Etisk afgørende øjeblikke – en pragmatisk-dualistisk forskningsetik
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.7146/spf.v6i2.25894Keywords:
Forskningsetik, partikularistisk, procedural, pragmatisk, dualistisk, dilemmaerAbstract
This article analyses and discusses research-ethical dilemmas, ambivalences and problematic issues. This is done firstly by making a distinction between procedural research ethics and particularistic research ethics. Such a distinction refl ects a theoretical construction and generalization – in practice there can be a very close correlation between the two types. Hereafter, the distinction will therefore be used as a jumping-off point for the presentation of a pragmatic-dualist research ethics. Th e approach is dualist because it draws on the presence of two independent, contrasting understandings, which are essentially diff erent yet equal aspects of good research ethics; and it is pragmatic because this dualism is first and foremost structural and institutional by nature, and designed with an eye to what can realistically and expediently be done in practice. Thus the intention of the article is to both analyze and discuss two different understandings of research ethics and simultaneously
qualify a research ethics that draws on both these understandings. At the same time, the intention is to try to visualize a diff erent understanding of research ethics which others can address and elaborate on or qualify but even at this point can be included in an arsenal or catalogue of research-ethical understandings and approaches that can be exploited in research-ethical practice.
References
Aitken, R. (2003). The democratic method of obtaining capital – culture, governmentality and ethics of mass investment. Consumption Markets & Culture, 6 (4), 293-317. Ajana, B. (2008). In Defence of Poststructural Ethics in Sociological Praxis. Enquire, 1 (1), 1-8. Aluwihare-Samaranayake, D. (2012). Ethics in Qualitative Research: A View of the Participants’ and Researchers’ World from a Critical Standpoint. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 11 (2), 64-81. Annas, J. (2001). Ethics and Morality. I Becker, L. & Becker, C. (red.), Encyklopedia of Ethics, 485-487. London Routledge. Aristoteles (1995). Den nikomacheiske etik. København: Det lille forlag. BEK nr. 695 af 12/06/2013: Bekendtgørelse om god klinisk praksis i forbindelse med kliniske forsøg med lægemidler på menneske (GCP-Bekendtgørelsen). Retrieved 06.03.17 from https://www.retsinformation.dk/forms/R0710.aspx?id=152402. Campbell, D. & Shapiro, M. (1999). Introduction: from ethical theory to the ethical relation. I Campbell, D. & Shapiro, M. (red.), Moral Spaces: Rethinking Ethics and World Politics, vii-xx. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota. Caplan, A.L. (1992). Twenty years after. The legacy of the Tuskegee syphilis study. Hastings Center Report, 22 (6), 29-32. Capron, A.M. (1989). Human experimentation. I Veatch, R.M. (red.), Medical ethics, 125-172. Boston: Jones & Bartlett. Denzin, N.K. & Giardina, M.D. (2007). Decolonizing and politics of knowledge: Ethicalfutures in qualitative research. California: Left Coast Press. Dutton D.B. (1988). Worse than the disease: pitfalls of medical progress. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Fangen, K. (1998a). Fangens dilemma. Nytt Norsk Tidsskrift, 15 (3), 257-269. Fangen, K. (1998b). Right-wing skinheads: Nostalgia and binary oppositions. Nordic Journal of Youth Research, 6 (3), 33-49. Field, P.A. & Morse, J.M. (1992). Nursing research. The application of qualitative approaches. London: Chapman & Hall. Franzen, J. (1996). How To Be Alone. London: Macmillan. Fink, H. (2003). Universitetsfagenes etik. I H. Fink, P.C. Kjærgaard, H. Kragh & J.E. Kristensen (Eds.). Universitet og videnskab (pp. 193-221). København: Hans Reitzels Forlag. Guillemin, M. & Gillam, L. (2006). Telling Moments: Everyday ethics in health care. East Hawthorn, Australia: IP Communications. Guillemin, M. & Gillam, L. (2004). Ethics, Reflexivity, and ''Ethically Important Moments''. Research Qualitative Inquiry, 10 (2), 261-280. Haimes, E. (2002). What can the social sciences contribute to the study of ethics? Theoretical, empirical and substantive considerations. Bioethics, 6 (2), 89-113. Halai, A. (2006). Ethics dilemmas in qualitative research. HEC News & Views, 2-4. Retrieved 06.03.17 from http://www.edqual.org/publications/workingpaper/edqualwp4.pdf Hastrup, K. (2009). Mellem Mennesker. En grundbog i antropologisk forskningsetik. København: Hans Reitzels Forlag. Howarth, G. (1993). Investigating Deathwork: A Personal Account. In D. Clark (Ed), The Sociology of Death: Theory, Culture, Practice (pp. 221-237). London: Blackwell Publishers. Højbjerg, C.K. (2003). Hemmeligheden: det etiske dilemma. I Hastrup, K. (red.). Ind i Verden. En grundbog i antropologisk metode, 93-115. København: Hans Reitzels Forlag. Jacobsen, M.H. & Kristiansen, S. (1999). Hvor farligt er det farlige feltarbejde? Sociologisk arbejdspapir, nr. 4, Aalborg Universitet. Retrieved 06.03.17 from http://sociologi.samf.aau.dk/fileadmin/user_upload/dokumenter/Sociologiske_arbejdspapirer/Arbpapir_nr4.pdf. Kellehear, A. (1996). Unobtrusive methods in delicate situations. I Daly, J. (red.), Ethical intersections: Health research, methods and researcher responsibility, 97-105. Sydney, Australia: Allen & Unwin. LBK nr. 1202 af 14/11/2014: Sundhedsloven. Retrieved 06.03.17 from https://www.retsinformation.dk/forms/r0710.aspx?id=152710. Lehmann, N. (2002). Pragmatisk dualisme: dannelse mellem rationalitet og rationalitetskritik. I Johansen, M.B. (red.), Dannelse, 257-275. Aarhus: Aarhus Universitetsforlag. Mason, J. (1996). Qualitative researching. London: Sage. Mauthner, M. & Birch, M. (2002). Ethics in qualitative research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. McLaren, B., & Ashley, K. (1999). Case Representation, Acquisition, and Retrieval in SIROCCO. I Althoff, K.-D., Bergmann, R. & Branting, L.K. (red.), Case-Based Reasoning Research and Development, 248-262. Berlin: Springer. Meskell, L. & Pels, P. (Eds.) (2005). Embedding Ethics: shifting boundaries of the anthropological profession. Oxford, GB: Berg Publishers. Miller, T. & Boulton, M. (2007). Changing constructions of informed consent: Qualitative research and complex social worlds. Social Science & Medicine, 65 (11), 2199-2211. Orb, A., Eisenhauer, L. & Wynaden, D. (2001). Ethics in qualitative research. Journal of Nursing Scholarship, 33 (1), 93-96. Pels, P. (1999) Professions of Duplexity: A Prehistory of Ethical Codes in Anthropology. Current Anthropology, 40 (2), 101-136. Popke, J. (2003) Poststructuralist ethics: subjectivity, responsibility and the space of community. Progress in Human Geography, 27 (3), 298-316. Ramcharan, P. & Cutcliffe, J. R. (2001). Judging the ethics of qualitative research: Considering the “ethics as process” model. Health and Social Care in the Community, 9 (6), 358-366. Redwood S. (2005). Colliding discourses: deconstructing the process of seeking ethical approval for a participatory evaluation project. Journal of Research in Nursing, 10 (2), 217-230. Redwood, S. & Todres, L. (2006). Exploring the Ethical Imagination: Conversation as Practice Versus Committee as Gatekeeper. Forum: Qualitative Social Research, 7 (2), 1-11. Rosenthal, R. & Jacobson, L. (1968). Pygmalion in the Classroom: Teacher Expectation and Pupils’ Intellectual Development. New York/London: Holt, Rinehart and Winston. Samaras, A.P. (2011). Self-study teacher research: Improving your practice through collaborative inquiry. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Schwandt, T.A. (2007). The pressing need for ethical education: A commentary on the growing IRB controversy. I Denzin, N.K. & Giardina, M.D. (red.), Decolonizing and politics of knowledge: Ethical futures in qualitative research, 67-84. Walnut Creek, California: Left Coast Press. Shamoo, A.E. & Resnik, D.B. (2009). Responsible conduct of research. New York: Oxford University Press. Skovdal, M. & Abebe, T. (2012). Reflexivity and Dialogue: Methodological and Socio-Ethical Dilemmas in Research with HIV-Affected Children in East Africa. Ethics, Policy & Environment, 15 (1), 77-96. Strand, P.O. & Slettebø, Å. (2012). Grunnleggende verdier, moral og etikk. Oslo: Politidirektoratet. Retrieved 06.03.17 from https://www.politi.no/vedlegg/rapport/Vedlegg_1939.pdf. Thompson, F.E. (2002). Moving from Codes of Ethics to Ethical Relationships for Midwifery Practice. Nurs Ethics, 9 (5), 522-536. Tjørnhøj-Thomsen, T. (2003). Samværet. Tilblivelser i tid og rum. I Hastrup, K. (red.), Ind i Verden. En grundbog i antropologisk metode, 93-115. København: Hans Reitzels Forlag. Tjørnhøj-Thomsen, T. & Hansen, H.P. (2009). Overskridelsens etik. I Hastrup, K. (red.), Mellem Mennesker. En grundbog i antropologisk forskningsetik, 223-248. København: Hans Reitzels Forlag. Webster, A., Boulton, M., Brown, N. & Lewis, G. (2004). Crossing boundaries: social science, health and bioscience research and the process of ethics review. Retrieved 06.03.17 from http://www.york.ac.uk/res/ref/docs/REFpaper1_v2.pdf. Zion, D., Gillam, L. & Loff, B. (2000). The Declaration of Helsinki, CIOMS and ethics of research on vulnerable populations. Nature Medicine, 6 (6), 615-617.
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
The author(s) and the journal share the Copyright, and must both be credited when using (e.g. quoting from or distributing) published material. Articles published in Studier i Pædagogisk Filosofi (Studies in Philosophy of Education) may be used (downloaded) and reused (distributed, copied, cited) for non-commercial purposes with reference to the authors and publication host. Manuscripts submitted to Studier i Pædagogisk Filosofi may not have been previosly published - however, Studier i Pædagogisk Filosofi does allow for its published articles to be published in other journals by the author, after approval from the editors. Articles may be uploaded in institutional repositories if the author is required to so as part of a grant or institutional requirement.
