The ‘over-researched community’: An ethics analysis of stakeholder views at two South African HIV prevention research sites

The ‘over-researched community’: An ethics analysis of stakeholder views at two South African... Health research in resource-limited, multi-cultural contexts raises complex ethical concerns. The term ‘over-researched community’ (ORC) has been raised as an ethical concern and potential barrier to community participation in research. However, the term lacks conceptual clarity and is absent from established ethics guidelines and academic literature. In light of the concern being raised in relation to research in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs), a critical and empirical exploration of the meaning of ORC was undertaken.Guided by Emanuel et al.’s (2004) eight principles for ethically sound research in LMICs, this study examines the relevance and meaning of the terms ‘over-research’ and ‘over-researched community’ through an analysis of key stakeholder perspectives at two South African research sites. Data were collected between August 2007 and October 2008.‘Over-research’ was found to represent a conglomeration of ethical concerns often used as a proxy for standard research ethics concepts. ‘Over-research’ seemed fundamentally linked to disparate positions and perspectives between different stakeholders in the research interaction, arising from challenges in inter-stakeholder relationships. ‘Over-research’ might be interpreted to mean exploitation. However, exploitation itself could mean different things. Using the term may lead to obscured understanding of real or perceived ethical concerns, making it difficult to identify and address the underlying concerns. It is recommended that the term be carefully and critically interrogated for clarity when used in research ethics discourse. Because it represents other legitimate concerns, it should not be dismissed without careful exploration. http://www.deepdyve.com/assets/images/DeepDyve-Logo-lg.png Social Science & Medicine Elsevier

The ‘over-researched community’: An ethics analysis of stakeholder views at two South African HIV prevention research sites

Loading next page...
 
/lp/elsevier/the-over-researched-community-an-ethics-analysis-of-stakeholder-views-BGJrG67GZj
Publisher
Elsevier
Copyright
Copyright © 2017 Elsevier Ltd
ISSN
0277-9536
D.O.I.
10.1016/j.socscimed.2017.10.005
Publisher site
See Article on Publisher Site

Abstract

Health research in resource-limited, multi-cultural contexts raises complex ethical concerns. The term ‘over-researched community’ (ORC) has been raised as an ethical concern and potential barrier to community participation in research. However, the term lacks conceptual clarity and is absent from established ethics guidelines and academic literature. In light of the concern being raised in relation to research in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs), a critical and empirical exploration of the meaning of ORC was undertaken.Guided by Emanuel et al.’s (2004) eight principles for ethically sound research in LMICs, this study examines the relevance and meaning of the terms ‘over-research’ and ‘over-researched community’ through an analysis of key stakeholder perspectives at two South African research sites. Data were collected between August 2007 and October 2008.‘Over-research’ was found to represent a conglomeration of ethical concerns often used as a proxy for standard research ethics concepts. ‘Over-research’ seemed fundamentally linked to disparate positions and perspectives between different stakeholders in the research interaction, arising from challenges in inter-stakeholder relationships. ‘Over-research’ might be interpreted to mean exploitation. However, exploitation itself could mean different things. Using the term may lead to obscured understanding of real or perceived ethical concerns, making it difficult to identify and address the underlying concerns. It is recommended that the term be carefully and critically interrogated for clarity when used in research ethics discourse. Because it represents other legitimate concerns, it should not be dismissed without careful exploration.

Journal

Social Science & MedicineElsevier

Published: Dec 1, 2017

References

You’re reading a free preview. Subscribe to read the entire article.


DeepDyve is your
personal research library

It’s your single place to instantly
discover and read the research
that matters to you.

Enjoy affordable access to
over 12 million articles from more than
10,000 peer-reviewed journals.

All for just $49/month

Explore the DeepDyve Library

Unlimited reading

Read as many articles as you need. Full articles with original layout, charts and figures. Read online, from anywhere.

Stay up to date

Keep up with your field with Personalized Recommendations and Follow Journals to get automatic updates.

Organize your research

It’s easy to organize your research with our built-in tools.

Your journals are on DeepDyve

Read from thousands of the leading scholarly journals from SpringerNature, Elsevier, Wiley-Blackwell, Oxford University Press and more.

All the latest content is available, no embargo periods.

See the journals in your area

Monthly Plan

  • Read unlimited articles
  • Personalized recommendations
  • No expiration
  • Print 20 pages per month
  • 20% off on PDF purchases
  • Organize your research
  • Get updates on your journals and topic searches

$49/month

Start Free Trial

14-day Free Trial

Best Deal — 39% off

Annual Plan

  • All the features of the Professional Plan, but for 39% off!
  • Billed annually
  • No expiration
  • For the normal price of 10 articles elsewhere, you get one full year of unlimited access to articles.

$588

$360/year

billed annually
Start Free Trial

14-day Free Trial