Graduate studies at Western
Ethics and Social Welfare 6 (1):2-17 (2012)
|Abstract||This paper poses questions regarding the ethical prioritisation in qualitative research studies on assessing a person's or a group's fitness to provide informed consent, arguing that this may have unwanted as well as desirable consequences, particularly in relation to rights of citizenship for socially marginalised populations who tend to be labelled vulnerable. Drawing on three theoretical perspectives (Arendt, Honneth and Bourdieu), it is suggested that the emphasis placed on a research participant's capacity to provide informed consent cannot be regarded solely as a protective measure for ?vulnerable? groups, but is also bound up with their social positioning as socially ?deficient? according to liberal (classical and neo-liberal) models of citizenship. Participation in a qualitative study can be seen as a dimension of the civil and human right to freedom of expression, and this can be particularly important for those labelled vulnerable as freedom of expression is a precondition for recognition and parity of status. Nevertheless, the importance of informed consent is not rejected; instead, it is posited that the protective rights accorded to vulnerable groups in qualitative research need to be considered alongside other human goods, such as the promotion of voice, agency and active citizenship|
|Keywords||No keywords specified (fix it)|
|Categories||categorize this paper)|
|Through your library||Configure|
Similar books and articles
Paulina Tambakaki (2010). Human Rights, or Citizenship? Birkbeck Law Press.
Carol Levine, Ruth Faden, Christine Grady, Dale Hammerschmidt, Lisa Eckenwiler & Jeremy Sugarman (2004). The Limitations of "Vulnerability" as a Protection for Human Research Participants. American Journal of Bioethics 4 (3):44 – 49.
Oonagh Corrigan (ed.) (2009). The Limits of Consent: A Socio-Ethical Approach to Human Subject Research in Medicine. Oxford University Press.
Katherine E. Tonkiss (2013). Post-National Citizenship Without Post-National Identity? A Case Study of UK Immigration Policy and Intra-EU Migration. Journal of Global Ethics 9 (1):35-48.
Rosamond Rhodes (2005). Rethinking Research Ethics. American Journal of Bioethics 5 (1):7 – 28.
Iain Hay (ed.) (2000). Qualitative Research Methods in Human Geography. Oxford University Press.
Alistair Ross (2007). Multiple Identities and Education for Active Citizenship. British Journal of Educational Studies 55 (3):286 - 303.
Jae Hwan Lee & Ronald K. Mitchell (2011). Towards Refining the Concept of Corporate Citizenship. Proceedings of the International Association for Business and Society 22:265-273.
Aamir M. Jafarey (2002). Conflict of Interest Issues in Informed Consent for Research on Human Subjects: A South Asian Perspective. Science and Engineering Ethics 8 (3):353-362.
Margaret Brazier & Mary Lobjoit (eds.) (1991). Protecting the Vulnerable: Autonomy and Consent in Health Care. Routledge.
Martin Tolich (2009). The Principle of Caveat Emptor: Confidentiality and Informed Consent as Endemic Ethical Dilemmas in Focus Group Research. [REVIEW] Journal of Bioethical Inquiry 6 (1):99-108.
Stephanie R. Solomon (2013). Protecting and Respecting the Vulnerable: Existing Regulations or Further Protections? Theoretical Medicine and Bioethics 34 (1):17-28.
Jacqueline A. Laing (2005). The Mental Capacity Bill 2004: Human Rights Concerns. Family Law Journal 35:137-143.
Sami Alsmadi (2008). Marketing Research Ethics: Researcher's Obligations Toward Human Subjects. Journal of Academic Ethics 6 (2):153-160.
Added to index2011-07-22
Total downloads14 ( #90,649 of 741,433 )
Recent downloads (6 months)2 ( #37,338 of 741,433 )
How can I increase my downloads?