Abstract
Keywords
Introduction
Research ethics have evolved significantly within biomedical science, largely as a response to the arbitrary and unethical scientific experiments shaped by historical events during World War II that resulted in numerous casualties (Annas and Grodin, 2008). This context has led to a highly structured regulatory environment designed to prevent harm and protect research participants, extending beyond traditional medical science into social science research (Dingwall, 2008; Israel and Hay, 2006; Macnamara, 2024). However, the distinct objectives, methodologies, and risk levels perceived in social science research, as compared to biomedical research, have driven scholars to criticize the appropriateness of applying stringent ethical standards from the biomedical field to social science studies (Brown et al., 2020; Dingwall, 2008; Murphy and Dingwall, 2007). In particular, the risk of physical harm, a central concern in biomedical experiments, is rarely present in social science research, where risks typically manifest in different or milder forms (Broom, 2006). The phenomenon of “ethics creep” referring to the processes of expanding regulatory oversight to include new domains of research while simultaneously intensifying the scrutiny applied to existing activities also leads to tensions between researchers and ethics committees, particularly when researchers perceive these requirements as overly burdensome or misaligned with their methodologies (Haggerty, 2004: 392). This divergence has significantly shaped the relationship between Research Ethics Committees (RECs) and social science researchers, especially regarding researchers’ attitudes, expectations, and experiences when seeking ethics approval.
Studies examining researchers’ negative attitudes toward adhering to research ethics have highlighted various contributing factors that operate on both individual and institutional or structural levels. These include individual beliefs and values that may favor personal gain or prioritize emotional responses over ethical standards (Tripathi and Chaturvedi, 2024), limited early training in research ethics, and certain life experiences that may reduce awareness and engagement with research integrity practices (Satalkar and Shaw, 2019), perceptions of RECs as overly demanding (Brown et al., 2020), a disconnection between institutional ethics requirements and the practical realities of conducting respectful, ethically mindful research (Halse and Honey, 2007) as well as perceptions of lenient penalties for misconduct and doubts about the effectiveness of institutional mechanisms to prevent unethical behavior (Okonta and Rossouw, 2014). These studies suggest that negative attitudes toward ethical guidelines and a perceived lack of accountability can undermine adherence to research ethics, underscoring the need to raise awareness and enhance institutional support for researchers.
These attitudes help explain why social science researchers often perceive the ethics approval process as a mere bureaucratic formality or a rubber stamp (Hammersley, 2009). As a result, some researchers may focus exclusively on meeting procedural requirements rather than engaging in meaningful ethical reflection. Others may downplay the importance of the process, leading to carelessness in obtaining proper approval. This range of responses underscores a disconnect between the formalities of ethical compliance and the genuine ethical considerations that should guide research practice.
While critiques of applying biomedical ethical standards to social science research and researchers’ attitudes are widely recognized for hindering compliance with ethical approval processes, the lack of research into the specific ethical challenges social science researchers face in developing countries, particularly those where research ethics review frameworks are still evolving, face limits our understanding of these issues in another dimension. This study aims to fill that gap by exploring specific ethical issues that social science researchers frequently face when applying for research ethics approval. By focusing on the experiences of a social science institution in Thailand, the study provides insights into ethical challenges that existing studies may not adequately address. This approach will inform the development of targeted solutions, enhancing the practical relevance of ethics instruction for a developing country with similar experience to better prepare researchers for real-world challenges in their field.
Virtue ethics framework and research practice
The integrity of research practice is rooted in a virtue ethics framework derived from different cross-cultural philosophies, which emphasizes the moral character of the researcher over strict adherence to rules or a focus solely on outcomes (Banks, 2018; Vallor, 2016). The philosophy outlines the concept of virtues as qualities that enable individuals to live a good and fulfilling life. Unlike the utilitarian approach, which assesses actions based on their consequences, a virtue-based perspective centers on cultivating virtues such as honesty, integrity, empathy, and respect for participants in the research process (Broom, 2006; Oakley, 2015). This approach regards the integrity of research conduct as a set of moral imperatives that researchers are responsible for upholding, requiring them to make ethical decisions that reflect virtuous behavior (Biber, 2005). Studies on the application of virtue ethics highlight several key virtues relevant to research integrity. For example, integrity and honesty are essential for ensuring truthfulness in reporting research findings and maintaining transparency in methodologies, both of which are vital for fostering public trust in scientific research (Hajek et al., 2024). Additionally, the notions of empathy and compassion are emphasized as foundational virtues in medical practice, reinforcing the importance of care (Doukas et al., 2022). Furthermore, prudence involves balancing various considerations and context-specific factors to make sound ethical decisions (Conroy et al., 2021). This virtue ethics framework can be especially valuable when addressing complex ethical dilemmas without clear solutions, as it encourages individuals to act with judgment and discernment based on their moral character, rather than simply following rules or principles as in rule-based frameworks like deontology (Beauchamp and Childress, 1994).
In the context of research ethics, virtue ethics posits that researchers should strive to go beyond mere compliance with ethical guidelines, acting instead out of genuine care, responsibility, and moral integrity. While ethical rules can function as a form of external control, they may not necessarily foster the internalization of moral values, which often depend on deeper, intrinsic factors. This aligns with the virtue ethics argument, which emphasizes the importance of cultivating an ethical character rather than simply adhering to rules. This perspective resonates with the role that intrinsic and extrinsic motivations play in shaping human behavior, as outlined by Deci and Ryan (2000). While extrinsic motivators, such as rules and penalties, may encourage basic compliance, intrinsic motivators such as a sense of responsibility and personal integrity, are more likely to lead to ethical conduct that reflects genuine moral commitment (Chan et al., 2019). The ethical review process is often perceived as a system of control, compelling researchers to adhere strictly to rules and principles (Velasco et al., 2013, cited in Brown et al., 2020). This perception may inadvertently discourage researchers from engaging in deeper ethical reflection on what it means to embody virtues central to their work, such as trustworthiness, empathy, and respect. When researchers view ethical guidelines primarily as external mandates, they may be less inclined to internalize these virtues and consider how they influence the ethical dimensions of their research practices.
Designing a process and proper mechanism that focuses on cultivating moral character and virtues in research is, therefore, crucial. It encourages researchers to prioritize moral development and ethical behavior as part of their professional identity, which is essential for tackling the complex ethical issues that often arise in social science research.
Exploring ethical concerns of social science research in developing countries
While earlier scholars emphasized the distinct nature of social and behavioral sciences compared to biomedical research leading to differing ethical expectations, modern research practices reveal increasing overlaps between these fields. For instance, opportunistic data collection in social sciences shares ethical concerns with the reuse of biological samples in biomedical research. The evolution of research ethics, shaped by historical events such as the infamous Nazi experiments and Milgram’s study on obedience, has established standards designed to safeguard the rights, safety, and well-being of research participants (Kitchener and Kitchener, 2009). These frameworks were originally developed with direct researcher-participant interactions in mind to ensure informed consent and ethical oversight.
However, as biomedical and social science research increasingly intersect, both in subject matter, such as health-related social research, and in methodology, such as data collection approaches, the boundaries between these disciplines are becoming less distinct. The rapid advancement of technology and big data, further complicates ethical considerations, as traditional subject recruitment is often bypassed through methods such as social media scraping, location tracking, and metadata analysis (Cadwalladr and Graham-Harrison, 2018; Zwitter, 2014; Fiske & Hauser, 2014). These developments challenge the longstanding critique of “overregulation” by demonstrating that both fields now face similar ethical complexities. Rather than maintaining rigid distinctions, ethical oversight should embrace adaptable frameworks that balance universal principles, such as respect for persons, beneficence, and justice, with the unique challenges of each discipline.
In social science research, although postmodern ethics challenges universal or absolute ethical principles, advocating instead for context-specific, flexible ethical decision-making by taking into consideration social and cultural factors (Benatar and Singer, 2000; Molly, 2009; Thompson, 1966), a core ethical principle remains the protection and respectful treatment of participants, especially in qualitative studies. This protection extends beyond physical harm to encompass social, economic, and psychological risks, all of which can be equally impactful. Thus, several key areas remain central to ethical considerations in social science research: research design (ensuring methodological rigor and quality), research integrity, voluntary and informed consent, balancing risks and benefits for participants, protection of vulnerable populations, fair recruitment practices, and confidentiality and privacy (Broom, 2006; Christensen et al., 2014; Mertens, 2014).
While cultural contexts call for researchers to be sensitive and considerate when conducting studies in diverse settings (Aubel and Chibanda, 2022), cultural and social norms can also challenge the application of these principles, as they deeply shape and influence research practices. For instance, researchers from collectivist cultures may prioritize community and relationships over strict adherence to formal rules. In contrast, those from individualistic cultures often emphasize personal responsibility and rule compliance (Antes et al., 2018). In many contexts, especially in Asian nations, collective values may precede privacy concerns. This can lead to a perception that privacy is less critical when undertaking research, particularly in areas such as recruiting subjects or selecting locations for data collection. In Nepal, personal values and researchers’ attitudes that indicate a lack of awareness regarding research integrity have contributed to widespread research misconduct (Rijal and Dahal, 2022). Although studies directly examining the influence of cultural factors on research ethics practices in Thailand are limited, recurring ethical issues suggest that such factors may play a role. For instance, Thai social scientists often exhibit a limited awareness of the importance of obtaining ethical approval for their research (Kadchumsang, 2018; Nuansang, 2019). One possible explanation is that researchers from certain developing regions may find formal ethics review expectations unfamiliar or unfit within their cultural context, leading to incomplete or improperly prepared documentation and non-compliance (Aluko-Arowolo et al., 2023; Molly, 2009). These issues may reflect a broader cultural view of the ethics review process, in which the requirements are regarded more as procedural formalities than essential ethical safeguards. This suggests an ongoing challenge to balance the need to uphold ethical standards with the expectations and practical realities faced by social science researchers.
Evolution of research ethics frameworks in Thailand: Challenges and progress
Thailand’s research ethics governance emerged later than in many Western countries, which began establishing national standards for ethical research in the 1970s (Alvino, 2003; Dingwall, 2008). Initially, Thailand relied on existing laws, such as the Official Information Act of 1997, the National Health Act of 2007, and the Mental Health Act of 2008, to address issues of privacy, confidentiality, and consent within research conduct (National Research Council of Thailand, 2017). However, concerns about ethical oversight in biomedical research, which surfaced in the 1970s, prompted the development of more focused guidelines and the establishment of research ethics committees (Panichkul et al., 2011). The creation of the Forum for Ethical Review Committees in Thailand (FERCIT) in 2002, in collaboration with the Ministry of Public Health and medical schools, marked a significant milestone. FERCIT developed guidelines for human research ethics, particularly in biomedical sciences, and these efforts were further supported by the issuance of the Ethical Guidelines for Research on Human Subjects (2007) and partnerships with the National Research Council of Thailand (NRCT) (Forum for Ethical Review Committees in Thailand, n.d.).
Despite these advancements, the country’s research ethics framework remains fragmented due to the absence of specific legislation. Researchers often rely on institutional guidelines and general standards set by organizations such as FERCIT and NRCT and existing relevant laws that may not offer comprehensive protection. The proposed Human Research Act, which partially aims to formalize and regulate research ethics committee operations, has faced criticism for its vagueness and impracticality and has been under debate since 2013 (National Health Commission Office, 2015). Public hearings on the matter are still ongoing (Suratthani Rajabhat Institute, 2023). In the absence of a cohesive legislative framework, governance of research ethics largely depends on individual academic and non-academic institutions, leading to significant variability in ethical guidelines, committee composition, and operational standards depending on their resources and capacities. Panichkul et al. (2011) found that some medical schools and institutes lacked RECs entirely, while others faced systemic challenges such as limited resources, insufficient knowledge, time constraints, and the absence of Standard Operating Procedures (SOPs). Notably, fewer than 50% of institutions had SOPs in place. This indicates a critical gap in operational consistency and adherence to ethical review standards. Its late development has also perpetuated the traditional approach of viewing committee members as gatekeepers, rather than assigning them a broader consultative role, leading scientists to perceive the mechanism as “an obstacle to [the] advancement” of their field (Velasco et al., 2013: 2).
While recent years have seen considerable progress in developing biomedical research ethics, social science research has historically received less attention in Thailand leaving gaps in both institutional experience and researcher engagement with these processes. Ethical guidelines for social and behavioral sciences were only introduced in 2021, focusing primarily on categorizing exempt research types (National Research Council of Thailand, 2023). This late inclusion underscores the need for further development of ethics frameworks governing social science research while balancing universal principles with local cultural contexts.
Methodology
This study utilizes a mixed-methods approach, combining in-depth interviews with 3–5 members of the research ethics committee and a documentary analysis. The documentary analysis involves collecting and examining statistical data from research proposal submissions submitted for ethics approval in social science over the past 3 years (2021–2023), totaling 647 research proposals. These proposals were submitted by researchers both within and outside the institution, as the ethics approval services were extended institution-wide for research related to social sciences. This analysis will enable a frequency assessment of recurring issues identified in these submissions.
Unit of analysis
This study selected a single social science institution as the unit of analysis due to its high volume of research submissions, which provided a broad dataset for examining ethical challenges in the review process. The choice of this institution was also guided by its role as a representative case, offering insights into common issues that may exist in similar contexts, and an aim to improve the general functioning and effectiveness of research ethics review processes within the particular institute.
Population
A purposive sampling method is used to select at least 3 research ethics committee members for social science based on their extensive experience. To qualify, participants must have served on a research ethics committee for a minimum of 5 years, be actively serving as of 2023, and have reviewed the highest number of proposal submissions between 2021 and 2023 as shown in Table 1.
Background information of participants.
Participant invitation
A request was submitted to the Office of the Research Ethics Committee for Social Sciences at the institution to obtain permission to share information regarding the study’s objectives, scope, contributions, and participant criteria. Once approval was received, email invitations were sent to eligible participants who met the inclusion criteria. The interview form was attached to the invitation to provide participants with additional information and outline expectations. Three participants responded and agreed to participate in the study.
Data collection
For documentary data collection, the inquiry into proposal submission components includes the principal investigator’s status (faculty member or graduate student), source of funding, venue of ethics training, areas for data collection, and type of review (full board, expedited, or exempt).
For both documentary and qualitative data collection, the study examines primary 12 ethical elements within the submitted proposals: rationale, objectives, inclusion criteria, population size, research design, procedures, research tools, data analysis, confidentiality, additional ethical considerations (such as privacy and participant recruitment process), participant information sheets, and consent to participation sheets. These elements align with the standard format of ethics clearance forms commonly used in social science research.
All participants requested online interviews for convenience and privacy. These interviews were conducted in September 2024, with participants’ permission to record the sessions. Each interview lasted approximately 60–90 minutes. To ensure a smooth and efficient process, participants received the interview form in advance, allowing them time to prepare their responses and to understand the structure and expectations for the session.
Research tool
The research tools were developed to include both general and specific questions aligned with the study objectives. Revisions were made based on pilot feedback and expert input to validate these tools, a crucial process for ensuring the reliability of the findings and alignment of procedures with the research design (Shuttleworth, 2009). This study utilizes three research tools, as detailed below:
This form gathers basic data about each proposal, tracked using anonymized codes. It contains seven sections:
(a) Principal Investigator’s Status (faculty member or student),
(b) Affiliated Institution,
(c) Source of Funding,
(d) Venue of Ethics Training,
(e) Type of Study (e.g., quantitative, qualitative, mixed methods),
(f) Areas for Data Collection,
(g) Type of Review (full board, expedited, or exempt).
This form is designed to assess 12 primary ethical issues across 647 submissions, with questions structured as simple yes/no checkboxes to track the frequency of ethical issues that arise in the proposals. For confidentiality, each proposal is tracked through anonymized codes. This form targets recurring ethical concerns identified in the study.
The interview form consists of three sections:
Records the participant’s code, as well as the date, time, and location of the interview.
This section includes questions aimed at identifying recurring issues and exploring participant perspectives:
- Over the past 3 years, what common challenges have you encountered in reviewing submission documents?
- What are your thoughts on the underlying causes of these challenges?
- What are your suggestions to address these issues?
This section includes questions tailored to explore ethical issues aligned with the Belmont Report’s three guiding principles:
Throughout your career, can you identify specific ethical issues that you often see when reviewing the submissions according to the following topics? You may focus on the ones you frequently see or add any other ethical issues you saw but aren’t listed here.
-
-
-
Data analysis
The study employs descriptive statistics to analyze the frequency of 12 recurring ethical issues within proposal submissions from 2021 to 2023. This quantitative data is complemented by qualitative insights from in-depth interviews with the research ethics committee members. A conventional content analysis approach is used to identify and organize information, searching for recurring keywords, patterns, and themes related to both general ethical concerns and the 12 specific issues under investigation from text data (Hsieh and Shannon, 2005). The analysis aims to uncover trends and provide a comprehensive understanding of the ethical challenges frequently encountered in social science research ethics review processes.
Ethics approval
This study fully complies with research ethics standards for human subjects and has received approval from the Institutional Review Board, under approval number 2024/064.1807.
Findings
In the past 3 years (2021–2023), proposal submissions comprised 59.7% of students (
The primary sources of ethics training among researchers were the CITI Program, which accounted for 52.7%, followed by university-sponsored online and onsite training programs (21.5%), the National Research Council of Thailand (NRCT) E-learning (12.1%), school-based courses (7.4%), and other sources as shown in Table 2.
General information of research proposals. a
Specific details and names have been omitted in the presentation of this data.
Ethics training programs cover a wide range of foundational topics. For instance, the NRCT e-learning platform offers self-paced courses covering essential areas such as ethical principles, regulatory compliance, and guidelines pertinent to human subject research. Topics include ethical review processes, informed consent, data protection, and the ethical handling of sensitive materials. Additionally, it provides specialized modules focused on areas like clinical trials, data privacy, and cross-cultural research ethics. Similarly, FERCIT emphasizes enhancing the quality of ethical review processes in health and biomedical research, both in Thailand and internationally. Its training programs include courses on human participant protection, Standard Operating Procedure (SOP) development, and the assessment of ethical review practices. Other school-based online and onsite training initiatives align closely with the NRCT curriculum, offering training on the history and development of research ethics, fundamental ethical principles (e.g. respect for persons, beneficence, and justice), informed consent procedures, the protection of vulnerable populations, privacy and confidentiality, risk-benefit assessment, and ethical considerations in social sciences.
Regarding main research methodologies, 37.6% of studies used qualitative methods, and 36% used mixed methods. Additionally, 73.7% of studies were conducted outside of the institution.
Of the proposals reviewed, 21.6% required a full board review, 66.5% qualified for expedited review, and 10.7% were eligible for exemption review.
Lack of clarity and inconsistency of documents
The qualitative findings highlight recurring issues with the quality of proposal submissions and supporting documentation. Researchers often submit proposals and forms with overly broad descriptions, frequently omitting essential details such as inclusion criteria, termination criteria, and specific procedural steps. Additionally, the approval process requires submitting multiple documents such as submission forms, research proposals, participant information sheets, and research tools that often lack consistent information. Key details, such as data retention periods, study duration, and participant numbers, are frequently completed inconsistently across these documents. This lack of specificity, clarity, and consistency in research protocols and supporting materials suggests that researchers may be prioritizing expedience over accuracy, potentially rushing to meet deadlines.
“The major problem is the writing isn’t clear. . .rushing, especially students. They have limited time and the need to graduate.” (Participant A) “They didn’t give us sufficient information. . .it’s hard to assess the submission. . .no definition (scope of the issue to investigate), how to collect data or recruit participants.” (Participant B) “We often see that the information that appears in the research proposals is different or not consistent with the submission form.” (Participant A) “Especially students, they don’t know what to do. . .their major advisors don’t usually give advice and help check the documents. . .it’s less problematic when the major advisor serves as one of the RECs.” (Participant C)
The limited availability of funding sources has exacerbated the issues of vagueness and lack of clarity observed in many proposal submissions. One participant highlighted that without financial support, researchers often lack access to critical resources for thorough proposal development. Approximately 70% of researchers (
The findings regarding the quality of proposal writing, particularly in the form of vague rationales and research protocols, as well as inconsistencies in critical details across documents, align with existing literature criticizing Thai social science research proposals as often incomplete, lacking in detail, and inconsistent (Nanthamongkolchai, 2018; Thongprasert and Phathong, 2021). These issues present significant challenges for RECs, hindering their ability to conduct thorough assessments and offer constructive feedback. Consequently, RECs often find themselves needing to ask numerous follow-up questions to clarify missing or ambiguous information, which can lead to an overwhelming volume of inquiries and potential miscommunication.
Communication barriers
The communication processes, both within RECs and between RECs and researchers, significantly impact the ability to uphold the principles of research ethics effectively. Miscommunication and misunderstandings between these parties present major challenges. In addition to issues related to the quality of written submissions and the researchers’ commitment to ensuring document accuracy, RECs sometimes offer comments that lack elaboration, are overly technical, or do not provide sufficient justification for their assessments. Currently, no effective channels exist for RECs and researchers to consult and clarify their understanding outside of the formal institutional review board process. This process primarily involves reviewers providing comments and researchers revising their submissions to meet approval.
“The protocol should allow researchers and RECs to meet. . .reviewers should elaborate their comments since there aren’t any other channels to communicate. . .this should be addressed in the SOP in the future.” (Participant C) “In the case of the IRB of record, inconsistent comments (from external and internal reviews) should be analyzed and mediated. . .it is the role of the chair to address this. . .otherwise researchers will suffer.” (Participant C)
Furthermore, communication processes within RECs are often fraught with challenges, particularly in cases involving the designated Institutional Review Board (IRB) of record. Under such circumstances, the ethical review of a specific research project, especially in multi-site studies requires input from multiple institutions’ RECs. Conflicting opinions and comments among committee members may create confusion for researchers, making it difficult for them to implement necessary amendments to their submissions. This challenge is exacerbated when SOPs do not address the potential for such conflicts, underscoring the need to incorporate guidance on conflict resolution in future SOP revisions. The chair of the REC thus plays a crucial role in mediating these differing perspectives to ensure that feedback aligns with ethical standards and provides clear direction to researchers. These findings align with existing studies that emphasize the need for RECs to shift from an oversight role to a more consultative one, fostering closer collaboration and mutual understanding (Brown et al., 2020; Connolly and Reid, 2007; Wolf, 2010).
Specific ethical issues (the principles of respect for persons, beneficence, justice)
The principle of respect for persons focuses on treating individuals as autonomous agents, capable of making informed decisions about their participation (National Commission for the Protection of Human Subjects of Biomedical and Behavioral Research, 1979). In this area, the quantitative study identified the top five ethical issues that the RECs found problematic during their review of research proposals. Among these, participant information sheets ranked second, while research procedures, such as participant recruitment, informed consent, and data collection, ranked fourth, accounting for 53.2% (
Common ethical issues identified in research proposals by ethics committees.
Obtaining informed consent requires researchers to provide a participant information sheet that clearly outlines essential details, such as research objectives, procedures, and potential risks and benefits, enabling participants to make an informed decision about their involvement. However, the in-depth interviews revealed significant issues with the construction of these information sheets. For instance, when researchers use online platforms for data collection, the participation sheet often does not adhere to the format required by the institution. As a result, critical information such as participants’ rights, potential risks, and benefits is frequently omitted. Furthermore, consent forms often contain language directly copied from research proposals without modification, resulting in overly technical, complex, or lengthy content that participants may find difficult to understand. Based on several studies, Onyango et al. (2024) have highlighted that these forms are often written at a level that surpasses the typical reading ability of participants, making it difficult for them to fully grasp and retain essential aspects of the informed consent process.
“(It’s like) using confusing information to have the participants decide. . .I wish to see the PIS (participant information sheet) that is understandable. . .adjusted in a way that is easy to understand, complete, and motivating people to participate.” (Participant C) “They should use proper language, not too technical or labeling participants.” (Participant B)
In addition, participant information sheets often contain errors, such as incorrect or inconsistent information compared to the research proposal. The same information sheet is frequently used across different participant groups, even when the data collection methods vary. These variations may include differences in participant numbers, data collection duration, or potential risks, yet these details are not appropriately tailored to each group.
Secondly, the participant recruitment process is a crucial aspect in ensuring the achievement of research objectives. However, researchers often face challenges in approaching and securing a sufficient number of participants. In response, they may resort to creative but unethical recruitment methods that can be intrusive and violate individuals’ rights and privacy. This is particularly concerning in social science research, where physical harm is typically not involved. As a result, researchers may underestimate the potential for non-physical harm, leading to reduced awareness of ethical considerations during the recruitment process.
“They think it’s ok to camp out by the airport trapping tourists who just landed from a long flight. . .” (Participant B) “Investigators sometimes prefer recruiting their employees or staff. . . they aren’t aware of the power dynamics in these relationships.” (Participant A)
Issues in the recruitment process not only raise concerns about privacy violations but are further compounded by improper data collection practices, which can also affect participants’ privacy and confidentiality. From the in-depth interviews, several contributing factors were identified. Certain types of research, such as action research or projects involving multiple team members, often result in differing ethical standards and values among the team. Additionally, some data collection methods, such as excessive use of photos or video recordings, are employed unnecessarily in certain situations. Researchers often overlook the fact that focus groups, especially when working with vulnerable populations, may not be suitable, as they can inadvertently expose personal identities and sensitive data to others. Furthermore, the description of data collection sites is often omitted or specified too broadly, making it difficult to assess whether privacy protections are in place.
Secondly, the principle of beneficence requires that researchers maximize potential benefits and minimize possible harm to participants. This principle underscores the importance of assessing risks and benefits and ensuring that the research’s overall impact is positive or neutral (National Commission for the Protection of Human Subjects of Biomedical and Behavioral Research, 1979). In this context, both the quantitative and qualitative studies consistently highlighted key issues related to research tools and vague research protocols, which can negatively impact participants’ rights and psychological well-being. Research tools were ranked third, accounting for 52.6% (
Research tools are a critical component of the research process, and their improper design can pose various risks to participants. Findings from the in-depth interviews reveal that researchers often lack the skills needed to develop effective research tools. As a result, these tools sometimes include intrusive or sensitive questions and use language that is not aligned with the social and economic backgrounds of the participants. Questions may also be overly complex or technical, and the same set of tools is frequently used across diverse participant groups in different data collection settings. In quantitative study proposals, the selection of variables is not always grounded in existing literature, leading to the collection of more personal data than necessary, sometimes even extending to third parties.
“If they want to test new variables, they should at least be supported by existing literature. . .They can’t make up unnecessary new variables to collect more personal data than necessary.” (Participant C) “They don’t adjust the wording according to the level of the participants. . .the allocated time isn’t also suitable (considering the length of questions).” (Participant A) “Questions shouldn’t stir up depressive feelings or further wound the participants. . .They are also found to be too academic or translated directly from a foreign language (difficult to understand).” (Participant B)
Research protocols are crucial for maximizing benefits and minimizing risks to participants. However, vague and overly broad protocols are a common issue, particularly when describing procedures, subject recruitment processes, data sources, research tools, and participant details, especially in multi-phase projects. When protocols lack specific details for each phase, it becomes challenging for the RECs to accurately assess the associated risks and benefits. Researchers often attribute this lack of detail to the uncertainty of outcomes from the first phase, explaining that the specifics of later phases depend on the results of the initial phase.
“In social science, there are diverse research designs. Many researchers lack understanding. . .they don’t provide details and simply copy protocols from one another.” (Participant C) “In the past, multi-phase projects have been approved as long as they describe the protocols with specificity. If there is a lack of detail, only the phase that has details will get approved, because unforeseen risks can happen. . . the RECs want to at least see what the research tool (for each phase) looks like.” (Participant A)
Well-designed research tools and detailed research protocols can promote both direct and indirect benefits by ensuring that the study objectives are achieved in balance with a commitment to protecting participants’ rights and well-being. While a clear and specific protocol allows researchers to conduct studies systematically and plan for any potential undesirable events, carefully constructed research tools can help ensure that data collection is both respectful and appropriate for all participants.
Lastly, the principle of justice emphasizes the fair distribution of both the benefits and burdens of research. It asserts that research should not disproportionately burden specific groups, especially vulnerable populations, and that the benefits of research should be equitably accessible to various segments of society (National Commission for the Protection of Human Subjects of Biomedical and Behavioral Research, 1979). In line with this principle, both the quantitative and qualitative findings revealed significant concerns related to inclusion criteria, which accounted for 60% and ranked first, as well as the determination of appropriate population sizes, accounting for 45.3% and ranked fifth as shown in Table 3.
Based on the in-depth interviews, social science researchers frequently omit detailed inclusion criteria, particularly in qualitative studies. Key qualifications, such as age, relevant background experience, or specific attributes that align with the study’s objectives, are often missing. In some cases, researchers do not establish inclusion criteria in a structured, hierarchical manner. Ideally, inclusion criteria should be defined at multiple levels, starting with the organizational level justifying why specific organizations are chosen, and extending down to individual participant qualifications. This hierarchical approach ensures that the selection aligns closely with the research objectives and provides a clearer framework for participant inclusion.
“They lack criteria providing no details at all, qualitative studies in particular” (Participant A) “They often don’t provide details for inclusion criteria. Sometimes, the criteria are vague. . .” (Participant B) “In social science, there are multiple levels (to take into consideration) and can be complex (when designing the criteria). (For example) Participants are chosen from a local school in a province. There are criteria at each level. . .why did you pick this area, why this organization? They don’t explain.” (Participant C)
Population size presents another significant challenge in social science research. Unlike quantitative studies, where sample size is typically determined by specific formulas, qualitative research often lacks clear guidelines for determining sample size. Consequently, researchers may recruit more participants than necessary to meet the study’s objectives, which raises ethical concerns, particularly when working with vulnerable populations. Although the principle of data saturation is commonly applied, researchers’ discretion heavily influences sample size decisions. This discretion can sometimes conflict with the views of the RECs, especially in studies involving vulnerable groups.
“This is a common issue and often commented on among the committee members. For example, in a qualitative study, where does this number come from?” (Participant A) “They recruit more than necessary. Especially for vulnerable groups, there shouldn’t be too many. Like (in a study about) children who lack fathers, they wanted to recruit 20-30 children in the study” (Participant B) “Studies in vulnerable populations are important, but they are risky. They need a proper methodology to justify them” (Participant C)
As the principles of justice in research ethics emphasize the fair and equitable distribution of the benefits and burdens of research among participants, a lack of criteria for selecting participants creates a risk that certain groups may be unfairly targeted or overburdened in the research process (Research Integrity and Security, 2021). Furthermore, while an excessively large sample size may expose more participants than necessary to potential risks, an inadequately small sample size might fail to produce generalizable results, thereby wasting participants’ time and resources.
Discussion
In addressing these ethical challenges, the article framed the main arguments through a research lifecycle perspective (Amsterdam Public Health Research Institute, n.d.), emphasizing a proposed structural change in which two key components, the researcher and the RECs, play pivotal roles. This approach emphasizes how responsibilities and interactions at different stages of the research process contribute to ethical outcomes, highlighting the shared roles of researchers and RECs in upholding ethical standards.
For the researcher, the study reveals key ethical challenges they face, primarily related to their research skills, ethical awareness, and understanding of the purpose and specific requirements of an ethics review. Issues such as lack of clarity, attention to detail, and inconsistency in writing hinder their ability to uphold ethical principles as reflected in the quantification of common ethical issues identified in research proposals. These findings are consistent with scholarly views, which suggest that research submissions are often incomplete, inconsistent, or vague, frequently lacking essential methodological details (Nanthamongkolchai, 2018; Thongprasert and Phathong, 2021). Common ethical concerns, such as the failure to obtain proper informed consent and to ensure privacy protection during recruitment and data collection, reflect not only limited awareness of ethical standards but also deeper tensions between imported guidelines and local knowledge. In contexts where research ethics frameworks have been directly adapted from Western biomedical models without sufficient adjustment, ethical principles may appear unfamiliar, or even unintuitive, to researchers. For example, privacy may be interpreted or perceived differently in societies where community and relational dynamics shape people’s daily practices and engagement, potentially leading to the inadvertent neglect of privacy protection in research (Kim and Kwan, 2021; Xing et al., 2021). Research ethical standards are often compromised by researchers’ personal values and attitudes (Rijal and Dahal, 2022). Cultural background can also influence how researchers interpret and adhere to ethical guidelines (Antes et al., 2018). These challenges are further compounded by deficiencies in research writing skills, which undermine overall research competence. Prior studies have highlighted that research competence and ethical adherence are closely linked, as methodological proficiency forms the foundation for upholding ethical standards (Hyder and Wali, 2006; Israel and Hay, 2006; Steneck, 2007). While structural challenges within research ethics frameworks may initially appear disconnected from cultural and social dimensions, they are deeply intertwined. Social norms shape the practices and expectations of researchers and RECs, implicitly influencing how ethical guidelines are implemented and interpreted.
Beyond cultural influences, these challenges also stem from deeper, systemic issues within the broader research lifecycle. A lack of research competence and gaps in researchers’ understanding of the detailed and specific requirements for ethics submissions highlight structural weaknesses. Factors such as inadequate training, insufficient supervision, limited ethical awareness, and reliance on outdated or routine practices reflect deficiencies in the research infrastructure. These shortcomings not only fail to adequately prepare researchers for the ethical complexities of modern research but also hinder their ability to navigate and address the evolving demands of ethical compliance effectively. Many developing countries constantly face additional challenges due to limited resources. Past studies suggest that resource constraints often result in inadequate training opportunities and underdeveloped research infrastructure, highlighting the need for better capacity building (Costello and Zumla, 2000; Kass et al., 2007; Rijal and Dahal, 2022; Velasco et al., 2013). Although quantitative data from this study shows that nearly all investigators (99.8%) received ethics training through various channels, it appears that this training has had a limited impact on addressing the root causes of ethical issues, which are linked to broader structural challenges in the research lifecycle. Ethics training alone may not adequately develop or refine the research skills needed for effective ethical practice, nor does it always enhance ethical awareness to the required level. Social scientists in these settings frequently struggle with insufficient research skills and a limited understanding of the ethical implications tied to their work. Studies have pointed to these gaps in methodological skills as a consequence of limited resources, weak institutional support, and restricted access to advanced training (Gaillard, 2010; Mouton, 2010; Velasco et al., 2013), underscoring the importance of enhancing research capabilities in developing nations in these situations to ensure ethical knowledge production.
Amid these challenges, encouraging researchers to tailor their submissions to meet the expectations of RECs may help address certain issues in the submission process. However, a compliance-based approach, rather than a holistic one, risks undermining long-term efforts to cultivate a genuine ethical culture among researchers and may fail to account for cultural considerations. Within the context of virtue ethics, it is well-established that ethical values should guide research practices emphasizing the role of researchers as moral actors who use virtues as a “compass” to navigate their actions and determine the best course of conduct in various situations (Gorichanaz, 2023: 3). However, for virtue ethics to effectively guide behavior, it must be cultivated within researchers. This cultivation requires a supportive environment, as virtues do not develop in isolation. According to virtue ethics, virtues flourish within a social framework, where institutions and other social units play a crucial role by providing a learning environment that acknowledges our roles, relationships, and responsibilities toward others (Vallor, 2016). Education and training are therefore essential in not only developing research skills but also in fostering an awareness of universal ethical values such as justice, respect, and honesty (MacIntyre, 1981). While the compliance-based approach treats ethics review as a necessary step focused on ensuring adherence to ethical standards, requiring detailed and research-specific information, it may fall short in cultivating intrinsic ethical values. Alternatively, a holistic approach, emphasizing collaboration and consultation with RECs as part of a peer-review-like process, integrates ethics into the broader research lifecycle. This approach can provide a more conducive environment for fostering ethical values, making ethics an ongoing part of the research process rather than simply a preliminary requirement.
For the RECs, the study highlights that communication gaps, both among committee members and between RECs and researchers, can lead to confusion and misunderstandings during the review and approval process. These gaps are often exacerbated by researchers providing insufficient information and by REC feedback that is conflicting, unclear, or overly brief, lacking adequate explanation. While RECs strive to fulfill their responsibilities under these conditions, researchers may perceive them as unsupportive or disruptive to their work. Such communication issues contribute to the perception of ethics creep among researchers, fostering resistance, particularly when the requirements are seen as disproportionate or misaligned with their research objectives (Velasco et al., 2013). Over time, these communication challenges can strain the relationship between RECs and researchers.
Additionally, studies have noted that ethical review committees, particularly in certain developing countries, may not always have the resources or culturally tailored guidelines to ensure that researchers fully understand and address the ethical implications of their work (IJsselmuiden et al., 2012; Kass et al., 2007). The absence of clear procedures, standardization in committee operations, and sufficient training in ethical review and research regulations can further hinder the effectiveness of ethical reviews (IJsselmuiden et al., 2012). These challenges make it difficult for RECs to ensure that researchers fully understand and adhere to ethical standards.
Clear guidelines and open communication are therefore crucial for fostering a positive, respectful relationship between researchers and RECs, ultimately promoting ethical research practices (Brown et al., 2020). In light of this, a holistic approach should be adopted to address systemic issues by viewing the ethics review as part of an ongoing process throughout the research lifecycle with better structural support. Standard rules governing ethical review should be improved to facilitate and broaden interaction between RECs and researchers. The role of RECs should not be limited to their function as gatekeepers at the outset but should also encompass an educational role. They should be recognized as integral to the broader supportive peer review framework to ensure that ethical principles are upheld throughout the research journey (Taylor et al., 2023). This approach encourages reflexivity and fosters ethical awareness from the early stages of research, ensuring that ethical considerations are integrated from the beginning and continuously nurtured. Consistent with previous studies, this research supports the role of proactive RECs in fostering positive engagement and providing constructive feedback to promote mutual understanding and facilitate the learning process (Connolly and Reid, 2007; Madikizela-Madiya and Motlhabane, 2022; McAreavey and Muir, 2011). Such an approach is especially crucial in environments where there is ample opportunity for knowledge development and the enhancement of ethical awareness.
Bridging the communication gaps between RECs and researchers requires RECs to adopt a role beyond merely validating research proposals or ensuring compliance with ethical guidelines. This shift involves improving ethical guidelines and rules to help foster collaborative engagement while acknowledging the influence of social values on ethical practices. By recognizing how these values shape researchers’ perceptions, such as their understanding of privacy, the review process can better identify areas of misunderstanding and develop strategies to address these gaps. While assessing whether researchers adhere to ethical standards is an essential function, it may not be sufficient to fulfill the RECs’ responsibilities if they do not engage with researchers as learners. When RECs adopt a more supportive and educational approach to ethical review, they can foster trust and facilitate meaningful dialog, which is crucial for effective communication (Wolf, 2010). Instead of solely focusing on compliance, RECs should position themselves as empowerment agents, functioning as “incubators of knowledge for all stakeholders” (Madikizela-Madiya and Motlhabane, 2022: 8). This perspective encourages collaborative learning, allowing researchers to enhance their understanding of ethical principles and practices.
Addressing these ethical challenges highlights the shared responsibility among key stakeholders at both national and institutional levels. Governments play a crucial role in providing capacity-building initiatives and developing clearer rules and guidelines to enhance the ethical review process for social scientists by acknowledging how cognitive and cultural perspectives influence ethical decision-making and contribute to existing gaps in compliance. Researchers must take primary responsibility for ensuring methodological rigor and ethical compliance, which can be supported by effective supervision, training, and ongoing dialog with RECs. In turn, RECs should be framed as part of a broader, supportive peer review process, assisting researchers in upholding these ethical standards. Establishing informal communication channels, providing a research ethics consultation service, and developing an online learning tool (such as a short video explaining the questions in ethics approval forms, how to fill them out, and their significance) can be effective in bridging communication gaps. This approach emphasizes collaboration, reflection, and ongoing learning, rather than merely checking boxes for compliance. Such tools can help align the mindsets and expectations of both RECs and researchers. By fostering an environment of mutual respect and shared knowledge, RECs can better support researchers in navigating ethical complexities, which will ultimately enhance research integrity and foster a culture of ethical responsibility in practice.
In addition to enhancing ethical guidelines, providing formal training programs, improving communication channels, and establishing consultation services, tools that promote ethical awareness are essential for nurturing these values among researchers. Simple yet effective tools, such as a self-certification checklist, can require researchers to affirm that all submitted information is accurate and consistent. Similarly, implementing a confidentiality agreement can obligate researchers to commit to safeguarding participants’ confidentiality. These tools not only enhance self-awareness regarding critical ethical issues but also streamline the process for the RECs in evaluating submissions. Raising awareness of the practical challenges involved in implementing ethical guidelines is crucial, as it enables RECs to offer more effective support to researchers (Brown et al., 2020). By encouraging researchers to reflect on their ethical obligations, such tools can foster a culture of responsibility and integrity in research practices. Additionally, they serve as practical reminders of the ethical standards expected within the research community, further enhancing researchers’ roles in the development of ethical guidelines (McAreavey and Muir, 2011).
Conclusion
Amid ongoing discussions on the regulation of research ethics in social sciences and concerns about the misapplication of biomedical ethical standards, the boundaries between social science and biomedical research are becoming increasingly blurred. Many contemporary research topics, such as mental health, substance use, and health policy, necessitate both medical and social science approaches, leading to shared ethical considerations across disciplines. The integration of technology and artificial intelligence (AI) in social science research further introduces ethical challenges that parallel those in biomedical research, particularly regarding data privacy, consent, and participant vulnerability. This underscores the importance of examining how these developments intersect with the attitudes and practices of social science researchers in developing countries, where limited research skills, ethical awareness, and institutional support may shape their engagement with ethics approval processes. While some contend that excessive regulatory requirements hinder the flexibility necessary for social science research, this study suggests that challenges may not necessarily be due to over-regulation. Instead, factors such as underdeveloped research skills, limited awareness, and understanding of ethical standards, institutional rules, and communication gaps frequently contribute to the difficulties encountered by social scientists. Therefore, REC guidelines should aim to address these challenges by recognizing researchers’ limitations stemming from these factors, including their social mindset, to ensure that the ethics approval process is not merely seen as a procedural requirement for graduation or career advancement but as an integral part of responsible research practice. By highlighting this perspective, the study emphasizes the need to strengthen the roles of RECs and researchers in fostering ethical literacy. This can be achieved through enhanced ethical guidelines and training, developing awareness-raising tools, and establishing channels for open and clear communication with RECs. Addressing these underlying issues could encourage a more balanced approach, where social science researchers perceive ethics as a fundamental component of their research practice rather than an administrative formality. This perspective is essential for developing tailored training and support that addresses researchers’ needs while maintaining minimum ethical standards in research, particularly in an environment that is continually evolving.
Study limitations
This study serves as an initial effort to quantify ethical issues in social science research proposals during the ethics approval process, using a single institution as a case study. The analysis is limited to frequency counts due to our expertise constraints with quantitative methodologies. Future research should consider collaborations with additional social science institutions nationwide to offer a more comprehensive perspective on these issues. It would also be valuable to assess Thai social science researchers’ attitudes and perceptions toward the ethics approval process to enhance the scope. Furthermore, expanding the sample size and incorporating more advanced statistical techniques, such as regression or factor analysis, could provide deeper insights and facilitate a better evaluation of ethical concerns in this domain.
Footnotes
ORCID iD
