Mind the Gap: Reclaiming Ethics in Social Science Inquiry

“Scientists must be wiser than that; otherwise, science is just a weapon of mass destruction. A scientist without humanity is anything but a scientist; science without ethics is nothing but a disaster.” — Corazon Calamidad 

Social science research, conducted through interviews, surveys, and participant observation, has a direct and lasting impact on individuals and communities. When ethical principles are overlooked, the consequences can include misrepresentation, exploitation, or harm to already vulnerable populations. According to the National Committee for Research Ethics in the Social Sciences and the Humanities (NESH, 2016), respect for human dignity, informed consent, and harm mitigation are as essential in the social sciences as they are in biomedical fields.

In a recent exchange with a researcher from the University of Dschang, I learned that their institution places far more emphasis on ethics in health sciences than in social sciences. This gap is consistent with findings by Tchio-Nighie et al. (2024), who reported that while ethics are formally integrated into curricula across most health training institutions in Cameroon, their inclusion is far less robust in social science disciplines. Further compounding the issue, Marceline et al. (2019) observed that even researchers who obtain ethical clearance often fail to uphold ethical protocols in the field. This jeopardizes the credibility of their work.

Some lecturers still argue that social science research does not require ethical review or that duplicating templates from public health studies is sufficient. However, this assumption is deeply flawed. Hoffmann and Nortjé (2019) caution that applying biomedical ethics frameworks uncritically to social research fails to address discipline-specific concerns, especially in community-based, qualitative inquiries.

This blog argues that the persistent neglect of ethics in social science research is both harmful and avoidable. Institutional reform, discipline-specific guidelines, and better education are key to building ethical integrity across the research ecosystem.

The Beginning: A Call to Strengthen Ethics

My journey toward strengthening ethics in social sciences began with the creation of the eBASE Internal Review Board (IRB), which introduced the TREE framework as a tool to evaluate ethical dimensions in research protocols. In early 2023, an IRB colleague joined the North West Regional Ethics Committee for Public Health (CERSH), and I was later appointed as its technical secretary.

While serving at CERSH NW, I identified a significant limitation. The evaluation tools in use—though rigorous—were developed primarily for biomedical and public health research. They lacked nuanced consideration of ethical challenges unique to social science contexts. In response, we proposed incorporating TREE as a complementary tool to address this disciplinary gap.

The Education INDABA 2025 in Limbe provided an ideal platform to elevate this conversation. At this convening, which brought together eight ethics committees, researchers, and policymakers, participants highlighted the pressing need for tools that reflect the realities of social science. One attendee noted, “Social science protocols are still assessed with templates that do not match their unique structure or ethical challenges.”

A Divisive Debate

One of the most revealing moments at the INDABA came during a panel session. A lecturer claimed that ethics committees were unnecessary in social science and that public health templates could suffice. This sparked a compelling debate between two factions: those advocating for tailored ethical guidance and those viewing such oversight as administrative red tape.

Beneath this tension lies a deeper concern: a fundamental misunderstanding of the value and role of ethical oversight in social research.

A Call to Action: From Frameworks to Reform

To move beyond this impasse, researchers, ethics committees, and policymakers must co-develop a unified yet contextually relevant framework for ethical review in the social sciences.

At eBASE Africa, we use the TREE framework, which stands for Transparency, Reproducibility, and Ethical Evidence, adapted from 3ie, to evaluate protocols. TREE is particularly suitable for research conducted in low- and middle-income countries. It emphasizes participant protection alongside community relevance, social value, and transparency. It comprises 10 principles, organized into 37 actionable points:

1.     Use transparency as a tool

2.     Maximize social value and meaningful use

3.     Balance power and align incentives

4.     Preserve the standard of care

5.     Value and prioritize community engagement

6.     Use fair methods

7.     Ensure fair treatment of participants

8.     Ensure informed consent and confidentiality

9.     Ensure a favorable risk-benefit ratio

10.  Ensure a favorable cost-benefit ratio

What makes TREE particularly impactful is its grounding in community engagement. It insists on inclusion not just in name, but in design, analysis, and dissemination. As one ethics committee member at the INDABA noted, “It is a very robust tool. It takes into account many of the ethical principles that are often overlooked.”

What’s Missing, and What Must Change

Despite platforms like WHO’s TRREE offering online ethics training, Cameroon still lacks a nationally endorsed ethical framework tailored specifically to social science. This absence is a policy gap that calls for urgent attention.

Universities have a pivotal role to play. Institutions like the University of Buea, with strong social science programs, should lead efforts to integrate ethical considerations into both training curricula and institutional review processes. These efforts must go beyond checkbox compliance and instead foster a culture of critical reflection, accountability, and respect for the communities being studied.

Conclusion: Building from the Base

Ethics in social science research cannot be an afterthought. It must be a foundational element. As one participant rightly stated during the INDABA: “Start from the base, at the university level.”

To build credible, responsible, and community-centered research in the social sciences, we must demand the same level of ethical rigor expected in other domains. Piloting frameworks like TREE in select institutions and embedding them into ethics training programs can catalyze this transformation.

Because, as Corazon Calamidad wisely reminds us, science without ethics isn’t science at all.