Challenges for Political Science Research Ethics in Autocracies: A Case Study of Central Asia
| Published date | 01 May 2024 |
| DOI | http://doi.org/10.1177/14789299231153074 |
| Author | Neil Collins,Elaine Sharplin,Aziz Burkhanov |
| Date | 01 May 2024 |
https://doi.org/10.1177/14789299231153074
Political Studies Review
2024, Vol. 22(2) 330 –346
© The Author(s) 2023
Article reuse guidelines:
sagepub.com/journals-permissions
DOI: 10.1177/14789299231153074
journals.sagepub.com/home/psrev
Challenges for Political Science
Research Ethics in Autocracies:
A Case Study of Central Asia
Neil Collins1, Elaine Sharplin2
and Aziz Burkhanov3
Abstract
The imperative to conduct research ethically has been firmly established. Biomedical and applied
research in the Global North has dominated the development of an ethical framework based
on four broad principles: respect for autonomy, non-maleficence, beneficence and justice. The
prevailing research ethics can become significant constraints to political scientists focussing
on non-democratic settings. The appropriateness of these codes in guiding political scientists’
research, especially in authoritarian contexts of Central Asia, is examined. The article outlines
the need for a more culturally and contextually nuanced approach to research ethics and an
understanding of the discipline-specific ethical dilemmas for researchers within political science.
Keywords
research ethics, Central Asia, autocracies, political science
Accepted: 5 January 2023
Introduction
The imperative to conduct research ethically has been firmly established, commencing
with early writings of philosophers, and cemented in contemporary practice through a
plethora of current national and international codes (Israel and Hay, 2006; US Department
of Health and Human Services, Office for Human Research Protections, 2020). The pre-
dominant codes of research ethics have been developed for biomedical and applied
research contexts in the Global North (Schrag, 2010). The appropriateness of these codes
in guiding political scientists’ research, especially in non-liberal democratic contexts of
Central Asia, warrants examination. The topic is timely because ‘fewer than a fifth of the
1Department of Political Science and International Relations, School of Sciences and Humanities, Nazarbayev
University, Astana, Kazakhstan
2Graduate School of Education, Nazarbayev University, Astana, Kazakhstan
3Graduate School of Public Policy, Nazarbayev University, Astana, Kazakhstan
Corresponding author:
Neil Collins, Department of Political Science and International Relations, School of Sciences and Humanities,
Nazarbayev University, 53 Kabanbay Batyr Avenue, Astana, 0100000, Republic of Kazakhstan.
Email: neil.collins@nu.edu.kz
1153074PSW0010.1177/14789299231153074Political Studies ReviewCollins et al.
research-article2023
Article
Collins et al. 331
world’s people now live in fully Free countries’ (Freedom House, 2021). Further, political
scientists may focus on contexts that are rhetorically democratic but are, in reality, author-
itarian. Such regimes are disproportionately present in developing countries that may
subscribe to philosophies other than liberal democracy and in which the local elite’s inter-
ests may constrain academic freedom. This article explores the conceptual and logistical
ethical challenges of researching in non-liberal democratic contexts.
Assumptions in Research Ethics
Current Western ethical guidelines are underpinned by a range of assertions or assump-
tions that need to be tested for their validity in other contexts. For example, in liberal
democracies, it is assumed that individual judgements are of equal merit. The evidence
for this may be empirically challenged in business, politics and social engagement, but it
is nevertheless widely applied in terms of reward and responsibility. All votes in national
elections carry the same weight regardless of the attention given to politics by the indi-
vidual elector.
Similarly, as understood in Western universities, academic freedom assumes that polit-
ical, social or other influences do not constrain researchers. If a topic seems to reward
study, it should be open for investigation. This academic freedom even exists where uni-
versities have set research goals. The university may use its resource allocation mecha-
nisms to prioritise some research areas, but it is assumed that these broader institutional
goals should not constrain individual researchers or research teams.
Despite the emergence of diverse research paradigms, the dominant Western perspec-
tive remains positivist (Mazzocchi, 2006). Positivism reflects the outlook that reality is
defined by the observer who, if disinterested, will identify phenomena neutrally. Other
researchers will come to the same verdict independently in the same circumstances.
Given care and skill, the truth is available to all. Through replication and the disciplined
changing of crucial variables, experiments arrive at the facts together with identifiable
cause-and-effect relationships. The dominant Western model holds that this route to
validity is particularly available to those engaged in quantitative research. Even if post-
positivists concede a role to personal characteristics, such as gender or race, they contend
that broad, general theories can explain societal and human behaviour. Given the data,
well-informed, rational judgements can be made to ‘transform society, attitudes, or beliefs
which are rooted in Western, liberal, middle-class, industrialism, capitalist societies and
institutions’ (Pease, 2018: 44).
In contrast, others, such as McGuire and Cisneros (2020), contend that
the concept of objectivity is incommensurable in qualitative research – as it renders the observer
a passive recipient of external information, devoid of agency – it continues to be imposed by
Whiteness-oriented understandings of inquiry that seek to justify worthiness of time, attention,
and resources based on the quantification of experience (McGuire and Cisneros, 2020: 1088).
Ethical decisions reflect a researcher’s ‘fundamental worldview, political environ-
ment, and purposes [acknowledging this] is broadly significant for getting outside of the
myth of wholly objective research, and moving toward a situated understanding of knowl-
edge production’ (Rambukkana, 2019: 315). Further, Rambukkana (2019) argues that
ethics decisions are essentially linked to the researchers’ ontology and epistemology.
The critics of the predominant model of research and research ethics stress the cultural
assumptions underlying these dominant approaches and point to their historical roots in
Get this document and AI-powered insights with a free trial of vLex and Vincent AI
Get Started for FreeStart Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting