Balancing Indigenous Principles and Institutional Research Guidelines for Informed Consent: A Case Study from the Peruvian Amazon

Mya Sherman, L. Berrang‐Ford, J. Ford, Marie‐Pierre Lardeau, I. Hofmeijer, Carol Zavaleta Cortijo
{"title":"Balancing Indigenous Principles and Institutional Research Guidelines for Informed Consent: A Case Study from the Peruvian Amazon","authors":"Mya Sherman, L. Berrang‐Ford, J. Ford, Marie‐Pierre Lardeau, I. Hofmeijer, Carol Zavaleta Cortijo","doi":"10.1080/21507716.2012.714838","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Background: Current literature emphasizes the need to implement informed consent according to indigenous principles and worldviews. However, few studies explicitly address how informed consent can be effectively and appropriately obtained in indigenous communities in accordance with research ethics guidelines. Methods: This article uses participatory rural appraisal methods to identify and characterize community preferences for informed consent in two indigenous communities in the Peruvian Amazon, using Canadian federal research regulations and McGill University's Research Ethics Board as a case study to examine where institutional ethics guidelines constrain or support culturally appropriate notions of informed consent. Results: The study emphasizes the importance of tailoring informed consent procedures to community circumstances. Although both communities in this case study are located in the Peruvian Amazon, there were important distinctions between them, such as gender dynamics and social structure, which profoundly affected informed consent procedures. It is also important to consider the balance of collectivism and individualism at a community level in order to determine the role of individual and community consent. Conclusion: Research ethics guidelines generally allow for this contextualized approach. However, regulations still have the potential to constrain indigenous informed consent due to content requirements for informed consent forms, limited flexibility for modifications in the field, and requirements for individual consent.","PeriodicalId":89316,"journal":{"name":"AJOB primary research","volume":"65 1","pages":"53 - 68"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2012-10-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"31","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"AJOB primary research","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/21507716.2012.714838","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 31

Abstract

Background: Current literature emphasizes the need to implement informed consent according to indigenous principles and worldviews. However, few studies explicitly address how informed consent can be effectively and appropriately obtained in indigenous communities in accordance with research ethics guidelines. Methods: This article uses participatory rural appraisal methods to identify and characterize community preferences for informed consent in two indigenous communities in the Peruvian Amazon, using Canadian federal research regulations and McGill University's Research Ethics Board as a case study to examine where institutional ethics guidelines constrain or support culturally appropriate notions of informed consent. Results: The study emphasizes the importance of tailoring informed consent procedures to community circumstances. Although both communities in this case study are located in the Peruvian Amazon, there were important distinctions between them, such as gender dynamics and social structure, which profoundly affected informed consent procedures. It is also important to consider the balance of collectivism and individualism at a community level in order to determine the role of individual and community consent. Conclusion: Research ethics guidelines generally allow for this contextualized approach. However, regulations still have the potential to constrain indigenous informed consent due to content requirements for informed consent forms, limited flexibility for modifications in the field, and requirements for individual consent.
平衡土著原则和知情同意的制度研究指南:秘鲁亚马逊地区的案例研究
背景:当前文献强调需要根据土著原则和世界观实施知情同意。然而,很少有研究明确讨论如何根据研究伦理准则在土著社区有效和适当地获得知情同意。方法:本文采用参与式农村评估方法,以加拿大联邦研究法规和麦吉尔大学研究伦理委员会为例,研究机构伦理准则在哪些方面限制或支持文化上适当的知情同意概念,以确定和表征秘鲁亚马逊两个土著社区的社区对知情同意的偏好。结果:该研究强调了根据社区情况调整知情同意程序的重要性。虽然本案例研究中的两个社区都位于秘鲁亚马逊地区,但它们之间存在着重要的区别,例如性别动态和社会结构,这深刻地影响了知情同意程序。为了确定个人和社区同意的作用,在社区一级考虑集体主义和个人主义的平衡也很重要。结论:研究伦理准则通常允许这种情境化的方法。然而,由于知情同意书的内容要求、实地修改的灵活性有限以及个人同意的要求,条例仍然有可能限制土著的知情同意。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信