David Bourget (Western Ontario)
David Chalmers (ANU, NYU)
Rafael De Clercq
Ezio Di Nucci
Jack Alan Reynolds
Learn more about PhilPapers
BMC Medical Ethics 13 (1):25- (2012)
Background Research is fundamental to improving the quality of health care. The need for regulation of research is clear. However, the bureaucratic complexity of research governance has raised concerns that the regulatory mechanisms intended to protect participants now threaten to undermine or stifle the research enterprise, especially as this relates to sensitive topics and hard to reach groups. Discussion Much criticism of research governance has focused on long delays in obtaining ethical approvals, restrictions imposed on study conduct, and the inappropriateness of evaluating qualitative studies within the methodological and risk assessment frameworks applied to biomedical and clinical research. Less attention has been given to the different epistemologies underlying biomedical and qualitative investigation. The bioethical framework underpinning current regulatory structures is fundamentally at odds with the practice of emergent, negotiated micro-ethics required in qualitative research. The complex and shifting nature of real world settings delivers unanticipated ethical issues and (occasionally) genuine dilemmas which go beyond easy or formulaic ‘procedural’ resolution. This is not to say that qualitative studies are ‘unethical’ but that their ethical nature can only be safeguarded through the practice of ‘micro-ethics’ based on the judgement and integrity of researchers in the field. Summary This paper considers the implications of contrasting ethical paradigms for the conduct of qualitative research and the value of ‘empirical ethics’ as a means of liberating qualitative (and other) research from an outmoded and unduly restrictive research governance framework based on abstract prinicipalism, divorced from real world contexts and values
|Keywords||Qualitative research Bioethics Empirical ethics Micro ethics Principalism|
|Categories||categorize this paper)|
Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server
Configure custom proxy (use this if your affiliation does not provide a proxy)
|Through your library|
References found in this work BETA
Malcolm Parker (2009). Two Concepts of Empirical Ethics. Bioethics 23 (4):202-213.
M. Dixon-Woods & E. L. Angell (2009). Research Involving Adults Who Lack Capacity: How Have Research Ethics Committees Interpreted the Requirements? Journal of Medical Ethics 35 (6):377-381.
G. Helgesson & S. Eriksson (2008). Against the Principle That the Individual Shall Have Priority Over Science. Journal of Medical Ethics 34 (1):54-56.
E. Angell, A. J. Sutton, K. Windridge & M. Dixon-Woods (2006). Consistency in Decision Making by Research Ethics Committees: A Controlled Comparison. Journal of Medical Ethics 32 (11):662-664.
E. Wilson, K. Pollock & A. Aubeeluck (2010). Gaining and Maintaining Consent When Capacity Can Be an Issue: A Research Study with People with Huntington's Disease. Clinical Ethics 5 (3):142-147.
Citations of this work BETA
Edward S. Dove, Denise Avard, Lee Black & Bartha M. Knoppers (2013). Emerging Issues in Paediatric Health Research Consent Forms in Canada: Working Towards Best Practices. [REVIEW] BMC Medical Ethics 14 (1):1-10.
Similar books and articles
Thomas Hadjistavropoulos & William E. Smythe (2001). Elements of Risk in Qualitative Research. Ethics and Behavior 11 (2):163 – 174.
Denise E. DeLorme, George M. Sinkhan & Warren French (2001). Ethics and the Internet Issues Associated with Qualitative Research. Journal of Business Ethics 33 (4):271 - 286.
Sonali K. Shah & Kevin G. Corley, Building Better Theory by Bridging the Quantitative-Qualitative Divide.
Dominique Rivière (2011). Looking From the Outside/In: Re-Thinking Research Ethics Review. [REVIEW] Journal of Academic Ethics 9 (3):193-204.
Bernadette Dierckx de Casterlé, Mieke Grypdonck, Nancy Cannaerts & Els Steeman (2004). Empirical Ethics in Action: Lessons From Two Empirical Studies in Nursing Ethics. Medicine, Health Care and Philosophy 7 (1):31-39.
Thomas H. Murray & Josephine Johnston (eds.) (2010). Trust and Integrity in Biomedical Research: The Case of Financial Conflicts of Interest. Johns Hopkins University Press.
Mary Ellen Macdonald & Franco A. Carnevale (2008). Qualitative Health Research and the Irb: Answering the “so What?” With Qualitative Inquiry. [REVIEW] Journal of Academic Ethics 6 (1):1-5.
Marlene de Laine (2000). Fieldwork, Participation and Practice: Ethics and Dilemmas in Qualitative Research. Sage.
Stella Reiter-Theil (2004). Does Empirical Research Make Bioethics More Relevant? “The Embedded Researcher” as a Methodological Approach. Medicine, Health Care and Philosophy 7 (1):17-29.
Joyce Ellen Kennedy (2005). Grey Matter: Ambiguities and Complexities of Ethics in Research. [REVIEW] Journal of Academic Ethics 3 (2-4):143-158.
Gary Allen (2008). Getting Beyond Form Filling: The Role of Institutional Governance in Human Research Ethics. [REVIEW] Journal of Academic Ethics 6 (2):105-116.
Dorcas M. Kamuya, Sally J. Theobald, Patrick K. Munywoki, Dorothy Koech, Wenzel P. Geissler & Sassy C. Molyneux (2013). Evolving Friendships and Shifting Ethical Dilemmas: Fieldworkers' Experiences in a Short Term Community Based Study in Kenya. Developing World Bioethics 13 (1):1-9.
Iain Hay (ed.) (2000). Qualitative Research Methods in Human Geography. Oxford University Press.
Andrzej Górski (2006). The Responsible Conduct of Basic and Clinical Research. Science and Engineering Ethics 12 (1):3-4.
Added to index2012-10-01
Total downloads16 ( #225,555 of 1,796,319 )
Recent downloads (6 months)5 ( #169,168 of 1,796,319 )
How can I increase my downloads?