Heiko Pleines, Research Centre for East European Studies at the University of Bremen
Research ethics are increasingly standardised in Western academia. But how well do these standards fit the specific contexts of Central Asia? Several recent publications offer valuable insights.
Introduction
Ethics procedures for social science research have been strongly institutionalized in Western academia over the last two decades. Together with institutionalization came standardization by funding bodies and ethics boards. However, the Central Asian region has partly followed a different trajectory. As a result, it may be necessary to adjust research ethics to different contexts. Here I want to discuss the specifics of social science research ethics for the case of Central Asia on the basis of a brief review of the relevant literature. This is possible thanks to a larger number of recent publications on the topic. They focus on Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan and Uzbekistan. While Tajikistan is partly covered, there are no studies on research ethics in Turkmenistan, due to the closed nature of the country’s political regime.
Adjusting to local challenges and risk
The most obvious and undisputed adjustment of research ethics to local contexts is a case-specific assessment of risks for the research participants as well as for the researchers themselves. In the case (not just) of Central Asian countries, specific risks and challenges arise from authoritarian regimes and politically motivated repression threatening research participants and researchers alike (Collins et al. 2023, Kurmanov 2024, Norov 2024, Tolesh 2025) as well as conservative views and aggressive reactions in society concerning, e.g., research on LGBTQ+ (Aitbayeva 2024).
Adjusting to local practices
Another commonly reported problem with Western ethics procedures is that they may not fit with local cultures. A standard example of key relevance are informed consent forms which have to be signed by research participants. Several authors report that (again not just) in Central Asia having to sign a form creates suspicion on the side of the research participants instead of building trust. Moreover, research participants are often not willing to share personal details. (Whitsel & Merrill 2021, see also Jonbekova 2020, 364-365; Kurmanov 2024, 423-424) Berekeyeva et al. (2024, 318) report on the basis of an online survey of 296 university-based researchers in Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan and Uzbekistan that “62% of respondents across three countries believed that research participants should be able to give verbal informed consent in the case of research involving minimal risks”.
However, adjustment to local practices does not only concern the research participants, but also researchers themselves. Referring to the same online survey, Sagitova et al. (2024) highlight that: “With only 35 % of the respondents reporting the existence of a research ethics committee (REC) at their institutions, most respondents believe that human participant research ethics are an individual rather than an institutional responsibility in Central Asia.”
Moreover, as Collins & Gafu (2026, 10-11) state based on a study of Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan and Uzbekistan comprising 100 qualitative interviews with academic researchers: “the procedures in place in universities aim to ensure that the research work of students and staff is compliant with anti-plagiarism rules set institutionally. [Our] Interview data clarified that current ethical clearance procedures are conducted post-research to ensure that the topic chosen and methodology are sound and that the person obtained clearance from the anti-plagiarism check. […] while there is sympathy for international practices, there is also a fear of bureaucracy if the research ethics regulation is implemented as per procedures practiced internationally.”
Between global practices and national standards
However, the question is not just about adjustments, but also about the substance. Collins & Gafu (2026, 11), for example, are highly skeptical of the actual relevance of global practices for Central Asia. They conclude that “the partial adoption of Western-style research ethics frameworks suggests that policy borrowing has taken a symbolic rather than transformative form”. At the same time “while the centralised system heavily regulates the HE system in all three countries, there are private universities and branches of international HEIs that have institutional autonomy to some extent.”
In the case of Uzbekistan Collins et al. (2022, 606) conclude “as the review of currently existing national and institutional policies and regulations shows, the limited coverage of research ethics and its internationally accepted principles on the policy level can be characterized as abstention.”
For Kyrgyzstan Sagitova et al. (2025, 161) summarize “that safety, trust and confidentiality issues are common problems reported by social science researchers in Kyrgyzstan. National level documents do not directly address these ethical research issues, but the need for international research ethics principles is recognized. A limited number of institutional policies address research ethics issues, with the majority of relevant documents being codes of conduct focused on virtue ethics.”
Recommendations: Between Western standards and decolonisation
At the basic level the recommendation is clear: “The findings suggest that educating researchers about ethical research in these countries is not systematic, despite policies from the state emphasizing the importance of research development. The development of a broader, systematic approach to research ethics education is recommended.” (Sharplin et al. 2025, 275)
At the same time Gafu et al. (2025, 662) report that academic researchers in the region are divided what this should entail: “While many respondents from Kazakhstan prefer international research ethics guidelines and standards to be adopted as they perceive scientific research as universal, respondents from Kyrgyzstan and Uzbekistan are not very supportive, wanting processes that adapt to the context or are co-developed to be culturally and contextually nuanced and aligned with local and national ways of thinking.”
The latter position is in line with the reasoning of research in the interpretive tradition. As Tolesh et al. (2025, 15-16) stress: “Reflexivity is essential for addressing ethical dilemmas and ensuring that research practices are equitable and culturally sensitive. This is particularly important in Central Asia, where hierarchical societal norms and gender dynamics can significantly influence participant engagement.”
Gafu & Parmenter (2025, 138) conclude: “Key issues such as trust, confidentiality, gender dynamics and the use of native languages emerged as important but underexplored elements of ethical practice. Thus, there is a need for reimagining research ethics in Central Asia through balancing resistance to colonial influences with the development of culturally informed, contextually relevant ethical frameworks. We call for fostering professional development and promoting ethics as an integral part of capacity-building as essential steps toward meaningful and impactful research in the region.”
That there is no agreement about the right way forward for research ethics in Central Asia, but a lively debate about the state of affairs and needed reforms is a good sign. There will never be a one-size-fits-all ethics review due to differences not just between geographic regions, but also between academic disciplines and research topics. The important task for those analyzing and discussing research ethics in Central Asia is to keep the momentum, which is demonstrated by the publications referenced here.
About the author
Prof. Dr. Heiko Pleines is Head of the Department of Politics and Economics at the Research Centre for East European Studies and Professor of Comparative Politics, University of Bremen. He is one of the project leaders of the Discuss Data online repository.
Acknowledgement
This research was supported by a Marie Curie Staff Exchange within the Horizon Europe Programme (ORCA, grant agreement no: 101182752). Views and opinions expressed are those of the author(s) only and do not necessarily reflect those of the European Union or the European Research Executive Agency. Neither the European Union nor the granting authority can be held responsible for them.
References
Aitbayeva, Ainagul (2024): Fieldwork within queer communities in Central Asia: a research note, Central Asian Survey, 43:1, 143-150, https://doi.org/10.1080/02634937.2023.2296540
Berekeyeva, Aipara, Elaine Sharplin, Matthew Courtney & Roza Sagitova (2024): Ethical human participant research in Central Asia: a quantitative analysis of attitudes and practices among social science researchers based in the region, Research Ethics 20(2) 304–330, https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/17470161231202232
Collins, Neil, Gulzhanat Gafu, Aipara Berekeyeva & Zakir Jumakulov (2022): New regime, new policies: research ethics development – a case study of Uzbekistan, Central Asian Survey, 41:3, 596-609, https://doi.org/10.1080/02634937.2022.2058914
Collins, N., Sharplin, E., & Burkhanov, A. (2024): Challenges for Political Science Research Ethics in Autocracies: A Case Study of Central Asia, Political Studies Review, 22(2), 330-346, https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/14789299231153074
Collins, N., & Gafu, G. (2026): Bureaucratic culture and research ethics: Case studies in post-Soviet Central Asia. Research Ethics, online first, https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/17470161251406342
Gafu, G., Sharplin, E. & Israel, M. (2025): Development, Adoption or Adaption? Researchers’ Attitudes to Forging Social Research Ethics Policy in Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan and Uzbekistan, Journal of Academic Ethics 23, 649–670, https://doi.org/10.1007/s10805-024-09560-5
Gafu, Gulzhanat & Lynne Parmenter (2025): ‘Why should we have theirs if we have our own?’ On decolonizing social science research ethics in Central Asia, Central Asian Survey, 44:1, 132-140, https://doi.org/10.1080/02634937.2025.2453696
Jonbekova, Dilrabo (2020): Educational research in Central Asia: methodological and ethical dilemmas in Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan and Tajikistan, Compare: A Journal of Comparative and International Education, 50:3, 352-370, https://doi.org/10.1080/03057925.2018.1511371
Kurmanov, Bakhytzhan (2024): Between ‘info-killers’ and ‘spies’: three strategies for interviewing government officials across Central Asia, Central Asian Survey, 43:3, 420-428, https://doi.org/10.1080/02634937.2024.2375283
Norov, R. (2024): Navigating Academic Repression in Central Asia. In: Dall'Agnola, J., Sharshenova, A. (eds); Researching Central Asia. SpringerBriefs in Political Science. Springer, Cham, 77-85, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-39024-1_9
Sagitova, Roza, Markhabat Ramazanova, Elaine Sharplin, Aipara Berekeyeva & Lynne Parmenter (2024): Understanding human participant research ethics: The perspectives of social scientists in Central Asia, International Journal of Educational Research, 124, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijer.2023.102303
Sagitova, Roza, Zarena Syrgak kyzy & Lynne Parmenter (2025): Negotiating local and global: Developing Social Science research ethics policy in a Central Asian context, Research Ethics, 21(1), 161–179, https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/17470161241251637
Sharplin, E., Gafu, G., Berekeyeva, A., Tabaeva, A., & Abildina, R. (2025): Research Ethics Education for the Social Sciences in Central Asian Contexts, Journal of Eurasian Studies, 16(2), 275-289, https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/18793665251357324
Tolesh, Fariza, Diana Toimbek, Zhazira Bekzhanova & Zilola Khalilova (2025): Contextualizing data collection in Central Asia: insights from local researchers’ experiences, Central Asian Survey, online first, https://doi.org/10.1080/02634937.2025.2528807
Whitsel, Christopher M. & Martha C. Merrill (2021) Towards building a culturally informed consent process in Central Asia, Central Asian Survey, 40:3, 351-367, https://doi.org/10.1080/02634937.2021.1898338