South Africa. We conclude that if research practices are to be supportive of agency, it will be crucial to scrutinise the moral judgements which underpin accounts of agency, derive more situated definitions of and responses to agency, and enable people and participants to influence these based on their own experiences and self‐perceptions. (shrink)

This paper presents three cases of research ethics violations in the social sciences and humanities that involved major educational institutions in Vietnam. The violations share two common points: the use of sophistry by the accused perpetrators and their sympathisers, and the relative ease with which they succeeded unpunished. The strategies the violators used to avoid punishment could be summarised as: (i) relying on people not paying enough attention when asked to do something relatively quickly, (ii) asking for (...) the benefit of the doubt, (iii) redefining the meaning of ethics, and (iv) defaming the whistleblowers and showing how fighting ethics violations is too costly, slow and, in the end, worthless. We offer suggestions to improve transparency: investment in translation and education about codes of conduct in Vietnam; investment in research ethics and integrity; the use of open online resources and platforms; and educating Vietnamese researchers about international standards. (shrink)

Accessing research participants within some social institutions for research purposes may involve a simple single administrative event. However, accessing some institutions to conduct research on their data, personnel, clients or service users can be quite complex. Research ethics committee chairpersons frequently field questions from researchers wanting to know when and why gatekeeper permission should be sought. This article examines the role and influence of gatekeepers in formal and organisational settings and explores pragmatic methods to (...) improve understanding and facilitation of this process. Conscientious and well-informed negotiations with gatekeepers are required in order to honour the ethical obligations to conduct appropriate stakeholder engagement before and during research, along with respect for the autonomy of institutions and their employees/clients/service recipients. Provision must be made to identify explicit and implicit gatekeepers to initiate and build collaborative networks that could best support the research process. Careful mutually respectful access agreements which consider the needs and vulnerabilities of both the gatekeeper and the researcher can improve the quality of the scientific data collected. Strategic planning in the research process must take these sometimes complex processes of gatekeeper permission into careful account. (shrink)

All agree that if the Milgram experiments were proposed today they would never receive approval from a research ethics board. However, the results of the Milgram experiments are widely cited across a broad range of academic literature from psychology to moral philosophy. While interpretations of the experiments vary, few commentators, especially philosophers, have expressed doubts about the basic soundness of the results. What I argue in this paper is that this general approach to the experiments might be in (...) error. I will show that the ethical problems that would prevent the experiments from being approved today actually have an effect on the results such that the experiments might show less than many currently suppose. Making this case demonstrates two conclusions. The first is that there are good reasons to think that the conclusions of many of Milgram’s commentators might be too strong. The second conclusion is a more general one. The ethics procedures commonly used by North American research ethics boards serve not only to protect human participants in research but also can sometimes help secure, to an extent, the integrity of results. In other words, good ethics can sometimes mean better science. (shrink)