ArticleJournal of empirical research on human research ethics : JERHRE2025
Ethical Practices for Gaining Access for Research with Deaf Communities in South Africa: A Case of South African Sign Language.
Article in Journal of empirical research on human research ethics : JERHRE, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Research ethics frameworks used in South Africa view Deafness from a biomedical perspective. Unfortunately, this could hinder research access to Deaf communities. Deaf-centric best practices draw from sociocultural perspectives instead. Motivated by this lack of Deaf-centric provisions for research with Deaf communities in the existing legal ethical frameworks in South Africa, this article examines best practices for gaining access to Deaf communities based on a broader study on South African Sign Language place names. The article synthesises ethical guidelines from literature and infuses them with the researchers' own experiences during fieldwork of the broader study to come up with best practices. These include community engagement and collaborative partnerships, seeking ethics clearance; respecting conventions of the Deaf culture, and strategically managing discontent. We conclude that these best practices could form a foundation for a future research ethics framework that considers Deaf-centric practices.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.