How many research demands and ethics conflict

The National Archives play an important role here. Researchers are responsible for ensuring that participants are not exposed to serious physical harm or other severe or unreasonable strain as result of the research. In humanities and social science research, there is usually little risk of participants being exposed to serious physical harm. However, serious mental strain is a possibility. This may be more difficult to define and predict, and it can be difficult to assess the long-term effects, if any.

Researchers nevertheless have responsibility for participants not being subjected to serious or unreasonable pain or stress. The risk of causing minor strain must be balanced against both the benifit of the research for society and the value for the participants.

Researchers must justify such benifit and value as specifically as possible, also to the parties involved through information retrospectively. Researchers should also ensure that individuals involved are offered professional follow-up in order to process any problems that have arisen as a result of participation in the project.

Researchers should consider and anticipate effects on third parties that are not directly included in the research. Interviews, archival studies and observations often result in the researcher gaining access to information about far more individuals than those who are the focus of the study.

The research may have an impact on the privacy and close relationships of individuals who are not included in the research, but who are drawn in as parties closely related to the participants. In some cases, for example when a researcher observes groups and communities, it can be difficult to protect the privacy of individuals who have not given consent directly, or who have actively declined, but who nevertheless remain in the situation.

Researchers have a responsibility nonetheless to protect the privacy of those individuals who are directly or indirectly affected by the research project. Studies can be conducted in small and transparent communities, and the protection of third parties is especially important in such circumstances.

Researchers should take account of the possible negative consequences for third parties. This is particularly important when vulnerable individuals, like children and minors, are indirectly involved in the research. In a society in which research results are used to assess and adjust decisions, it can be very difficult to prevent research from having negative consequences for groups and institutions. Researchers should be aware of potential unintended consequences of their research, for example that other members of a group feel unreasonably exposed.

The consideration of strain on the part of third parties should be weighed against the consideration of the critical function of the research and the pursuit of truth. Children and adolescents who take part in research are particularly entitled to protection. Research on children and their lives and living conditions is valuable and important. Children and adolescents are key contributors to this research. Their specific needs and interests must be protected in ways supplementary to the general treatment of adult subjects.

Children are developing individuals, and they have different needs and abilities at various phases. Researchers must know enough about children to be able to adapt both their methods and the direction of their research to the ages of the participants. Age-specific information must be provided about the project and the consequences of the research, and they must be informed that participation is voluntary and that they may withdraw from the study at any time.

Consent is more problematic for research on children than research on adults. Children are often more willing to obey authority than adults, and they often feel that they cannot object. Nor are they always able to see the consequences of participating in research. In general, minors who have turned 15 can consent to researchers collecting and using their personal data. If a child is under the age of 15, researchers must usually obtain consent from their parents or guardians.

An exception is made for sensitive personal data, which can only be acquired with the consent of the parents. In such cases, authorisation from the Data Protection Authority or a recommendation from a data protection officer is also required. At the same time, it is important to treat minors as independent individuals. According to the Children Act, a child who has reached seven years of age, or younger children who are able to form their own opinions on a matter, must be provided with information and the opportunity to express their opinions.

When a child has reached twelve years of age, a great deal of weight must be attached to his or her opinions. In addition to the parents or guardians giving formal consent, it is necessary that the children themselves accept participation to the extent that they are able to do so. There may also be conflicts of interest between children and their parents or guardians. In that event, it is important to clarify the child's capacity to grant consent on their own behalf. In some cases, it may be right to let children and adolescents take part in the research without the consent of their parents.

The requirement of confidentiality particularly applies when children take part in research. However, situations can arise in which researchers are either legally or ethically required to provide confidential information, whether it be to the child's next-of-kin, adult helpers or the child welfare service.

The obligation to notify applies, for example, if researchers learn that children are subject to abuse, assault or neglect see point 9. Researchers must respect individuals' privacy and family life. Participants are entitled to check whether confidential information about them is made available to others. Respect for privacy aims at protecting individuals against unwanted interference and exposure.

This applies not only to emotional issues, but also to questions that involve sickness and health, political and religious opinions, and sexuality. Researchers should be especially attentive when they ask questions regarding intimate matters and they should avoid putting pressure on participants. What participants perceive as sensitive information may vary from one individual or group to the next. It can be difficult to distinguish between the private and the public sphere, for example when conducting research on and via the internet.

When using material from such interactions, researchers must be duly aware of the fact that people's understanding of what is private and what is public in such media may vary. Researchers must not ascribe irrational or unworthy motives to participants without providing convincing documentation and justification. Researchers must show respect for the values and views of research participants, not least when they differ from those generally accepted by society at large.

Research is often concerned with the behaviour and values of minorities, e. Some persons may find this research to be intrusive or offensive. Researchers must take seriously the participants' understanding of themselves and avoid representations that diminish their legitimate rights.

In many research projects in the humanities and social sciences, where actions are often used in explanations, the participants' motives often play a key role.

There is frequently uncertainty associated with exploration of motives, not least when it comes to research on other cultures or historical periods. A clear distinction should therefore be drawn between description and interpretation, or between documentation of actual courses of events and different interpretations of such events. At the same time, the participants' motives are often directly associated with their social roles.

Stronger evidence is required to ascribe more unusual motives to participants. Special documentation and argumentation are required for providing accounts of actions that ascribe unworthy motives to participants or motives other than those they invoke themselves. Respect, documentation and accountability are also required when conducting research on deceased persons.

Out of respect for the deceased and their beraved, researchers should choose their words with care. Archives and documents left behind by deceased persons may also contain sensitive personal data, and researchers must handle information about deceased persons and their descendants with care and respect. Research on graves and human remains must be conducted with respect by the researchers.

Researchers are responsible for explaining to the participants the limitations, expectations and requirements associated with their role as researchers. In situations where researchers relate to participants in a variety of capacities, they are responsible for defining the limits of their role and responsibility as a researcher. Examples are a combination of the roles of researcher and therapist when evaluating possible courses of treatment or the roles of researcher and teacher in a teaching situation.

Participant observation in fieldwork may also lead researchers to establish friendships and close relationships with some participants or students. Parallel roles may serve a valuable purpose in research, but the use of information obtained by virtue of such parallel roles also requires a free and informed consent if used for research purposes.

Researchers must respect the legitimate reasons that private companies, interest organisations etc. It may be of great interest to the general public to learn about how private companies and interest organisations operate in society.

Companies and organisations are under no legal obligation to provide information except where specific statutory provisions apply to certain types of information. Such institutions should nonetheless make their archives available for research. If they deny access, this must be respected. Researchers who choose to undertake research on organisations that are opposed to the research are subject to particular requirements regarding meticulous documentation and use of methods.

Situations may arise where researchers have reason to suspect abuse or serious violations of the law. It may still be ethically acceptable to continue the research providing that the abuse cannot be exposed or documented in any other way.

Public bodies should make themselves available for research into their activities. People have a legitimate interest in how social institutions function. This implies that researchers must have the greatest possible access to public administration and bodies. It should be possible to research public archives. Access may be restricted, with reference to privacy, overriding national interests, or national security.

Researchers have a special responsibility to respect the interests of vulnerable groups throughout the entire research process.

Vulnerable and disadvantaged individuals and groups are not always equipped to defend their interests when dealing with researchers. Accordingly, researchers cannot take for granted that ordinary procedures for eliciting information and consent will ensure individuals' self-determination or protect them from unreasonable strain. Individuals who belong to disadvantaged groups may not want to be the subjects of research for fear of being viewed by the general public in an unfavourable light.

In such cases, researchers must place particular emphasis on the requirements regarding information and consent. On the other hand, society has a legitimate interest for example in surveying living conditions, measuring the effectiveness of social welfare schemes, or charting the paths in and out of destructive and anti-social behaviour.

Protecting a vulnerable group is occasionally counter-productive. In reality, such efforts may serve to protect society at large from gaining insight into processes that lead to discrimination and rejection. Researchers must respect the need to preserve all types of cultural monuments and remains. The need for preservation of sites, monuments, artefacts, texts, archives, remains and information about the past is based on the interest of present and future generations in learning about their own history and culture and that of others.

Human remains dating back to before the Reformation and Sami remains that are more than years old are automatically protected under the Cultural Heritage Act. With a few exceptions, other remains from the post-Reformation period do not receive this protection. Remains from post may also be of great interest to research.

Consequently, more recent remains from archaeological excavations should also be protected to provide source material for future generations. Perspectives and research interests vary from one generation to the next. This means that also information about our own times should be preserved, so that it is possible for future generations to conduct research on it.

Research that destroys source material raises special ethical considerations. The utility value must be balanced against how much the research destroys or changes the material. We must conduct research in a way that allows future generations of researchers to learn what they consider to be important. Researchers and research institutions must not be involved in looting, theft or dubious trade in protected artefacts.

Respect for the provenance of the research material requires particular attention. Research on material whose provenance is disputed should be avoided. When conducting research on such material, research institutions and professionals have a particular responsibility for transparency regarding provenance. A particular requirement of research on other cultures is that there ought to be dialogue with representatives of the culture being studied.

When conducting research on other cultures, it is important to have knowledge of local traditions, traditional knowledge and social matters.

As far as possible, researchers should enter into a dialogue with the local inhabitants, representatives of the culture in question and the local authorities. This places great demands on the initiation, planning and execution of research projects.

Similar considerations also apply to historical research where time has passed since the events in question. Researchers should avoid devaluating people from past cultures and historical periods.

Here, as under other circumstances, researchers in the humanities and social sciences must make a clear distinction between documentation and evaluation. Researchers must strike a balance between recognising cultural differences and recognising other fundamental values and general human rights.

Respect for and loyalty to the cultures in which the research is being conducted do not mean that aspects such as discrimination and culturally motivated abuse must be accepted. When undertaking a normative analysis of such situations, the researcher must make a clear distinction between a description of norms and practices in the culture being studied and the normative discussions of these factors related to specific values.

The researcher must be especially cautious when researching phenomena like culturally motivated violation of life and health or breaches of other human rights. Researchers must observe good publication practice, respect the contributions of other researchers, and observe recognised standards of authorship and cooperation. Academic publishing is critical for ensuring that research is open and accountable.

At the same time, publishing raises different ethical challenges and dilemmas. The research community is characterised by strong competition and great pressure to publish, which often puts pressure on recognised norms of research ethics.

For example, the norm of originality may easily conflict with the norm of humility, and differences in authority and power may easily come into conflict with integrity and impartiality. Co-authorship is also linked to the distribution of responsibilities among different contributors. In principle, four criteria define rightful authorship. It is common practice in the humanities and social sciences to require that co-authors have actually helped write and complete the manuscript.

In other words, it is not enough to have contributed to the intellectual work with the article in a broad sense, for example a combination of data acquisition, critical revision and approval of the end product. Other contributors must be credited or thanked in footnotes or a closing note Acknowledgements. All forms of honorary authorship are unacceptable. Authorship must be limited to persons who have provided significant intellectual input to the research.

General guidance, provision of funding or data acquisition do not in themselves qualify for co-authorship. An agreement must be made as early as possible in the research process, not least in large and interdisciplinary research projects, as to who will be listed as the co-authors of a publication, and how responsibilities and tasks are to be distributed among the authors.

All researchers and students are obliged to follow good citation practice. This is a prerequisite for critical examination and important for enabling further research. Researchers and students are under an obligation to provide accurate references to the literature they use, whether this is primary or secondary literature. The mere presence of an institutional senior administrator at REB meetings may undermine the independence of the REB by unduly influencing REB deliberations and decisions.

In the discharge of their interdependent roles and duties to participants, effective communications processes should be established between REBs and the relevant officers of institutions. Reasonable compensation by institutions for work done by REB members is appropriate. However, in some instances, individual members of the REB may have a conflict of interest in accepting undue or excessive honoraria for their participation in the REB.

Institutions should define appropriate levels of compensation. Researchers shall disclose in research proposals they submit to the REB any real, potential or perceived individual conflicts of interest, as well as any institutional conflicts of interest of which they are aware that may have an impact on their research. Upon discussion with the researcher, the REB shall determine the appropriate steps to manage the conflict of interest. Managing conflict of interest is a process that begins with identification and is followed by disclosure.

Upon disclosure of a conflict by a researcher to the REB, the steps taken by the REB to manage the conflict should be context-based and commensurate with the risks. In some cases, the REB might conclude that the identified conflict of interest does not warrant further action.

The REB should require, consistent with Article 3. When disclosure to the REB is not enough to manage the conflict of interest, the REB, guided by established institutional policies, may require that the researcher withdraw from the research, or that others on the research team, who are not in conflict of interest, make research-related decisions.

Where appropriate, disclosure to the sponsor, the institution and any relevant professional body may also be necessary. In exceptional cases, the REB has the discretion to refuse approval of a research project where the REB decides that the conflict of interest has not been avoided or cannot be appropriately managed.

If there is a need for a researcher with a conflict of interest in a research project to be involved in some aspect of the project, the extent of the involvement should be reviewed and explicitly endorsed by the REB in its minutes. In line with the proportionate approach to REB review, and through the continued research ethics review process, REBs may impose additional control mechanisms if necessary.

Dual roles of researchers and their associated obligations e. Article 3. To preserve and not abuse the trust on which many professional relationships rest, researchers should be fully cognizant of conflicts of interest that may arise from their dual or multiple roles, their rights and responsibilities, and how they can manage the conflict. When acting in dual or multiple roles, the researcher shall disclose the nature of the conflict to the participant in the consent process.

Real, potential or perceived financial conflicts of interest may affect any type of research. Researchers and REBs should be aware of, and consider, the possibility of financial conflicts of interest. They should seek to ensure that financial considerations do not serve to diminish respect for the principles of this Policy or the scientific validity and transparency of research procedures.

When researchers partner with organizations whose primary motive is profit, they must be aware of the potential for conflicts of interest.

Consideration for the profitability of the research may threaten the ethical integrity of research design and conduct.

Not all research sponsored by for-profit organizations gives rise to financial conflicts of interest. Third, lack of infrastructure and human resources, as well as the presence of violence, can limit both access to populations over time and the ability to conduct research. As a consequence, conventional research methodologies when applied to conflict settings without due adaptation may compromise the quality of the eventual results. For example, recent Iraq mortality surveys have been heavily criticized on the basis that sampling methods assumed homogenous distributions of violence and static makeup of households, which are uncharacteristic of conflict settings [ 3 , 4 ].

As a consequence, study results are similarly compromised in their ability to inform and impact policy. Finally, international governmental and non-governmental organizations may face political pressure and barriers to research.

In particular, the dissemination of sensitive findings might culminate in expulsion of organisations from conflict areas or penalisation of individuals or both. An example is given by the imprisonment in of a representative of a humanitarian organisation for the publication of data exposing the extent of sexual violence in Darfur [ 5 ]. Despite these issues, there is a clear justification and necessity to conduct research in conflict zones in order to improve knowledge of specific health interventions and their outcomes and bring to light the plight of populations caught in conflict.

Not striving to do so may contribute to their vulnerability and add to complacency among those who are responsible or contribute to their unfortunate plight. This paper discusses some of the main considerations for organisations and individuals engaged in research in conflict settings, and provides guidance on the main ethical principles to be applied.

There are several reasons for specifically undertaking research in conflict settings. The main ones include: reporting on the health and humanitarian consequences of conflict; investigating the feasibility and effectiveness of specific interventions; and validating models of delivery. Retrospective mortality surveys are the most common method applied in conflict settings to estimate the most important consequences of conflict on health status as indicated by standardized "death rates".

The death rates in under five and over five age groups are often used as the most important parameter to judge the necessity of emergency humanitarian action [ 6 ]. Such techniques have generated valuable information regarding the impact of a number of conflicts, including those in DRC [ 7 ], Iraq [ 8 ], Myanmar [ 9 ], Sudan [ 10 ] and Congo Brazzaville [ 11 ]. Information on the nature of trauma or surgical wounds, levels of malnutrition, and surveillance of epidemiological data allow proper needs-assessments, the need for specific nutritional interventions or specific action to control specific epidemics.

Despite the availability of proposed methodologies [ 12 ] there is considerable variance in the quality of the implementation. Given the highly-politicized nature of conflict this can lead to debate about the legitimacy of the research findings [ 13 ]. This can result in a particular mode of action or inaction on the part of the warring parties, and have consequences in terms of the application of international humanitarian and human rights law.

Testimony also plays an important part in contributing to 'historical truth' and can contribute to post-conflict reconciliation efforts [ 15 ]. Other methodologies are emerging in response to the recognition that the impact of conflict on civilian populations should not be assessed by mortality rates alone.

Mental health surveys are increasingly applied in conflict settings to estimate the consequences of violence and such survey results have been published for conflicts in a diversity of settings, including Sri Lanka [ 16 ], Sierra Leone [ 17 ], and Chechnya [ 18 ]. These surveys generally include questions on the experience of conflict, together with an assessment of general and psychosocial health. There are a number of specific challenges associated with conducting such research in conflict settings, in particular the validity of the survey tools used [ 19 ].

Certain interventions are designed to support populations caught in conflict and research cannot therefore be easily conducted anywhere else. Examples include psychosocial interventions for psychosocial trauma-mitigation [ 20 ], micronutrients to manage anaemia in malnourished populations displaced by conflict [ 21 ], and trauma surgery [ 22 ].

In other instances, a study may be undertaken on an intervention for a condition that is not specifically conflict-related, but which predominates in or is exacerbated by conflict settings. The control of human African trypanosomiasis in the Republic of Congo is one such example [ 23 ].

For some contexts, general evidence isn't enough to inform policy change and local evidence is required: the introduction of artemisinin-based combination therapy for the treatment of malaria is an example where MSF and other agencies were involved in the conduct of a numerous drug efficacy studies, including in conflict-affected areas, as a precondition to being able change drug regimens [ 24 ]. Humanitarian agencies are concerned about improving approaches to the delivery of care.

Research is particularly relevant in this area to assess the feasibility and provide a sound evidence-base for promoting new approaches. Examples include community-based therapeutic feeding for malnourished infants [ 25 ], the delivery of tuberculosis treatment in unstable settings [ 26 ], and HIV care and treatment for populations caught in conflict [ 27 ]. Epidemiological approaches have contributed to increasing accountability within the humanitarian sector, with most organisations today referring to agreed indicators outlined by such initiatives as the Sphere Project to guide their interventions [ 6 ].

Such minimum standards aim to improve the overall efficiency and effectiveness of the relief. Such indicators however cannot remain static and need to evolve dynamically over time as there might be variations in the epidemiology of disease, socio-demographic patterns and the environment where conflict occurs [ 28 ]. Traditionally, evidence-based medicine relies on the collection of quantitative data through epidemiological methodology.

More broadly, evidence is the basis for inferences and the generation and testing of hypotheses and can take many forms. Humanitarian action relies on a broad range of evidence that includes quantitative data gathered from surveys and routine programme monitoring and qualitative information gathered via questionnaires, narrative accounts, policy analysis and expert inputs [ 14 ].

The type and quality of evidence gathered should be tempered by the circumstances being described and ability and limitations in undertaking specific research. Human rights violations are difficult to capture in numbers and may better be described through a qualitative approach through for example the collection of personal witness testimony.

In terms of quantitative data collection, it should be recognized that the implementation of randomized-controlled trial designs in unstable settings is rarely feasible. In such circumstances rapid assessments may be the only feasible option for data collection. Nevertheless, provided clear methods are followed and measurements are carefully conducted, rapid approaches can still yield scientifically valid data.

Moreover, it may be the only data available that can guide assessments of immediate needs and guide the implementation of relief efforts.

While there are inherent difficulties in collecting high quality data in conflict settings, there is an obligation to ensure that the research methodology being applied is of the highest standard, whether this is via a simple qualitative survey gathering testimonies of refugees fleeing conflict or a cohort study most commonly the retrospective analysis of routinely collected data. The type of research methodology applied can influence both the scientific validity of the data collected and the requirements for ethical review.

The conditions of instability inherent to conflict settings create a number of barriers to undertaking high-quality scientific research. Basic data collection systems may be absent or poorly implemented; insecurity may limit movement and the ability to collect new data through surveys; the unpredictability of the setting may preclude study designs that require a large sample size or a long follow-up period; the displacement of populations will limit the potential for conducting prospective studies requiring return visits.

Studies that require follow-up information on patients might also prove impossible. Given such considerations, it is not surprising that most studies emanating from conflict settings are dependent on routinely collected data or rapid surveys.

There is nevertheless still scope to improve the study design, the implementation of studies and their analysis and reporting in conflict settings. The development of study protocols can be greatly improved through collaboration with groups outside the conflict setting. Literature reviews, protocol writing, and the testing and validation of questionnaires, can all be done in a stable setting with expert support.

Validated data collection and survey tools can be prepared in advance so that such studies can be rapidly implemented. The validity of simple observational studies can also be greatly improved by relatively straightforward modifications such as randomization in the sampling strategy and blinding of data analysts. One major challenge to research done by humanitarian agencies is that the study team is composed of people who are also involved in the delivery of aid.

Research rightly takes second-place to the provision of life-saving assistance, but the result is that often the research is poorly conducted or abandoned altogether. While this is understandable, it raises ethical concerns engaging research participants without completing the research and is a waste of resources. As far as possible, the initiation of research should be preceded by a feasibility analysis and resource commitment to see it through to completion.

The designation of dedicated study personnel, including people trained in research methods, should be encouraged to avoid the diversion of human resources to other activities recognizing that expansion of teams is not always possible in insecure settings.

As expatriate turnover in conflict situations is high, involving and training a core group of national collaborating researchers would facilitate continuity of the research and would constitute a resource pool for the future. The possibility of identifying a pool of responsive academics or resource persons to help support specific tasks such as protocol review or statistical analysis could also be considered.

The analysis and reporting of data requires expertise that is often not found in those involved in aid delivery. The best way to avoid disagreements over who will be mentioned in the list of authors and in which order is to discuss at the beginning of the working relationship, even if many people feel uncomfortable speaking about it. Smith [ 6 ] highlights that one can take credit only for the work carried out by the researchers themselves, or greatly contributed to their performance, and mentioning the name in the author's list should accurately reflect the above contribution.

For minor assistance during the research or preparation of the research, text for publishing should be expressed via gratitude in the introduction or in a footnote. The same rules are applied to students. If they have contributed substantially to the development of the concept, the idea development, execution, or analysis of research data and interpretation, their names should be listed.

Purely technical contributions do not give grounds for the person to be mentioned as the author. This principle has been enacted in the Republic of Lithuania Act on Copyright and Related Rights [ 17 ], the mandatory rules of which apply to any intellectual production. The legislator indicates that the person is not considered as coauthor if they rendered material, technical or organizational assistance in the development of the work.

As a result, people who provided technical assistance, consulted during the research, and preparation of research results presentation cannot lay claim to joint authorship.

It is, therefore, worthwhile to discuss these principles and clearly declare material and technical assistance providers before the start of the research. The researcher assumes the moral responsibility for the fact if cooperation conditions were presented in a proper and understandable way. MEK [ 18 ] highlights, inter alia, that the advice and comments and the provided aid technical, editing or otherwise are expressed via gratitude.

The order of names in the publication is discussed and agreed by the contributors themselves. Smith [ 6 ] proposes to understand the multiple roles, i. It is also noted that the very existence of multiple relationships is not unethical as long as there is no reason to believe that it will lead to undesirable consequences. Nevertheless, psychologists should think twice before starting multiple relationships with any persons or groups for example, hiring their students or patients to become the scientific research participants under their own direction, or while studying the shares of some company, to examine the effectiveness of its products.

For example, when recruiting first-year psychology students to become participants of the experiment, it is necessary to emphasize that participation is voluntary. If it is a compulsory component of the subject taught, it is necessary to mention it in the program and ensure that the participation should have educational value, such as providing detailed information about the research to enable students to better understand it.

Probably one of the most common multiple roles for researchers is to be a mentor, a laboratory supervisor, and teacher at the same time. Experts of ethics believe that researchers must be particularly careful and prevent abuse of power preponderance among themselves and students. In different sources special attention is paid to human dignity safety [ 8 , 18 ]. Respect for human dignity is the most important ethical principle underlying the scientific research ethics, and the purpose of which is to protect the individual's interests and the physical, psychological, and cultural integrity.

This, in turn, reflects a number of important ethical principles, which should underpin all research with human beings [ 8 ]. The scientific study, when the object is people, is based on a voluntary basis, is carried out without human dignity humiliation and respect for fundamental human rights.

The findings of such study must remain anonymous and has to be used only for research purposes [ 18 ]. This is the standard formed in the international scientific community that Smith [ 6 ] presents by recommending to follow the rules of consent based on information, i.

It is also proposed to consider the likelihood and size of benefits and damage, reminding the subjects that their participation is voluntary. In the selection of data collection methods, there may arise a number of ethical issues, for example, in studies where the secret data collection methods are essential e.

These methods should be used only in rare cases when the data cannot be obtained otherwise. Also, during any interview, the researchers must show that they understand the potentially existing power relation among them and the study participants and to take steps to overcome it [ 8 ].

Furthermore, a wise social researcher considers the needs of others carefully to try to find the right thing to do, and is not manipulative in understanding others emotionally, intellectually, or otherwise [ 20 ]. It is compulsory for scientists to respect the confidentiality and privacy, i. For example, it is inappropriate to try to get contact data of a support group attending people in order to offer them to participate in scientific research, but you can ask a colleague, who manages this group, to hand out a letter to its members with exposed information on scientific research and your contact details so that the interested ones could contact the researcher [ 6 ].

Other steps to be taken by the researchers are presented in Table 3. The scientists are recommended to use the resources of ethics. According to Smith [ 6 ], one of the best ways in which researchers can resolve ethical dilemmas or avoid them is to know their ethical obligations and what resources are available to them. William [ 10 ] argues that we live in a time when perception of applied scientific research conduct ethics in the social sciences is changing fundamentally.

In the period since the end of World War II up to the early s a consensus was gradually formed on the fundamental ethical principles, obliging to create the basis of any scientific research activities. According to Pont [ 21 ], the essential problem is the belief that the public interests are higher than some of the individual interests of some members of the public.

However, all of them are directed to regulation of scientific research ethics issues exclusively in one—biomedical science—area. But gradually the importance of research ethics began to be emphasized in other areas, such as social sciences, where the research involving humans often contains components of certain risks e.

The problems of scientific research ethics are illustrated by the public debate. According to William [ 10 ], from the beginning of the s, the circumstances have changed significantly. Oncological patients and people with AIDS launched a public battle with medical research bodies for the fact that the study, the aim of which was to find a cure against fatal diseases, confirmation and process lasted a very long time.

In many cases, because of the reluctance to speed up this process, it was possible to blame the previous three decades of ethical assumptions. After all, it is better to delay treatment until such time when it is sufficiently clear whether it will be of benefit than risk the health of innocent people as was the case in Nuremberg and Tuscegee cases.

But unlike then, people suffering from deadly diseases now themselves have applied to become test subjects, even in quite risky, experimental conditions. There appeared several patient groups that expressed their wish to participate in such research and spoke against the ethical system of their evaluation, regardless of the fact that this system was designed to protect their rights.

So, as Kardelis states [ 14 ], there rises a number of ethical problems that can stem both from the tested problems and from the methods used. According to William [ 10 ], although the latter years of scientific research in the area of ethics have been stormy, it is already becoming clear that a new consensus will be reached with active participation of the most affected stakeholder groups by the problem in the preparation of scientific research guidelines. While, it is not entirely clear at the moment what the new consensus will be, it can almost be certain that it will not be attacked to the extreme, neither prohibiting by any cost nor allowing anyone to become a scientific research subject.

In short, it can be said that scientific research ethics in the broad sense is not just a generalized set of provisions.

There are inevitable unique cases in scientific research practice where you have to act in new, previously unspecified conditions. Corporate social responsibility is based on the fundamental moral principles of the society that is why significant attention is given to moral aspects in this research. In addition, this research covers a broad context of working with people, so researchers were given the task not only to gain confidence in the eyes of the respondents, but also to ensure academic prestige.

This is a complex task, accomplishment of which requires research ethics. Also the insights of Lithuanian and foreign representatives of the academic community relevant for research in the social sciences area and providing the basic principles are assessed.

The experts were fully aware of the expert evaluation aim and objectives, familiar with the data collection methods, and future results publicity. The experts, having been informed in advance and after receiving their consent, were not assured about the confidentiality of personal information about an expert.