HIV AIDS Vaccines Ethics Group, Discipline of Psychology, School of Applied Human Sciences, University of KwaZulu-Natal, Private Bag X01 Scottsville, Pietermaritzburg, 3209, South Africa.
South African Research Ethics Training Initiative, School of Applied Human Sciences, University of KwaZulu-Natal, Private Bag X01 Scottsville, Pietermaritzburg, 3209 South Africa.
Soc Sci Med. 2017 Dec;194:1-9. doi: 10.1016/j.socscimed.2017.10.005. Epub 2017 Oct 7.
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.
在资源有限、多元文化的背景下进行健康研究引发了复杂的伦理问题。“过度研究社区”(ORC)一词被提出来作为一个伦理问题,并可能成为社区参与研究的障碍。然而,该术语缺乏概念上的清晰度,并且在既定的伦理准则和学术文献中都没有出现。鉴于在中低收入国家(LMICs)的研究中提出了这一问题,对 ORC 的含义进行了批判性和实证性的探索。本研究以 Emanuel 等人(2004 年)提出的在 LMICs 中进行伦理研究的八项原则为指导,通过分析两个南非研究地点的主要利益相关者的观点,考察了“过度研究”和“过度研究社区”这两个术语的相关性和含义。数据收集于 2007 年 8 月至 2008 年 10 月。研究发现,“过度研究”代表了一组经常被用作标准研究伦理概念代理的伦理问题。“过度研究”似乎从根本上与研究互动中不同利益相关者之间的不同立场和观点有关,这些立场和观点源于利益相关者关系中的挑战。“过度研究”可能被解释为剥削。然而,剥削本身可能意味着不同的事情。使用该术语可能会导致对实际或感知到的伦理问题的理解模糊,从而难以识别和解决潜在的问题。建议在研究伦理话语中使用该术语时,应仔细、批判性地进行澄清。因为它代表了其他合理的关注,所以在没有仔细探讨的情况下不应将其摒弃。