Advertisement

Human Dignity Protection in Social Science Research: Perspectives from Selected African Countries

  • Jane WathutaEmail author
  • Muriel Fikile Mnisi
Chapter
Part of the Research Ethics Forum book series (REFF, volume 7)

Abstract

This chapter assesses the extent of human dignity protection in the context of social science research in Africa. The availability and content of national research ethics policies, laws and guidelines of a variety of African countries is the guiding factor in this regard. An overview of the current situation regarding social science research ethics and respect for human dignity is given. Reference is made, in this perspective, to some of the universal research ethics guidelines. Despite their merits, the inadequacies of the universal research ethics guidelines can be summarised in a single aspect: the predominance or bias towards biomedical research insofar as it focuses heavily on the quantitative method and contains traces of positivist, formal and individualist thinking (even though South Africa has a document that also focuses on qualitative research). This then necessitates bringing to the fore some useful ethical frameworks and values to shed more light on the meaning of respect for dignity while conducting research in the African context. The examination of pertinent National Research Ethics policies, laws and guidelines of the given countries in Africa revealed that these National Research Ethics policies, laws and guidelines in use in parts of Africa could make explicit provision for ethics review of Social Science research, while incorporating African values. This will make them more protective of the human dignity and wellbeing of social science research participants in Africa.

Keywords

Human dignity Social science research Africa Biomedical research Ethics review Research ethics policies Laws Guidelines 

References

  1. Andorno, R. (2009). Human dignity and human rights as a common ground for a global bioethics. Journal of Medicine and Philosophy, 34(3), 223–240.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Department of Health Republic of South Africa. (2003). National Health Act No. 61. Retrieved from https://www.gov.za/sites/default/files/a61-03.pdf
  3. Department of Health Republic of South Africa. (2013). Protection of Personal Information (POPI) Act. Retrieved from http://www.justice.gov.za/legislation/acts/2013-004.pdf
  4. Department of Health Republic of South Africa. (2015). Ethics in health research: Principles, process and structure. Retrieved from http://www.research.ukzn.ac.za
  5. Federal Democratic Republic of Ethiopia – Ministry of Science and Technology. (2014). National health research review guidelines. Retrieved from www.mostgov.et
  6. Gontcharov, I. (2013). Methodological crisis in the social sciences: The New Brunswick Declaration as a new paradigm in research ethics governance? Transnational Legal Theory, 4(1), 146–156.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Haggerty, K. D. (2004). Ethics creep: Governing social science research in the name of ethics. Qualitative Sociology, 27(4), 391–414.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Health Professional Council of South Africa. (2008). General ethical guidelines for health researchers. Retrieved from http://www.hpcsa.co.za
  9. Human Sciences Research Council (HSRC). (n.d.). South Africa. Code of research ethics. Retrieved from http://www.hsrc.ac.za/en/about/research-ethics/code-of-research-ethics
  10. Kenya Medical Research Institute (KEMRI). (2004). National Ethical Review Committee: Guidelines and standard operating procedure (SOPs). Retrieved from https://www.kemri.org/images/joomlart/documents/Final%20SERU%20SOPs_27%20Sep%202016%20(3).pdf
  11. Kruger, M., & Horn, L. (2014). Introduction. In M. Kruger, P. Ndebele, & L. Horn (Eds.), Research ethics in Africa. Stellenbosch: SunPress.Google Scholar
  12. Mamotte, N., & Wassenaar, D. (2009). Ethics review in a developing country: A survey of South African social scientists’ experiences. Journal of Empirical Research on Human Research Ethics, 4(4), 69–78.Google Scholar
  13. Medical Research Council (MRC) of Zimbabwe. (2004). Guidelines for research and ethics reviews of committees in Zimbabwe. Retrieved from http://www.mcac.co.zw
  14. Molyneux, S., & Geissler, P. W. (2008). Ethics and the ethnography of medical research in Africa. Social Science & Medicine, 67(5), 685–695.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Mutenherwa, F., & Wassenaar, D. R. (2014). Ethics review of social and behavioural research in an African context. In Research ethics in Africa: A resource for research ethics committees (pp. 117–124). Stellenbosch: SUN MeDIA.Google Scholar
  16. National Commission for the Protection of Human Subjects of Biomedical and Behavioral Research. (1979). The Belmont Report. Retrieved from https://www.hhs.gov/ohrp/regulations-and-policy/belmont-report/read-the-belmont-report/index.html
  17. National Council for Science and Technology. (2004). Guideline for ethical conduct of biomedical research involving human subject in Kenya. Retrieved from https://www.nacosti.go.ke
  18. National Health Research Ethics Committee of Nigeria (NHREC). (2007). National code of health research ethics. Retrieved from http://www.nhrec.net
  19. National Health Research Ethics Committee of Tanzania. (2009). Guidelines of ethics for health research in Tanzania. Retrieved from https://clinregs.niaid.nih.gov/sites/default/files/documents/tanzania/G-EthicsHR.pdf
  20. Onuoha, C. (2007). Bioethics across borders: An African perspective. Doctoral dissertation, Acta Universitatis Upsaliensis.Google Scholar
  21. Redwood, S., & Todres, L. (2006, March). Exploring the ethical imagination: Conversation as practice versus committee as gatekeeper. Forum Qualitative Sozialforschung/Forum: Qualitative Social Research 7(2).Google Scholar
  22. South African Medical Research Council (SAMRC). (2010). South African Medical Research Council Ethics Committee: Standard operation procedures (SOP) of 2010. Retrieved from http://www.mrc.ac.za
  23. Tangwa, G. B. (2000). The traditional African perception of a person: Some implications for bioethics. Hastings Center Report, 30(5), 39–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Tolich, M. (2016). A narrative account of ethics committees and their codes. New Zealand Sociology, 31(4), 43.Google Scholar
  25. Uganda National Council for Science and Technology. (2014). National guidelines for research involving humans as research participants. Retrieved from http://www.uncst.go.ug/
  26. United Nations Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organisation (UNESCO). (2005). Universal Declaration on Bioethics and Human Rights (UDBHR). Retrieved from http://www.unesco.org/new/en/social-and-human-sciences/themes/bioethics/bioethics-and-human-rights/
  27. Van den Hoonaard, W. C. (2001). Is research-ethics review a moral panic? Canadian Review of Sociology/Revue canadienne de sociologie, 38(1), 19–36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Wassenaar, D. R. (2006). Ethical issues in social science research. Research in Practice: Applied Methods for the Social Sciences, 2, 60–79.Google Scholar
  29. Wassenaar, D. R., & Mamotte, N. (2012). Ethical issues and ethics reviews in social science research. In The Oxford handbook of international psychological ethics (pp. 268–282). New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  30. World Health Organisation. (2011). Standards operational guideline for ethics review of health-related research with human participants (pp. 1–43). Geneva: World Health Organisation.Google Scholar

Suggested Further Readings

  1. Guillemin, M., & Gillam, L. (2004). Ethics, reflexivity, and “ethically important moments” in research. Qualitative Inquiry, 10(2), 261–280.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Halse, C., & Honey, A. (2007). Rethinking ethics review as institutional discourse. Qualitative Inquiry, 13(3), 336–352.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Michael, L. (2014). Defining dignity and its place in human rights. The New Bioethics, 20(1), 12–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Warin, J. (2011). Ethical mindfulness and reflexivity: Managing a research relationship with children and young people in a 14-year Qualitative Longitudinal Research (QLR) study. Qualitative Inquiry, 17(9), 805–814.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Weijer, C. (1999). Protecting communities in research: Philosophical and pragmatic challenges. Cambridge Quarterly of Healthcare Ethics, 8(4), 501–513.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Strathmore UniversityNairobiKenya
  2. 2.University of the WitwatersrandJohannesburgSouth Africa

Personalised recommendations