Moral accountability and debriefing
Kennedy Institute of Ethics Journal 18 (3):pp. 253-273 (2008)
| Abstract | What is the ethical significance of debriefing in deceptive research? The standard view of debriefing is that it serves to disclose the deception to the participant and is a means of evaluating and mitigating potential harms that may have resulted from involvement in the research. However, as the article by Miller, Gluck, and Wendler in this issue of the Kennedy Institute of Ethics Journal points out, there has been little systematic attention to the ethics of debriefing, particularly with regard to the role of debriefing in addressing the prima facie moral wrong of deception itself. They argue that in addition to mitigating the harms of deception, debriefing should include an apology to participants for being deceived. In the current paper, I argue that an apology is not morally obligatory in most research contexts. Debriefing should be considered an opportunity to further define the researcher-participant relationship without the need to be remorseful about the research practice. | |||||||||
| Keywords | No keywords specified (fix it) | |||||||||
| Categories | ||||||||||
| Options |
|
|||||||||
Download options| PhilPapers Archive |
Upload a copy of this paper Check publisher's policy on self-archival Papers currently archived: 5,701 |
| External links |
 |
| Through your library | Configure |
Similar books and articlesDavid T. Dearman & James E. Beard (2009). Ethical Issues in Accounting and Economics Experimental Research: Inducing Strategic Misrepresentation. Ethics and Behavior 19 (1):51 – 59.
Celia B. Fisher (2005). Deception Research Involving Children: Ethical Practices and Paradoxes. Ethics and Behavior 15 (3):271 – 287.
Joan E. Sieber, Rebecca Iannuzzo & Beverly Rodriguez (1995). Deception Methods in Psychology: Have They Changed in 23 Years? Ethics and Behavior 5 (1):67 – 85.
Adam Oliansky (1991). A Confederate's Perspective on Deception. Ethics and Behavior 1 (4):253 – 258.
Franklin G. Miller, John P. Gluck Jr & David Wendler (2008). Debriefing and Accountability in Deceptive Research. Kennedy Institute of Ethics Journal 18 (3):235-251.
Janet L. Brody, John P. Gluck & Alfredo S. Aragon (2000). Participants' Understanding of the Process of Psychological Research: Debriefing. Ethics and Behavior 10 (1):13 – 25.
Cathy Faye & Donald Sharpe (2009). A Second Look at Debriefing Practices: Madness in Our Method? Ethics and Behavior 19 (5):432-447.
Cathy Faye & Donald Sharpe (2009). A Second Look at Debriefing Practices: Madness in Our Method? Ethics and Behavior 19 (5):432-447.
Franklin G. Miller John P. Gluck David Wendler Jr (2008). Debriefing and Accountability in Deceptive Research. Kennedy Institute of Ethics Journal 18 (3):pp. 235-251.
Analytics
Monthly downloads
Sorry, there are not enough data points to plot this chart.
|
Added to index2009-01-28Total downloads3 ( #202,008 of 549,113 )Recent downloads (6 months)0How can I increase my downloads? |
My notes
Discussion
