Payment of Participants with Disability in Research: A Scoping Review and Framework
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Payment of people participating in research is a common practice in research. Research ethics guidelines often require additional scrutiny of payment practices and research practices more generally for groups identified as vulnerable, including people with disability. However, the existing guidelines are vague, and often conflict, meaning that it is difficult for researchers to determine what is appropriate in relation to the payment of participants in research. This situation is addressed in this paper, which provides a review of the existing research on the topic of payment of participants considered ‘vulnerable’ in research. We followed a systematic approach to our scoping review, thematically analysed the data identified and reported our results according to the PRISMA-ScR guide for scoping reviews. Fifteen papers met the inclusion criteria and were included in this review. Where studies included empirical findings, most studies were based in the US and Canada, with a small number from European, African, and Asian countries. The key ethical concepts identified in the papers were consent, justice, and reciprocity, which were positioned in relation to coercion and concerns about undue influence from payment. The papers consistently identified economic precarity as being a shared factor across the groups identified as vulnerable which placed them at risk of coercion in relation to payment. The papers also strongly identified context as being an important consideration in both mitigating and enhancing risks around the payment of participants. A framework for considering the payment of participants is offered which responds to the areas identified in the papers. It focuses on the research environment, research situation, participant group, risks and benefits of the research, individual context, relational context, and research practices. This framework is provided as a resource for researchers considering the payment of people with disability in research, and those identified as vulnerable in research more broadly.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.008 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".