Fragmented or centralized?: Comparative case study of ethical frameworks for social research in Philippines and Taiwan

With the delegation of ethical checking mechanisms to the institutional review boards (IRBs), flexible interpretations of overarching research ethics principles differed across scientific and cultural settings. This article is a comparative case study of ethical frameworks for social research in the Philippines and Taiwan. Justifications in choosing the two cases preponderantly focused on data trends regarding research and development (R&D) policy and practice. This article compared the elements observed in the two frameworks, specifically in terms of: national regulations, curricular requirements, procedures for IRB review application, and other arrangements. Findings revealed that the Philippine academe enjoys relative autonomy or described as more fragmented, unlike Taiwan institutions that strictly follow centralized and country-wide standardization. The intensification of research ethics in Taiwan did not, however, hamper R&D efforts. On the contrary, the Taiwan model may have strengthened the current research ecosystem and bolstered confidence in the different sectors, thus generating multi-sectoral funding and collaborations.