Participants’ Right to Withdraw from Research: Researchers’ Lived Experiences on Ethics of Withdrawal

IF 2.2 Q1 ETHICS Journal of Academic Ethics Pub Date : 2024-02-01 DOI:10.1007/s10805-024-09513-y
Bibek Dahal
{"title":"Participants’ Right to Withdraw from Research: Researchers’ Lived Experiences on Ethics of Withdrawal","authors":"Bibek Dahal","doi":"10.1007/s10805-024-09513-y","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p>Ethics in research can be broadly divided into two epistemic dimensions. One dimension focuses on bureaucratic procedures (i.e., <i>procedural ethics</i>), while the other focuses on contextually and culturally contested practice of ethics in research (i.e., <i>ethics in practice</i>). Researchers experience both dimensions distinctly in their qualitative research. The review of ethics in prospective research through bureaucratic procedures aims to measure compliance with documented requirements relating to research participants, data management, consent, and ensure researchers can demonstrate their ethical competence before they commence their research. However, researchers often experience unanticipated ethical issues within the context of their research; sometimes ethics-related situations, including language sensitivity, cultural humility, and data processing experienced by researchers can be very different from what was included in bureaucratic procedures. In this study, phenomena related to research ethics in practice, as experienced by social scientists (<i>n</i> = <i>5</i>) in their qualitative research, are hermeneutically explored and interpreted. The selected phenomena represent the researchers’ lived experiences regarding the practice of participant autonomy, specifically exploring participants’ right to withdraw from research. These phenomena are interpreted from the theoretical perspectives of situational relativism and self-determined autonomy. The interpreted phenomena reveal the current practices in <i>ethical</i> management of data collected from participants before their decision to withdraw from research (i.e., withdrawal data), are predominantly focused on tangible forms of data (i.e., the information that can easily be distinguished from other data), but ethical concerns associated with intangible forms of data are often neglected. The intangible forms of data are experiential <i>knowing</i> and <i>understanding</i> that include, feeling, emotion, courage, respect, celebration, anger, and the sense of being and belonging. The study recommends that researchers and research professionals should exercise <i>ethical</i> sensitivity and humility towards intangible forms of data collected during qualitative research when participants withdraw their consent.</p>","PeriodicalId":45961,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Academic Ethics","volume":"323 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.2000,"publicationDate":"2024-02-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Academic Ethics","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s10805-024-09513-y","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"ETHICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Ethics in research can be broadly divided into two epistemic dimensions. One dimension focuses on bureaucratic procedures (i.e., procedural ethics), while the other focuses on contextually and culturally contested practice of ethics in research (i.e., ethics in practice). Researchers experience both dimensions distinctly in their qualitative research. The review of ethics in prospective research through bureaucratic procedures aims to measure compliance with documented requirements relating to research participants, data management, consent, and ensure researchers can demonstrate their ethical competence before they commence their research. However, researchers often experience unanticipated ethical issues within the context of their research; sometimes ethics-related situations, including language sensitivity, cultural humility, and data processing experienced by researchers can be very different from what was included in bureaucratic procedures. In this study, phenomena related to research ethics in practice, as experienced by social scientists (n = 5) in their qualitative research, are hermeneutically explored and interpreted. The selected phenomena represent the researchers’ lived experiences regarding the practice of participant autonomy, specifically exploring participants’ right to withdraw from research. These phenomena are interpreted from the theoretical perspectives of situational relativism and self-determined autonomy. The interpreted phenomena reveal the current practices in ethical management of data collected from participants before their decision to withdraw from research (i.e., withdrawal data), are predominantly focused on tangible forms of data (i.e., the information that can easily be distinguished from other data), but ethical concerns associated with intangible forms of data are often neglected. The intangible forms of data are experiential knowing and understanding that include, feeling, emotion, courage, respect, celebration, anger, and the sense of being and belonging. The study recommends that researchers and research professionals should exercise ethical sensitivity and humility towards intangible forms of data collected during qualitative research when participants withdraw their consent.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
参与者退出研究的权利:研究人员关于退出伦理的亲身经历
研究伦理可大致分为两个认识层面。一个维度侧重于官僚程序(即程序伦理),另一个维度侧重于研究伦理在背景和文化上有争议的实践(即实践伦理)。研究人员在定性研究中会明显感受到这两个层面。通过官僚程序审查前瞻性研究中的伦理问题,旨在衡量是否符合与研究参与者、数据管理、同意书有关的文件要求,并确保研究人员在开始研究之前能够证明自己的伦理能力。然而,研究人员在研究过程中经常会遇到意想不到的伦理问题;有时,研究人员遇到的与伦理相关的情况,包括语言敏感性、文化谦逊性和数据处理,可能与官僚程序中的要求大相径庭。在本研究中,对社会科学家(n = 5)在定性研究中经历的与研究伦理相关的现象进行了诠释学探索和解释。所选现象代表了研究人员在参与者自主权实践方面的生活经验,特别是探索参与者退出研究的权利。我们从情境相对主义和自决自治的理论视角对这些现象进行了解读。所解释的现象揭示了目前在对参与者决定退出研究之前所收集的数据(即退出数据)进行伦理管理时,主要关注的是有形形式的数据(即容易与其他数据区分开来的信息),而与无形形式的数据相关的伦理问题却往往被忽视。无形形式的数据是经验性的认识和理解,包括感觉、情感、勇气、尊重、庆祝、愤怒以及存在感和归属感。本研究建议研究人员和研究专业人员在定性研究过程中,当参与者撤销同意时,应对收集到的无形形式的数据保持道德敏感性和谦卑。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
4.70
自引率
5.60%
发文量
18
期刊介绍: The Journal of Academic Ethics is a multidisciplinary and interdisciplinary, peer reviewed journal which examines all ethical issues which arise within the scope of university purposes. The journal publishes original research in the ethics of research production and publication; teaching and student relations; leadership; management and governance. The journal offers sustained inquiry into such topics as the ethics of university strategic directions; ethical investments; sustainability practices; the responsible conduct of research and teaching; collegiality and faculty relations; and the appropriate models of ethical and accountable governance for universities in the 21st century.
期刊最新文献
Developing Student Agency Towards Academic Integrity Through an Educative Approach: Exploring Students’ Experiences and Perspectives Fabricating Citations: The Policies of New Jersey Public Institutions of Higher Education Developing Surveys on Questionable Research Practices: Four Challenging Design Problems Testing a Psychological Model of Post-Pandemic Academic Cheating Why Student Ratings of Faculty Are Unethical
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1