Page 1 of 9
Advances in Social Sciences Research Journal – Vol. 8, No. 9
Publication Date: September 25, 2021
DOI:10.14738/assrj.89.10807. Egharevba, E. S., Osayande, S., & Odemwingie, O. (2021). Informed Consent as a Challenge to Social Research Execution in Nigeria.
Advances in Social Sciences Research Journal, 8(9). 247-255.
Services for Science and Education – United Kingdom
Informed Consent as a Challenge to Social Research Execution in
Nigeria
Egharevba, Edebiri Stanley
University of Benin, Benin City
Osayande, Sunny
University of Benin, Benin City
Odemwingie, Osahon
University of Benin, Benin City
INTRODUCTION
The drive for knowledge acquisition and exhibition is a phenomena activity or an exercise in
our contemporary dynamic world. Man, by nature is an inquisitive being with a flourishing
desire to be armed with the requisite knowledge of the circumstance inter alia surrounding his
daily existential reality. The capacity for survival in such an ever-changing and growing world
is traceable to positive adaptation which draws inspiration from research (Chukwu, Ebue,
Obikeguna, Arionu, Agbawodikeizu & Agwu, 2016). Research is not a haphazard exercise,
rather, it is systematic. It is systematic in that the process has specific pre-arranged sets of
procedures and steps which are required to adopt to have accurate results. Hence, Bennett
(1983) aptly defined it as a systematic, careful inquiry or examination to discover new
information or relationships and to expand or verify existing knowledge for some specified
purpose. The core objective of research is adding to or expanding knowledge frontiers by
ensuring knowledge vacuums are filled through discoveries, enhancing theory construction,
verification and testing of corpus of knowledge, enabling the identification of relationships
among variables, thereby enhancing human progress.
Some of the reasons for the orderly or systematic nature of research include the ethical
principles, guidelines or standards that researchers are expected to adopt to ensure their safety
as researchers, as well as that of their respondents. The pertinence of ethical rules in research
include the protection of participants’ right and privacy, guarantee of the public’s right to know,
protection of the researcher from undue litigations, ensuring the doors for future generations
of researchers are opened, etc. (Harrison, as cited in Aghedo, 2017, p.). Furthermore, Aldred
(2008) averred that the Economic and Social Research Council (ESRC) – a major funding body
for social science researches in the United Kingdom – has provided six principles to guide the
relationship between researchers and their participants, viz:
1. Integrity and quality (the character of honesty and excellence)
2. Full disclosure about the research to research staff and subjects
3. Confidentiality and anonymity (the character of secrecy)
4. Voluntary participation by participants
5. Avoidance of harm to participants
6. Avoiding or disclosing conflicts of interest
Page 2 of 9
248
Advances in Social Sciences Research Journal (ASSRJ) Vol. 8, Issue 9, September-2021
Services for Science and Education – United Kingdom
Similarly, Wiles, Charles, Crow and Heath (2006) highlight the basis for core ethical decisions
in social research to encompass allegiance to respondents’ right (e.g. protection of privacy),
promise of respect for participants, and the protection of the researcher (which includes being
saved from unnecessary litigations, etc.). However, these research ethics or principles have
been violated in several ways. Diener and Crandall (1978) for instance, have categorized these
unethical research practices into four major interwoven areas as follow:
i. Deception of Respondents. Deception in research occurs when a researcher provides
incomplete information to participants with an intention to mislead the research
subjects. Covert research is usually mixed with deception and condemned as an
unethical practice (Spicker, 2011). Deception happens in research when researchers
represent their work as something different from what it actually is. Due to the fact
that researchers want to limit participants’ knowledge of what the research entails,
so as to ensue natural or uncompromised response to the experimental process, they
tend to deceive the participants (Bryman, 2012). It is rarely feasible (if not totally
impossible) to furnish participants with the unmitigated account of what a particular
research is about. Lying or misrepresentation in order to gain access to data is
deception
ii. Harm to Participants. This involves any act that is deemed to cause physical harm,
loss of self-esteem, stress, harm to participants’ development and inducing subjects
to perform reproofing acts. So, there is further encouragement for the protection of
participants through confidentiality of records and one of the problems with the
harm to participants’ principle is the difficulty in identifying in all circumstances
what constitutes harm (Bryman, 2012). Worthy of mention is the fact that
participant involves both the researcher.
iii. Privacy Invasion. The right to respondents’ privacy is a basic tenet and its
infringement is not condoned or treated with kid gloves. The British Sociological
Association (BSA) avers that anonymity and privacy of research participants should
be accorded utmost respected (Bryman, 2012).
In the discussions of privacy, the dominant element is individual’s control of information
concerning him or herself. Gilbert (2001) explains that in our contemporary industrial society,
information is a commodity. Also, keeping information about oneself and divulging what one
feels necessary and to whom one feels necessary is a key means of ones’ privacy protection.
iv. Lack of Informed Consent. This is a process in which a person learns key facts about
a clinical trial, including potential risks and benefits, before deciding whether or not
to participate in a study (Nnebue, 2010). Getting informed consent from a
prospective participant becomes difficult if what he or she is consenting to and
where participation begins and ends is opaque (Miller & Bell, 2002)
The shocking discoveries about the opprobrium within some countries of the world where
doctors, scientists and others alike; acting on the behalf of government and organizations
ignore the rights of individuals, who are subjected to different magnitudes of injuries and
sometimes death in the name of research engendered this paper. For instance, today, Forced
Organ harvesting has attained a sinister dimension and it occurs on a massively state
sanctioned level (Palin, 2016). The total number of legal transplant in China is about ten
thousand (10,000) per year, but they surpass this figure. Sixty thousand to one hundred
Page 3 of 9
249
Egharevba, E. S., Osayande, S., & Odemwingie, O. (2021). Informed Consent as a Challenge to Social Research Execution in Nigeria. Advances in
Social Sciences Research Journal, 8(9). 247-255.
URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.14738/assrj.89.10807
thousand (60,000 – 100,000) organs are transplanted every year in Chinese hospitals. The
volume in excess is gotten from people without their consent (Palin, 2016). So, this paper is
tailored to informed consent (one of the core ethical principle in the research process) which is
obtainable in both the physical and social sciences.
MEANING AND ATTRIBUTES OF INFORMED CONSENT
Faden and Beauchamp (1986) defined informed consent in two senses: Moral and Socio-legal.
Morally, they defined informed consent as an autonomous authorization of one’s participation
in research. But in the socio-legal sense, informed consent concerns the practices and
conventions that make it socially or legally acceptable to involve a person as a research subject,
and this comprises the principles, rules, cultural, and professional guidelines governing
informed consent in research.
Similarly, Chima (2017) defined Informed Consent as a legal and ethical doctrine derived from
the principle of respect for autonomy; while Van Oosten (1989) asserts that informed consent
is a requirement for all lawful investigations as a well-established principle. Succinctly put, it
is:
...the process where a participant is informed about all aspects of the trial, which are important
for the participants to make a decision and after studying all aspects of the trial, the participant
voluntarily confirms his or her willingness to participate in a particular clinical trial and
significance of the research for advancement of medical knowledge and social welfare
(Nijhawan, Janodia, Muddukrishna, Bhat, Bairy, Udupa, & Musmade, 2013, p. 134).
Informed consent has three dimensions, viz: Knowledgeability or Information – participants
must have the requisite or adequate information about the research; Volition or Voluntary
Participation – participation must not be via inducement, coercion or deception; and
Competent Choice or Comprehension – participants must have the capacity to understand and
make an informed choice (Goduka, 1990; Thorne, 1980; Aghedo, 2017). Similarly, Pedroni and
Pimple (2001) highlighted the four elements of informed consent to include: Information,
Understanding, Voluntariness and Decision Making Capacity. In furtherance, Tekola, Bull,
Newport and Adeyemo, (2009) added ‘consent’ (that is, participant’s agreement to involve in
the proposed research) to the aforementioned elements. Nnebue (2010) further opined that
informed consent is only deemed valid when the participants are competent and their
involvement is voluntarily given.
To ensure that the above elements are pursued to birth compliance with ethical guidelines and
embrace a continuous improvement, Miller and Bell (2002), concluded that ‘consent’ should be
constant. That is, it should be an ongoing and a renegotiated occurrence between the researcher
and the researched throughout the research period. It should not be a condition of once gotten,
forever gotten.
Nevertheless, Informed consent has generated a heated debate especially in disguised or covert
observation which involves covert participant observation or contrived observation which
hides the researchers’ true identity where the emphasis is on the ‘end justifies the means’. The
focus of informed consent is that prospective research participants should have as much
information as possible to avail them of the capacity to make an informed decision of whether
to participate or otherwise (Bryman, 2012). But covert observation negates this principle in its