Institutional Research Ethics Committees (IRECs)—known as Institutional Review Boards (IRBs) in the U.S. context—are key governance bodies “responsible for safeguarding the rights, safety, and well-being of the research subjects” (CIOMS, 2002, p. 25). While IRECs or IRBs are well-established structures in many high-income countries, they remain emergent in much of the Global South, including many post-Soviet states. In these contexts, human research ethics policies are either newly introduced or underdeveloped, leaving researchers to rely on personal ethical judgment rather than formalized institutional procedures (Dranseika, 2011; Famenka, 2011; Famenka, 2016; Silverman et al., 2015; Chenneville et al., 2016; Abdulrahman & Nair, 2017; Phoomirat et al., 2022; Fakhradiyev et al., 2024).

In many post-socialist contexts, including Central Asia, social science research is often perceived with suspicion—sometimes even as inspection or espionage (Central Eurasian Studies Society, 2016; Berezniova, 2017; Bogachenko, 2017). This perception reflects a broader reality: research culture remains underdeveloped, and conducting studies can be seen as inherently risky for both participants and researchers (Merril & Whitsel, 2017). What is clear is that these contexts urgently need systematic inquiry into ethical dilemmas and the development of research cultures that protect not only participants’ rights but also researchers’ safety and integrity.

The roots of this situation lie partly in the Soviet legacy, where social science research was often discouraged for ideological reasons (Connelly, 2014; Kuzhabekova, 2015). This suppression contributed to decades of stagnation in the social sciences and weakened traditions of inquiry in these fields. As a result, social science research ethics has remained peripheral—rarely considered in a structured or systematic way. One of the most visible indicators of this is the absence or underdeveloped institutionalization of human research ethics structures in many higher education institutions across post-socialist countries, including Kazakhstan (Jonbekova, 2020; Ahn & Shegebayev, 2017). This lack of formal mechanisms undermines both the quality and the ethical grounding of research, leaving institutions ill-prepared to protect human subjects and to support responsible research practices.

Today, as research increasingly takes place in the context of rapid technological and artificial intelligence development (Oliveira et al., 2024; Zou & Huang, 2023) and the rising requirement to conduct research and publish it, the need to strengthen academic and research ethics—particularly human research ethics—is becoming especially pressing in the context (Ispambetova et al., under review). Universities in the context are expected to uphold international ethical standards, yet many lack the institutional capacity, policies, and expertise to do so (Sagitova et al., 2024). This underscores the urgent need to establish and strengthen institutional mechanisms that can ensure ethical oversight, protect research participants, and support researchers in meeting international ethical standards. 

The purpose of this action research study is to understand how IREC policy is being implemented at one university in Kazakhstan and to produce practical knowledge and strategies that will improve the IREC’s implementation and operation at the university. The study will be guided by the following research questions:

1. What are university stakeholders’ (leadership, IREC members, faculty, and students) experiences in implementing IREC policy?
2. What strategies can be developed or adapted to strengthen the IREC’s implementation and ensure its sustainable operation at the university?

By addressing these questions, this study aims to contribute to building ethical research capacity that is not only critical for protecting participants but also essential for fostering a robust, innovative, and globally engaged research culture in Kazakhstan.

A Participatory Action Research (PAR) design will be applied for this study. Because the study aims to understand how IREC policy is implemented and to identify ways to strengthen the protection of human subjects in research, PAR offers a systematic means of linking inquiry with action. It supports knowledge generation within a specific institutional context while engaging participants in iterative cycles of reflection, planning, action, and observation (Koshy, 2005). The data gathering process is informed by Zina O’Leary’s action research cycles (as cited in Koshy, 2005). These cycles comprise four interrelated stages: observation (data collection), reflection (critical engagement with findings), planning (development of action strategies), and action (implementation of interventions). In this study, data gathering constitutes the entry point to the cycle and forms the basis for subsequent phases of reflection, planning, and action. The first phase of this action research will examine how the IREC policy is currently implemented at the university using two data sources. Semi-structured interviews with university leadership, IREC members, faculty, and graduate students will explore stakeholders’ experiences with the policy in practice. In parallel, relevant institutional documents (e.g., regulations, bylaws, meeting records, and training materials) will be analyzed to understand how the policy is formally framed and embedded. Together, these data will establish a baseline of current practices, identify gaps between policy and practice, and inform the design of subsequent action cycles. Insights from this phase will guide the planning of targeted actions informed by relevant literature and the researcher’s PhD study on the development of the IREC at Nazarbayev University. This experience offers contextualized insight into the challenges and opportunities of institutionalizing ethics review processes. Building on insights from the initial interviews and document analysis, the next phase will focus on planning and implementing targeted action cycles co-designed with key stakeholders to ensure relevance and feasibility. Potential actions include research ethics and IREC training sessions aligned with international standards, including a dedicated session presenting Nazarbayev University’s decade-long experience with IREC policy. Drawing on the researcher’s PhD study, this session will address implementation challenges, strategies used to address them, and perceived benefits.

This participatory action research study is expected to generate both practical and scholarly outcomes that contribute to strengthening the implementation and sustainability of IREC policy at the case university. First, the study will produce a contextualized understanding of how IREC policy is currently interpreted, enacted, and experienced by key stakeholders, highlighting misalignments between formal policy and everyday practice. This evidence-based baseline will clarify institutional strengths, gaps, and capacity needs related to human research ethics oversight. Second, through co-designed action cycles, the study is expected to enhance stakeholders’ knowledge and awareness of research ethics principles, international IREC standards, and procedural expectations. Training activities and reflective engagement are anticipated to build practical competencies among faculty, students, and IREC members, supporting more consistent and timely ethics review processes. Third, the study is likely to generate concrete institutional resources, such as revised or supplementary guidelines, clearer procedural documentation, and improved communication mechanisms among stakeholders. These outputs will provide practical tools to support routine IREC operations and reduce reliance on informal or ad hoc practices. Finally, at a broader level, the study will contribute a context-sensitive model of IREC strengthening in a post-socialist higher education setting. By documenting challenges, adaptations, and effective strategies, the study will offer transferable insights for other universities in Kazakhstan and similar contexts seeking to institutionalize human research ethics. Collectively, these outcomes aim to support the development of a more ethically grounded, transparent, and internationally aligned research culture.

Abdulrahman, M., & Nair, S. C. (2017). Overall assessment of human research and ethics committees in the United Arab Emirates. Journal of Empirical Research on Human Research Ethics, 12(2), 71–78. https://doi.org/10.1177/1556264617697522 Abbot, L., & Grady, C. (2011). A systematic review of the empirical literature evaluating IRBs: What we know and what we still need to learn. Journal of Empirical Research on Human Research Ethics, 6(1), 3–19. https://doi.org/10.1525/jer.2011.6.1.3 Ahn, E. S., & Shegebayev, M. (2017). “Come Together” Navigating Ethical (Un) Knowns through Dialogue in Community. In Reimagining Utopias: Theory and method for educational research in post-socialist contexts (pp. 163-179). Rotterdam: Sense Publishers. Bazylkanova, A., & Dalelkanova, I. (2022). The concept of academic integrity perceived through the eyes of students at one higher educational institution in Kazakhstan. Scientific Collection «InterConf+», 20(105), 101–121. https://doi.org/10.51582/interconf.19-20.04.2022.009 Berezniova, C. (2017). “She’s Our Spy” Power and Positionality in Studying Lithuanian Teacher Communities. In I. Silova, N. W. Sobe, A. Korzh & S. Kovalchuk (Eds.), Reimagining utopias: Theory and method for educational research in post-socialist contexts (pp. 15–31). SensePublishers. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-6351-011-0_2 Bogachenko, T. (2017). From the Inside Outside: The Use of Reflexivity in Researching Post-Soviet Education. In I. Silova, N. W. Sobe, A. Korzh & S. Kovalchuk (Eds.), Reimagining Utopias: Theory and Method for Educational Research in Post-Socialist Contexts (pp. 33–47). SensePublishers. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-6351-011-0_3 Merrill, M. C., & Whitsel, C. (2017). Institutional review boards and intercultural research barriers. In Reimagining Utopias: Theory and Method for Educational Research in Post-Socialist Contexts (pp. 143-161). Rotterdam: SensePublishers. Corneli, A., & Borasky, D. (2015). Research ethics and working with institutional review boards. In L. Brownson (Ed.), Public Health Research Methods (pp. 69–100). SAGE Publications, Inc.. Jonbekova, D. (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 Koshy, V. (2005). Action research for improving educational practice: A step-by-step guide. Ispambetova, B., Shamatov, D., Kuzhabekova, A., & Baikenov, K. (n.d.). Rethinking misconduct: Non-standard academic practices in PhD programs with a publication requirement in Kazakhstan [Manuscript submitted for publication]. International Journal for Educational Integrity. Sagitova, R., Ramazanova, M., Sharplin, E., Berekeyeva, A., & Parmenter, L. (2024). Understanding human participant research ethics: The perspectives of social scientists in Central Asia. International Journal of Educational Research, 124, 102303. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijer.2023.102303 The Council for International Organizations of Medical Sciences (CIOMS). (1982). Proposed international ethical guidelines for biomedical research involving human subjects https://cioms.ch/publications/product/proposed-international-guidelines-for-biomedical-research-involving-human-subjects/ The Council for International Organizations of Medical Sciences (CIOMS). (2002). International ethical guidelines for biomedical research involving human subjects. https://cioms.ch/publications/product/international-ethical-guidelines-for-biomedicalresearch-involving-human-subjects-2/