Search

This paper discusses the lasting impact of the Covid-19 pandemic on research ethics in social sciences by focusing on the concept of vulnerability. We unpack the current conceptualisations of vulnerability and their limitations and argue for the need to reconceptualise vulnerability as multidimensional, consisting of both universal and contextual dimensions, as well as their dynamic interplay. Multidimensional vulnerability is inspired by and relevant to social science research during the pandemic but can also be useful in other contexts such as climate change or conflict. The paper puts forwards several considerations about how this revised concept of vulnerability may be useful when evaluating ethical dimensions of social science research. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The present study is based on the analysis and conclusions in a preceding paper by the author. Major interpretations of epigenetics are considered - social-ecological, biomedical and bioethical, - as well as their impact on social sciences and humanities, policies and opportunities for human development. The following important conclusions are formulated: firstly, epigenetics can be a stimulus to reform social sciences, as well as for policies aiming at purer environment, less poverty and social inequality, more freedom and less violence; (2) one-sided and implicit biomedical interpretation of epigenetics not only does not solve but intensifies existing problems relating to health and wellbeing of people in contemporary societies; (3) this however does not mean rejecting the biomedical approach but finding it's appropriate and balanced place in the context of functioning ecological and social policies; (4) practices and behavioural models that epigenetics determines as sensitive presuppose respective responsibilities on the part of various subjects - organisations, institutions and pdrticular individuals. A critical evaluation is necessary of attempts to reject responsibilities as well as of their imballanced distribution among various subjects. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

• Research integrity is understood in terms of academic and professional integrity. • Honesty, responsibility, and respectfulness are important researcher values. • Limited presence of research ethics committees. • Human participant research ethics is an individual responsibility. Central Asian (CA) countries have been actively developing their research and knowledge production systems. However, inconsistent alignment with international research ethics norms creates challenges for researchers in CA to equally participate in global knowledge production. Based on quantitative survey responses of 296 social science researchers from Kazakhstan, Uzbekistan, and Kyrgyzstan, this paper explores social scientists' understandings of international principles and practices of human participant research ethics. The findings show that CA social science researchers focus on a broad understanding of research integrity, focused on academic and professional integrity. The respondents highlighted the importance of individual researcher values such as honesty, responsibility, and respectfulness. With only 35 % of the respondents reporting the existence of a research ethics committee (REC) at their institutions, most respondents believe that human participant research ethics are an individual rather than an institutional responsibility in Central Asia. This study has implications for developing research and policy in other post-Soviet and emerging research contexts. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]