Social Researchers' Approaches to Research Ethics During the COVID-19 Pandemic: An Exploratory Study.

IF 1.7 4区 哲学 Q2 ETHICS Journal of Empirical Research on Human Research Ethics Pub Date : 2022-02-01 Epub Date: 2021-11-15 DOI:10.1177/15562646211055056
Adrianna Surmiak, Beata Bielska, Katarzyna Kalinowska
{"title":"Social Researchers' Approaches to Research Ethics During the COVID-19 Pandemic: An Exploratory Study.","authors":"Adrianna Surmiak,&nbsp;Beata Bielska,&nbsp;Katarzyna Kalinowska","doi":"10.1177/15562646211055056","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>The global COVID-19 pandemic and quarantine/distancing measures have forced researchers to cope with a new situation. This paper aimed to analyze how the pandemic and its associated constraints have affected social researchers' approach to research ethics. Drawing on an online qualitative survey with 193 Polish social researchers conducted in April and May 2020, we distinguished three approaches: <i>nothing has changed</i>, <i>opportunity-oriented</i>, and <i>precautionary</i>. According to the first, the pandemic was not regarded as a situation that required additional reflection on ethical issues or changes in research approaches. By contrast, the other two were based on the assumption that the pandemic affected research project ethics. The difference was in the assessment of changes in the area of ethics. The pandemic presented an opportunity and a threat to the ethicality of research, respectively. We discuss the implications of all three approaches for research and education.</p>","PeriodicalId":50211,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Empirical Research on Human Research Ethics","volume":"17 1-2","pages":"213-222"},"PeriodicalIF":1.7000,"publicationDate":"2022-02-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"9","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Empirical Research on Human Research Ethics","FirstCategoryId":"98","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/15562646211055056","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2021/11/15 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"ETHICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 9

Abstract

The global COVID-19 pandemic and quarantine/distancing measures have forced researchers to cope with a new situation. This paper aimed to analyze how the pandemic and its associated constraints have affected social researchers' approach to research ethics. Drawing on an online qualitative survey with 193 Polish social researchers conducted in April and May 2020, we distinguished three approaches: nothing has changed, opportunity-oriented, and precautionary. According to the first, the pandemic was not regarded as a situation that required additional reflection on ethical issues or changes in research approaches. By contrast, the other two were based on the assumption that the pandemic affected research project ethics. The difference was in the assessment of changes in the area of ethics. The pandemic presented an opportunity and a threat to the ethicality of research, respectively. We discuss the implications of all three approaches for research and education.

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
COVID-19大流行期间社会研究者的研究伦理途径:一项探索性研究
全球COVID-19大流行和隔离/距离措施迫使研究人员应对新形势。本文旨在分析大流行及其相关限制因素如何影响社会研究者的研究伦理方法。根据2020年4月和5月对193名波兰社会研究人员进行的在线定性调查,我们区分了三种方法:没有改变,机会导向和预防。根据第一种说法,人们不认为这种大流行病的情况需要对伦理问题或研究方法的改变进行额外的思考。相比之下,另外两个是基于疫情影响研究项目伦理的假设。不同之处在于对道德领域变化的评估。这一流行病对研究的伦理性分别构成了机遇和威胁。我们将讨论这三种方法对研究和教育的影响。
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
3.50
自引率
7.70%
发文量
30
审稿时长
>12 weeks
期刊介绍: The Journal of Empirical Research on Human Research Ethics (JERHRE) is the only journal in the field of human research ethics dedicated exclusively to empirical research. Empirical knowledge translates ethical principles into procedures appropriate to specific cultures, contexts, and research topics. The journal''s distinguished editorial and advisory board brings a range of expertise and international perspective to provide high-quality double-blind peer-reviewed original articles.
期刊最新文献
Joint Editorial: Informed Consent and AI Transcription of Qualitative Data. An Example of a Clinical Research Ethics Committee in Türkiye: Types of Studies Analysed, Their Phases and Investigators. Decision-Making Capabilities of Artificial Intelligence Platforms as Institutional Review Board Members: Comment. Perceptions of the Research Integrity Climate in Egyptian Universities: A Survey Among Academic Researchers. Comparison of Instructions to Authors and Reporting of Ethics Components in Selected African Biomedical Journals: 2008 and 2017.
×
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