Abstract
This article analyses and discusses dilemmas, ambivalences and problematic issues related to research ethics. This is done firstly by making a distinction between procedural research ethics and particularistic research ethics. Such a distinction reflects a theoretical construction and generalization. In practice, there can be a very close correlation between the two types. In the following, the distinction will therefore be used as a starting point for the presentation of a pragmatic-dualist research ethics. The approach is dualist because it draws on the presence of two independent, contrasting understandings, which are essentially different yet equal aspects of good research ethics; it is pragmatic because this dualism is 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 of these understandings. Furthermore, the intention is to visualize a different understanding of research ethics which others can address and elaborate on or qualify. Even at this point, this research ethic can be included in a catalogue of understandings of ethical research practice an can be exploited in ethical research practice.
Similar content being viewed by others
Notes
The procedure is indebted to Strand and Slettebø 2012.
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. https://doi.org/10.1177/160940691201100208.
Brandt, A. M. (1978). Racism and research: The case of the Tuskegee syphilis study. The Hastings Center Report, 8(6), 21–29. https://doi.org/10.2307/3561468.
Brandstrup, M. (2016). Et feltarbejde i Pusherstreet – om indgang, adgang og forskningsetik. Masters Thesis, University of Copenhagen.
Campbell, D., & Shapiro, M. (1999). Introduction: From ethical theory to the ethical relation. In D. Campbell & M. Shapiro (Eds.), Moral spaces: Rethinking ethics and world politics (pp. vii–xx). Minneapolis: University of Minnesota.
Canelle, G. S., & Lincoln, Y. S. (2016). Critical qualitative research in global neoliberalism. In N. K. Denzin & M. D. Giardina (Eds.), Qualitative inquiry and the politics of research (pp. 51–74). New York: Routledge.
Capron, A. M. (1989). Human experimentation. In R. M. Veatch (Ed.), Medical ethics (pp. 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. https://doi.org/10.1016/0008-6215(88)80051-x.
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. https://doi.org/10.1021/ac00048a013.
Franzen, J. (1996). How to be alone. London: Macmillan. https://doi.org/10.3109/02844319609056404.
Fink, H. (2003). Universitetsfagenes etik. In H. Fink, P. C. Kjærgaard, H. Kragh, & J. E. Kristensen (Eds.), Universitet og videnskab (pp. 193–221). København: Hans Reitzels Forlag.
Gray, F. D. (1998). The Tuskegee syphilis study: The real story and beyond. Montgomery: NewSouth Books. https://doi.org/10.1364/ao.37.006037.
Guillemin, M., & Gillam, L. (2006). Telling moments: Everyday ethics in health care. East Hawthorn, Australia: IP Communications. https://doi.org/10.1159/000095520.
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
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.
Kellehear, A. (1996). Unobtrusive methods in delicate situations. In J. Daly (Ed.), Ethical intersections: Health research, methods and researcher responsibility (pp. 97–105). Sydney, Australia: Allen & Unwin.
Lehmann, N. (2002). Pragmatisk dualisme: dannelse mellem rationalitet og rationalitetskritik. In M. B. Johansen (Ed.), Dannelse (pp. 257–275). Aarhus: Aarhus Universitetsforlag.
Mason, J. (1996). Qualitative researching. London: Sage. https://doi.org/10.7870/cjcmh-1996-0015.
Mauthner, M., & Birch, M. (2002). Ethics in qualitative research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
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. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.socscimed.2007.08.009.
Orb, A., Eisenhauer, L., & Wynaden, D. (2001). Ethics in qualitative research. Journal of Nursing Scholarship, 33(1), 93–96. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1547-5069.2001.00093.x.
Pels, P. (1999). Professions of Duplexity: A prehistory of ethical codes in anthropology. Current Anthropology, 40(2), 101–136. https://doi.org/10.1086/200001.
Popke, J. (2003). Poststructuralist ethics: Subjectivity, responsibility and the space of community. Progress in Human Geography, 27(3), 298–316.
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.
Rosenthal, R., & Jacobson, L. (1968). Pygmalion in the classroom. In Pygmalion in the classroom: Teacher expectation and pupils’ intellectual development. New York/London: Holt, Rinehart and Winston. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.1968.03150130051017.
Samaras, A. P. (2011). Self-study teacher research: Improving your practice through collaborative inquiry. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
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. https://doi.org/10.1080/21550085.2012.672691.
Shavers, V. L., Lynch, C. F., & Burmeister, L. F. (2000). Knowledge of the Tuskegee study and its impact on the willingness to participate in medical research studies. Journal of the National Medical Association, 92(12), 563–572.
Steinmetz, G. (2005). Scientific authority and the transition to post-Fordism: The plausibility of positivism in U.S. sociology since 1945. In The Politics of Method in The Human Sciences (Ed.), Steinmetz, G (pp. 275–323). London: Duke University Press.
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. https://doi.org/10.4161/jig.23749.
Thompson, F. E. (2002). Moving from codes of ethics to ethical relationships for midwifery practice. Nurse Ethics, 9(5), 522–536.
Tjørnhøj-Thomsen, T. (2003). Samværet. Tilblivelser i tid og rum. In K. Hastrup (Ed.), Ind i Verden. En grundbog i antropologisk metode (pp. 93–115). København: Hans Reitzels Forlag.
Tjørnhøj-Thomsen, T. & Hansen, H.P. (2009). Overskridelsens etik. In Hastrup, K. (Ed.), 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. https://doi.org/10.1038/76174.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Additional information
Publisher’s Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Johansen, M.B., Frederiksen, J.T. Ethically important moments – a pragmatic-dualist research ethics. J Acad Ethics 19, 279–289 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10805-020-09377-y
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10805-020-09377-y