Sage Journals: Discover world-class research

Abstract

The imperative to conduct research ethically has been firmly established. Biomedical and applied research in the Global North has dominated the development of an ethical framework based on four broad principles: respect for autonomy, non-maleficence, beneficence and justice. The prevailing research ethics can become significant constraints to political scientists focussing on non-democratic settings. The appropriateness of these codes in guiding political scientists’ research, especially in authoritarian contexts of Central Asia, is examined. The article outlines the need for a more culturally and contextually nuanced approach to research ethics and an understanding of the discipline-specific ethical dilemmas for researchers within political science.

Keywords

research ethics Central Asia autocracies political science

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Ahram

Goode

(2016) Researching Authoritarianism in the Discipline of Democracy. Social Science Quarterly 97 (4): 834–847.

Allemann

Dudeck

(2017) Sharing Oral History with Arctic Indigenous Communities: Ethical Implications of Bringing Back Research Results. Qualitative Inquiry 25 (9–10): 890–906.

Altbach

(2001) Academic Freedom: International Realities and Challenges. Higher Education 41: 205–219.

American Political Science Association (APSA) (2020) Principles and Guidance for Human Subjects Research, 4 April. Available at: https://www.apsanet.org/Portals/54/diversity%20and%20inclusion%20prgms/Ethics/Final_Principles%20with%20Guidance%20with%20intro.pdf?ver=2020-04-20-211740-153

Anderson

(1999) Kyrgyzstan: Central Asia’s Island of Democracy? Amsterdam: Harwood Academic Press.

Bernhard

O’Neill

(2019) Issues in Qualitative Research. Perspectives on Politics 17 (1): 1–3.

Brannan

Esler

Strindberg

NTA

(2001) Talking to ‘Terrorists’: Towards an Independent Analytical Framework for the Study of Violent Substate Activism. Studies in Conflict & Terrorism 24 (1): 3–24.

Bryman

(2012) Social Research Methods, 4th edn. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Casula

(2021) Centralizing Cohesion Policy in Times of Austerity: Evidence from the Policy Cycle. Policy Studies 42 (4): 397–414.

10.

Clark

Cavatorta

(2018) Political Science Research in the Middle East and North Africa: Methodological and Ethical Challenges. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

11.

Collier

(1998) Comparative Method in the 1990s. APSA – Comparative Politics 9 (1): 1–5.

12.

Connor

Copland

Owen

(2018) The Infantilized Researcher and Research Subject: Ethics, Consent and Risk. Qualitative Research 18 (4): 400–415.

13.

Costa Buranelli

(2021) The Pervasive Nature of Power in Central Asia. Problems of Post-Communism 68 (2): 92–103.

14.

Data Access and Research Transparency (2012) 2012 DA-RT Ethics Guide Changes. Available at: https://www.dartstatement.org/2012-apsa-ethics-guide-changes

15.

Economist Intelligence Unit (2021a) Democracy Index 2020: In Sickness and in Health? Economist Intelligence Unit, London.

16.

Economist Intelligence Unit (2021b) Kazakhstan Economist Intelligence Briefing, 21 July. Available at: https://country.eiu.com/kazakhstan

17.

Elman

Kapiszewski

Lupia

(2018) Transparent Social Inquiry: Implications for Political Science. Annual Review of Political Science 21: 29–47.

18.

Emmons

Moravcsik

(2020) Graduate Qualitative Methods Training in Political Science: A Disciplinary Crisis. PS: Political Science & Politics 53 (2): 258–264.

19.

Eurasianet (2014) Authorities Detain Tajik researcher, whereabouts uncertain. Eurasianet, 17 June. Available at: https://eurasianet.org/authorities-detain-tajik-researcher-whereabouts-uncertain

20.

Eyler

Jeste

(2006) Enhancing the Informed Consent Process: A Conceptual Overview. Behavioral Sciences & the Law 24 (4): 553–568.

21.

Freedom House (2021) The Global Decline in Democracy Has Accelerated. Available at: https://freedomhouse.org/article/new-report-global-decline-democracy-has-accelerated

22.

Freedom House (n.d.) Countries and Territories, Democracy Scores. Available at: https://freedomhouse.org/countries/nations-transit/scores

23.

Fujii

(2012) Research Ethics 101: Dilemmas and Responsibilities. PS: Political Science & Politics 45 (4): 717–723.

24.

Gazeta.Ru. (2015) Uzbekistan takes another step towards Babaization. Available at: https://gazeta.ru/science/2015/09/02_a_7733699.shtml

25.

Gerschewski

(2013) The Three Pillars of Stability: Legitimation, Repression, and Co-optation in Autocratic Regimes. Democratization 20 (1): 13–38.

26.

Glasius

De Lange

Bartman

, et al. (2018) Research Ethics and Risk in the Authoritarian Field. London: Palgrave Macmillan.

27.

Gorman

(2018) George Catlin, the Science of Politics, and Anglo-American Union. Modern Intellectual History 15 (1): 123–152.

28.

Gottlieb

Chen

Scaife

(2020) European Data Protection Supervisor Issues Opinion on Conducting Research Involving European Personal Data. Lexology, 23 January. Available at: https://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=197469ab-9ab4-493b-b88d-69cbc2643132

29.

Gross

(1992) Beginnings of Sociology of International Relations: Ethics and Academic Responsibility. Il Politico 57 (4): 693–703.

30.

Guishard

Halkovic

Galletta

, et al. (2018) Toward Epistemological Ethics: Centering Communities and Social Justice in Qualitative Research. Forum Qualitative Sozialforschung/Forum: Qualitative Social Research 19 (3): 1–24.

31.

Hauck

(2008) Protecting Human Research Participants, IRBs, and Political Science Redux: Editor’s Introduction. PS: Political Science & Politics 41 (3): 475–476.

32.

Hurley

(2021) Institutional Review Board: Management and Function. Burlington, MA: Jones & Bartlett Learning.

33.

Huskey

Dzhuraev

Botoeva

, et al. (2021) Ten Years Gone: The Legacy of the 2010 Revolution and Ethnic Violence in Kyrgyzstan: A Roundtable. Washington, DC: The Oxus Society for Central Asian Affairs.

34.

Israel

(2015) Research Ethics and Integrity for Social Scientists: Beyond Regulatory Compliance, 2nd edn. London: SAGE Publishing.

35.

Israel

Hay

(2006) Research Ethics for Social Scientists. London: SAGE Publishing.

36.

Jacobs

Büthe

Arjona

, et al. (2021) The Qualitative Transparency Deliberations: Insights and Implications. Perspectives on Politics 19 (1): 171–208.

37.

Janenova

(2019) The Boundaries of Research in an Authoritarian State. International Journal of Qualitative Methods 18: 1–8.

38.

Jordan

Hill

(2012) Ethical Assurance Statements in Political Science Journals. Journal of Academic Ethics 10 (3): 243–250.

39.

Josephson

Smale

(2021) What Do You Mean by ‘Informed Consent’? Ethics in Economic Development Research. Applied Economic Perspectives and Policy 43 (4): 1305–1329.

40.

Kara

(2018) Research Ethics in the Real World: Euro-Western and Indigenous Perspectives. Bristol: Policy Press.

41.

Köllner

Kailitz

(2013) Comparing Autocracies: Theoretical Issues and Empirical Analyses. Democratization 20 (1): 1–12.

42.

Laas

Davis

Hildt

(2022) Codes of Ethics and Ethical Guidelines: Emerging Technologies, Changing Fields. New York: Springer.

43.

Law of the Republic of Uzbekistan on Innovative Activity (2020) (Articles 1-39). Available at: https://lex.uz/docs/5155423

44.

Lewis

(2021) Varieties of Authoritarianism in Central Asia. In: Isaacs

Marat

(eds) Routledge Handbook of Contemporary Central Asia. London: Routledge, pp.76–87.

45.

McGuire

Cisneros

(2020) Against Unseeing: Choosing an Embodied Ethics of Disidentification and Spiritual Grounding. Qualitative Inquiry 26 (8–9): 1079–1089.

46.

MacLean

Elliot

, et al. (2019) Research Ethics and Human Subjects: A Reflexive Openness Approach. SSRN Electronic Journal. Available at: http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3332887

47.

McNaught

(2007) Individual and Institutional Responses to Staff Plagiarism. In: Quigley

(ed.) Encyclopedia of Information Ethics and Security. Hershey, PA: IGI Global, pp.342–347.

48.

Martelli

(2016) In Memory of Giulio Regeni – In Memoria Di Giulio Regeni. LSE European Politics and Policy (EUROPP) Blog, 6 February. Available at: https://blogs.lse.ac.uk/europpblog/2016/02/06/in-memory-of-giulio-regeni-in-memoria-di-giulio-regeni/

49.

Mazzocchi

(2006) Western Science and Traditional Knowledge: Despite Their Variations, Different Forms of Knowledge Can Learn from Each Other. EMBO Reports 7 (5): 463–466.

50.

Mealy

(2022) APSA Council Approves Revised Edition of Guide to Professional Ethics in Political Science. Political Science Today 2 (2): 28.

51.

Ministry of Higher and Secondary Specialized Education in Uzbekistan (2020) Concept of Higher Education. Available at: https://www.edu.uz/en

52.

Morrison

Silke

Bont

(2021) The Development of the Framework for Research Ethics in Terrorism Studies (FRETS). Terrorism and Political Violence 33 (2): 271–289.

53.

National Commission for the Protection of Human Subjects of Biomedical and Behavioral Research (1978) The Belmont Report: Ethical Principles and Guidelines for the Protection of Human Subjects of Research. Publication No. (OS) 78-0014. Washington, DC: Department of Health, Education, and Welfare.

54.

National Research Council (2014) Proposed Revisions to the Common Rule for the Protection of Human Subjects in the Behavioral and Social Sciences. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.

55.

Pandey

(2014) Objectivity in Social Sciences. SSRN Electronic Journal. Available at: http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2399299

56.

Pease

(2018) Social Scientists’ Conceptualization and Implementation of Research Ethics and Integrity. Doctoral Dissertation, Loyola University Chicago. Available at: https://ecommons.luc.edu/luc_diss/2836

57.

Penslar

(1993) Protecting Human Research Subjects: Institutional Review Board Guidebook. Office for Protection from Research Risks, Office of Extramural Research, National Institutes of Health, Public Health Service, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Bethesda, MD.

58.

Pew Research Center (2015) Religious Composition by Country, 2010-2050, 2 April. Available at: https://www.pewresearch.org/religion/2015/04/02/religious-projection-table/

59.

Rambukkana

(2019) The Politics of Gray Data: Digital Methods, Intimate Proximity, and Research Ethics for Work on the ‘Alt-Right’. Qualitative Inquiry 25 (3): 312–323.

60.

Roberts

(2018) What Is Political Methodology? PS: Political Science & Politics 51 (3): 597–601.

61.

Schrag

(2010) Ethical Imperialism: Institutional Review Boards and the Social Sciences, 1965–2009. Baltimore, MD: John Hopkins University Press.

62.

State Institution “National Legal Information Center “Adolat” under the Ministry of Justice of the Republic of Uzbekistan (2019) Decree of the Preseident of the Republikc of Uzbekistan, 29 January, 2019, P. 4139. Available at: lex.uz/ru/docs/4182355

63.

Stoker

(2012) In Defence of Political Science. Political Quarterly 83 (4): 677–684.

64.

Thaler

(2021) Reflexivity and Temporality in Researching Violent Settings: Problems with the Replicability and Transparency Regime. Geopolitics 26 (1): 18–44.

65.

Tolich

(Ed.) (2016) Qualitative Ethics in Practice. Walnut Creek, CA: Left Coast Press.

66.

Trachtenberg

(2015) Transparency in Practice: Using Written Sources. Qualitative and Multi-Method Research: Newsletter of the American Political Science Association’s QMMR Section 13 (1): 13–17.

67.

Tripp

(2018) Transparency and Integrity in Conducting Field Research on Politics in Challenging Contexts. Perspectives on Politics 16 (3): 728–738.

68.

Tutumlu

Rustemov

(2021) The Paradox of Authoritarian Power: Bureaucratic Games and Information Asymmetry. The Case of Nazarbayev’s Kazakhstan. Problems of Post-Communism 68 (2): 124–134.

69.

U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Office for Human Research Protections (2020) Federal Policy for the Protection of Human Subjects (‘Common Rule’). Available at: https://www.hhs.gov/ohrp/regulations-and-policy/regulations/common-rule/index.html

70.

Wackenhut

(2018) Ethical Considerations and Dilemmas Before, during and after Fieldwork in Less-Democratic Contexts: Some Reflections from Post-uprising Egypt. The American Sociologist 49 (2): 242–257.

71.

Whitsel

Merrill

(2021) Towards Building a Culturally Informed Consent Process in Central Asia. Central Asian Survey 40 (3): 351–367.

72.

Yanow

Schwartz-Shea

(2018) Framing ‘Deception’ and ‘Covertness’ in Research: Do Milgram, Humphreys, and Zimbardo Justify Regulating Social Science Research Ethics? Research Ethics in Qualitative Research 19 (3): 15.

Challenges for Political Science Research Ethics in Autocracies: A Case Study of Central Asia

Abstract

Keywords

Get full access to this article

References