Proxies of Trustworthiness: A Novel Framework to Support the Performance of Trust in Human Health Research.

IF 1.8 3区 哲学 Q2 ETHICS Journal of Bioethical Inquiry Pub Date : 2024-03-29 DOI:10.1007/s11673-024-10335-1
Kate Harvey, Graeme Laurie
{"title":"Proxies of Trustworthiness: A Novel Framework to Support the Performance of Trust in Human Health Research.","authors":"Kate Harvey, Graeme Laurie","doi":"10.1007/s11673-024-10335-1","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Without trust there is no credible human health research (HHR). This article accepts this truism and addresses a crucial question that arises: how can trust continually be promoted in an ever-changing and uncertain HHR environment? The article analyses long-standing mechanisms that are designed to elicit trust-such as consent, anonymization, and transparency-and argues that these are best understood as trust represented by proxies of trustworthiness, i.e., regulatory attempts to convey the trustworthiness of the HHR system and/or its actors. Often, such proxies are assumed to operate as markers that trust exists or, at least, has not been lost. But, since trust can neither be \"built\" nor \"secured,\" this is a precarious assumption. Worryingly, there is no existing theoretical account of how to understand and evaluate these proxies of trustworthiness as part of a trusted HHR ecosystem. To remedy this, the paper argues for a radical reimagining of trust and trustworthiness as performative acts that ought to be understood in relation to each other and by reference to the common values at stake. It is shown that proxies of trustworthiness are the operational tools used to perform trustworthiness. It advocates for a values-based approach to understanding the relationship between trust and trustworthiness. This establishes a strong basis for an evaluative framework for proxies of trustworthiness, i.e., to determine how to perform trustworthiness well. Five common proxies in HHR are scrutinized from a values perspective. The contribution is to provide a far-reaching normative and practical framework by which existing and future proxies of trustworthiness can be identified, assessed, maintained, or replaced in rapidly changing HHR regulatory ecosystems where trust itself is crucial to the success of the entire HHR enterprise.</p>","PeriodicalId":50252,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Bioethical Inquiry","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.8000,"publicationDate":"2024-03-29","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Bioethical Inquiry","FirstCategoryId":"98","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s11673-024-10335-1","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"ETHICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Without trust there is no credible human health research (HHR). This article accepts this truism and addresses a crucial question that arises: how can trust continually be promoted in an ever-changing and uncertain HHR environment? The article analyses long-standing mechanisms that are designed to elicit trust-such as consent, anonymization, and transparency-and argues that these are best understood as trust represented by proxies of trustworthiness, i.e., regulatory attempts to convey the trustworthiness of the HHR system and/or its actors. Often, such proxies are assumed to operate as markers that trust exists or, at least, has not been lost. But, since trust can neither be "built" nor "secured," this is a precarious assumption. Worryingly, there is no existing theoretical account of how to understand and evaluate these proxies of trustworthiness as part of a trusted HHR ecosystem. To remedy this, the paper argues for a radical reimagining of trust and trustworthiness as performative acts that ought to be understood in relation to each other and by reference to the common values at stake. It is shown that proxies of trustworthiness are the operational tools used to perform trustworthiness. It advocates for a values-based approach to understanding the relationship between trust and trustworthiness. This establishes a strong basis for an evaluative framework for proxies of trustworthiness, i.e., to determine how to perform trustworthiness well. Five common proxies in HHR are scrutinized from a values perspective. The contribution is to provide a far-reaching normative and practical framework by which existing and future proxies of trustworthiness can be identified, assessed, maintained, or replaced in rapidly changing HHR regulatory ecosystems where trust itself is crucial to the success of the entire HHR enterprise.

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
可信度的代用指标:支持人类健康研究中信任表现的新框架》。
没有信任,就没有可信的人类健康研究 (HHR)。本文接受了这一不争的事实,并探讨了由此产生的一个关键问题:如何在不断变化和不确定的人类健康研究环境中持续增进信任?文章分析了旨在获取信任的长期机制--如同意、匿名化和透明化--并认为这些机制最好被理解为由可信度代理所代表的信任,即监管机构试图传达健康卫生研究系统和/或其参与者的可信度。通常情况下,这种代理被认为是信任存在或至少没有丧失的标志。但是,由于信任既无法 "建立",也无法 "确保",这种假设是不可靠的。令人担忧的是,对于如何理解和评估这些作为可信人力资源生态系统一部分的可信度代用指标,还没有现成的理论论述。为了弥补这一缺陷,本文主张从根本上重新认识信任和可信度,将其视为一种表演行为,应该通过相互之间的关系并参照利害攸关的共同价值观来理解。研究表明,可信度的代用指标是履行可信度的操作工具。它主张采用基于价值观的方法来理解信任与可信度之间的关系。这为建立可信度代理评价框架奠定了坚实的基础,即确定如何做好可信度代理。我们从价值观的角度仔细研究了人力资源中的五个常见代用指标。其贡献在于提供了一个意义深远的规范性和实用性框架,据此可以在快速变化的人力资源监管生态系统中识别、评估、维护或替换现有和未来的可信度代理,因为信任本身对整个人力资源企业的成功至关重要。
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
Journal of Bioethical Inquiry
Journal of Bioethical Inquiry 医学-医学:伦理
CiteScore
5.20
自引率
8.30%
发文量
67
审稿时长
>12 weeks
期刊介绍: The JBI welcomes both reports of empirical research and articles that increase theoretical understanding of medicine and health care, the health professions and the biological sciences. The JBI is also open to critical reflections on medicine and conventional bioethics, the nature of health, illness and disability, the sources of ethics, the nature of ethical communities, and possible implications of new developments in science and technology for social and cultural life and human identity. We welcome contributions from perspectives that are less commonly published in existing journals in the field and reports of empirical research studies using both qualitative and quantitative methodologies. The JBI accepts contributions from authors working in or across disciplines including – but not limited to – the following: -philosophy- bioethics- economics- social theory- law- public health and epidemiology- anthropology- psychology- feminism- gay and lesbian studies- linguistics and discourse analysis- cultural studies- disability studies- history- literature and literary studies- environmental sciences- theology and religious studies
期刊最新文献
Reflections from the Editors-in-Chief. The Role of Ethics Committees in Charity Care Allocation. Meaningful and Successful Ethical Enactments: A Proposal from Deliberative Wisdom Theory. Priorities in the Protection of Citizens Who Have Fallen into Enemy Hands. "Expensive Sisters".
×
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