GCRI · 社会与人类发展
包容性研究伦理
Research with people, especially those affected by crises, poverty or discrimination, raises questions of consent, harm, power and benefit. Inclusive research ethics asks that participants be respected and protected, that communities share in shaping and benefiting from research, and that data be governed responsibly. This page sets out the principles and practices involved, how they are assessed, and what evidence serves researchers, ethics committees and funders.
Inclusive research ethics: how the risk develops.
Participation, consent and local knowledge. The dossier below sets out how the risk develops, what is measured, where the data come from, how it is modelled and who decides.
Consent must be informed and free
Participants need to understand what research involves and be free to refuse. Crises, dependence on aid and power differences can undermine free consent.
Harms can follow research
Data can be used to identify, stigmatise or target people. Protecting confidentiality and minimising data collection reduce these risks.
Communities should shape research
Research designed with communities is more relevant and more likely to benefit them, and helps correct imbalances between researchers and participants.
Benefits should be shared
Results, data and capacity should return to the communities and countries where research takes place.
How inclusive research ethics is modelled, measured and tested.
模型、其假设、数据和不确定性，以科学家或工程师会核查的形式呈现。结构遵循已发表的方法。所取数值仅为示意，不是研究发现。
系统模型
The couplings between the systems in inclusive research ethics: signs of influence, a reinforcing and a balancing loop, and cross-links where stress jumps.
Ethics govern research with people in every domain.
Practice is designed for the 方法与技术系列. The Belmont Report (1979), the Declaration of Helsinki (revised 2024) and the CARE Principles (2020) set the ethics.
- Ethics review lessons.
- Community research agreements.
衡量什么，以及衡量得如何。
每个指标都注明其单位、频率、背后的来源类型以及数值将附带的证据标签。此处不显示数值：数值由计划依据其自身权限提供。
| 指标 | 单位 | 节奏 | 来源类型 | 标签 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Studies with ethics review | percent of published studies reporting approval | 每次审查 | Publication audits | 观测 |
| Research with community engagement documented | percent of projects | 每次审查 | Project records | 已声明 |
| Local researchers in authorship | share of authors from study countries | 每次审查 | Bibliometric analysis | 观测 |
| Data management plans with protection measures | percent of funded projects | 每次审查 | Funder records | 已声明 |
| Results returned to participants or communities | percent of projects | 每次审查 | Project records | 已声明 |
| Ethics committees with capacity for social research | 计数 | 每次评估 | Institutional records | 已报告 |
证据来自何处。
具名公共数据集与机构记录，各自注明许可类别。依协议获得的来源仅按其条款使用，绝不再次发布。
| 来源 | 它提供什么 | 许可类别 |
|---|---|---|
| CIOMS International Ethical Guidelines for Health-related Research Involving Humans | Ethical guidance for research in diverse settings | Public, CIOMS terms |
| Global Code of Conduct for Research in Resource-Poor Settings | Principles of fairness, respect, care and honesty | Public, terms to check |
| UNESCO《开放科学建议书》 | Principles on inclusion and equity in science | Public, UNESCO terms |
| 原住民数据治理 CARE 原则 | Collective rights in data | Public, GIDA terms |
| Bibliometric databases such as OpenAlex | Authorship and collaboration patterns | 开放，CC0 |
由谁决定，以及证据服务于什么。
Society and Human Development prepares evidence. The decisions below are taken by the authorities named, under their own rules, and never by the platform.
| 谁来决定 | 问题 | 本页面服务的证据 |
|---|---|---|
| Ethics committees | Whether research is ethical and how to monitor it | Checklists; protection plans |
| Researchers and research teams | How to design inclusive and protective research | Engagement and benefit-sharing guides |
| Funders | What ethics and equity conditions to set | Audit evidence |
该主题产生的产出
- Ethics review checklists for research in crises
- Community engagement and benefit-sharing guides
- Data protection plans for research with vulnerable groups
- Audits of authorship and benefit sharing
专家提出的问题。
- Who defines the research question, and do affected people have a voice in it?
- Is consent truly informed and voluntary, especially in crises and unequal relationships?
- How is local and Indigenous knowledge recognised, credited and protected?
- What data are collected, who controls them and how could they cause harm?
- What do participants and communities receive from the research?
Principles in practice.
Ethical research begins with respect for persons, beneficence and justice, principles long established in research ethics, applied with care to settings of crisis and inequality. Consent must be informed, voluntary and ongoing, which is difficult when people depend on assistance or fear consequences. Research should minimise burden, avoid repeated assessment of the same communities and stop when risks outweigh benefits.
Participation ranges from consultation to co-design and community-led research. Indigenous data sovereignty principles assert the rights of Indigenous peoples to govern data about them. Local knowledge of hazards, ecosystems and coping often precedes and complements scientific data, and should be credited and used only with permission. Data protection, including minimisation, anonymisation and secure storage, protects participants from identification and misuse.
Crisis settings add specific duties. Researchers must avoid diverting resources from response, coordinate to prevent over-assessment, protect staff and participants, and recognise that people in distress may agree to take part because they hope for assistance. Clear explanation that research is separate from aid is part of valid consent.
Methods and safeguards.
Ethical review
Independent review of protocols before research starts, with attention to risk and consent.
Co-design
Communities shape questions, methods and interpretation.
Protection by design
Collect only what is needed, protect identities and agree retention and use.
Limits: ethical review cannot anticipate every situation, power imbalances persist even with good procedures, and anonymisation can fail when small groups or locations are described.
Where this page’s references lead.
阅读本页时所对照的机构和文件。状态和版本会变化；每个链接都指向发布机构。
问题与解答。
What is informed consent?
What is benefit sharing in research?
Why is research in crises ethically sensitive?
Can participants withdraw?
Who owns community knowledge?
How do I report an ethical concern?
从本页贡献证据。
报告 is the Consortium’s quarterly publication. What you know about this subject can become evidence, a case or a correction in the next edition, credited to you and published under CC BY 4.0 where it is your own work.
- 电子邮件网关 GW-GCRI从本页发送证据、更正、案例、方法、审查、翻译或概况投稿。它会带上本页标签送达，由负责的编辑接收。
- Zenodo开放存缴存缴并提交到社区用您的 ORCID iD 在 Zenodo 上发布您自己的记录，然后提交到那里的 Reports 社区。由策展人审核；DOI 仍归您所有。
- 报告GCRI查看所有贡献方式贡献类型、各自的评审方式、您获得的署名、许可协议，以及绝不接受的内容。
切勿发送个人数据、敏感基础设施细节或您无权分享的任何内容。贡献在使用前会经过审查；发送贡献不赋予署名权或编辑权，赞助也绝不能换取研究结论。
法律文件。
本网站上的地图、数据和图表仅作为背景和一般信息展示。它们不是建议、预测或预警；信息的局限见免责声明和数据说明。