Advertisement

Ethics Review Framework and Guidelines for Social Science Research

  • Willem A. HoffmannEmail author
  • Nico Nortjé
Chapter
Part of the Research Ethics Forum book series (REFF, volume 7)

Abstract

This last chapter provides an outline of the most important social research ethics principles and values that should be considered by social science researchers and research ethics committees (RECs) who review social science research projects. The principle framework of the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organisation (UNESCO) Universal Declaration on Bioethics and Human Rights (2005) is primarily used to organise the relevant ethics principles and considerations. The following ten principles are considered: (1) Respect for human dignity; (2) Beneficence and non-maleficence; (3) Autonomy and informed consent; (4) Vulnerability; (5) Privacy, anonymity and confidentiality; (6) Equality, justice and equity; (7) Non-discrimination and non-stigmatisation; (8) Respect for cultural diversity and pluralism; (9) Social responsibility and integrity; and (10) Benefit sharing. Lastly, the most important and relevant ethics review questions for each of the principles and values that should be posed by social science RECs during ethics reviews and deliberations are indicated.

Keywords

Research ethics committees Universal Declaration on Bioethics and Human Rights Researchers 

References

  1. AAAS. (2017). Brussels Declaration on ethics and principles for science and society policy-making. American Association for the Advancement of Science’s Annual Meeting, Boston, MA, USA, 17 February, 2017.Google Scholar
  2. Chen, J., & Courtwright, A. (2015). Stigmatization. In A. M. J. Ten Have (Ed.), Encyclopedia of global bioethics. Berlin: Springer.  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-05544-2_404-1.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. CIOMS. (2016). International ethical guidelines for health-related research involving humans (4th ed.). Geneva: Council for International Organizations of Medical Sciences.Google Scholar
  4. Culyer, A. J. (2015). Equality and equity. In A. M. J. Ten Have (Ed.), Encyclopedia of global bioethics. Berlin: Springer.  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-05544-2_176-1.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Garrafa, V. (2015). Ethics of discrimination. In A. M. J. Ten Have (Ed.), Encyclopedia of global bioethics. Berlin: Springer.  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-05544-2_147-1.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Hoffmann, W. A. (2015). Benefit-sharing. In A. M. J. Ten Have (Ed.), Encyclopedia of global bioethics. Berlin: Springer.  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-05544-2_38-1.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. HSRC. (2006). Code of research ethics. Pretoria: Human Sciences Research Council. Retrieved on January 2, 2018, from http://www.hsrc.ac.za/en/about/research-ethics/code-of-research-ethics
  8. Martínez-Palomo, A. (2009). Article 14: Social responsibility and health. In A. M. J. Ten Have & M. S. Jean (Eds.), The UNESCO Universal Declaration on Bioethics and Human Rights: Background, principles and application (pp. 219–230). Paris: UNESCO.Google Scholar
  9. Miller, T., & Boulton, M. (2007). Changing constructions of informed consent: Qualitative research and complex social worlds. Social Science and Medicine, 65, 2199–2211.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.socscimed.2007.08.009.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Murphy, E., & Dingwall, R. (2007). Informed consent, anticipatory regulation and ethnographic practice. Social Science and Medicine, 65, 2223–2234.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.socscimed.2007.08.008.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Nuremberg Code. (1947). Permissible medical experiments. In Trials of war criminals before the Nuremberg military tribunals under Control Council Law No. 10 (Vol. 2, pp. 181–182). Washington, DC: US Government Printing Office.Google Scholar
  12. Osuji, P. I. (2015). Confidentiality. In A. M. J. Ten Have (Ed.), Encyclopedia of global bioethics. Berlin: Springer.  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-05544-2_115-1.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Renaud, M., & Águas, C. (2015). Theories of justice. In A. M. J. Ten Have (Ed.), Encyclopedia of global bioethics. Berlin: Springer.  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-05544-2_260-1.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Revel, M. (2009). Article 12: Respect for cultural diversity and pluralism. In A. M. J. Ten Have & M. S. Jean (Eds.), The UNESCO Universal Declaration on Bioethics and Human Rights: Background, principles and application (pp. 199–209). Paris: UNESCO.Google Scholar
  15. Rivière, D. (2011). Looking from the outside/in: re-thinking research ethics review. Journal of Academic Ethics, 9, 193–204.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10805-011-9139-y.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Singh, S., & Wassenaar, D. R. (2016). Contextualising the role of the gatekeeper in social science research. South African Journal of Bioethics and Law, 9(1), 42–46.  https://doi.org/10.7196/SAJBL.2016.v9i1.465.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. South African San Institute. (2017). San Code of research ethics. Kimberley: South African San Institute.Google Scholar
  18. Ten Have, H. (2016). Global bioethics: An introduction. London: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. UNESCO. (2005). Universal Declaration on Bioethics and Human Rights. Paris: UNESCO.Google Scholar
  20. Van den Hoonaard, W. C., & Tolich, M. (2014). The New Brunswick Declaration of research ethics: A simple and radical perspective. Canadian Journal of Sociology, 39(1), 87–97.Google Scholar
  21. Van Niekerk, A. A. (2014). Moral perspectives on covert research. South African Journal of Bioethics and Law, 7(2), 55–58.  https://doi.org/10.7196/SAJBL.320.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Wassenaar, D. R., & Slack, C. M. (2016). How to learn to love your research ethics committee: Recommendations for psychologists. South Africa Journal of Psychology, 46(3), 306–315.  https://doi.org/10.1177/0081246316654348.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Wynn, L. L., Mason, P. H., & Everett, K. (2008). Human research ethics for the social sciences and humanities. Sydney: Macquarie University. Retrieved on 30 December 2017 from https://www.mq.edu.au/ethics_training/index.php

Suggested Further Readings

  1. Wassenaar, D. R., & Mamotte, N. (2012). Ethical issues and ethics reviews in social science research. In M. M. Leach, M. J. Stevens, G. Linsay, A. Ferrero, & Y. Korkut (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of international psychological ethics (pp. 268–282). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  2. Whitney, S. N. (2016). The social sciences. In S. N. Whitney (Ed.), Balanced ethics review: A guide for institutional review board members (pp. 57–69). Cham: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Tshwane University of TechnologyPretoriaSouth Africa
  2. 2.The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer CenterHoustonUSA

Personalised recommendations