Codes and policies for research ethics
The browser controls to adjust the font size, or print this is ethics in research & why is it important? Ideas and opinions expressed in this essay are the author’s own and do not necessarily represent those of the nih, niehs, or us most people think of ethics (or morals), they think of rules for distinguishing between right and wrong, such as the golden rule ("do unto others as you would have them do unto you"), a code of professional conduct like the hippocratic oath ("first of all, do no harm"), a religious creed like the ten commandments ("thou shalt not kill... This is the most common way of defining "ethics": norms for conduct that distinguish between acceptable and unacceptable people learn ethical norms at home, at school, in church, or in other social settings. Although most societies use laws to enforce widely accepted moral standards and ethical and legal rules use similar concepts, ethics and law are not the same. Peaceful civil disobedience is an ethical way of protesting laws or expressing political r way of defining 'ethics' focuses on the disciplines that study standards of conduct, such as philosophy, theology, law, psychology, or sociology. One may also define ethics as a method, procedure, or perspective for deciding how to act and for analyzing complex problems and issues. While an economist might examine the cost and benefits of various policies related to global warming, an environmental ethicist could examine the ethical values and principles at different disciplines, institutions, and professions have standards for behavior that suit their particular aims and goals. Ethical norms also serve the aims or goals of research and apply to people who conduct scientific research or other scholarly or creative activities. See glossary of commonly used terms in research are several reasons why it is important to adhere to ethical norms in research. First, norms promote the aims of research, such as knowledge, truth, and avoidance of error. For example, prohibitions against fabricating, falsifying, or misrepresenting research data promote the truth and minimize , since research often involves a great deal of cooperation and coordination among many different people in different disciplines and institutions, ethical standards promote the values that are essential to collaborative work, such as trust, accountability, mutual respect, and fairness. For example, many ethical norms in research, such as guidelines for authorship, copyright and patenting policies, data sharing policies, and confidentiality rules in peer review, are designed to protect intellectual property interests while encouraging collaboration. Most researchers want to receive credit for their contributions and do not want to have their ideas stolen or disclosed , many of the ethical norms help to ensure that researchers can be held accountable to the public. For instance, federal policies on research misconduct, conflicts of interest, the human subjects protections, and animal care and use are necessary in order to make sure that researchers who are funded by public money can be held accountable to the , ethical norms in research also help to build public support for research. People are more likely to fund a research project if they can trust the quality and integrity of y, many of the norms of research promote a variety of other important moral and social values, such as social responsibility, human rights, animal welfare, compliance with the law, and public health and safety. Ethical lapses in research can significantly harm human and animal subjects, students, and the public. For example, a researcher who fabricates data in a clinical trial may harm or even kill patients, and a researcher who fails to abide by regulations and guidelines relating to radiation or biological safety may jeopardize his health and safety or the health and safety of staff and and policies for research the importance of ethics for the conduct of research, it should come as no surprise that many different professional associations, government agencies, and universities have adopted specific codes, rules, and policies relating to research ethics. Many government agencies, such as the national institutes of health (nih), the national science foundation (nsf), the food and drug administration (fda), the environmental protection agency (epa), and the us department of agriculture (usda) have ethics rules for funded researchers. Other influential research ethics policies include singapore statement on research integrity, the american chemical society, the chemist professional’s code of conduct, code of ethics (american society for clinical laboratory science) american psychological association, ethical principles of psychologists and code of conduct, statements on ethics and professional responsibility (american anthropological association), statement on professional ethics (american association of university professors), the nuremberg code and the world medical association's declaration of following is a rough and general summary of some ethical principals that various codes address*:Strive for honesty in all scientific communications. Do not deceive colleagues, research sponsors, or the to avoid bias in experimental design, data analysis, data interpretation, peer review, personnel decisions, grant writing, expert testimony, and other aspects of research where objectivity is expected or required. Keep good records of research activities, such as data collection, research design, and correspondence with agencies or data, results, ideas, tools, resources. Never t confidential communications, such as papers or grants submitted for publication, personnel records, trade or military secrets, and patient sible h in order to advance research and scholarship, not to advance just your own career. Promote their welfare and allow them to make their own t for t your colleagues and treat them to promote social good and prevent or mitigate social harms through research, public education, and discrimination against colleagues or students on the basis of sex, race, ethnicity, or other factors not related to scientific competence and in and improve your own professional competence and expertise through lifelong education and learning; take steps to promote competence in science as a and obey relevant laws and institutional and governmental proper respect and care for animals when using them in research. Do not conduct unnecessary or poorly designed animal subjects conducting research on human subjects, minimize harms and risks and maximize benefits; respect human dignity, privacy, and autonomy; take special precautions with vulnerable populations; and strive to distribute the benefits and burdens of research fairly. Decision making in gh codes, policies, and principals are very important and useful, like any set of rules, they do not cover every situation, they often conflict, and they require considerable interpretation.
It is therefore important for researchers to learn how to interpret, assess, and apply various research rules and how to make decisions and to act ethically in various situations. For example, consider the following case,The research protocol for a study of a drug on hypertension requires the administration of the drug at different doses to 50 laboratory mice, with chemical and behavioral tests to determine toxic effects. He therefore decides to extrapolate from the 45 completed results to produce the 5 additional different research ethics policies would hold that tom has acted unethically by fabricating data. If this study were sponsored by a federal agency, such as the nih, his actions would constitute a form of research misconduct, which the government defines as "fabrication, falsification, or plagiarism" (or ffp). It is important to remember, however, that misconduct occurs only when researchers intend to deceive: honest errors related to sloppiness, poor record keeping, miscalculations, bias, self-deception, and even negligence do not constitute misconduct. The error does not affect the overall results of his research, but it is potentially misleading. Failing to publish a correction would be unethical because it would violate norms relating to honesty and objectivity in are many other activities that the government does not define as "misconduct" but which are still regarded by most researchers as unethical. These are sometimes referred to as "other deviations" from acceptable research practices and include:Publishing the same paper in two different journals without telling the ting the same paper to different journals without telling the informing a collaborator of your intent to file a patent in order to make sure that you are the sole ing a colleague as an author on a paper in return for a favor even though the colleague did not make a serious contribution to the sing with your colleagues confidential data from a paper that you are reviewing for a data, ideas, or methods you learn about while reviewing a grant or a papers without ng outliers from a data set without discussing your reasons in an inappropriate statistical technique in order to enhance the significance of your ing the peer review process and announcing your results through a press conference without giving peers adequate information to review your ting a review of the literature that fails to acknowledge the contributions of other people in the field or relevant prior hing the truth on a grant application in order to convince reviewers that your project will make a significant contribution to the hing the truth on a job application or curriculum the same research project to two graduate students in order to see who can do it the rking, neglecting, or exploiting graduate or post-doctoral g to keep good research g to maintain research data for a reasonable period of derogatory comments and personal attacks in your review of author's ing a student a better grade for sexual a racist epithet in the significant deviations from the research protocol approved by your institution's animal care and use committee or institutional review board for human subjects research without telling the committee or the reporting an adverse event in a human research g animals in ng students and staff to biological risks in violation of your institution's biosafety ging someone's ng supplies, books, or g an experiment so you know how it will turn unauthorized copies of data, papers, or computer over $10,000 in stock in a company that sponsors your research and not disclosing this financial rately overestimating the clinical significance of a new drug in order to obtain economic actions would be regarded as unethical by most scientists and some might even be illegal in some cases. However, they do not fall into the narrow category of actions that the government classifies as research misconduct. Indeed, there has been considerable debate about the definition of "research misconduct" and many researchers and policy makers are not satisfied with the government's narrow definition that focuses on ffp. However, given the huge list of potential offenses that might fall into the category "other serious deviations," and the practical problems with defining and policing these other deviations, it is understandable why government officials have chosen to limit their y, situations frequently arise in research in which different people disagree about the proper course of action and there is no broad consensus about what should be done. She receives a request from another research team that wants access to her complete dataset. On the one hand, the ethical norm of openness obliges her to share data with the other research team. Another option would be to offer to collaborate with the following are some step that researchers, such as dr. Wexford, can take to deal with ethical dilemmas in research:What is the problem or issue? In this case, the issue is whether to share information with the other research is the relevant information? Wexford needs to have more information concerning such matters as university or funding agency or journal policies that may apply to this situation, the team's intellectual property interests, the possibility of negotiating some kind of agreement with the other team, whether the other team also has some information it is willing to share, the impact of the potential publications, are the different options? In this case, there may be other choices besides 'share' or 'don't share,' such as 'negotiate an agreement' or 'offer to collaborate with the researchers. Do ethical codes or policies as well as legal rules apply to these different options? University or funding agency may have policies on data management that apply to this case. May be useful to seek advice from a colleague, a senior researcher, your department chair, an ethics or compliance officer, or anyone else you can trust. Wexford might want to talk to her supervisor and research team before making a considering these questions, a person facing an ethical dilemma may decide to ask more questions, gather more information, explore different options, or consider other ethical rules. The main point is that human reasoning plays a pivotal role in ethical decision-making but there are limits to its ability to solve all ethical dilemmas in a finite amount of ing ethical conduct in academic institutions in the us require undergraduate, graduate, or postgraduate students to have some education in the responsible conduct of research (rcr). The nih and nsf have both mandated training in research ethics for students and trainees. Many academic institutions outside of the us have also developed educational curricula in research of you who are taking or have taken courses in research ethics may be wondering why you are required to have education in research ethics.
Indeed, you also may believe that most of your colleagues are highly ethical and that there is no ethics problem in research.. Indeed, the evidence produced so far shows that misconduct is a very rare occurrence in research, although there is considerable variation among various estimates. Of researchers per year (based on confirmed cases of misconduct in federally funded research) to as high as 1% of researchers per year (based on self-reports of misconduct on anonymous surveys). Even if misconduct is only a rare occurrence, it can still have a tremendous impact on science and society because it can compromise the integrity of research, erode the public’s trust in science, and waste time and resources. In any case, a course in research ethics will have little impact on "bad apples," one might ing to the "stressful" or "imperfect" environment theory, misconduct occurs because various institutional pressures, incentives, and constraints encourage people to commit misconduct, such as pressures to publish or obtain grants or contracts, career ambitions, the pursuit of profit or fame, poor supervision of students and trainees, and poor oversight of researchers (see shamoo and resnik 2015). In any case, a course in research ethics can be useful in helping to prevent deviations from norms even if it does not prevent misconduct. Education in research ethics is can help people get a better understanding of ethical standards, policies, and issues and improve ethical judgment and decision making. Many of the deviations that occur in research may occur because researchers simply do not know or have never thought seriously about some of the ethical norms of research. Another example where there may be some ignorance or mistaken traditions is conflicts of interest in research. A researcher may think that a "normal" or "traditional" financial relationship, such as accepting stock or a consulting fee from a drug company that sponsors her research, raises no serious ethical issues. Maybe a physician thinks that it is perfectly appropriate to receive a $300 finder’s fee for referring patients into a clinical "deviations" from ethical conduct occur in research as a result of ignorance or a failure to reflect critically on problematic traditions, then a course in research ethics may help reduce the rate of serious deviations by improving the researcher's understanding of ethics and by sensitizing him or her to the y, education in research ethics should be able to help researchers grapple with the ethical dilemmas they are likely to encounter by introducing them to important concepts, tools, principles, and methods that can be useful in resolving these dilemmas. Scientists must deal with a number of different controversial topics, such as human embryonic stem cell research, cloning, genetic engineering, and research involving animal or human subjects, which require ethical reflection and b. Icist and niehs irb d@ of research of research adapted by the alaska native science commission kahnawake schools ght 459302 (january 22, 1997). Name of project] is a partnership of the the [name of community] and researchers of [name of zation]. In this document these groups are referred to community is represented by the [name(s) of zation and community researchers] and the researchers by the. All partners of the an understanding that community based research is a for learning about the community while contributing to ity in which it is being orative research acknowledges that there respect for the scientific and social integrity of the group has obligations towards the other e of the code of ethics:The purpose of this code of ethics is to establish. The code outlines the each of the partners through all of the phases of the project,From the design of the research through to the publication and the experiences of the sovereignty of the community to make research in the community is recognized and respected. Research should community to support community goals of health and wellness,To improve its conditions and to fulfill its traditional caring for the generations to community must be involved as a full partner in all the research. Continuous consultation and collaboration terize the strengths and culture of the community, including chers and staff as well as material resources, must ted and utilized whenever n permission must be obtained from the partners ing the research sion from all individuals participating must be to collecting personal confidentiality of all individuals must be necessary, the community involved may choose to remain reporting the research results, analyses and interpretations must reviewed by the partners to ensure accuracy and avoid data collected belongs to the community and must be partners must all be involved in making decisions publication and the distribution of all or parts of community must agree to the release of tions of the tions of the researchers:To do no harm to the involve the community in active participation rather ensure the design, implementation, analysis, interpretation,Reporting, publication and distribution of the research ally relevant to the community and in agreement with rds of competent undertake research that will contribute something of the community in which the research is being impart new skills to community help to address any issues that are raised as a provide expertise to scientifically answer questions from the promote academic diffusion of knowledge through ations and oral presentations. This includes the the undertaking of the project and of the be guardians of the data until the end of the to return that data to the community at the end of the be involved in any future analysis of the data after has been returned to the tions of the community researchers:Community researchers are regarded as the and those co-investigators who are employed within the addition to the obligations listed for researchers, the cher is obligated:To maintain a long-term relationship of trust in the of caregiver, educator, and researcher: this will possible if the needs of the community are always the first priority in any communicate with researchers during all phases of the arrange for researchers to meet with the partner /or board of directors, and any other local implement and promote the facilitate supervisory meetings of the intervention participate in all phases of the project, review all s, analyses and interpretations for accuracy and ation to the tions of the community partner:To represent the community through their respective be updated by the project staff on a determined support the development and offer analysis of the ensure compatibility with the project goal and meet with the project co-investigators to maintain to offer recommendations concerning the research communicate with representatives of other share ideas and program development for benefit and serve as the guardian of all evaluation data after tion of the receive all requests for the use of the data by chers after the completion of the approve of or write a disagreement to the the data ship purpose of the project is to investigate the ons described in the protocol. Part of the s includes the communication of research results to and organizations in similar areas of ications will be directed at four general audiences:Health, education and other ists and community council or governing community, at , education and other officials are those ing services or working on programming and planning. Scientists and be interested in the methods used, the process of the program,The impacts measured, and the answers provided to the research community at large is everyone who participated in the well as those who are generally interested in the project aspects of the project can be considered as communication. The principles include:Anonymity: results to be presented in a grouped, not entiality: all personal information provided by be made anonymous whenever possible and remain otherwise determined by the ty of communities involved: the communities be the first to review and receive results and the d to provide input and feedback on the t: consideration for the communities and all be observed in all s from research projects usually are the following ways:Articles in scientific journals, referred to as "a paper". The names of the participants removed prior to data coordinator is responsible for the quality control data coding and s for application to research in researcher and community need to meet for e of discussion and approval of the research idea and ol involved. To meet this end, the following steps will ed to make application:A letter is sent to one of the partners to request a discuss the research proposal.
Summary description of the proposed research, a time research, reporting, and the expected recipient of the request is responsible to: material to the other partners within one working week t of the letter, establish a meeting with the the researcher, and send a copy of the code of to the applicant to allow for there are no objections from any of the members of rs to the research proposal, formal written consent be sent within thirty (30) days of the the event of any objections, a second meeting with ed researcher is to be held within two working weeks sion on the researcher must agree to comply with all aspects of t code of research ethics. The proposal will be the researcher refuses to comply with any partners will review and discuss the completed nt(s) before publication. Aera » aera rules & policies » professional centennialwho we leadershipaera past presidentsaera staffaera by the is education research? On directoryresources for sig te student welcome messagegsc officers & repsgsc annual meetinggsc annual service projectgsc proposal tips & examplesgsc campus liaisongsc electionsgsc newslettersnews and tium of university and research institutions (curi). Oia fall policy meeting2014 oia fall policy meeting2013 oia fall policy meeting 2012 oia fall policy icationseducation research & research policygovernment relationsprofessional development and trainingsocial awarddcre awarddistinguished public service awardearly career awarde. Johnson memorial awardreview of research awardsocial justice in education awardpresidential citationcsce awardsdivision awardssig awardsemrer awardecper awardopcer awardaera 2018 call for awards sorganizational structure and council & executive boardelectionsstanding committeesawards rules & professional ethicsassociation on statementscontact code of ethics of the american educational research association was approved by the aera council in february 2011. The code sets forth the ethical principles and standards that govern the professional work of education researchers. The code of ethics replaces the ethical standards, which were adopted in 1992 and have been only minimally modified since that time. The current code is intended to provide guidance that informs and is helpful to education researchers in their research, teaching, service, and related professional code of ethics (pdf). Standards of the american educational research association: cases and endorsement of the singapore statement on research integrity (pdf). Research american educational research association (aera) is pleased to be able to play a leadership role as the scientific society that provides an organizational base for the social and behavioral sciences working group on human research protections. In collaboration with social and behavioral scientists from numerous executive branch agencies and academia, the working group promotes efforts to improve the human research protection system through outreach to the scientific community, development of human subjects protection courses, and preparation of reports that seek to improve understanding of how social and behavioral science research can best operate within the human research protections system. The working group is made possible by a contractual agreement from the national institutes of health's office of behavioral and social sciences research to aera. K street nw, suite 1200, washington, dc : (202) 238-3200 | fax: (202) -shandwick aera » aera rules & policies » professional centennialwho we leadershipaera past presidentsaera staffaera by the is education research? We doorganisational structureceohsrc boardboard secretariathsrc reviewstrategic documentsannual reportsperformance planning & reportingaccess to informationhsrc actresearch ethicscode of research ethicsresearch ethics committeeapproval processdocumentation and meeting datesethics hotlinecontactresearch integrityenterprise risk managementrisk policy statementrisk management plananti-corruption strategyhsrc ethics and fraud hotlinerss-feedsresearch outputsprojectsriaabout uscommunication and stakeholder relationshsrc pressimpact assessmentscience communication and genderevaluation and learningwho we arehsrc review2017 policy briefshsrc presspolicy action networkcommunities of practicedepartmentsafrica institute of south africa (aisa), a division of the hsrcwho we arebusiness development and international liaisonabout usfunding information sessions cooperation agreementsfunding e-bulletinthe international briefvisits abroadcentre for science, technology and innovation indicatorswho we arewhat we doreportsmethodsdatapartnersfaqcontact uslatest resultsdceo researchdemocracy, governance and service deliveryeconomic performance and developmentrural innovation assessment toolbox (riat)education and skills developmentlabour market intelligence partnershipresdi newsletterstrends in international mathematics and sciencewhat we dogroup executive for shared serviceshiv/aids, stis and tb hiv testing of children (tools)national hiv surveysocial aspects of hiv/aids research alliance (sahara)who we arehuman and social development uthando lwethu: why did we do this study? And developmentoffice of the ceocontact the ceopopulation health, health systems and innovation sanhanes: health and nutritionchild maltreatment prevention readiness assessment study in south africasupporting policy engagement for evidence-based decision (speed) for universal health coverageresearch coordination, ethics and integrityresearch methodology and data centredata curationresearch methodology and data centrermdc teamwhat we donewslatest newsgeneralafrica institute of south africabrics research centrebusiness development and international liaisoncestiidceo: researchdemocracy governance and service deliveryeconomic performance and developmenteducation and skills developmenthiv/aids, stis and tbhsrc presshuman and social developmentoffice of the ceopopulation health, health systems and innovationresearch methodology and data centreresearch use and impact assessmentsouth african social attitudes survey (sasas)mediaresearch of research hsrc is committed to using the public funds allocated to it to undertake and promote research that will benefit all the people of south africa. As hsrc research, therefore, is aimed at supporting societal goals, this research belongs to the public domain and as such should be able to withstand public scrutiny at all times. Hsrc research focuses on people, and the bulk of the information and data gathered is accordingly likely to be of a personal nature to the participants in the honour the trust placed in hsrc researchers by research participants, the researchers should at all times act correctly and in ways that respect the rights and dignity of the participants. The ethics guidelines contained in this code of research ethics will consequently be made available to all participants in the research e of this document provides guidelines on the professional ethics of gathering, processing and disseminating research information in projects operationally controlled by the hsrc, and in respect of contract research. It covers all activities through which research information and data are gathered, processed and disseminated, for example surveys and interviews and the reporting of research values , the employees of the human sciences research council, hereby agree to conduct ourselves in such a way that the values outlined below will shape and inform all our activities and our relationships with colleagues and stakeholders. Our values are:Service and benefit to the ence in all our ing our agement of a respect for the participation of our colleagues and iation for one another’s ss that builds g of our er of skills and -mindedness in approaching vity and sible use of our agement of learning and all research situations hsrc researchers shall uphold and respect the principles of:Respect and ific and academic professionalism. All hsrc research should preferably be undertaken with, and not merely on, the identified community. Research and the pursuit of knowledge should never be regarded as the supreme goal at the expense of participants' personal, social and cultural values. The researcher must respect the autonomy and protect the welfare of all participants, and must therefore obtain the informed consent of the participants. This consent should be given in writing if possible, especially if the research is of a sensitive nature.
The researcher should be concerned particularly about the rights and interests of more vulnerable participants, such as children, the aged and the disabled. In general, all research must observe the international norms of avoiding harm, providing benefit wherever possible and acting justly. Research that can equally well be done with adults should never be done with children. However, where children are the participants, legal consent should be given in writing by either the parents, guardian, or custodian - whenever possible, on the understanding that the child has the freedom to withdraw from the research at any stage. The researcher should respect the right of individuals to refuse to participate in research and to withdraw their participation at any stage. Information obtained in the course of research that may reveal the identity of a participant or an institution should be treated as confidential unless the participant or institution agrees to its release. Research findings relating to specific individuals, institutions and organisations should be reported in a way that protects the personal dignity and right to privacy of participants. The researcher should be constantly aware that the research may prejudice the position of research participants if measures are not taken to prevent such prejudice. Before undertaking any research the researcher should ensure that the participants are clearly briefed on the aims and implications of the research as well as the possible outcomes and benefits of the research. Should the methodology of a research project necessitate the concealment of information, the researcher should before conducting such a ine whether the use of such a methodology is justified by the project's prospective scientific, educational or applied value,Determine whether alternative procedures that do not require the concealment of information could be used instead,And ensure that the participants are given the reasons for the concealment of information as soon as is practically possible. In the communication of their findings, researchers should subscribe to the principles of honesty, transparency and scrutiny by the public and their peers. No financial or other inducement should be offered to participants, whether children or adults, or parents/guardians of children, to ensure a particular research result. The researcher should always be aware of the potential conflict inherent in the principle of transparency stated above and a client's/sponsor's request for total confidentiality in the reporting of research results. In such a situation the following principles will apply: should the client/sponsor insist on total confidentiality in the reporting of research results, the researcher should consider this insistence in the light of the principles underlying the hsrc code of research ethics. The client/sponsor should then be informed that: although the hsrc respects the need for confidentiality for strategic and other reasonable purposes, and will consider prohibition of the publication of such results for a reasonable period, this period should preferably not be for more than 12 months following the completion of the research. The researcher should endeavour to convince the client/sponsor of the importance of publishing research findings in scientific journals and depositing datasets in a national data archive – even if such publication occurs after the period of prohibition. Researchers should conduct their research, if applicable, in accordance with the professional code of the association of which they are members. Researchers should not misuse their positions or knowledge as researchers for personal power or gain. Researchers should at all times strive to achieve the highest possible level of scientific quality in their research. Researchers should ensure that they have an explicit written research mandate from the client/principal/sponsor in which the general conditions and terms of the research or service (e. The researcher should recognise the right of the client/principal/ sponsor to request information from the researcher at the conclusion of the research - or at any stage in the course of the research. However, interference by clients/principals/sponsors that may jeopardise the scientific integrity of the study or prejudice the interests of the participants in the research, may oblige the hsrc to cancel the contract. The involvement of the participants or the research process, should be brought to the immediate attention of the supervisor concerned and should be satisfactorily resolved before the researcher commences or continues the research project. It will be expected of consultants, researchers and organisations not attached to the hsrc to adhere to this code of research ethics when participating in research projects with the hsrc. The hsrc council invites anybody who at any stage enters into a research relationship with the hsrc to co-operate with hsrc researchers in upholding the values and principles contained in this code of research up to our ns living in china/chinese living in social aspects of ecd - understanding the theoretical lt, genealogy and the parody of 2018: africa's socio-economic transformation: opportunities, challenges and the way writing retreat for emerging sectors continue investing in r&d despite economic in new initiative to improve cities and living conditions for poorer prevention needs of male-male partnerships study conducted by the o development collaborative -conforming gender n same-sex sexualities and gender diversity: practices, identities and rships and sexual behaviour in rural south africa in the era of hiv and antiretroviral / pepfar programme to improve capacity of an indigenous statutory institution to enhance m&e of hiv/aids in ch and development (r&d) arenting in southern africa: what the elders see while sitting the young ones standing on their toes won't secret art of the bambui royal treasury, western grassfields, motional scholar's filter bubble: an inflated actuality?