brenda louw and rina delport · 2017-08-28 · brenda louw and rina delport contextual challenges...

BRENDA LOUW AND RINA DELPORT

CONTEXTUAL CHALLENGES IN SOUTH AFRICA: THE ROLE

OF A RESEARCH ETHICS COMMITTEE

ABSTRACT. This article parallels a debate similar to the one in Canada and

elsewhere where researchers whose work involves humans now operate under a

single ethics policy, with a strong biomedical emphasis. The institution of

research ethics committees for humanities and social sciences in South Africa

are relatively recent, posing unique challenges to researchers and academicians.

These factors contribute to the complexity of conducting ethically sound

research in the humanities and social sciences. The article explores this specific

context and how a research ethics committee in the humanities and social

sciences can meet the challenge of the unique South African context.

KEY WORDS: ethics policies, South Africa

Research in both the humanities and social sciences focuses on human

phenomena as subject matter (De Vos et al., 2002:5). The fact that human

beings are the object of study, brings unique ethical problems to the fore

that would never be relevant in the pure clinical laboratory settings of the

natural sciences (Strydom, 2002:62). Humans exist in real-life contexts,

creating a living laboratory for researchers in humanities and social

sciences. Cultural and linguistic diversity of the South African population,

commonly referred to as the Frainbow nation,_ characterize the real-life

context. This context provides a unique environment for quantitative and

qualitative research to researchers from a range of disciplines as it exists

on a continuum of developed and developing contexts.

There is currently no legislation for research ethics committees and

only limited guidelines exist in this regard. A final draft document was

however proposed for Ethics in Health Research in 2003 (Department of

Health, 2003), which has major implications for the future existence of

Humanities and Social Science Research Ethics Committees in the

country. This document may launch a debate similar to the one in

Canada and elsewhere in the world where researchers whose work involves

humans now operate under a single ethics policy, with a strong biomedical

emphasis. Furthermore, the institution of research ethics committees for

humanities and social sciences in South Africa are relatively recent, posing

Journal of Academic Ethics (2006) 4: 39Y60

DOI: 10.1007/s10805-006-9020-6

# Springer 2006

unique challenges to researchers and academicians. These factors contribute

to the complexity of conducting ethically sound research in the humanities

and social sciences. The authors creatively explore this specific context and

how a research ethics committee in the humanities and social sciences can

meet the unique challenges of the exciting South African context.

This article therefore delineates the challenging South African research

context, the establishment and role of a Research Ethics Committee in

meeting these contextual challenges and the identification of ethics concerns

for future teaching and research in the humanities and social sciences.1

CHALLENGES POSED BY THE SOUTH AFRICAN CONTEXT

An exploration of the unique features of the South African context is a

prerequisite for understanding and identifying the ethical issues of local

research in the humanities and social sciences. The context differs vastly

from Europe and North America, which has implications for the

interpretation and application of ethical guidelines.

South Africa has been described as Fa world in one country_ Y not

only because it has four or five different climates and a vastly contrasting

geography, but also because it has a diverse collection of peoples and

cultures (Tuomi, 1994:6). Its population is heterogeneous with mixed

sections of developed and developing contexts (Fair & Louw, 1999:13).

At the one end, there are skills, expertise and infrastructure of a developed

context and, on the other end, the burdens of a developing context such as

poverty, poor literacy skills, an unquestioning acceptance of authority and

a range of social and health needs. This vulnerability and inequality,

coupled with the unique research environment, emphasize the need for

research ethics guidelines and the promotion of high ethical standards in

research (Department of Health, 2003:5).

These issues are, however, not mutually exclusive. Although they are

also present and have been addressed in the international context, the

uniqueness of the South African context lies therein that there is a complex

and distinctive interrelationship between these issues. The context therefore

presents a challenge to researchers in the humanities and social sciences.

When conducting research in developing countries such as South

Africa, researchers need to be cognizant of the far-reaching ethical

implications of the context. For social research to be accountable, it needs

to be conducted within an ethical framework such as the one proposed by

the Nuffield Council on Bio-ethics (http://www.nuffieldbio-ethics.org/

developingcountries). This framework is based on four principles or

duties, namely to (a) to alleviate suffering, (b) show respect for persons,

BRENDA LOUW AND RINA DELPORT40

http://www.nuffieldbio-ethics.org/developingcountries

http://www.nuffieldbio-ethics.org/developingcountries

(c) be sensitive to cultural differences, and (d) not exploit the vulnerable.

Although this framework was initially proposed for research related to

health care in developing countries, it is also applicable to research in

social sciences and the human service professions.

To use this framework in a meaningful manner, the authors propose that

the first step should be the identification of relevant social dimensions of

the specific context of research, followed by a description of the scope, the

impact and some of the possible ethical implications of these dimensions.

This article discusses the following dimensions as being relevant to

research ethics in the social sciences and human service professions: HIV/

AIDS, poverty, cultural and linguistic diversity, and gender issues.

HIV/AIDS

To understand the seriousness of HIV/AIDS in the developing countries

and specifically in South Africa, as well as the ethical implications in

this regard, it is important to pay attention to the following:

� Of the 36 million adults and children in the world living with HIV/AIDS in 2000, more than 70% reside in Sub-Saharan Africa (VanNiekerk, 2001:144).

� South Africa has the largest number of people living with HIV/AIDS in the world, namely 4.7 million. That is one in nine of thetotal population, or about 20% of South Africa_s adult population(South African Medical Research Council, 2001).

� According to the South African Medical Research Council_s report(2001), projections in South Africa are that the epidemic will reachits peak in 2010 with as many as 7 million cumulative AIDS deaths.In such a situation, 52% of all deaths in South Africa will be AIDSrelated. More remarkable is the projection that 80% of all deaths inthe age group 20Y50 years old will be AIDS related (Van der Vlietin Van Niekerk, 2001:145).

It appears that South Africa has become the epicentre of the AIDS

pandemic in Africa (Van Niekerk, 2001:146). The ethical conduct of HIV/

AIDS-related research poses the challenge to apply the fundamental ethical

principles and be guided by the ethical framework as suggested by the

Nuffield Council on Bio-ethics (2005) in the context of South Africa as a

developing country. But what makes this specific context different,

complex and unique?

Respect for persons demands that individuals be treated as autono-

mous agents and that individuals with diminished autonomy be afforded

additional protection. The principle of respect for persons encompasses

the process of informed consent (Loue, 1995:13).

CONTEXTUAL CHALLENGES IN SOUTH AFRICA 41

Informed consent requires an assessment of the prospective participant_scapacity to provide informed consent and the provision of accurate

information to enable the participant to decide whether or not to join the

study. For consent to be genuine, researchers must do their best to com-

municate information accurately and in an understandable and appropriate

way. Without appropriate information, participants may find themselves

exposed to risks or dangers that they would have preferred to avoid.

The objective of ensuring that participants understand the research

sufficiently to make an enlightened decision is difficult to meet in respect

of a vast majority of the population in South Africa. Effective

communication with people is to a significant extent a function of their

ability to read, and, on the basis of that reading, to grasp concepts that are

not self-evident to them, as in the case of HIV/AIDS-related research.

Literacy is a major problem. If literacy is defined as the ability to read,

write and numerate (normally conditional on 7 years of schooling), then

41% of the adult population is illiterate (Bot, Wilson and Dove in Van

Niekerk, 2001:152). Furthermore, the linguistic and cultural diversity

often acts as barrier to communication between researchers and partic-

ipants, thereby complicating the process. To communicate and explain to

the masses of relatively uneducated and illiterate people in the rural areas

the phenomenon of HIV/AIDS and research into it so as to obtain informed

consent is a complex process. However, Ijsselmuiden and Faden (1992:832)

believe that, with extra effort, researchers can effectively communicate

with participants, and cultural and literacy barriers need not constitute

insurmountable barriers to obtaining valid consent or refusal.

Obtaining informed consent should be approached as a social

process, which is dynamic and negotiated. According to Benatar

(2002:12Y19), the complexity of obtaining consent in developing

contexts necessitates the dedication of more resources, education and

training to this facet of research programmes. Another ethical dilemma

regarding informed consent is the fact that many communities see the

person as a group member, rather than an individual. It is therefore

culturally inappropriate for researchers to request individuals to participate

in research without consulting the community or gaining permission from

community leaders. The two facets of the principle of respect, namely

respect for culture and respect for persons therefore come into conflict with

one another. The latter principle requires that the researcher should never

subject participants (who have the capacity to consent) to research without

such consent. To ensure that individual participants may make up their own

minds without undue communal pressure, the researcher should assure

anonymity for those who wish to decline to participate in research.


The principle of beneficence is often divided into two components,

namely the principle of non-maleficence (the obligation not to do harm),

and the principle of beneficence (the obligation to prevent harm, to

remove harm, and to do good; Ijsselmuiden & Jewkes, 2002). This

article considers the two components as one. It involves respect for

individuals_ decisions and the protection of the research participants

from harm. Application of this principle requires not only for the

researchers to make an effort at securing the well-being of the research

participants, but also a favourable balance between the risks and the

benefits of the proposed research (Loue, 1995:13).

The client with a positive HIV test can be harmed by disclosure

through stigmatization, social isolation, loss of employment, eviction,

and discrimination in different areas of daily living. Within the cultural

context of developing countries, women are especially vulnerable. For

them, the disclosure of HIV infection to their partner often results in

physical abuse, abandonment, and eviction from the home. Researchers

and members of research ethics committees are required to be cognizant

of these issues and to build in safeguards in their research endeavours.

The principle of justice or fairness mandates that the benefits and

burdens of the research be distributed equally among individuals or

communities and that no single group be required to bear a disproportion-

ate share of the risk. Issues such as inclusion criteria and incentives for

participation (e.g., providing access to counselling and health care services

to participants and their partners and families) may arise, and need to be

addressed by researchers.

Poverty

Poverty has been defined in a variety of ways both nationally and

internationally. We should see poverty, in common with the United

Nations_ development reports (United Nations Development Programme,

1998), in a broader perspective than merely the extent of low income or

low expenditure in the country. We see it as Fthe denial of opportunities

and choices most basic to human development to lead a long, healthy,

creative life and to enjoy a decent standard of living, freedom, dignity,

self-esteem and respect from others._Although the World Bank classifies South Africa as an upper middle-

income country, a vast proportion of its population is living in absolute

poverty, and displays a level of human development more often associated

with low-income countries (Whiteford, Posel, & Kelatwang, 1995:1).


Poverty in South Africa is undoubtedly at relatively high levels (Du Toit,

1996:76), as is clear from the following statistical profile:

� Approximately half (44%) were regarded as poor, and still are (VanNiekerk, 2001:146; May, 1998).2

� Poverty has a strong rural dimension. Some 75% of the poor live inrural areas and suffer from higher unemployment rates, lowereducational attainment, much lower access to services such as waterand electricity, as well as lower access to productive resources(World Bank, 1995:4).

� Poverty also has a strong unemployment dimension. An estimated4.7 million of the 25.6 million adults in the country are currentlyunemployed (Office of the Reconstruction and DevelopmentProgramme, 1996:90).

� Poverty also has a strong gender and age dimension. Female-headedhouseholds have a 50% higher poverty rate than male-headed house-holds. A higher proportion of working-age women live in poorhouseholds; and a higher proportion of the poor elderly are women(61%). In addition, women suffer substantially higher unemploymentrates than men (35 vs. 25%) (World Bank, 1995:4).

It is a fundamental ethical principle that those involved in research

should not take advantage of the vulnerabilities created by poverty or by

a lack of infrastructure and resources (http://www.nuffieldbio-ethics.org/

developingcountries). It is also accepted that vulnerable and disadvan-

taged participants need to be protected in research. The need for

attention to the ethical issues arising from poverty is a reality for

researchers in the humanities and social sciences.

Adhering to the principle of respect for persons requires researchers to

acknowledge the complex power imbalances that may exist between them

and research participants, as well as to identify how these inequalities

may impact on the research process. According to London (2002:1081),

researchers should recognize a positive obligation to actualize participants_autonomy and therefore improve the situation of vulnerable populations.

London (2002:1081) also maintains that under-researching of the problems

of vulnerable populations is in itself an ethical issue.

Benatar (2002:12Y19) agrees and advocates that the principle of

justice be applied in the distribution of knowledge and resources flowing

from research. Researchers need to ensure that beneficial research results

are made available to individuals and their communities through

influences on policy makers. London (2002:1081) furthermore feels

strongly that groups made vulnerable due to poverty should not be

rendered passive by their objectification in the research design, but that

participants_ capacity to do things for themselves should be strengthened,

thus addressing issues of social justice.


http://http://www.nuffieldbio-ethics.org/developingcountries


Offering financial incentives or inducements to research partici-

pants living in poverty has become a major ethical issue, especially in

developing countries, and this practice may violate all principles of

respect, beneficence and justice. Incentives play an important part in

locating participants, but offering payment for research participation may

be construed as coercion. There are no easy solutions to this ethical

dilemma, even though guidelines have been developed in bio-ethics by

for example the Council of International Organisations of Medical

Sciences (CIOMS) and the Nuffield Council on Bio-ethics. In-depth

knowledge of the context is required by researchers in order to determine

what inducements are likely to be considered coercive, and which are

appropriate to the local context so as to ensure that individuals_ voluntary

participation is not compromised. Research ethics committees also need to

consider inducements to participate in research projects from a culturally

sensitive perspective.

In developing countries such as South Africa, meagre resources for

research may make international collaboration an attractive option. This

gives rise to another ethical issue posed by poverty, especially in

developing contexts, namely how individuals and organizations from

developed countries should conduct themselves when sponsoring or

undertaking research in developing countries (http://www.nuffieldbio-

ethics.org/developingcountries). The current literature widely addresses

the ethical dilemmas that arise during international collaborative research,

and universal ethical standards and informed consent are the topics of many

debates (Benatar, 2002:7Y19). Researchers in the humanities and social

sciences who are participating in collaborative research need to take

cognizance of international guidelines for collaborative research and ethical

frameworks, as well as of ethical issues that may arise in the collaborative

partnership. They should subsequently enter into the process of collabora-

tive research from an informed perspective. Thus, poor education and low

literacy levels are characteristic of poverty and give rise to a myriad of

ethical issues Y the most important being that of obtaining true informed

consent, as discussed in connection with HIV/AIDS.

Cultural and Linguistic Diversity

As stated earlier, cultural and linguistic diversity mark the South African

population. The diversity of the different rainbow dimensions is clear

from the following statistical picture:

� Based on the national census in October 1996 there were 40.58million people in South Africa. Among these, 77% classifiedthemselves as African, 11% as white, 9% as coloured, 3% as




Indian/Asian and 1% did not classify their group. More than half ofthe population (54%) lived in urban areas, but this milieu varied bypopulation group (Statistics South Africa, 2000:57).

� With regard to linguistic diversity, there are 11 different officiallanguages namely Sepedi, Sesotho, Setswana, SiSwati, Tshivenda,Xitsonga, Afrikaans, English, isiNdebele, isiXhosa, and isiZulu(Goduka, 1999:46Y47).

This diversity of race and language not only creates a virtual living

laboratory with exciting yet complex possibilities for researchers, but

also poses a range of ethical challenges to researchers in the social

sciences and humanities. Although cross-linguistic and -cultural encoun-

ters have always existed, recent developments in politics, international

literature and local practice, have led to a changing ethos of providing

services that are committed to honouring diversity, creating new research

possibilities within the humanities and social sciences.

In the South African context there is often a cultural and economic

mismatch between researchers and participants. Most researchers were

historically advantaged, white, middle-class individuals who benefited

socially, educationally and economically from the apartheid system,

and yet were not prepared for living and functioning successfully in a

diverse society (Goduka, 1999:81). Political legacies of the apartheid

era may still be operating in a given situation and researchers need to

be aware of cultural dynamics and the potential impact on their

research endeavours. The principle of justice needs to be addressed by

researchers to prevent exploitation of research participants, given the

imbalances that may exist.

The legacies of inequalities in the education system prior to 1994

have resulted in degrees of educational disadvantage. Many African

students who are currently completing high school do not fulfil the

eligibility requirements of tertiary institutions and are thus excluded

from becoming the researchers of the future. Since researchers often do

not speak any of the official African languages, nor their dialectical

variations, and since they have limited knowledge about the social

systems, values and beliefs of other cultures, they have to employ

interpreters. This may jeopardize the principle of respect for persons,

especially with regard to the obtaining of genuine informed consent

(Ijsselmuiden & Faden, 1992:832).

Researchers do not only need to observe and study others; they also

need to examine themselves and recognize their own lack of knowledge

about individuals different to them so that they can begin to ask the right

questions of research participants. Respect for difference and viewing

culture as a social context guide researchers to develop cultural


competence which, in turn, directs their research actions and contributes

to both ethically and scientifically sound research.

Language is developed within a cultural context and is inextrica-

bly linked to culture, playing a fundamental role in the transmission

of beliefs, values and customs. Even though multilingualism is a

feature of everyday life (Goduka, 1999:105), the 11 official languages

and their dialects often create a barrier to research and impact on

research ethics, once again violating the principle of respect for persons

during research.

Language differences also impact on the use of measurements such

as standardized tests and questionnaires. These may be neither

culturally appropriate, nor valid if translated, thereby compromising

the application of the principles of beneficence and respect. The

translation of materials such as tests presents another ethical dilemma

as it may infringe on the copyright of the instrument and require

permission from authors or publishers. As this may cause a delay in

the research programme, researchers may even be tempted to refrain

from obtaining the necessary permission. Thus, Research Ethics

Committees and researchers alike need to develop strategies for

meeting the complex challenges posed by the cultural and linguistic

diversity of South African society and for utilizing such diversity as a

unique asset in their research endeavours.

Gender Issues

Most of the women in developing countries like South Africa can be

described as vulnerable and marginalized, because of their devalued

status in the traditional African homestead (Van Niekerk, 2001:154).

Even though South Africa has made impressive efforts to legislate in

favour of greater gender equality since 1994, there is still a long way to

go. For example, one third of all members of parliament should

eventually be women (Van Niekerk, 2001:154, 156).

In the context of South Africa, information pertaining to women is

limited and often distorted. The limited data available is mostly gathered

by means of traditional methods that undercount, misrepresent or ignore

women_s contributions and conditions (Bob & Musyoki, 2002:98).

However, the following available information provides a glimpse of

the gendered nature of conditions and experiences in South Africa:

� Slightly fewer than half (48.3%) of all women live below thepoverty line, compared to 43.5% of all men (Whiteford, Posel &Kelatwang, 1995:5).


� Women suffer substantially higher unemployment rates than men(35 vs. 25%) and suffer particularly from lack of access to servicesin rural areas (World Bank, 1995:4).

Bob and Musyoki (2002) emphasize that although women are key role

players in the survival of households and communities, the gaps between

men and women have not been reduced significantly. Furthermore,

access to services such as health care, education and technology are

biased against females and their access to land is limited (Bob &

Musyoki, 2002:102Y103).

Gender bias has been well documented in research ethics literature

and the marginalization of women in research has been debated. In

planning and conducting research in the humanities and the social

sciences, the principle of respect becomes really complex when linked to

gender issues. Even though female-headed households are common in

rural areas due to migration or the men working in urban centres,

patriarchal systems are typical of African cultures and obtaining consent

needs to take such traditional and cultural practices into account.

Persuading women to participate in research projects without respect

for their role and position may rebound on them personally and will

implicate the principles of respect, beneficence and justice. When

researchers are required to protect the anonymity and confidentiality of

women as participants, they must first (prior to conducting the research)

consider carefully whether they are able to do so and to give such

guarantees within the particular context.

Traditionally research in the humanities and social sciences was not

exposed to ethics review. Research ethics, however, has received

increasing attention internationally and the debate over the ethics of

social research has developed significantly over the past three

decades. The institution of research ethics committees or review

boards, has become an international trend and universities, as formal

generators of research, have closely followed this development. This

is also a fairly recent development, specifically at the University of

Pretoria (2003).

MEETING THE CONTEXTUAL CHALLENGES: ESTABLISHMENT OF A RESEARCH

ETHICS COMMITTEE

The Research Ethics Committee of the Faculty of Humanities was

established in 2000 and currently functions under the auspices of the

Dean of the Faculty of Humanities and the Senate Committee for

Research Ethics and Integrity.


Critical Elements in the Functioning of the Research Ethics Committee

A reflection on the development and functioning of this committee

highlighted critical elements. In 2002 the brief of the committee was

amended to include the quality control of research proposals, which led

to the name being changed to the Research Proposals and Ethics

(RESPETHICS) Committee. This led to some dissatisfaction within the

committee and within the Faculty, indicating the initial lack of insight

into the review process. Benatar (2002:6) is of the opinion that in

undertaking research on humans, the scientific merit of a project must be

matched by the ethical merit of the work. Gelling (1999) also believes

that research ethics committees have an important role to play in

ensuring the ethical standards and scientific merit of research involving

human subjects. The expanded role of the committee meets this

obligation and has contributed to the overall standard of its functioning.

It provides a structure according to which the ethical challenges of

applications that are submitted are reviewed, identified and solutions

proposed. However, critical reflection on the development and function-

ing of this committee has identified a range of challenges. These

challenges are approached from an asset-based perspective by focussing

on capacities, skills and assets within the committee (Ammerman &

Parks, 1998:32) and identifying possible solutions and strategies.

The Dean of the Faculty of Humanities appointed the members of the

committee to represent expertise in different areas and fields. At present

the RESPETHICS Committee does not meet the generally agreed-upon

criteria for members of ethics committees, as a lay member does not

represent the community. Neither does the current committee include

non-institutional members, legal representatives, spiritual members or an

interpreter (Nicolaides, 1995:9; Little, 1999:259), a fact that may impact

on the manner in which participants_ rights and welfare are safeguarded.

This poses an ethical dilemma in itself.

Disciplinary expertise of the members does, however, serve to

maintain scientific standards, although it does not necessarily imply

experience in qualitative research, which may have implications when

judging applications for ethical approval. An awareness of the limitations

of membership has united the existing members to accept the

responsibility of representing research participants and society at large

at all times, and viewing research proposals from the perspective of the

populations studied (van den Hoonaard, 2001:11Y15). South Africa is a

multilingual nation and the committee requires access to interpreters to

ensure for instance that informed consent is accurately translated and that

appropriate procedures are suggested for community members to fully


understand the proposed research. Membership issues are being

addressed at present, but due to budget and other constraints they have

not been resolved to date.

Currently South Africa has neither regulations nor legislation

concerning ethics committees in place, especially not for the humanities.

A draft policy for ethics in health research has however been developed

(Department of Health, 2003), and the role of research ethics committees

has been well documented. There is general consensus that these

committees need to ensure that research is performed to the ethical and

scientific standards expected by society, and that they have obligations

towards the research participants, society as well as the researchers

(Gelling, 1999:564; Little, 1999:259). Benatar (2002:10Y19) proposes

that new ways of thinking are needed about the role that research ethics

committees should play in developing countries to promote moral

progress in research endeavours.

However, before the RESPETHICS Committee could develop its own

role and task descriptions, a mechanism of functioning had to be

developed. The University_s Senate Committee for Research Ethics and

Integrity provided basic guidelines to the committee, and thus afforded it

the opportunity to formulate and develop its own documentation

regarding its vision, mission, objectives, values and procedural function-

ing. The committee utilized resources such as current literature on the

functioning of research ethics committees (e.g., Gauld & McMillan,

1999; Williams, 1997; Savulescu, Chalmers, & Blunt, 1996), as well as

local and international forms and frameworks to devise a system that is

not only best suited to meet the needs of the Faculty but also in line with

accepted international standards.

The development of a set of core values and principles Y required for

the committee to achieve its goals and be in line with the strategic plan

of the University Y proved to be a taxing exercise. It was deemed crucial

for committee dynamics as well, seeing that virtually the only thing they

had in common was that they were members of the Faculty of

Humanities. Although this divergence is an important asset because it

provided a wealth of knowledge and expertise, it did render cohesive

collaboration and ethical discourse difficult at times.

The committee held an active brainstorming session and jointly

formulated a set of core values. This impacted positively on members_commitment to the committee, as values such as consistency, honesty

and congruence were agreed upon. Both the exercise and the resulting

statement proved to be assets to the committee because they strengthened

the cohesiveness, improved allegiance and forged the identity of the


committee that was eventually presented to the other staff members of

the Faculty of Humanities. Moreover, developing the necessary

documentation was relatively uncomplicated, though time consuming,

due to pervasive documentation on the development of research ethics

committees (Mitchell & Fletcher, 1998; Little, 1999; Ramcharan &

Cutcliffe, 2001; van den Hoonaard, 2001).

Establishing the administrative process was a course of trial and error,

and the process was eventually developed over time and through

experience. According to Nicolaides (1995:13) the role of the committee

secretary is important and the institution is therefore obliged to provide a

committee secretary at an appropriate level of seniority and experience.

As soon as statistics regarding the number of applications were available,

motivation for the appointment of administrative services could be

formulated. The result was that, despite budgetary constraints, part-time

secretarial services were allocated to the committee, thus easing the

administrative burden for committee members.

All of the committee members are high-level academicians. They

represent different levels of research experience in widely diverse fields of

study and have hectic academic schedules where time is at a premium.

Members are not reimbursed additionally for the time spent on reviewing

applications, preparing for and attending the meetings. According to Cave

and Holm (2002:138) this is a common occurrence in independent ethics

committees, where the well being of participants needs to be placed

above the interest of science and society. They argue that such systems

need to be better resourced and guided to facilitate ethical research.

The role of the RESPETHICS Committee is to evaluate research

proposals and applications for ethical clearance of researchers in the

Faculty of Humanities to ensure scientific and recognized ethical

standards. A second role is to educate and assist the faculty, its

researchers and the community to understand, appreciate and apply the

ethics of research (Benatar, 2002:10Y19) by liaising with the various

departments in the Faculty. The latter requires research proposals and

applications for ethical clearance to be developed under the guidance of

the applicants, tutors, or mentors (in the case of postgraduate students)

and then to be submitted to the departmental research committees for

scrutiny. Only when the proposals and applications have been approved

at departmental level, are they sent to the RESPETHICS Committee,

which then acts a final arbiter and Frubber-stamps_ the proposals. This

system attempts to prevent the interpretation by researchers that the gate-

keeping function of the committee favours proposals based on

quantitative research approaches (van den Hoonaard, 2001). However,


the system presupposes that the general pool of academic staff are aware

of and well versed in ethical issues than can present in research proposals

(Mitchell & Fletcher, 1998:136; Williams, 1997:21). In reality this is not

always the case and Benatar (2002:10Y19) proposes that formal courses

in research ethics at the graduate level could promote this goal.

To equip committee members to fulfil their obligations with regard to

protecting the rights of research participants, society and the researchers

(Gelling, 1999), capacity building is done in a variety of ways. This

includes addressing specific topics such as ethical issues in research with

children as participants or relating to research approaches such as

terminology of qualitative methodologies (Gauld & McMillan, 1999:196);

distributing carefully selected readings related to specific research ethics

topics discussed at monthly meetings; sharing resources among members

by sharing the framework proposed by Fossy et al. (2002:724, 731) for

evaluating the quality of qualitative research (seeing that the quality of

qualitative research and standards for ethics of qualitative research are

interconnected); and making available documentation pertaining to the

statutory framework within which the committee functions. In accordance

with this practice, Singer (2003) states that research ethics committees

should receive broader education on the issue of researcherYsubject

inequality and its potential impact on research.

The Committee organized guest speakers at regular intervals to deal

with relevant topics such as considerations of criminal law pertaining to

copyright, fraud and forgery. O. Abdool-Karim and S. S. Abdool-Karim

(2003) confirm the value of capacity building by stating that it is

important in developing expertise and infrastructure for evaluating

ethical problems, educating practitioners and researchers, and facilitating

the development of policy.

A significant challenge posed to committee members was to

familiarize themselves with the documentation of the statutory frame-

work within which the committee functions, namely the Constitution of

South Africa Act 108 of 1996, the Copyright Act (Act no. 98 of 1978), the

Promotion of Access to Information Act (Act no. 2 of 2000), the Promotion

of Justice Act (Act no. 3 of 2000), the Guiding Principles of Ethics and

Research (Department of Health, 2003), and the Disciplinary Code of the

University of Pretoria 2003. The dissemination of the documentation

facilitated the organization of guest speakers who, in turn, educated and

empowered committee members.

Constructive discussion during the review of research proposals and

ethical applications is another challenge for the effective functioning of

the committee. The tensions that do arise are blamed on the diverse


fields of expertise, different approaches and personal dynamics in the

committee. Habermas (in Little, 1999:259) suggested that discourse is

the only mode in which moral understanding can be constructed and to

achieve this he proposes strict rules that should govern ethical discourse.

These rules are derived from the work of Alexy (Little, 1999:259Y260,

262) and specify that practical discussions should exist at certain levels

and that particular rules are appropriate for each level. Three levels,

namely, logical-semantic, procedural and process level are presented.

The rules suggest that commitment to reality, and honesty to self, group

and cause are fundamental to constructive discourse. These rules were

adopted by the committee to learn the art of structured discourse, to

acquire representative thinking (i.e., to engage sympathetically and

honestly with the values and thought processes of people from other

walks of life), but with legitimate interests in the issues under discussion

(Little, 1999:262), and to promote conflict resolution.

Establishing the RESPETHICS Committee within the Faculty as part

of its research culture, while gaining cooperation, acceptance and

support from faculty members constitute an ongoing and challenging

process. This involves a variety of activities that include inter alia the

distribution of information via e-mail and personal communications

(Williams, 1997:22). Feedback on committee activities and decisions is

also given at Heads of Department Meetings, and care is taken to make

all documentation readily accessible on the University_s web page and

lastly providing prompt feedback of committee decisions in a positive and

supportive manner (Gelling, 1999:567; Mitchell & Fletcher, 1998:136).

Establishing and improving the profile of the RESPETHICS Com-

mittee will undoubtedly lead to further gains, such as a general increase

in awareness of research ethics and an added emphasis on the teaching of

research ethics in the different disciplines contained within the Faculty.

The fact that the number of applications for ethical clearance has increased

markedly is viewed to be a positive indication of the committee achieving

this objective.

Ethical Issues Arising

Reflection on the applications for ethics clearance to RESPETHICS led

to the identification of certain ethical issues, which presented repeatedly

in the research proposals in the humanities and social sciences since the

inception of the committee. Although these are described in the

literature, the context of the research implies their uniqueness.


Increased international research collaboration has given rise to

debates on ethical pluralism vs. ethical imperialism and universal ethical

standards. These debates have clear implications for the guiding

principles applied by the committee. Since community-based research

is receiving increased attention as a result of the AIDS pandemic,

researchers are required to develop new skills to ensure the application

of principles of research fairness and prevent the potential of harm and

exploitation. As developed countries are increasingly conducting

research in developing contexts, the issue of disparity in power between

foreign research sponsors and South Africa as the host country will need

to be explored. Research proposals need to pay special attention to risk/

benefit ratios, equity in distribution of benefits and burdens, conflicts of

interest, adequacy of information provided to participants and protection

of freedom (Singer, 2003; Abdool-Karim & Abdool-Karim, 2003).

The recent advent of ethics review for humanities and social sciences

research, as mentioned earlier, has emphasized the tension between the

strong biomedical and health perspective of ethics reviews and

researchers_ interpretation thereof (Macklin, 2002). This led to many

South African researchers in the humanities and social sciences resisting

ethics review. Lacking confidence and assertiveness to plan and conduct

ethically sound research, the Committee encouraged researchers to

engage with literature on research ethics in order to empower

themselves. Emanuel et al. (2004:930) propose benchmarks of ethical

clinical research in developing countries. This concept led to the

identification of an important research opportunity in the South African

situation, namely to provide unified and consistent ethical guidance for

humanities and social science research in a developing context.

Written informed consent not only remains contentious in social-

science research internationally, but was also earlier identified as an issue

related to poverty and HIV /AIDS in the South African context due to low

literacy levels and cultural and linguistic diversity. A practical solution

would be to develop information brochures as well as back translations,

and the use of interpreters, to ensure that verbal informed consent in high

risk research is adequately addressed (Ijsselmuiden & Faden, 1992:831).

Children as participants in research do not present with unique ethical

issues but certain issues tend to arise with greater force, or in unusual

ways (Allmark 2002:20). The contextual factors of South Africa give rise

to many research questions involving children and their families, which

necessitate researchers in the humanities and social sciences to pay

special attention to ethical issues. Generally researchers adhere to

obtaining consent by proxy when involving children and view the


welfare of the children as tantamount. However, issues such as child

assent and dissent are seldom taken into account. Furthermore, the

manner in which information is provided to children and the limitations

of maintaining confidentiality when involving children as participants

often do not receive sufficient attention in research proposals. The

relatively recent development of codes of research ethics focussing

specifically on children, and the limited guidelines for use with children

in qualitative research (Allmark, 2002:7) may have attributed to this

phenomena. Researchers are therefore encouraged to pay careful

attention to addressing child related ethical issues.

With the celebration of a decade of democracy in 2004, the use of oral

history has received increased attention in humanities and social sciences

research. The first democratically elected government in 1994 and

subsequent changes in government policy had major implications for

recorded history as documented by the white minority governments of

the past. Following the lobbying by the Oral History Association (2003)

in America, the United States Office for Human Research Protection

determined that oral-history interviewing projects in general do not

involve the type of research defined by Health and Human Sciences

regulations and should, therefore, be excluded from institutional review

board oversight ( http://omega.dickinson.edu/organizations/oha/

org_irb.html ). This policy statement advocated by the Oral History

Association (2003) was adopted by historical and heritage societies as

well as by academic departments in South Africa. The implication is that

both researchers and research ethic committees grappling with issues of

human subject research need to take cognizance of this development in

order to stay abreast of international trends in ethics reviews.

The Way Forward

Researchers in the humanities and social sciences need to add their

voices to future developments in research ethics in the South African

context to ensure ethically sound research. Bainbridge (2003:633)

postulates that social sciences have matured into a set of somewhat

static disciplines that not expect to grow as rapidly as they did decades

ago. They are now called upon to reinvent themselves, lest they lose the

capacity to imagine and shape the future. The field of research ethics

provides researchers from the humanities and social sciences with an

exciting opportunity to do exactly that.

Although research ethics has received increasing attention interna-

tionally and the debate over the ethics in the humanities and social


http://omega.dickinson.edu/organizations/oha/org_irb.html


sciences has developed significantly over the past three decades, it

appears that new developments and initiatives in South Africa are

primarily driven by bio-ethics (Benatar, 2002:11Y19). Even though there

are meaningful lessons to be learnt and valuable guidelines to be followed,

the growing research capacity and productivity in the humanities and

social sciences necessitates researchers and research ethics committees

alike to identify and debate issues crucial to future developments in the

field of research ethics. According to Benatar (2002:14Y19) progress in

this field will, however, require trans-disciplinary approaches that

embrace a wide range of knowledge, skills, insights and abilities.

Research ethics in the humanities and social sciences therefore deserves

attention in both teaching and research endeavours.

In the challenging and attractive research environment of developing

countries like South Africa ethics education on both undergraduate and

graduate levels are imperative in order to expand knowledge regarding a

wide range of ethical issues pertaining to the local context. Undergrad-

uate teaching curricula in the humanities and social sciences are called

upon to include ethical principles that guide research practices; to

explore challenges posed by the context; and to make resources available

regarding research ethics and the process of ethics reviews. Issues such

as what can be expected from students in the classroom and what

safeguards must be in place when students plan and engage in research,

remain to be debated (Gibelman & Gelman, 2001:245).

Academic supervisors and researchers need to encourage and guide

graduate-level students to conduct ethical discourse, engage in ethical

debates regarding the appropriateness, effective application and critical

evaluation of research methodologies; the creative application of ethical

principles and norms in a given research context in the planning and

execution of the research; as well as the critical revision of ethical

statements as the research evolves. They must then guide students to

write ethically sound research proposals. Furthermore mentoring

provides a mechanism for the development of research skills, monitoring

research projects and for collaborative research. Senior faculty are in a

position to review and assess the integrity of research proposals of more

junior faculty, as well to act as role models regarding the conducting of

ethically sound research (Gibelman & Gelman, 2001:249). Academi-

cians and researchers in the humanities and social sciences clearly have

an opportunity to make their voices heard and contribute to the field of

research ethics.

From a research-ethics perspective, we can discern several topics for

future research pertaining to the humanities and social sciences. Local


researchers have, to date, paid scant attention to the importance of

researching research ethics, which may be attributed to the relatively

recent advent of formalized research ethics review in the humanities and

social sciences in South Africa, in contrast to Canada and the United

States, for example. This lack of a local body of knowledge and research

may also have been responsible for resistance to ethics reviews by some

researchers, which has further contributed to this dearth of research. As

mentioned earlier, research is needed to provide benchmarks for

consistent ethical guidance in the humanities and social sciences within

South Africa. Determining and describing the current perceptions and

practices of research ethics by researchers and academicians within the

humanities and social sciences, for example, may serve as a verified

point of departure to further enhance ethically sound research.

Furthermore, as was clearly illustrated in the contextual description, it

is deemed essential to focus on in-depth research and the ethical

implications thereof, regarding critical social issues such as HIV/AIDS

and poverty, which are prominent in South Africa. We need to explore

the ethical, professional and legal frameworks where children are

involved as research participants, given the lack of local verified

knowledge and documentation, as well as understand the far-reaching

implications of involving this vulnerable population in research.

Researchers need to be proactive and instigate change by sourcing

research Y funding initiatives; developing resources and lines of

communication; generating benchmarks and guidelines and creating

research-ethics frameworks to ensure ethically sound research in the

humanities and social sciences in order to have a major impact on

forging the way forward in the South African context.

CONCLUSION

In conclusion, we raise the following critical question: How should we

apply the fundamental ethical principles to research in a country that

exists on a continuum of developed and developing contexts? Should it

be done any differently, or not? From the authors_ point of view, the fact

that the social context was identified as a critical issue poses a challenge

to the already complex task of researchers in the humanities and social

sciences. The problem centres around the practical and sensitive

implementation of the fundamental ethical principles in a given context

as issues arise from the conflict between basic research ethics and the

specific social context.


The way in which researchers and research ethics committees in the

humanities and social sciences respond to and engage with these issues

in the future, will contribute to forging an answer and shape the manner

in which researchers_ obligations to research participants, society at large

and themselves are fulfilled.

NOTES

1 To avoid the repetitive phrase, B... in South Africa,^ or Bin the South African

research context^ this article_s descriptions of research and research ethics pertain to

South Africa.2 BPoor in this context refers to an annual income of below ZAR10,000 (US$869) per

household of four and a half people.

REFERENCES

Abdool-Karim, O. and Abdool-Karim, S. S. (2003). Multi-cultural Ethics: Pluralism vs

Ethical Imperialism, Paper presented at the First Annual Yale International AIDS

Summer Institute. The Ethics of International AIDS Research: Contemporary Practices

and Controversies. June 22Y27.

Allmark, P. (2002). The ethics of research with children, Nurse Researcher 10(2), 7Y10.

Ammerman, A. and Parks, C. (1998). Preparing students for more effective community

interventions: Asset assessment, Family and Community Health 21(1), 32Y46.

Bainbridge, W. S. (2003). The future of social sciences, Science Directory 35(6), 633Y650.

Benatar, S. R. (2002). Reflections and recommendations on research ethics in developing

countries, Social Science and Medicine 54(7), 1131Y1141.

Bob, U. and Musyoki, A. (2002). Gender geography in South Africa: Facing challenges

and exploring opportunities, South African Geographical Journal 84(1), 98Y106.

Cave, E. and Holm, S. (2002). New governance arrangements for research ethics

committees: Is facilitating research achieved at the cost of participants_ interest?

Journal of Medical Ethics 28(5), 318Y322.

Constitution of the Republic of South Africa Act 108 of 1996.

De Vos, A. S. Strydom, H. Fouche, C. B. and Delport, C. S. L. (2002). Research at Grass

Roots: For the Social Sciences and Human Service Professions, 2nd Edition. Pretoria:

Van Schaik.

Department of Health, Republic of South Africa (2003). Draft Document. Ethics in

Health Research: Principles, Structures and Processes. Version 0.10.

Du Toit, C. W. (1996). Empowering the Poor. Pretoria: University of South Africa.

Emanuel, E. Wendler, D. Killen, J., and Grady, C. (2004). What makes clinical research

in developing countries ethical? The benchmarks of ethical research, Journal of

Infectious Diseases 189, 930Y936 (1 March).

Fair, L. and Louw, B. (1999). Early communication intervention within a community-

based intervention model in South Africa, South African Journal of Communication

Disorders 46, 13Y23.

Fossy, E. Harvey, C. McDermott, F. and Davidson, L. (2002). Understanding and

evaluating qualitative research, Australian and New Zealand Journal of Psychiatry

36(6), 717Y732.


Gauld, R. and McMillan, J. (1999). Ethics committees and qualitative health research in

New Zealand, New Zealand Medical Journal 112(1089), 195Y197.

Gelling, L. (1999). Role of the research ethics committee, Nurse Education Today 19,

564Y569.

Gibelman, M. and Gelman, S. (2001). Learning from mistakes of others: A look at

scientific misconduct in research, Journal of Social Work Education 37(2), 241Y255.

Goduka, M. I. (1999). Affirming unity in diversity in education: Healing with ubuntu.

Cape Town: Juta.

Ijsselmuiden, C. B. and Faden, R. R. (1992). Informed consent and public health research

in Africa: Another look, New England J. of Medicine 326(12), 830Y834.

Ijsselmuiden, C. B. and Jewkes, R. (2002). Gender and Aids in Southern Africa, Chapter 9:

Ethics and Aids Research. Southern African Aids Training Initiative (Unpubl).

Little, M. (1999). Research, ethics and conflicts of interest, Journal of Medical Ethics 25,

259Y262.

London, L. (2002). Ethical oversight of public health research: Can rules and IRBs make a

difference in developing countries? American Journal of Public Health 92(7), 1079Y1084.

Loue, S. (1995). Legal and Ethical aspects of HIV-Related Research. New York and

London: Plenum.

Macklin, R. (2002). Unresolved issues in social science research, In F. Lolas and L.

Algar (Eds.), Interfaces Between Bioethics and the Empirical Social Sciences, Buenos

Aires: WHO/PAHO, pp. 76Y78.

May, J. (1998). Poverty and Inequality in South Africa: Report prepared for the Office of

the Executive Deputy President and the Inter-ministerial Committee for Poverty and

Inequality. Durban: Praxis.

Mitchell, T. and Fletcher, I. (1998). Stating the case for nursing research ethics

committees: A discussion paper, Nurse Education Today 18, 133Y137.

Nicolaides, M. (1995). An Evaluation of Clinical Research Ethics Committees in South

Africa. Master_s Dissertation, Pretoria College of Pharmacy of the Faculty of Medicine

of the University of Pretoria.

Nuffield Council on Bioethics (2005). The Ethics of Research Related to Healthcare in

Developing Countries. Available at: http://www.nuffieldbioethics.org/developingcountries.

Office of the Reconstruction and Development Programme, Republic of South Africa

(1996). Children, Poverty and Disparity Reduction: Towards Fulfilling the Rights of

South African Children. Pretoria: Office of the President.

Oral History Association (2003). Oral History Excluded from IRB Review. Available at:

http://omega.dickinson.edu/organizations/oha/org_irb.html.

Ramcharan, P. and Cutcliffe, J. R. (2001). Judging the ethics of qualitative research:

Considering the FEthics as Process_ model, Health and Social Care in the Community

9(6), 358Y366.

Savulescu, J. Chalmers, I., and Blunt, J. (1996). Are research ethics committees behaving

unethically? Some suggestions for improving performance and accountability, British

Medical Journal 313, 1390Y1393.

Singer, M. (2003). Perspectives on Inequalities between Researchers and Research

Participants, Paper presented at the First Annual Yale International AIDS Summer

Institute. The Ethics of International AIDS Research: Contemporary Practices and

Controversies. June 22Y27.

South African Medical Research Council (2001). Report, South African Journal of

Science 97, 457 (Nov./Dec.).




Statistics South Africa (2000). Measuring Poverty in South Africa. Pretoria: Statistics

South Africa.

Strydom, H. (2002). Ethical aspects of research in the social sciences and human service

professions, In A. S. de Vos (Ed.), Research at Grass Roots: For the Social Sciences

and Human Service Professions, 2nd Edition. Pretoria: Van Schaik, pp. 62Y91.

Tuomi, S. (1994). Speech-pathology in South Africa: A profession in transition, American

Journal of Speech-Language Pathology: A Journal of Clinical Practice 3(2), 5Y8.

United Nations Development Programme (1998). UNDP Poverty Report, 1998:

Overcoming Human Poverty. New York: United Nations Development Programme.

University of Pretoria (2003). Inspiring the Innovation Generation: 2002Y2005 Strategic

Plan. Available at: http://www.up.ac.za/beta/research/eng/ethics.html.

van den Hoonaard, W. C. (2001). Is research ethics review a moral panic? Canadian

Review of Sociology and Anthropology 38(1), 19Y34.

Van Niekerk, A. A. (2001). Moral and social complexities of AIDS in Africa, Journal of

Medicine and Philosophy 27(2), 143Y162.

Whiteford, A. Posel, D., and Kelatwang, T. (1995). A Profile of Poverty, Inequality and

Human Development. Pretoria: Human Sciences Research Council.

Williams, A. (1997). Pitfalls on the road to ethical approval, Nurse Researcher 5(1),

15Y22.

World Bank (1995). Report to the Ministry in the Office of the President: Reconstruction

and Development Programme. Key Indicators of Poverty in South Africa. Cape Town.

BRENDA LOUW

Department of Communication Pathology,

University of Pretoria,

0002 Pretoria, South Africa

E-mail: [email protected]

RINA DELPORT

Department of Social Work and Criminology,

University of Pretoria,

0002 Pretoria, South Africa

E-mail: [email protected]


http://www.up.ac.za/beta/research/eng/ethics.html

brenda louw and rina delport · 2017-08-28 · brenda louw and rina delport contextual challenges...

Documents