Research Justice

Increasing interest in research in psychiatry has brought about a surge in the number of researches being conducted world wide which is reflected by the large number of research papers being deposited for publication in the ever increasing number of journals. Though increased interest in psychiatric research is encouraging but, unfortunately, this has led to pressure on researchers to carry on many projects simultaneously. This requires participation by other workers. The concept of 'participation' itself raises suspicion of an unequal relationship i.e. who participates on whose condition is not always clear. Interpretation by whom, about whom, with whom, for whom any why, are basic ethical questions in research cooperation. 'Dialogue' has the connotation of an equal relationship, but even the dialogue may be defined by the party who controls knowledge and resources (Mikkelsen, 1997). Multicenter trials are an example where the combined number of researchers from all centres may go to double figure and it becomes difficult for all of them to get their deserving share. This applies to the key researchers in any project only and the research assistants who actually carry out the project ultimately are the forgotten ones and only a lucky few get a place in 'et al.,' or acknowledgement. This raises the basic issue of need for formulating code of ethics for research and making a central authority for monitoring and lodging grievances. Research nowadays is usually a team effort. Unless the team members coordinate their activities, the give and take of a group project can cause hurt feelings, frustration and an inferior quality research. Therefore it is necessary that before starting any research project, one must develop the group into a unit with a leader, develop a sense of effective collaboration and decide each persons role beforehand. The leader is not necessarily the most resourceful or knowledgeable person. Probably the best leader is the best "people person", the one who can smooth over the inevitable personality clashes, or the best manager, the one who can best conceptualize the stages of the project. Good leadership is a key ingredient in a group's success (Debs, 1991). Group members must understand how to collaborate effectively. Two key methods are goal sharing and deferring consensus (Burnett, 1991). Goal sharing means that individuals cooperate to achieve goals. Deferring consensus means that members agree to consider alternatives and voice explicit disagreements. To manage the group's activities, the group must make …