Search

In spite of many and varied concerns that the processes of institutional ethical review are flawed, cumbersome, and in need of reform, these processes do provide effective protection in certain situations for individual research subjects, researchers, and the institutions from which the researchers venture to conduct their fieldwork. Many in the social sciences have argued that the ethical protocols that the researcher must observe are designed to protect against the potential dangers of much riskier biomedical research, and that social research is, by and large, harmless. Although there is some validity to that argument, in this paper, social research is assessed not in terms of its risks to the individual participant, but to communities. By examining the protocols of the Belmont Report, the Institutional Review Board, and the American Sociological Association's "Code of Ethics" and ethical review, this paper discusses some of the major blind spots in the ethical review of social science research, applying the analysis in particular to the case of indigenous communities, who have historically sustained significant damage from academic researchers against which no standardized institutional review could have protected them. The paper covers the history and parameters of these three ethical review institutions, identifies shared blind spots, and discusses the consequences of these blind spots for indigenous communities, ending with some suggestions of ways to address the problems in the system. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

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. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Ethics review processes are frequently perceived as extending from codes and protocols rooted in biomedical disciplines. As a result, many researchers in the humanities and social sciences (HASS) find these processes to be misaligned, if not outrightly obstructive to their research. This leads some scholars to advocate against HASS participation in institutional review processes as they currently stand, or in their entirety. While ethics review processes can present a challenge to HASS researchers, these are not insurmountable and, in fact, present opportunities for ethics review boards (ERBs) to mediate their practices to better attend to the concerns of the HASS disciplines. By highlighting the potential value of the ethics review process in recognising the nuances and specificity across different forms of research, this article explores the generative possibilities of greater collaboration between HASS researchers and ERBs. Remaining cognisant of the epistemic and methodological differences that mark different disciplinary formations in turn will benefit the ethical conduct of all researchers. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]