Ethical research in the German social sciences: Exploring the significance and challenges of institutionalized research ethics practices

Abstract

This article explores two key facets of institutionalized ethical review processes in Germany: (1) their importance in shaping ethical research and (2) their associated challenges, with a specific focus on their implications within the social sciences. Ethical considerations play a pivotal role in (social science) research, safeguarding, amongst others, the rights and well-being of participants and ensuring research integrity. Despite notable progress in promoting research ethics, German research institutions still need to significantly improve their ethics review processes. To address these challenges, this article emphasizes the need for expanding the current management of research ethics and implementing what we call “Institutionalized Research Ethics Practices’’ (IREPs), which include but go beyond the scope of common Institutional Review Boards (IRBs). Drawing on two workshops with researchers and IRB members, and a systematic review of existing IRBs in the German social sciences, we propose concrete recommendations for developing and enhancing IREPs, including a conducive environment, accessibility, fairness, and fostering expertise (CAFE). These enhancements aim to strengthen Germany’s research ethics infrastructure and promote responsible and ethical research practices in the social sciences.

Keywords

Research ethics Germany institutionalized research ethics practices Institutional Review Boards research institutions

Introduction: Why do we need institutionalized research ethics practices in the social sciences?

Ethical reflections are vital to uphold the dignity of and the respect for all involved in the research process, as well as to mitigate potential harm (Wood, 2006). While any research endeavor can carry risks, studies involving personal data and research participants are particularly prone to such issues. Therefore, each research undertaking should critically reflect on and assess ethical issues before, during, and after conducting research and processing data (Radder, 2023). Recent years have seen an increase in the adoption of comprehensive review processes aimed at addressing the complex ethical challenges inherent to scholarly work, including in the German research and higher education landscape. Moreover, several European-funded research projects, such as ENERI¹ and SIENNA,² have been actively engaged in exploring and discussing research integrity and ethics—also with a focus on rather novel topics, such as the emerging field of artificial intelligence, seldom addressed so far.³ While research ethics has historically played an important role particularly in the biomedical sciences, it is, through today, less prominent in the social sciences. Hence, it is imperative for the social sciences to persist in promoting, critically examining, and aligning ethical endeavors.

Drawing from ongoing discussions and literature on research ethics within the German landscape, this article seeks to address the following research question: What is the significance of the institutionalized ethics review processes in Germany, and what challenges do they come with, particularly in the social sciences?

Building on a critical reflection regarding state-of-the-art research, we explore the need for expanding current research ethics practices and propose the implementation of what we call “Institutionalized Research Ethics Practices (IREPs)”. IREPs refer to extensive and continuous activities both within and across multiple levels of stakeholders for the purpose of safeguarding and promoting ethical research. With this, we advocate for a broader institutional(ized) approach to research ethics and ethics review practices. Moreover, we propose to advance the current approaches frequently adopted by committees, commonly known as Institutional Review Boards (IRBs) or Research Ethics Committees (RECs).⁴ Such committees are often described as multidisciplinary, autonomous groups of experts tasked with evaluating research involving human subjects (European Commission, 2010). According to Comstock (2013), IRBs have a duty to guarantee the safety, dignity, and well-being of research participants. They frequently serve as a safeguard to mitigate any potential bias or adverse effects which research projects may induce. Conversely, these committees can be perceived as obstructing academic freedom, as imposing censorship, and unnecessarily complicating the research process. This may occur when recommendations do not consistently match the on-the-ground setting, with committee members potentially lacking the required expertise to adjudicate. Such perceptions often lead to heightened suspicion and skepticism surrounding their role and function (De Wet, 2010), underscoring the ambivalent attitude toward ethics-related decision-making bodies.

In general, we argue that IREPs should go beyond “check-box ethics”, such as merely following standardized evaluation procedures or ticking boxes on forms (e.g. whether study participants are over 18 years old). These check-box ethics are insufficient as they may potentially “limit critical thinking by making the process more about following a set of instructions than about holistically considering” all consequences of the research (Landi et al., 2015: 224). Similarly, research ethics are not solely defined in legalistic terms; they constitute a much more comprehensive framework for researchers to reflect on, encompassing questions of good scientific practice as well as the norms guiding it (RatSWD, 2017: 15). To further integrate ethical reflections and ethics review processes at all stages of research projects, the IREPs we propose extend beyond the scope of common IRBs by providing transparent guidelines for researchers, training and support related to ethical standards, experts’ advice, and designated points of contact. Such IREPs can play a key role in (1) acting as an ethics-safeguard; (2) providing easily accessible points of contact and expertise; (3) furthering compliance with guidelines, facilitating publications, and helping with the acquisition of third-party funding; and (4) promoting consistency regarding research ethics. Hence, instead of a one-way street where a single research institution unilaterally defines what ethical research means, we propose a holistic approach which broadens the space for exchange on research ethics and promotes dialogue, critical discussion, and shared learning.

The existing body of scholarship on the functioning and needs of ethical committees in Germany, especially within the realm of the social sciences, is notably limited. This research gap makes the exploration of the significance and challenges inherent in the institutionalized ethics review processes in the country pertinent. Our study hence contributes valuable insights to the academic discourse by addressing this under-researched aspect of IRBs in the German context, drawing on (1) relevant literature, (2) insights obtained from two workshops involving researchers and IRB members, and (3) a novel data set of IRBs at German research institutions. We first discuss the state-of-the-art and thereby explore the need for ethical review in the social sciences (Section “What we (do not) know: Research ethics in the (German) social sciences”). Next, we highlight our methodological approach (Section “Methods and sources”). We then discuss the challenges we have identified in relation to current IRB practices (Section “Challenges with current IRB practices”). Finally, we provide practice-oriented recommendations for establishing IREPs while also reflecting on the limitations of our approach (Section “Recommendations: Introducing IREPs”).

What we (do not) know: Research ethics in the (German) social sciences

Scholarship in the social sciences presents a spectrum of ethical dilemmas which permeate the entire research journey. These include aspects such as the selection and implementation of research methods, data collection and data analysis procedures, as well as the potential societal implications they entail. Other ethical challenges relate to personal/sensitive data and its appropriate and secure handling, transmission, storage, and sharing (see Schaar, 2016). This ties into concerns about ensuring participants’ informed consent and the importance of reflection and risk mitigation where obtaining written permission is challenging or potentially harmful (Baele et al., 2018: 9–10).

Likewise, scholars need to account for the potential unintended consequences of their research, including its impacts on participants in terms of mental and physical well-being, autonomy, as well as other risks, for example, in politically sensitive contexts. Further ethical challenges may arise from research conducted with groups often labeled as “vulnerable” and from power asymmetries (Amirkhani, 2023). This is particularly the case if there are strong divides or differences between researchers and study participants in relations of power, which warrant mutual recognition and the avoidance of exploitation (Howe, 2022; Sluka, 2020). Additional ethical issues concern publication ethics, including decisions on data and results disclosure, authorship attribution, fairness, and positionality (Hopf, 2016).

Although commonly more relevant in the natural and engineering sciences, security and dual use questions may arise in social science projects, too.⁵ Moreover, as the social sciences increasingly come to intersect with computer and information science, the importance of such considerations is gaining traction (Garzcarek et al., 2019). Examples include studies on the identification of one’s political leaning via facial recognition technology (Kosinski, 2021) or of sexual orientation based on social media likes (Kosinski et al., 2013). Such research may, for instance, be used for targeted political advertising as well as discrimination or persecution, especially in non-democratic contexts.

This non-exhaustive list indicates the diversity and complexity of research ethics challenges in the social sciences—and the necessity to now attend to them more thoroughly and systematically (Doyle, 2020; Von Unger and Simon, 2016). In the following, we discuss the evolution of ethical review in the social sciences and conclude the section by highlighting the peculiarities of the German context.

Ethical review in the social sciences

As the broad spectrum of ethical challenges listed above suggests, ethical considerations should be inherent to every social science project.⁶ This demand falls in line with the increasing pressure on researchers from, for example, funding bodies, to improve ethical standards in their work. International funding bodies increasingly require research ethics approval. In line, many academic journals publish empirical research in the social sciences only if it has obtained such ethical approval (RatSWD, 2017: 8–9, see also European Commission, 2013). Review processes and boards are one instrument to handle these requirements and follow a long tradition, especially in the Anglo–American context (Comstock, 2013). Worldwide, the Nuremberg Codex of 1947 included the first ethical principles and guidelines for medical research. In the following years, this Codex laid the foundation for the drafting of the “Declaration of Helsinki” by the World Medical Association in 1964 (Carlson et al., 2004). In the Anglo-American context, the Tuskegee–Syphilis study (1932–1972) sparked major debates and played an important role in advancing reflection on research ethics (Corbie-Smith, 1999). In the decades that followed, biomedical guidelines and principles were adapted to the social sciences (Emmerich, 2013). Since then, certain countries including in Europe have led the way in laying the foundations for the integration of ethical standards into social science research.

The lack of research ethics regulations in German social science also becomes evident when compared to regulation levels in the aforementioned Anglo-American contexts (Oellers and Wegner, 2009) or to Nordic settings where debates are more focused on regulation around ethics rather than insufficiencies (Solbakk, 2010). Norway, for example, has integrated ethical standards for research early on. Stemming from the work of physicians in the 1950s and 60s, the Norwegian Medical Research Council was created in 1978. In 1989 the Norwegian Parliament agreed to establish national research ethics committees divided by subject area: health and life sciences, social sciences (including law and theology) and technology, which cover health services and biomedical research. In Denmark, a Data Ethics Council was additionally established in 2019 to cover the ethical implications of data across the entire research landscape as well as in wider society. Beginning in the 1960s, Swedish ethics committees gradually evolved into six regional ethical review boards until the Swedish Ethical Review Authority was eventually established (Asplund and Hulter Åsberg, 2023). In Germany alike, first research ethics commissions for biomedical research were established as early as 1973 (Geschichte der Forschungsethik, n.d.). When it comes to research ethics in the social sciences, however, the development in the country has been comparable to other European countries such as France, where the first ethics chart in the social sciences was adopted by the French Sociology Association (Association Francaise de Sociologie) in 2009 (Bonnet and Robert, 2009).

Moreover, an ongoing and significant debate within the broader field revolved around the political dimension of social science research. Scheper-Hughes (1995) claimed that ethical considerations and conduct were key for an anthropology serving the goal of human liberation.⁷ Such debates culminated in numerous ethical codes and guidelines being formulated on the responsibility of researchers. Most fundamentally, structural transformations ultimately led to the relatively tight regulation of research in the United States where every study involving people or personal data needs to be reviewed by an IRB (Dilger, 2017). However, these efforts have not been unanimously lauded but are often criticized for being a highly bureaucratic control apparatus, governing scholarship to avoid legal liability for research institutions rather than favoring ethical approaches per se (Dilger, 2017). Dingwall (2008) has even questioned the overall ethical permissibility of IRBs for the social sciences, particularly in the context of the United Kingdom’s ostensibly compulsory requirements. Critical voices have likewise pointed towards emerging challenges vis-à-vis these processes. Oyinloye (2021), for instance, recounts the insufficiency of existing ethical guidelines for her research in Nigeria, leading her to develop her own context-sensitive ethical framework. Similarly, Jenkins (2018) highlights the crucial role of “local” research assistants in navigating hurdles and risks during her research stay which she had not factored in during the review process at her home institution.

This underlines the importance of developing practical guidelines grounded in real-life experiences, tailored to local contexts. It demonstrates that not all risks are foreseeable and may also emerge both during and after the research process (De Wet, 2010; Kramer et al., 2014; RatSWD, 2017). As Cronin-Furman and Lake (2018: 1) state, the norms and rules which ethical review processes produce may “quickly lose relevance” upon entering the actual research context. Relatedly, IRBs bear the complex responsibility of ensuring that fundamental principles are applied uniformly to all presented proposals. However, IRB members often lack specialized expertise in the methodologies and objectives particular to the disciplines from which the proposals originate (Amirkhani, 2023; Comstock, 2013). Whilst the lack of ethical review procedures might lead to flawed research projects and impede publishing, these examples indicate that existing processes come with their own challenges and limitations.

This negative view on the institutionalization of research ethics in the social sciences has been contested (Carniel et al., 2023; Oellers and Wegner, 2009; Sheehan et al., 2018). Sheehan et al. (2018 5), for instance, conceptualize structured ethics governance as inherently democratic and argue that related decisions and their underlying rationales should be made public. The crux of the matter is the need to set up IRBs and regulations fitting social science contexts: compared to biomedicine and the STEM disciplines, social scientists tend to make more contextualized, situated decisions therewith considering socio-cultural and socio-political factors that sometimes even conflict with their own norms. The fact that ethical procedures have been adopted mainly from the biomedical sciences implies a gap between these official guidelines and real-life challenges (Doyle, 2020: 10; Von Unger and Simon, 2016). Simply “transplanting” existing structures from the bio-medical sciences seems, as such, inappropriate (Sheehan et al., 2018). Similarly, Carniel et al. (2023) emphasize that there is no “one-size-fits-all” solution for research ethics (reviews), which they identify as a major source of frustration and misunderstanding for social scientists in their interactions with IRBs. Comstock concurs, pointing out that the members of generalized IRBs cannot “be specialists in all disciplines and yet they must apply the same ethical principles to each proposal” (Comstock, 2013: 170).

At the same time, some authors identify an opportunity in this “mismatch,” as they believe it opens the door for greater interactions between researchers in the humanities/social sciences and IRBs, as potentially benefiting research ethics at large. Building on Alderson and Morrow (2006), Carniel et al. argue that “ethics processes can indeed inform research practice and provoke deeper understandings of the implications they generate” (2023: 149). They posit that should IRBs be sensitized to the particularities of social science research, they would henceforth be able to support scholars in assessing the impact of their work: the specificity of their intervention, their epistemic assumptions, as well as the methodological, legal, and ethical appropriateness of their endeavors. They point out that IRBs should involve a wide range of (outside) expertise and make the evaluation process collaborative, as based on mutual understanding, exchange, and deliberation.

The above-cited works emphasize the opportunities offered by ethics review processes but highlight the need to set them up in such a manner as to be collaborative, dynamic and transparent so that they help foster cooperation between researchers and the boards, hereby encouraging exchange beyond solely the “textual mediation” (Smith, 1990, quoted in Hickey et al., 2022: 12) of ethics approvals. Moreover, these studies highlight the necessity for IRBs to have sufficient resources to effectively carry out their duties. This includes steering clear of excessive micromanagement and bureaucratization focused only on offsetting risk and avoiding litigation, while ensuring alignment with the unique characteristics of social science research.

The German case

In addition to all authors of this article working in the social sciences or related fields in Germany, we opt to examine ethical reviewing in the country for two main reasons: first, research ethics regulations and related reviewing emerged from a particular setting, namely medicine, and second, regulation appears to be relatively low in the German social sciences, especially when compared to other disciplines or other countries such as those discussed in the previous section.

Scholars first began to discuss research ethics in post-war Germany, under the necessity of dealing with the mass atrocities of the Nazi regime. The historical appraisal of Nazi crimes required an analysis of the role science played in this context, including the responsibility of medical science in the conduct of cruel human experiments and sterilizations (Jotkowitz, 2008). In the social sciences, inspired by US debates, a code of ethics was developed in the early 1990s by the German Sociological Association (DGS; Deutsche Gesellschaft für Soziologie) and the Federal Association of German Sociologists (BDS; Berufsverband deutscher Soziologinnen und Soziologen). These guidelines, which were not legally binding, would be “almost completely silent on the question of ethics in human subjects research” (Weber, 2009, p. 10) and mostly reduced the question of participants’ rights to only informed consent.

Since the introduction of the Internet in the 1990s—in Germany as much as elsewhere—increasing digitalization has opened up new areas for (social science) research, but also raised new questions regarding ethical research, for example in relation to artificial intelligence and big data (Favaretto et al., 2020; Jameel et al., 2020). These questions include ones on how data collected by corporate actors (sometimes even in an exploitative or secretive way), can be used for research purposes, or to what extent profit incentives shape the type of research that can even be conducted. Other challenges concern appropriate methods of digital ethnography, the permissibility of experimentation on social media, as well as data protection, informed consent, and privacy (Heise et al., 2014; Zimmer and Kinder-Kurlanda, 2017).

At the same time, the pressure from national and international funding bodies to move ethical considerations center stage in research projects across different fields has also increased in recent decades. While in the US research ethics in sociology was already being formalized in the 1960s, in Germany such efforts mainly set off in the early 1990s (Hopf, 2016). The BDS, for example, published its own code of ethics at that time (DGS and BDS, 1992). Since then, multiple organizations have published their own respective guidelines, codices, and ethical principles.⁸ Following the establishment of a prior commission, the Council for Social and Economic Data (the aforementioned RatSWD) was formed in 2004 with the goal of establishing and developing appropriate research data infrastructures, ensuring the quality of research and statistical data, and of representing the interests of science in politics (Konsort SWD, n.d. a; Entwicklung des RatSWD, n.d.). Since its inception, the Council has also been actively engaged in addressing questions of research ethics, of sharing of research data and its infrastructures, as well as of data protection (Hauser et al., 1998; Kämper, 2016; Konsort SWD, n.d. b). During its fifth cycle from 2014 to 2017, the Council’s primary emphasis was on research ethics, reviews, and data protection, culminating in the publication of voluntary research ethics principles and procedures (RatSWD, 2017; Entwicklung des RatSWD, n.d.). In its conclusion, the RatSWD recommended for ethical review to be voluntary due to concerns about altering the character of social science research by undermining the plurality of methods (RatSWD, 2017: 11; see also Von Unger and Simon, 2016).

While there is limited research specifically analyzing ethical standards within the German social science landscape, one study provides some first insights (Strobel et al., 2022). The online survey conducted for this study in 2021 encompassed over 1000 researchers across various disciplines and German states. It found that while over 90% of psychologists reported having access to an ethics committee, only 53% of economists and 60% of those working in cultural studies, social and cultural anthropology, and religious studies indicated having access. Furthermore, a significant majority (83.3%) of those without access to an IRB expressed a desire for the establishment of such a commission within their home research institution (Strobel et al., 2022: 12). These results suggest that there is insufficient coverage in the social sciences. One explanation for this may be that the organization of ethical reviewing in biomedical research has a much older tradition behind it and is therefore more established and structured, with regulations and principles constraining the approval of a research project. Consequently, social scientists, such as Oellers and Wegner (2009), have long called for more structured ethical evaluations in their field.

Methods and sources

To address our field of research inquiry, we have focused particularly on a critical evaluation of current ethics review processes in the German social sciences and on developing suggestions regarding how best to improve them in practice. We do so through a combination of methods and sources, allowing us to bring together different perspectives on IRBs. As a diverse group of researchers based in Germany and spanning various disciplines, our collective experiences within IRBs and research ethics prompted us to delve into the complexities and potentials of IRBs in Germany.

In complement to a review of key literature, we also integrated an empirical component to enrich and validate our assertions. While we recognize our focus on relevant eminent works is primarily centered on Germany and the social sciences, we further acknowledge the broader body of work on research integrity and ethics which span a number of countries around the globe. This article cannot, unfortunately, encompass all aspects of this vast topic.

Regarding our empirical supplementary work, we facilitated two virtual workshops in March and September 2022 involving German IRB members and individuals experienced in dealing with related matters. Each workshop invitation was distributed across various email lists, providing a detailed explanation of objectives. In the first workshop, the participants comprised social science researchers employed within the German academic system who have experience in navigating ethical inquires. This diverse group comprised ten individuals at different career stages, including doctoral candidates and post-doctoral scholars. The second workshop, meanwhile, shifted focus by inviting IRB members from across Germany to contribute their insights.

Four members of distinct IRBs for the social sciences were able to participate. While we reached out to a wide array of such boards, we observed only limited engagement with our offering; the specific factors behind this lukewarm reception remain unclear. With prior consent from participants, we took unattributed notes which have generated our first analytical insights into the research topic at hand. To ensure confidentiality, we choose not to disclose any personal information about the participants.

Insights from the first workshop helped us gain a better understanding of how ethical review processes have influenced various research projects and the hurdles scholars have thus far encountered. Subsequently, the second workshop with IRB members highlighted key challenges from their respective perspectives. Accordingly, it enabled us to use their practical experiences, albeit not representative, to further clarify duties and challenges encountered by IRBs. During this second workshop, we developed proposals aimed at ameliorating IRBs’ functioning.

Our second methodological step was to create a novel dataset on IRBs for the social sciences in Germany to generate a more comprehensive overview of existing structures and current approaches. It elucidates, as such, the contemporary landscape vis-à-vis IRB practices within the German social sciences. The combination of inquiring about personal experience and systematically reviewing public sources helps generate a more complete picture here. To construct the novel dataset, the population of all higher education institutions in Germany was narrowed down to a sample which only includes those research institutions with at least ten study programs, at least one of which had to relate to the social sciences.⁹

The research institutions in the resulting dataset include a total of 97 universities (Universitäten) and 236 universities of applied sciences/technical universities (known as Fachhochschulen) leading to an initial total of 333 relevant entities. Some research institutions, particularly Fachhochschulen, have multiple campuses. To avoid duplication, as the different campuses belong to the same entity and thus cannot be expected to have an IRB for each campus, we consolidated them into 209 distinct entities. Such a diversity of research institutions was selected to paint as full a picture as possible about ethics in German higher education (even though some Fachhochschulen may be more focused on teaching than research).

Employing a web-based data collection platform built with the Drupal 10 content management system, all the authors collectively coded information about these research institutions based on publicly available data obtained from their official homepages. IRBs were declared to exist (even if they went by another name) so long as there was a body involved in an ethics review process prior to research taking place. Of the 209 distinct entities 102 were found to have in-house IRBs and 10 had external IRBs. Inspired by our understanding of IRBs laid out in the introduction and our qualitative data, information was then coded for the 102 in-house IRBs including background detail, its discipline, focus, membership, availability of ethical guidelines, plus assessment and decision-making procedures (see Table 1).

Table 1.

Results of website coding for IRBs.

	Yes	No	Other¹⁰
Is there an IRB responsible for the social sciences?¹¹	112 (54%)	97 (46%)
Universities	67 (73%)	25 (27%)
Fachhochschulen	45 (38%)	72 (62%)
Is there a dedicated webpage?*	85 (83%)	17 (17%)
Is there any information on IRB members?*	91 (89%)	6 (6%)	NA: 5 (5%)
If so, how many members are there?	Median = 7Mean = 8.9
Is there a designated contact person?*	68 (67%)	29 (28%)	NA: 5 (5%)
Are there any visible ethics guidelines provided?*	57 (56%)	36 (35%)	NA: 9 (9%)
If so, are they their own or from external sources?	Own: 10External: 29Hybrid: 14NA: 4
Is there any information on assessment and decision-making procedures?*	64 (63%)	28 (27%)	NA: 10 (10%)

Including only in-house IRBs (N_in-house = 102) and excluding external ones (N_external = 10).

The foundation of this article therefore consists of: (1) a literature review, (2) insights from two workshops with researchers and IRB members in 2022, (3) a novel dataset based on systematic website analysis, and (4) the authors’ own firsthand research and ethics review experiences. Hence, while our own experiences certainly served as the inspiration for this analysis, this article goes well beyond that. Our approach allows us to develop a comprehensive overview of the challenges which that IRBs and researchers in the German social sciences currently face. Building on these foundations, we propose a set of recommendations designed to address the identified challenges and enhance the current state of affairs, recognizing the importance of research ethics in the social sciences.

Challenges with current IRB practices

In this section, the four main challenges that we have identified regarding IRBs in the German social sciences are outlined. While the challenges we discuss are recurring ones, we do not claim that our list is exhaustive or that these issues apply equally to all IRBs.

Accessibility

The first overarching challenge concerns accessibility . Sufficient accessibility implies that every researcher can easily turn to an appropriate IRB (ideally with expertise relevant to their research topic or area). Accessibility may be hampered due to IRBs falling short on the following aspects:

– Visibility: Researchers may not be aware of the specific scope and responsibilities of their respective IRBs, or even of their existence (De Wet, 2010). This may be partly due to many IRBs lacking a strong online presence, as our data indicates. While our analysis suggests that approximately four in five IRBs have a dedicated webpage, the ease of finding them, as well as the richness of information, vary considerably. Hence, researchers do not necessarily know if, when, and how to involve their IRB in the research process. This threatens to lead to insufficient consultation with competent authorities, potentially hampering efforts to ensure high ethical standards.

– Coverage: IRBs have become more prevalent in recent years. Presently, over half of the research institutions in our sample offer access to an IRB. Notably, among universities with a stronger research focus, this figure rises to over 70% on average and exceeds 80% for the 50 largest universities (based on the number of study programs). Still, the numbers demonstrate that limited coverage continues to be a challenge. Scholars may not have access to an appropriate IRB at their home research institution and therefore need to look for external IRBs (if available) or IRBs from other disciplines in case they need a formalized review of their research. This not only requires additional time and effort, but also burdens existing IRBs and may leave some researchers without any access to an appropriate such body.

– Responsiveness: Given that most IRB members balance their related duties with their day-to-day responsibilities (such as teaching) and lack permanent support structures, longer response times are often to be expected. Moreover, some IRBs only meet at fixed intervals rather than on demand, with months passing between meetings potentially. This may cause undue delays in the research process, an issue repeatedly pointed out by affected parties in the course of our conversations, especially when their work requires ongoing communication with IRBs.

Fairness

The second overarching challenge concerns fairness. Fairness in the ethical review process is ensured when no researcher has an inherent advantage or disadvantage based on, for instance, their institutional affiliation and when decisions are both informed and transparently reasoned (Keith-Spiegel and Koocher, 2005). Fairness may be insufficiently ensured due to shortcomings in the following regards:

– Transparency: IRB processes and decisions may not be fully explicated (Lynch, 2018), making it difficult for researchers to understand the exact guidelines according to which the body in question operates. While around nine in ten IRBs in our sample provide at least some information about their members, publishing the relevant guidelines and assessment procedures happens less frequently: fewer than two-thirds of IRBs make such information (publicly) available. Furthermore, even when guidelines are published, they often remain underspecified and vague. Not understanding the reasoning behind an IRB’s decision may lead to frustration and, importantly, make it difficult to contest. Those IRBs which do provide comprehensive and detailed information, however, serve as an example that transparency in this regard can indeed be achieved.

– Convergence: In addition to internal consistency, ensuring convergence across IRBs is an important challenge. IRBs often considerably differ in terms of how they operate, when they become involved and how the review process is conducted. Whereas some develop their own frameworks, others either exclusively reference (different) external guidelines or incorporate external sources in their own guidelines (“hybrid”). Our analysis suggests that all three types are empirically relevant. Processes appear to be even more varied. This unevenness of standards creates disparities among scholars, influencing the entire research process and potentially bestowing unfair advantages in terms of permissible research topics, methodologies, and timelines.

– Dialogue: Exchange between the researcher and the corresponding IRB ensures that the assessments of both sides are considered and also that the former, researchers, as experts on their chosen topic and context, have a chance to provide feedback to the latter. This, however, is not always done in practice due to, amongst other things, time constraints. Top-down decision-making and the resulting lack of dialogue are also criticized by Hopf (2016) in the context of the US. Consequently, certain research endeavors may be unduly restricted or even halted entirely without due interaction between the researcher and the IRB to reach such a consequential decision.

Expertise

The third overarching challenge concerns expertise. It goes beyond knowledge of research ethics and includes that knowledge on the specific research topic and context to hand, too. Ensuring expert assessments is a key challenge with the following aspects warranting particular attention here (RatSWD, 2017):

– Isolation: Even though a single IRB can hardly be expected to possess or have access to the required expertise to properly assess every research project brought forth, to date most such bodies continue to operate in isolation. On the one hand, this contributes to the perpetuation of different standards for different researchers. On the other, it limits the opportunity to solicit outside expertise whenever it is needed to assess a particular research project. This puts an additional burden on each IRB to obtain the relevant knowledge itself before assessing a case, and increases the risk of poorly informed decisions being taken. Recent efforts at establishing joint IRBs in Bavaria, such as the “Gemeinsame Ethikkommission der Hochschulen Bayerns” (GEHBa), have the potential to not only help with the issues of coverage and convergence but also to facilitate exchange across different institutions. They appear, however, to remain exceptional.

– Up-to-dateness: Research methods, (political and social) contexts, and technical developments continuously evolve. IRBs may lack internal expertise to address every topic presented for review, particularly given the rapid change underway in areas such as digital field research, big data, AI, and data protection (e.g. Ferretti et al., 2020; Nebeker et al., 2019). Such limitations are inevitable for IRBs, which on average consist of only seven members, according to our survey. This undermines the assessment of certain research projects and may lead to their unwarranted clearance or contra wise rejection of research projects. Existing IRBs which include experts from different fields (including external consultants) or commit to reaching out to such individuals as need be set a positive example here, as do IRBs embracing different demographics, including students and non-senior research staff to ensure diverse perspectives. This alone does not, however, overcome the inherent limitations an individual IRB faces.

Conducive environment

The final overarching challenge concerns a conducive environment for the work of IRBs. None of the outlined challenges can be addressed without creating an environment in which IRBs can operate as intended. Establishing a conducive environment for research ethics will involve addressing the following aspects:

– Researchers’ ethical reflections: Considering the ethical aspects of research is not a task to be outsourced to the IRB, but rather is the duty of every scholar. Yet, not each and every one of them may “adequately” contemplate the ethical dimensions of their research, as exposure to research ethics often remains limited and optional, ultimately rendering the work of IRBs more difficult. This point was raised by multiple members of IRBs in our second workshop. Insufficient reflections on the part of scholars may add to the workload of both IRB members and later the researchers themselves, consequently leading to frustration on both sides.

– Provision of necessary resources: IRBs need to be endowed with sufficient capacity (e.g. in terms of time, staff, funds) to execute their mandate. From both our own experience and that of the affected parties we spoke to, there often is a problematic gap between what IRBs are asked to do and the resources they have at their disposal. One case in point concerns time capacities, as institutions tend to rely on volunteering employees to run IRBs. The fact that numerous IRBs are not faculty- or department-specific but responsible for the institution at large may further augment this concern. This contributes to the perpetuation of most of the above-mentioned challenges. Moreover, this overburdening not only unfairly strains IRB members but also challenges the sustainability of these boards themselves.

Recommendations: Introducing IREPs

Based on the identified challenges we now propose several recommendations and advocate for what we call Institutionalized Research Ethics Practices (IREPs), which include but go beyond the scope of common IRBs (see Figure 1). IREPs refer to extensive and continuous activities both within and across multiple levels of stakeholders for the purpose of safeguarding and promoting ethical research. Activities include exchange, training and outreach with a broad spectrum of stakeholders at the three levels, each of which plays an important role in the promotion of ethical research practices: individual (researchers), organizational (IRBs), and supra-organizational (permanent body, e.g. consortium). Central to our approach is the emphasis on dialogue among all stakeholders involved in the research process. Moreover, we argue that the right incentive structures should be established so that every researcher takes research ethics seriously before, during, and after each project, regardless of whether formal IRB approval is sought. Establishing IREPs across the country is an ambitious and long-term project that aims at cultural change. However, individual parts can also be implemented at a smaller scale.

Figure 1.

Stakeholders, Levels and Roles within IREPs. Source: authors’ own illustration.

In the following, we detail our ideas of a broader understanding of research ethics, and repeatedly refer to current IRB practices. Therefore, our recommendations partly concern improvements to existing IRBs and partly the IREPs we are calling for overall. We recognize that not all recommendations are universally applicable and acknowledge the necessity of tailoring them to the specific context in which they will be implemented. They are rather intended to spark dialogue about adapting certain thoughts within this complex institutional landscape.

IREPs can play an important role in four regards. First, we argue that such IREPs can act as safeguards when researchers do not sufficiently take their work’s ethical implications into consideration (De Wet, 2010). Such ethical reflections can be time-consuming, and awareness of its necessity must still be improved (Grady, 2015). Ethical questions and risk assessment should be part of the standard scientific repertoire, as they not only help mitigate potential harm, but promote self-reflection, transparency, and awareness of key issues, helping improve both the research process and its outcomes. Like IRBs, IREPs would help flag and resolve issues which researchers may not be aware of or do not know how to address and thereby help make research (more) ethical. Moreover, the institutionalization of IREPs will work to normalize ethical reflection and review as an integral part of academic research.

Second, once established, IREP members would need to introduce easily accessible points of contact providing expertise for ethics-related questions. These points of contact would prove useful resources all along the research process, as projects might evolve and require continuous ethical advising rather than punctual ex ante clearance (see also RatSWD, 2017: 6). As illustrated earlier, in the context of the German social sciences, there remains to date a need for more critical attention being paid to ethical considerations. To receive comprehensive feedback and foster deeper dialogue on the ethical issues at hand, involving researchers working on similar questions, belonging to an outside institution or holding different backgrounds and perspectives would be helpful. Given the specificity of the ethical challenges that individual projects can face and the often-changing circumstances they operate under, stable contact and continuous supervision during their whole research life cycle would aid the implementation of ethically necessary or desirable revisions to scholars’ ongoing work.

Third, IREPs help researchers adhere to ethical guidelines which have become increasingly important for publishers. In recent years, a burgeoning number of journals from multiple disciplines have begun requesting proof of ethical approval before a manuscript is even submitted. We wish to emphasize here that we do not always advocate solely relying on IRB approval, as we have previously highlighted that the latter does not necessarily ensure ethical conduct. Reviewers and journals should ideally prioritize assessing the integrity of the research’s ethics rather than solely requiring IRB approval.

When IRBs are unavailable at one’s own university, researchers may encounter challenges in obtaining ethical approval from external sources. This can complicate the submission process or, in some cases, even prevent individuals from publishing in certain venues. The same point is valid for third-party funding, as many funding bodies (such as European Research Council, the DFG or Federal Ministry of Education and Research (BMBF) in Germany) request ethical assessments and sometimes even clearance to apply for grants.¹² Ongoing dialogue with different stakeholders on whether and to what extent ethical approval is required would be important to advance the discussion.

And fourth, IREPs would enable a convergence of ethics practices in social science research, thus leveling the playing field. While we fully concede that there is no and should be no “one-size-fits-all” solution in (social science) scholarship, while the peculiarities of each research question, empirical field, and method must be duly considered, we hold it important to develop certain shared standards (Comstock, 2013). IREPs could help institutionalize, then, comparable approaches and guidelines across sub-fields and institutions.

In the following, we discuss our recommendations in more detail (see Table 2 for a summary).

Table 2.

Challenges and recommendations juxtaposed.

Challenges	Recommendations	Examples and Elaborations
Conducive environment	Provide sufficient resources	• make available institutional and third-party funding; ensure sufficient staffing of IRBs; enable technical solutions to be acquired
	Acknowledge the work	• offer certificates for IRB members; reduce workload in other areas; recognition of IRB volunteering for applications; consider remuneration
	Promote researcher reflections	• offer ethics training as part of researchers’ curricula; consider holding “ethical research awareness” days
	Create a supra-organizational platform	• organize workshops on research ethics; create forums for exchange; compile relevant information; organize outreach campaigns
Accessibility	Ensure easy access to IREPs	• campaign to develop IREPs in-house; if not feasible, ensure designation of ethics officers and access to external support
	Ensure IRB responsiveness	• acknowledge inquiries immediately and provide a timeline; consider designating “case officers” for quick communication or create a (remunerated) position of Head of IRB
	Ensure visibility of IREPs	• create easily accessible and visible Internet presence with relevant information; advertise existence, including through researchers’ curricula; remind supervisors; compile list of existing IRBs
Fairness	Promote transparency	• publish guidelines and information about the process; create a list of “do’s and don’ts” for researchers; communicate reasoned decisions allowing them to adapt their research
	Avoid influence of power dynamics	• require anonymization measures; rotate members if feasible; ensure recusal in cases with potential conflicts of interest
	Promote convergence across IREPs	• participate in meetings of different IRBs for exchange; keep up to date on external guidelines and developments
	Ensure constructive dialogue	• understand ethics review as requiring discussion; communicate with inquiring researchers; avoid strict top-down decision-making models; establish an external point of contact for concerns about severely malfunctioning processes
Expertise	Promote diverse expertise	• encourage participation of researchers from different backgrounds; solicit advice of (external) experts when needed; establish open lines of communication with expert bodies
	Ensure ethical field research	• engage local partners for field research; foster networks at the institutional level
	Train IRB members	• provide resources for participation in workshops and training; organize exchanges with subject-matter experts; disseminate knowledge across IRBs

Conducive environment

The effective implementation of IREPs requires a conducive environment, which serves to facilitate all subsequent recommendations. This includes funding, acknowledgments, and researchers’ reflections.

First, human, technical and financial resources are required for IREPs to fulfill expectations related to the recent push for the stronger inclusion of research ethics in academic research. Only with sufficient time and staffing, IREPs stand a chance to realize their full potential and integrate all the elements we advocate for in the following. Since universities usually have limited financial resources, the different sources of public and third-party funding should recognize the importance of research ethics and dedicate more funding to it. Proper research ethics assessment cannot be done on top of the already existing, challenging, and time-intensive task of academic work. If done properly, it requires work and dedication. Since the role of IREPs should not be to block research but to promote ethical research, researchers should – whenever feasible – be provided with the means to acquire technical solutions that are more secure, or more adapted to the specific research context, or to develop them in-house.

Second, the contributions of IREP members should be properly acknowledged. Considering the competitive job market in academia, time is a precious resource, and researchers will be better incentivized to invest time in IREPs if the work done in the ethical boards and processes is duly acknowledged. There are different forms this could take: from certification to reduced workload (e.g. teaching obligations), to the recognition of volunteering for applications (e.g. for tenured positions). While these examples do not require financial resources, we find it important to consider compensation, especially for pivotal roles like the head of the IRB or the individual responsible for organizing requests and liaising with researchers.

Third, aligning with Amirkhani (2023), we wish to emphasize the central role of the researcher. It remains first and foremost the individual researcher’s responsibility to ensure that their research is conducted ethically. We strongly encourage researchers to perceive ethical considerations as an essential part of research and not as a limitation—even if it requires time and effort. To enhance knowledge and awareness, it is crucial that all researchers receive ethics training as part of their curriculum. In line with the recommendations of RatSWD (2017), we thus advocate for the implementation of formal training sessions and seminars on research ethics for all researchers, from undergraduate students to professors. Overall, these training and seminars should provide sufficient opportunity for critical reflection on ethical standards and encourage questioning of their universal applicability and relevance in different contexts.

Moreover, researchers should be informed about the IREP’s important role in producing high-quality research. IREPs with adequate resources could organize “ethical research awareness” days, in which researchers and students are introduced to ethical research processes, the relevant actors at and beyond the institute, as well as existing research guidelines by IRB members or other experts.

Finally, part of a conducive environment, besides financial and human means of individual IREPs, concerns opportunities for exchange between the different IREPs. To this end, we call for the establishment of a permanent working group that would provide a supra-organizational platform for exchange between single entities. Its tasks could include: (1) organizing workshops on research ethics; (2) creating and maintaining forums for exchange and information databases available to the IREPs and interested researchers; (3) organizing discussions around “problematic” and/or “supposedly controversial” cases and potentially propose guidelines for recurrent problems; (4) organizing outreach campaigns to inform IREP members about existing exchange platforms and guidelines, for example by means of a newsletter. Public funding (e.g. from the German Federal Ministry of Education and Research (BMBF)) for at least one coordination position for this network would likely be essential for it to be operational. This effort integrates well, for example, with the ongoing activities of the RatSWD in this space. The functioning modalities of the platform should be collegially determined by the members themselves; they will decide whether all universities should mandatorily participate or if it should only be a space for the members of IRBs who feel the need for it and determine the practical modalities of the meetings (frequency, themes, division in subdisciplines, etc.).

Accessibility

Ensuring that IREPs are accessible to the target audience is crucial to promote ethical research practices. To this end, we offer the following recommendations.

First, each research institution ought to have its own IREP or offer easy access to its researchers through cooperation agreements, resulting in reasonable processing delays. This, in turn, requires incentivizing researchers to be involved in the IREPs as already noted above. The supra-organizational platform we call for would make it easier for individual IREPs to coordinate to distribute workload. This would ensure fair treatment of all applications by minimizing time and case discrepancies across research institutions. To achieve this, promoting the establishments of IREPs is key. A campaign among research institutions should be conducted to inquire about their plans to ensure ethical research standards and recommending the establishment of their own IREPs or, if that is not feasible, the designation of an ethics officer that coordinates with other IREPs and the supra-organizational platform to ensure a point of contact for their researchers.

Second, a key component of availability is responsiveness. Estimations concerning the time by which researchers can expect a more detailed response would help provide certainty and set expectations. For IRBs with multiple members, we see value in having designated “case officers” that are responsible for ongoing communication with researchers and for addressing their questions and concerns. Alternatively, the head of the IRB may deal with all ongoing inquiries and communication, provided that the position is endowed with sufficient resources.

Third, existing IREPs require visibility. For researchers to become aware of the existence of IREPs, they need a good internet presence and must be found easily (e.g. on their institution’s website, through search engines, or by providing leaflets). Relevant information such as mandate, contact person, email address, and details on the processes should be clearly visible. Additionally, we encourage IREPs to actively “advertise” their existence (through emails, flyers, presentations, etc.) so that researchers know who to turn to with ethical concerns. Where IREPs exist, research institutions should ensure that information about research ethics and the respective process is integrated into researchers’ curricula – ideally already at the beginning of their academic careers (through introduction to ethics of research seminars, for example), but also through regular seminars or workshops highlighting latest developments. Furthermore, academics should be regularly reminded of the existence and role of IREPs to increase awareness and ensure that respective institutions are consulted when necessary. The supra-organizational platform shall create and maintain a list or interactive map of all existing IRBs and other existing research-ethical review structures.¹³

By implementing these strategies, we can ensure that IREPs are available and visible—and therefore accessible—promoting ethical and responsible research practices.

Fairness

Transparency, impartiality, convergence, and dialogue are essential to fair processes of ethical assessment.

First, the decision-making process, requirements, and guidelines should be laid bare to ensure scholars understand the expectations and evaluation criteria vis-à-vis their research. While we acknowledge the specificity of each case, there should be some core principles and decision criteria on the basis on which IRBs make decisions. These should be published (as far as possible) to keep researchers informed. In this context, a list of “do’s and don’ts” based on lessons learned may help those preparing their research projects and engaged in the process of seeking ethical approval. At the same time, reflecting on how each context may vary is essential to transparently demonstrate that ethical decisions are not universally the same. With the universal aspiration to transparency, IRBs should publish their respective members’ lists and the selection criteria. The supra-organizational platform could also facilitate transparency by publishing existing guidelines.

A second important part to consider in the development of IREPs is the potential impact of established power relations. This includes scenarios such as students assessing projects led by professors within their department, or engaging in discussions about a given research endeavor with their supervisors. The same applies to IREPs’ potential student members. While different demographics – administrative staff, students, early career researchers, senior scholars and professors – should be represented in IREPs, related power relations must be acknowledged. This could include vote anonymization measures, frequent rotations and members with potential conflicts of interest being excluded from deliberation to favor independence of thought and avoid potential repercussions.

Third, improving the fairness of IRB decision-making processes across research institutions involves a degree of convergence in terms of the guidelines and practices. This could be facilitated through meetings and workshops, possibly organized and aided by the supra-organizational platform. Individual IREPs have a responsibility to inform themselves of existing guidelines and attempts to promote comparable procedures and criteria. If given the means to do so, they should also actively engage in dialogue with other IREPs.

Fourth and finally, dialogue should also be a basic principle of the interaction between IRBs and those requesting ethics clearance. Processes which only serve to obtain a clearance “stamp of approval” without engaging in discussions on the ethical issues at hand represent a very unambitious understanding of research ethics. Strict top-down decision-making should be avoided. Instead, researchers should be informed from the start about the possibility for exchange and IRBs should reach out to them for clarification and discussion where necessary. In person events and other opportunities to meet and exchange with IRB members would be welcome. It should be made clear in advance how potential conflicts between researchers and IRBs are dealt with. The supra-organizational platform may offer a point of contact for researchers or IRB members who consider their local ethical review processes to be severely dysfunctional.¹⁴

Implementing these recommendations across home institutions will render the review process more transparent and fairer helping better promote ethical research practices in general.

Expertise

A final set of recommendations addresses the promotion of expertise in and around IREPs. Specialist knowledge is needed to properly engage with questions and concerns regarding ethical research and can be fostered by sufficient training and exchange. This implies that institutions and funders must promote and communicate their endeavors here, as well as provide funding (e.g. for travel). Meanwhile, they must also ensure that the workload allows members to make time for it. Regarding training, it is crucial not to rely solely on one-sided expertise. Involving a diverse group of people is essential, as no one can be an expert in every context. Therefore, listening to individuals with varied backgrounds is vital. To start with, case-specific knowledge (e.g. about a specific country) may be necessary to adequately assess the application. As Grady states: “Research methods and opportunities have evolved, the domains of oversight have expanded, and the research enterprise has grown and diversified” (2015: 1153). To cope with the complexities at play, it is beneficial for the IRB to be made up of scholars from diverse backgrounds and disciplines, potentially helping with assessment of different research aspects (e.g. digital security, post-colonial structures) and addressing the novel challenges posed by recent developments. A report by the European Commission Directorate-General for Research (2009) highlights that despite interdisciplinarity often being challenging, IRBs have experienced collaboration between different disciplines fostering vital understanding for all involved actors. In case expertise is lacking, (external) consultants or a “peer-review system” may become involved with due consideration of financial and time constraints. There should be open lines of communication between IRBs and experts in, for example, legal departments and data protection offices without overburdening bureaucracy.

Second, it bears mentioning that many scholars conduct research outside of their “home context,” for instance, by traveling to other geographic locations. In these cases, working together with local partners to ensure that ethical considerations are in line with local realities, norms, and values may be imperative. As noted earlier, this is particularly the case for research settings characterized by inequalities and unequal power structures, such as ones where significant differences in available resources and income levels exist between the scholar’s home context and the research setting. Thus, not only individual researchers but also IRBs should strive to engage with partners and foster networks that can help ensuring that research is conducted ethically across different social contexts.

In both cases, the supra-organizational platform we propose for fostering exchange between different local experiences and IREPs may facilitate consultations when desired (e.g. on specific country contexts or digital tools that members of a given IRB are unfamiliar with, or where the implications are grave – while carefully navigating issues of confidentiality and security). Such a platform could also facilitate IREPs connecting with other institutions and individuals, such as legal offices and data protection managers, fostering exchange and collaboration via regular meetings and similar.

Conclusions and limitations

In this article, we have advocated implementing what we call “Institutionalized Research Ethics Practices” or IREPs in the German social sciences. The offered insights were based on a literature review, our own experiences both as researchers and as participants in ethics commissions in the social sciences and adjacent sciences, exchanges with other scholars in the context of two workshops we convened as well as on the constitution of a novel database on German IRBs.

There have evidently been growing efforts to establish ethics review processes and IRBs in the social sciences in Germany. As our systematic survey revealed, many research and higher education institutions have set up such processes in recent years. However, we have also observed that these can be difficult to access for the concerned researchers. The boards commonly engage in punctuality-oriented approval procedures rather than offering continuous ethics consulting throughout the research process. One reason for this tendency toward “check-box ethics” may be the growing requirement for formalized ethics approval on the part of journals and funding bodies. Continued practices of responsible research are, however, less clear-cut than one-time approval procedures. In addition, they need to be tailored toward methodological and disciplinary specificities and flexibly engage different kinds of expertise.

We therefore suggest that, instead of installing hierarchical ethics approval processes, research institutions should foster ongoing exchange between scholars, review boards, and relevant experts. To make this possible, work performed in ethics review and consulting processes should be better acknowledged. Our analysis has also revealed the need for the better-structured exchange of information on best practices between researchers from different institutions and backgrounds. Coordination and dialogue between research ethics boards remains too limited, and detailed information is often not made publicly available.

Based on our identification of the challenges that IRBs in the German social sciences currently face, we therefore recommend the further development of ethics review efforts along four lines: (1) accessibility, (2) fairness, (3) expertise, and (4) conducive environment.

We now conclude with a reflection on the limitations of (1) our own article and approach and (2) of the institutionalized ethics review processes we suggest. On the first point, we have aimed at providing only a starting point for discussion rather than the final word. First, our insights are partly based on the subjective and individual research experiences of the authors and the exchange between them. Second, our systematic review of research ethics for social scientists in Germany was constrained by the extent of publicly available information here, which was sadly often limited. The same applies to that on public information about the ethics review processes in the country. Also, there are no pooled resources on research ethics practices in the social sciences in Germany. It is for this reason that we suggest organizations like the RatSWD be given the appropriate financial support to facilitate the creation of a (publicly funded) platform helping to collect and share such information and bring those from different research institutions into conversation with one another. Further empirical work on ethical review processes in German universities is needed, with our study serving as a useful starting point here.

Regarding the second point, we believe that implementing institutionalized ethics review procedures in the German social sciences provides an important contribution to reducing (unintended) harms and to improving the quality but also justice and responsibility of research in all disciplines and fields. However, the IREPs we propose come with their limitations as well. First, such ethics review processes are still located within research institutions and are therefore mostly carried out by a scientific elite. We have stressed the need to include diverse members of academia in these processes. Ideally, the latter should include broader democratic discussions on the purpose of publicly funded science and the meaning of research ethics (Kitcher, 2011). Moreover, many ethical challenges which research projects face are rooted in broader societal problems and inequalities. IREPs, being suited within research institutions, cannot solve these broader societal challenges. Further, the mere existence of IREPs should not relieve individuals and research institutions of their responsibilities concerning these societal issues. Rather, we would like to underscore what others have discussed as those “duty of care without restricting research” (Grimm et al., 2020: 130). Research institutes could lead the way as agenda setters, creating the appropriate conditions and nurturing the right environment for the establishment and maintenance of IREPs.

Additionally, the workload distribution should not reinforce existing inequalities in academia nor go financially uncompensated. Currently, precariousness in German academia severely limits the possibilities regarding responsible research ethics and IREPs. A change in mentality is needed to consider research ethics not as an additional bureaucratic burden and instead to see it as a fundamental component of high-quality scientific endeavor. This could be achieved by including research ethics as a key component in the evaluation of academic merits such as in reaching tenure-track decisions.

In closing the article, we acknowledge the IREPs we have suggested here—the extensive challenges associated therewith notwithstanding—provide an ideal scenario for addressing these matters and that their practical implementation will thus be a greater task ahead. We conceptualized how this process might get underway and provided also some suggestions for potential first steps toward further developing ethics, responsibility, justice, and quality in German social science research. Finally, we must emphasize that despite the shortcomings of existing ethics procedures described in this article, many scholars in different positions of seniority and in various German research institutions are very much committed to and engaged in conducting, ensuring, and improving research ethics and related review procedures. This often-voluntary work is extremely important and valuable – with our study, we would like to acknowledge this work and contribute to strengthening such efforts in the social sciences both in Germany and beyond.

Footnotes

Acknowledgements

We would like to thank the participants who provided their valuable insights during our workshops. In addition, we want to express our gratitude to Felix Bethke (PRIF) and Cordula Tibi Weber (GIGA) for their valuable feedback and guidance. We are also grateful to the anonymous reviewers who provided constructive feedback to previous versions of this manuscript.

Declaration of conflicting interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

All articles in Research Ethics are published as open access. There are no submission charges and no Article Processing Charges as these are fully funded by institutions through Knowledge Unlatched, resulting in no direct charge to authors. For more information about Knowledge Unlatched please see here: .

Ethical approval

The authors declare that research ethics approval was not required for this study. The article is inspired by discussions we had at two separate workshops on the topic. Participants were informed that impressions from these workshops may be used in future publications. Participants must not be considered study subjects but rather providers of background information. We neither quoted nor published any information that would enable the identification of participants in the text, in order to ensure their full anonymity. No personal data regarding the participants was saved. In addition, our empirical section draws on public information found on the official homepages of the research institutions in our sample. Hence, our research did not meet the criteria for formal ethical review at our respective institutions.

ORCID iDs

Andrew Crawford

Laura Fichtner

Laura Gianna Guntrum

Stephanie Jänsch

Niklas Krösche

Eloïse Soulier

Clara-Auguste Süß

Notes

References

Alderson

Morrow

(2006) Multidisciplinary research ethics review: Is it feasible? International Journal of Social Research Methodology 9(5): 405–417.

Amirkhani

(2023) Taking ethics seriously. In: Krüger

(ed.) Torn Many Ways: Politics, Conflict and Emotion in Research. Cham: Springer International Publishing, 105–119.

Asplund

Hulter Åsberg

(2023) Reporting ethics approval in articles on criminality. An audit of adherence to Swedish legislation. Journal of Empirical Research on Human Research Ethics 18(3): 147–153.

Baele

Lewis

Hoeffler

, et al. (2018) The ethics of security research: An ethics framework for contemporary security studies. International Studies Perspectives 19(2): 105–127.

Bonnet

Robert

(2009) La régulation éthique de la recherche aux États-Unis: Histoire, état des lieux et enjeux. Genèses 2(75): 87–108.

Bundesministerium für Bildung und Forschung (n.d.) Ethik. Available at: https://www.horizont-europa.de/de/Ethik-1763.html (accessed 3 April 2024).

Carlson

Boyd

Webb

(2004) The revision of the Declaration of Helsinki: Past, present and future. British Journal of Clinical Pharmacology 57(6): 695–713.

Carniel

Hickey

Southey

, et al. (2023) The ethics review and the humanities and social sciences: Disciplinary distinctions in ethics review processes. Research Ethics 19(2): 139–156.

Chatfield

Lightbody

Qayum

, et al. (2022) Can an ethics code help to achieve equity in international research collaborations? Implementing the global code of conduct for research in resource-poor settings in India and Pakistan. Research Ethics 18(4): 281–303.

10.

Comstock

(2013) Research Ethics: A Philosophical Guide to the Responsible Conduct of Research. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

11.

Corbie-Smith

(1999) The continuing legacy of the Tuskegee syphilis study: Considerations for clinical investigation. American Journal of the Medical Sciences 317(1): 5–8.

12.

Cronin-Furman

Lake

(2018) Ethics abroad: Fieldwork in fragile and violent contexts. Political Science and Politics 51(3): 607–614.

13.

De Wet

(2010) The importance of ethical appraisal in social science research: Reviewing a faculty of humanities’ research ethics committee. Journal of Academic Ethics 8: 301–314.

14.

DFG and Leopoldina (2018) Gemeinsamer Ausschuss zum Umgang mit sicherheitsrelevanter Forschung. Tätigkeitsbericht, Berlin, Germany, October. Available at: https://www.leopoldina.org/uploads/tx_leopublication/2018_GA_Taetigkeitsbericht.pdf (accessed 15 September 2023).

15.

DGS and BDS (1992) Ethik-kodex der Deutsche Gesellschaft für Soziologie (DGS) und des Berufsverbandes Deutscher Soziologen (BDS). Available at: https://soziologie.univie.ac.at/fileadmin/user_upload/s_soziologie/Sonstige/Dateien/Wissenschaftliches_Arbeiten/DGS_Ethik.pdf (accessed 11 April 2024).

16.

Dilger

(2017) Ethics, epistemology and ethnography: The need for an anthropological debate on ethical review processes in Germany. Sociologus 67(2): 191–208.

17.

Dingwall

(2008) The ethical case against ethical regulation in humanities and social science research. Twenty-First Century Society 3(1): 1–12.

18.

Doyle

(2020) The role of descriptive ethics in the design of research ethics procedures in the social sciences. Sentio 2: 10–14.

19.

Emmerich

(2013) Between the accountable and the auditable: Ethics and ethical governance in the social sciences. Research Ethics 9(4): 175–186.

20.

ENERI (n.d.) Research ethics committees: main tasks and challenges. Available at: https://eneri.mobali.com/research-ethics-committees-main-tasks-and-challenges (accessed 3 April 2024).

21.

Entwicklung des RatSWD (n.d.) KonsortSWD. Available at: https://www.konsortswd.de/ueber-uns/ratswd/entwicklung/ (accessed 12 April 2024).

22.

European Commission (2010) European Textbook on Ethics in Research. Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union. Available at: https://data.europa.eu/doi/10.2777/51536 (accessed 3 April 2024).

23.

European Commission (2013) Ethics for Researchers: Facilitating Research Excellence in FP7. Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union. Available at: https://data.europa.eu/doi/10.2777/7491 (accessed 3 April 2024).

24.

European Commission Directorate-General for Research (2009) Global governance of science: Report of the expert group on global governance of science to the Science, Economy and Society Directorate, Directorate-General for Research, European Commission. Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union. Available at: https://data.europa.eu/doi/10.2777/31776 (accessed 3 April 2024).

25.

Favaretto

De Clercq

Gaab

, et al. (2020) First do no harm: An exploration of researchers’ ethics of conduct in Big Data behavioral studies. PLos One 15(11): 1–23.

26.

Fecher

Kuper

Sokolovska

, et al. (2021) Understanding the societal impact of the social sciences and humanities: Remarks on roles, challenges, and expectations. Frontiers in Research Metrics and Analytics 6: 1–14.

27.

Ferretti

Ienca

Hurst

, et al. (2020) Big Data, biomedical research, and ethics review: New challenges for IRBs. IRB Ethics and Human Research 42(5): 17–28.

28.

Garzcarek

Steuer

, et al. (2019) Approaching ethical guidelines for data scientists. In: Bauer

(ed.) Applications in Statistical Computing. Cham: Springer International Publishing (Studies in Classification, Data Analysis, and Knowledge Organization, 151–169.

29.

Geschichte der Forschungsethik (n.d.) Available at: https://www.akek.de/geschichte-der-forschungsethik/ (accessed 13 June 2024).

30.

Grady

(2015) Institutional review boards: Purpose and challenges. Chest 148(5): 1148–1155.

31.

Grimm

, et al. (2020) Safer Field Research in the Social Sciences: A Guide to Human and Digital Security in Hostile Environments. London: Sage Publications Ltd.

32.

Haelewaters

Hofmann

Romero-Olivares

(2021) Ten simple rules for Global North researchers to stop perpetuating helicopter research in the Global South. PLoS Computational Biology 17(8): 1–8.

33.

Hauser

Wagner

Zimmermann

(1998) Memorandum: Erfolgsbedingungen Empirischer Wirtschaftsforschung und empirisch gestuetzter Wirtschafts- und Sozialpolitischer Beratung. IZA Discussion Paper Series (14): 369–379.

34.

Heise

Schmidt

J-H

, et al. (2014) Ethik der online-Forschung. In: Welker

(ed.) Handbuch Online-Forschung. Sozialwissenschaftliche Datengewinnung und -Aauswertung in digitalen Netzen. Köln: Herbert von Halem, 519–539.

35.

Hickey

Davis

Farmer

, et al. (2022) Beyond criticism of ethics review boards: Strategies for engaging research communities and enhancing ethical review processes. Journal of Academic Ethics 20: 549–567.

36.

Hopf

(2016) Forschungsethik und qualitative Forschung. In: Hopf

Kuckartz

(eds) Schriften zu Methodologie und Methoden qualitativer Sozialforschung. Wiesbaden: Springer Fachmedien Wiesbaden, 195–206.

37.

Howe

(2022) Trauma to self and other: Reflections on field research and conflict. Security Dialogue 53(4): 363–381.

38.

Jameel

Ali

Toheed

(2020) Ethics of artificial intelligence: Research challenges and potential solutions. In: 2020 3rd International Conference on Computing, Mathematics and Engineering Technologies (iCoMET): 1–6.

39.

Jenkins

(2018) Assistants, guides, collaborators, friends: The concealed figures of conflict research. Journal of Contemporary Ethnography 47(2): 143–170.

40.

Jotkowitz

(2008) The Holocaust and medical ethics: The voices of the victims. Journal of Medical Ethics 34(12): 869–870.

41.

Kämper

(2016) Risiken sozialwissenschaftlicher Forschung? Forschungsethik, Datenschutz und Schutz von Persönlichkeitsrechten in den Sozial- und Verhaltenswissenschaften. RatSWD Working Paper Series 255: 1–8.

42.

Keith-Spiegel

Koocher

(2005) The IRB paradox: Could the protectors also encourage deceit? Ethics & Behavior 15(4): 339–349.

43.

Kitcher

(2011) Science in a Democratic Society. Amherst, NY: Prometheus Books.

44.

Konsort

SWD

(n.d. a) Aufgaben/Tätigkeiten. Available at: https://www.konsortswd.de/ueber-uns/ratswd/aufgaben/ (accessed 12 April 2024).

45.

Konsort

SWD

(n.d. b) Stellungnahmen & Positionspapiere. Available at: https://www.konsortswd.de/publikationen/stellungnahmen/ (accessed 12 April 2024).

46.

Konsort

SWD

(n.d. c) Übersicht sozial- und wirtschaftswissenschaftlicher Ethikkommissionen. Available at: https://www.konsortswd.de/ratswd/themen/forschungsethik/ethikkommissionen/ (accessed 15 September 2023).

47.

Kosinski

(2021) Facial recognition technology can expose political orientation from naturalistic facial images. Scientific Reports 11(1): 100–107.

48.

Kosinski

Stillwell

Graepel

(2013) Private traits and attributes are predictable from digital records of human behavior. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 110(15): 5802–5805.

49.

Kramer

Guillory

Hancock

(2014) Experimental evidence of massive-scale emotional contagion through social networks. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 111(24): 8788–8790.

50.

Landi

Shriver

Mueller

(2015) Consideration and checkboxes: Incorporating ethics and science into the 3Rs. Journal of the American Association for Laboratory Animal Science: JAALAS 54(2): 224–230.

51.

Lynch

(2018) Opening closed doors: Promoting IRB transparency. Journal of Law Medicine & Ethics 46(1): 145–158.

52.

Mitchell

(2013) Escaping the “Field Trap”: Exploitation and the global politics of educational fieldwork in “conflict zones. Third World Quarterly 34(7): 1247–1264.

53.

Nebeker

Torous

Bartlett Ellis

(2019) Building the case for actionable ethics in digital health research supported by artificial intelligence. BMC Medicine 17(1): 137–7.

54.

Odeny

Bosurgi

(2022) Time to end parachute science. Plos Medicine 19(9): 1–3.

55.

Oellers

Wegner

(2009) Does Germany need a (new) research ethics for the social sciences? RatSWD Working Paper Series 86: 1–12.

56.

Oyinloye

(2021) Towards an ọmọlúàbí code of research ethics: Applying a situated, participant-centred virtue ethics framework to fieldwork with disadvantaged populations in diverse cultural settings. Research Ethics 17(4): 401–422.

57.

Radder

(2023) How (not) to be held accountable in research: The case of the Dutch integrity code. Accountability in Research 30(5): 261–275.

58.

RatSWD [Rat für Sozial- und Wirtschaftsdaten] (2017) Forschungsethische Grundsätze und Prüfverfahren in den Sozial- und Wirtschaftswissenschaften. RatSWD Output Series 9(5): 1–56.

59.

Schaar

(2016) What is important for data protection in science in the future? General and specific changes in data protection for scientific use resulting from the EU General Data Protection Regulation. RatSWD Working Paper Series 258: 1–13.

60.

Scheper-Hughes

(1995) The primacy of the ethical: Propositions for a militant anthropology. Current Anthropology 36(3): 409–440.

61.

Schroeder

, et al. (2019) Equitable Research Partnerships: A Global Code of Conduct to Counter Ethics Dumping. Cham: Springer International Publishing (SpringerBriefs in Research and Innovation Governance).

62.

Sheehan

Dunn

Sahan

(2018) In defence of governance: Ethics review and social research. Journal of Medical Ethics 44: 710–716.

63.

Sluka

(2020) Too dangerous for fieldwork? The challenge of institutional risk-management in primary research on conflict, violence and “Terrorism. Contemporary Social Science 15(2): 241–257.

64.

Smith

(1990) The Conceptual Practices of Power: A Feminist Sociology of Knowledge. Toronto: University of Toronto Press.

65.

Solbakk

(2010) National Ethics Advisory Bodies and Committees in Norway: History, lessons learnt, and common challenges ahead. In: UNESCO Division of Ethics of Science and Technology – Social and Human Sciences Sector (ed.) National Bioethics Committees in Action. Paris: United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization, 56–71.

66.

Strobel

Zeiler

Schaar

(2022) Der stand der Dinge zur forschungsethischen Begutachtung in den Geistes- und Sozialwissenschaften: Ergebnisse einer umfrage unter Forschenden. Rat SWD Working Paper Series 278: 1–23.

67.

Trust (2018) The TRUST code: A global code of conduct for equitable research partnerships. Available at: https://www.globalcodeofconduct.org/ (accessed 15 September 2023).

68.

Von Unger

Simon

(2016) Ethikkommissionen in den Sozialwissenschaften - historische Entwicklungen und internationale Kontroversen. RatSWD Working Paper Series 253: 1–17.

69.

Weber

(2009) New methods in human subjects research: Do we need a new ethics? RatSWD Working Paper Series 89: 1–13.

70.

Wood

(2006) The ethical challenges of field research in conflict zones. Qualitative Sociology 29: 373–386.

71.

Zimmer

Kinder-Kurlanda

(eds) (2017) Internet Research Ethics for the Social Age. New York: Peter Lang (Digital Formations). Available at: https://www.peterlang.com/document/1055468 (accessed 15 September 2023).