Debra J. H. Mathews, D. Micah Hester, Jeffrey Kahn, Amy McGuire, Ross McKinney, Keith Meador, Sean Philpott-Jones, Stuart Youngner & Benjamin S. Wilfond
Hastings Center Report 46 (5):34-39 (2016)
Authors |
|
Abstract |
While the bioethics literature demonstrates that the field has spent substantial time and thought over the last four decades on the goals, methods, and desired outcomes for service and training in bioethics, there has been less progress defining the nature and goals of bioethics research and scholarship. This gap makes it difficult both to describe the breadth and depth of these areas of bioethics and, importantly, to gauge their success. However, the gap also presents us with an opportunity to define this scope of work for ourselves and to help shape the broader conversation about the impact of academic research. Because of growing constraints on academic funding, researchers and scholars in many fields are being asked to demonstrate and also forecast the value and impact of their work. To do that, and also to satisfy ourselves that our work has meaningful effect, we must understand how our work can motivate change and how that change can be meaningfully measured. In a field as diverse as bioethics, the pathways to and metrics of change will likewise be diverse. It is therefore critical that any assessment of the impact of bioethics research and scholarship be informed by an understanding of the nature of the work, its goals, and how those goals can and ought to be furthered. In this paper, we propose a conceptual model that connects individual bioethics projects to the broader goals of scholarship, describing the translation of research and scholarly output into changes in thinking, practice, and policy. One of the key implications of the model is that impact in bioethics is generally the result of a collection of projects rather than of any single piece of research or scholarship. Our goal is to lay the groundwork for a thoroughgoing conversation about bioethics research and scholarship that will advance and shape the important conversation about their impact.
|
Keywords | No keywords specified (fix it) |
Categories | (categorize this paper) |
DOI | 10.1002/hast.615 |
Options |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
Download options
References found in this work BETA
Health Care Ethics Consultation: An Update on Core Competencies and Emerging Standards From the American Society for Bioethics and Humanities' Core Competencies Update Task Force.Anita Tarzian - 2013 - American Journal of Bioethics 13 (2):3-13.
The Ancillary‐Care Responsibilities of Medical Researchers: An Ethical Framework for Thinking About the Clinical Care That Researchers Owe Their Subjects.Henry S. Richardson & Leah Belsky - 2004 - Hastings Center Report 34 (1):25-33.
The Role of Empirical Research in Bioethics.Alexander A. Kon - 2009 - American Journal of Bioethics 9 (6-7):59-65.
Realizing Bioethics' Goals in Practice: Ten Ways "is" Can Help "Ought".Mildred Z. Solomon - 2005 - Hastings Center Report 35 (4):40-47.
View all 9 references / Add more references
Citations of this work BETA
In Pursuit of Goodness in Bioethics: Analysis of an Exemplary Article.Bjørn Hofmann & Morten Magelssen - 2018 - BMC Medical Ethics 19 (1):60.
The Challenge of Defining Success in Bioethics’ Humanist Wing.Paul Lauritzen - 2016 - Hastings Center Report 46 (5):43-44.
Methodology and Myopia? Some Praise, a Problem, and a Plea.Jonathan Ives - 2016 - Hastings Center Report 46 (5):46-47.
Non-Epistemological Values in Collaborative Research in Neuroscience: The Case of Alleged Differences Between Human Populations.Joanna K. Malinowska & Tomasz Żuradzki - 2020 - American Journal of Bioethics Neuroscience 11 (3):203-206.
On Classifying the Field of Medical Ethics.Kristine Bærøe, Jonathan Ives, Martine de Vries & Jan Schildmann - 2017 - BMC Medical Ethics 18 (1):30.
View all 10 citations / Add more citations
Similar books and articles
Methodology and Myopia? Some Praise, a Problem, and a Plea.Jonathan Ives - 2016 - Hastings Center Report 46 (5):46-47.
The Challenge of Defining Success in Bioethics’ Humanist Wing.Paul Lauritzen - 2016 - Hastings Center Report 46 (5):43-44.
Quality of Scholarship in Bioethics.Baruch A. Brody - 1990 - Journal of Medicine and Philosophy 15 (2):161-178.
Disability: An Agenda for Bioethics.Mark G. Kuczewski - 2001 - American Journal of Bioethics 1 (3):36-44.
Reviewing Literature in Bioethics Research: Increasing Rigour in Non‐Systematic Reviews.Rosalind McDougall - 2015 - Bioethics 29 (7):523-528.
On the Nature and Sociology of Bioethics.Mark Sheehan & Michael Dunn - 2013 - Health Care Analysis 21 (1):54-69.
Criteria for Authorship in Bioethics.David B. Resnik & Zubin Master - 2011 - American Journal of Bioethics 11 (10):17 - 21.
Interdisciplinary Bioethics on the Crossroad of Research Methods.Eliane Azevêdo - 2007 - Eubios Journal of Asian and International Bioethics 17 (2):34-34.
Research Ethics Capacity Development in Africa: Exploring a Model for Individual Success.A. L. I. Joseph, Adnan A. Hyder & Nancy E. Kass - 2012 - Developing World Bioethics 12 (2):55-62.
The Impact of Pay-for-Performance Beyond Quality Markers-A Call for Bioethics Research.D. J. Satin - 2006 - Bioethics Examiner. University of Minnesota Center for Bioethics. Fall 10 (1).
Research Ethics Capacity Development in Africa: Exploring a Model for Individual Success.Adnan A. Hyder Joseph Ali - 2012 - Developing World Bioethics 12 (2):55-62.
Bioethics, Social Class, and the Sociological Imagination.Leigh Turner - 2005 - Cambridge Quarterly of Healthcare Ethics 14 (4):374-378.
Analytics
Added to PP index
2016-09-21
Total views
21 ( #531,368 of 2,497,755 )
Recent downloads (6 months)
1 ( #428,370 of 2,497,755 )
2016-09-21
Total views
21 ( #531,368 of 2,497,755 )
Recent downloads (6 months)
1 ( #428,370 of 2,497,755 )
How can I increase my downloads?
Downloads