scholarly journals Research Ethics with Gender and Sexually Diverse Persons

2020 ◽  
Vol 17 (18) ◽  
pp. 6615
Author(s):  
Mark Henrickson ◽  
Sulaimon Giwa ◽  
Trish Hafford-Letchfield ◽  
Christine Cocker ◽  
Nick J. Mulé ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Social Work ◽  
Research Ethics ◽  
Ethics Committees ◽  
Gender And Sexuality ◽  
Ethical Principles ◽  
Policy And Practice ◽  
Social Inequities ◽  
Human Ethics ◽  
Inclusive Policy ◽  
General Populations

Identifying and developing inclusive policy and practice responses to health and social inequities in gender and sexually diverse persons require inclusive research ethics and methods in order to develop sound data. This article articulates 12 ethical principles for researchers undertaking gender and sexually diverse social, health, and related research. We have called these the ‘Montréal Ethical Principles for Inclusive Research.’ While writing from an international social work perspective, our aim is to promote ethical research that benefits people being researched by all disciplines. This paper targets four groups of interest: 1. Cisgender and heterosexual researchers; 2. Researchers who research ‘general’ populations; 3. and sexually diverse researchers; 4. Human ethics committees. This article was stimulated by the 2018 Global Social Work Statement of Ethical Principles, which positions human dignity at its core. It is critically important to understand and account for the intersectionality of gender and sexuality with discourses of race, ethnicity, colonialism, dis/ability, age, etc. Taking this intersectionality into consideration, this article draws on scholarship that underpins ethical principles developed for other minoritized communities, to ensure that research addresses the autonomy of these participants at every stage. Research that positions inclusive research ethics at its foundation can provide a solid basis for policy and practice responses to health and social inequities in gender and sexually diverse persons.

scholarly journals ‘Respect’ and ‘justice’ for whom? Culturally irresponsive ethical practices with refugee communities

2021 ◽  
pp. 002087282110319
Author(s):  
Neil Bilotta
Keyword(s):  
Qualitative Research ◽  
Social Work ◽  
Young People ◽  
Research Ethics ◽  
Ethical Principles ◽  
Respect For Persons ◽  
Ethics Codes ◽  
Ethical Practices ◽  
Or Organization ◽  
Depth Interviews

This article explores how two common social work ethical principles, respect for persons and justice, are understood by refugee young people aged 18–30 years old in Kenya. Through 31 semi-structured, in-depth interviews with refugee young people who had previously participated in academic and/or organization-based qualitative research, this article explores how this group conceptualizes research ethics. The analysis suggests that refugee young people in Kenya did not necessarily feel that researchers were respectful. As such, the article claims that researchers must reconsider how Eurocentric social work and research ethics codes are understood globally.

scholarly journals Philosophers in research ethics committees—what do they think they’re doing? An empirical-ethical analysis

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Charlotte Gauckler
Keyword(s):  
Research Ethics ◽  
Applied Ethics ◽  
Ethics Committees ◽  
Research Ethics Committees ◽  
Structured Interviews ◽  
Discussion Section ◽  
Philosophical Perspective ◽  
Level 3 ◽  
Practical Level

AbstractResearch ethics committees in Germany usually don’t have philosophers as members and if so, only contingently, not provided for by statute. This is interesting from a philosophical perspective, assuming that ethics is a discipline of philosophy. It prompts the question what role philosophers play in those committees they can be found in. Eight qualitative semi-structured interviews were conducted to explore the self-perception of philosophers regarding their contribution to research ethics committees. The results show that the participants generally don’t view themselves as ethics experts. They are rather unanimous on the competencies they think they contribute to the committee but not as to whether those are philosophical competencies or applied ethical ones. In some cases they don’t see a big difference between their role and the role of the jurist member. In the discussion section of this paper I bring up three topics, prompted by the interviews, that need to be addressed: (1) I argue that the interviewees’ unwillingness to call themselves ethics experts might have to do with a too narrow understanding of ethics expertise. (2) I argue that the disagreement among the interviewees concerning the relationship between moral philosophy and applied ethics might be explained on a theoretical or on a practical level. (3) I argue that there is some lack of clarity concerning the relationship between ethics and law in research ethics committees and that further work needs to be done here. All three topics, I conclude, need further investigation.

scholarly journals Preventing ethics dumping: the challenges for Kenyan research ethics committees

2020 ◽  
pp. 174701612092506
Author(s):  
Kate Chatfield ◽  
Doris Schroeder ◽  
Anastasia Guantai ◽  
Kirana Bhatt ◽  
Elizabeth Bukusi ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Research Ethics ◽  
Resource Constraints ◽  
Ethics Committees ◽  
Shared Responsibility ◽  
Standards Of Care ◽  
Primary Data ◽  
Research Ethics Committees ◽  
Governance System ◽  
Middle Income ◽  
System Resource

Ethics dumping is the practice of undertaking research in a low- or middle-income setting which would not be permitted, or would be severely restricted, in a high-income setting. Whilst Kenya operates a sophisticated research governance system, resource constraints and the relatively low number of accredited research ethics committees limit the capacity for ensuring ethical compliance. As a result, Kenya has been experiencing cases of ethics dumping. This article presents 11 challenges in the context of preventing ethics dumping in Kenya, namely variations in governance standards, resistance to double ethics review, resource constraints, unresolved issues in the management of biological samples, unresolved issues in the management of primary data, unsuitable informed consent procedures, cultural insensitivity, differing standards of care, reluctance to provide feedback to research communities, power differentials which facilitate the exploitation of local researchers and lack of local relevance and/or affordability of the resultant products. A reflective approach for researchers, built around the values of fairness, respect, care and honesty, is presented as a means of taking shared responsibility for preventing ethics dumping.

Research Ethics Committees’ Oversight of Biomedical Research in South Africa: A Thematic Analysis of Ethical Issues Raised During Ethics Review of Non-Expedited Protocols

2019 ◽  
Vol 14 (2) ◽  
pp. 107-116 ◽  
Author(s):  
Blessing Silaigwana ◽  
Douglas Wassenaar
Keyword(s):  
South Africa ◽  
Research Ethics ◽  
South African ◽  
Biomedical Research ◽  
Ethical Issues ◽  
Ethics Committees ◽  
Financial Contracts ◽  
Scientific Validity ◽  
Participant Selection ◽  
Education And Awareness

In South Africa, biomedical research cannot commence until it has been reviewed and approved by a local research ethics committee (REC). There remains a dearth of empirical data on the nature and frequency of ethical issues raised by such committees. This study sought to identify ethical concerns typically raised by two South African RECs. Meeting minutes for 180 protocols reviewed between 2009 and 2014 were coded and analyzed using a preexisting framework. Results showed that the most frequent queries involved informed consent, respect for participants, and scientific validity. Interestingly, administrative issues (non-ethical) such as missing researchers’ CVs and financial contracts emerged more frequently than ethical questions such as favorable risk/benefit ratio and fair participant selection. Although not generalizable to all RECs, our data provide insights into two South African RECs’ review concerns. More education and awareness of the actual ethical issues typically raised by such committees might help improve review outcomes and relationships between researchers and RECs.

Research End-User Perspectives about Using Social Work Research in Policy and Practice

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Clare Tilbury ◽  
Mark Hughes ◽  
Christine Bigby ◽  
Mike Fisher
Keyword(s):  
Social Work ◽  
Well Being ◽  
End Users ◽  
Research Translation ◽  
Policy And Practice ◽  
Social Work Research ◽  
Telephone Interviews ◽  
Research Engagement ◽  
Engagement Strategies ◽  
User Perspectives

Abstract Research funding and assessment initiatives that foster engagement between researchers and research end-users have been adopted by governments in many countries. They aim to orient research towards achieving measurable impacts that improve economic and social well-being beyond academia. This has long been regarded as important in social work research, as it has in many fields of applied research. This study examined research engagement and impact from the perspective of research end-users working in human services. In-person or telephone interviews were conducted with forty-three research end-users about how they used research and interacted with researchers. Content analysis was undertaken to identify engagement strategies and thematic coding was employed to examine underpinning ideas about research translation into practice. Participants were involved in many types of formal and informal research engagements. They viewed research translation as a mutual responsibility but indicated that researchers should do more to improve the utility of their research for industry. The findings highlight the iterative nature of engagement and impact and raise questions about the infrastructure for scaling up impact beyond relationships between individual researchers and their industry partners.

Research ethics committees

BMJ ◽  
1990 ◽  
Vol 300 (6724) ◽  
pp. 608-608
Author(s):  
M. Drury
Keyword(s):  
Research Ethics ◽  
Ethics Committees ◽  
Research Ethics Committees
Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document