The Control of Foreigners as Researchers in Thailand

Abstract

AN IMPORTANT ASPECT OF ETHICAL CONDUCT of field research is for the researcher to have an appropriate relationship with the legitimate gatekeepers of the field site. This paper describes our experiences of obtaining approval from regulatory authorities in Thailand for field research on Burmese migrants, and discusses the nature and rationale of such government control in Asia and Western countries. It is intended to guide future humanitarian researchers who are planning to study oppressed groups at politically sensitive research sites where regulatory authorities monitor both research sites and research performance. Thailand, like several other Southeast Asian countries, operates a permit system for foreign researchers. This permit system is designed to promote research activities in Thailand so that the results can be used to further the country's development, and to enhance the cooperation and collaboration between Thai and foreign researchers providing opportunities for the exchange of knowledge, technical expertise, and experience. This control of foreign researchers is not prohibitive; foreign humanitarian researchers can organize research and advance the welfare of targeted oppressed populations in cooperation with government agencies.

A systematic literature review of the ethics of conducting research in the humanitarian setting

“…between researchers and communities [44] Low research output from researchers from LMIC [45] Community engagement to facilitate a clinical trial [46] Ethical entry" and compliance with local cultural norms [21] Utilizing gatekeepers may augment hierarchies of power [22] Will local populations benefit from the research? [21,30,41,42,46,48] Community engagement enhances cultural understanding, which can help reduce harm amongst participants [22,43,44,46,48] Engagement with local authorities may be necessary, though it has potential unintended consequences on local power dynamics and perceived legitimacy of the researchers [47,50] Limited capacity of locals to conduct their own research [21,33,45,47,49] Tensions:…”

“…Strategies to prepare locals for a participatory role in research are needed. Thai Government as a gatekeeper via a permit system [47] Community involvement as benchmark for ethical research [48,49] Risk of cooperating with nefarious authorities [49] Ambivalence about working with authority figures [50] Local stakeholders involvement in ethicial review [32] Ethics committee members view of community engagement [33] Community engagement to avoid "clinical trial exploitation" [30] Argument for single arm design over RCT for Ebola clinical trials [46] Clinical equipoise as justification for Ebola Virus Disease RTCs [51] Clinical equipoise justifies research in the humanitarian setting [27] Proposal for adaptive (Bayesian, cluster or step wedge) research [52] An a priori exclusion of pregnant subjects would deprive them of potential benefits of the research [29] Community engagement to avoid "clinical trial exploitation" [30] The individual vs. the collective interest complicates clinical trial ethics [53] Lack of focus on positive obligations of researchers toward participants [54] Systematic review demonstrates deviation from normal ethical oversight during clinical trials [36] Study design has ethical implications [38,55] Refutation of a priori right to unvalidated clinical interventions [56] Clinical trials where there is no known treatment for a catastrophic disease [27,29,30,46,51,52] Oversight might be necessary to avoid exploitation [30,36] Clinical equipoise and justification of RCTs [38,54,56] Tensions:…”

“…Child participation in conflict with local norms [67] Use of gatekeepers for informed consent [21] Research teams with local knowledge [50,57] Thai permit system vs. western funding regulations [47] Research teams with local knowledge [50] Cultural relativism [67] Gatekeepers and cultural liaisons [21,47] Cultural competency and humility [50,57] Tensions:…”

“…Substantive involvement of the community being studied was identified as an imperative for researchers and a major theme of discussion in 15 articles [21,22,30,32,33,[41][42][43][44][45][46][47][48][49][50]. It was generally agreed that active participation is necessary in order to fulfill the ethical requisite that research be of use to the community being studied (also known as beneficence) [22,48,50].…”

“…The discussions within the articles suggest that community involvement also involves strengthening local institutions, effectively improving their ability to conduct their own research [21,22]. Despite being recognized as an important component of ethical research, it was generally agreed that there is a critical shortage of local capacity to carry out studies, particularly in post-conflict zones where formal institutions are often eroded [45,47]. In their study on the research capacity of Somaliland, Boyce et al identified potential harms of a "dominance of authors from [High-Income Countries]" [45].…”