Pub Date : 2021-10-01DOI: 10.1177/17470161211037386
Neil Bilotta
As a white, Western-educated man, undertaking research in Kakuma refugee camp, Kenya, I encountered ethical dilemmas related to my privileged racial and gender status. These include power imbalances between researchers and refugees and conducting research in the face of human suffering. Through critical self-reflexivity, I analyze my own experiences to reveal the personal and professional vulnerabilities that researchers from high-income countries (HICs) may encounter when working in contexts where oppression and forced displacement are prominent. I conclude that researchers who work in contexts of forced migration must extend beyond the boundaries of procedural research ethics and include components of relational ethics. This involves close collaboration with refugee participants to develop more culturally relevant research ethics guidelines for refugee-specific populations.
{"title":"A critical self-reflexive account of a privileged researcher in a complicated setting: Kakuma refugee camp","authors":"Neil Bilotta","doi":"10.1177/17470161211037386","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/17470161211037386","url":null,"abstract":"As a white, Western-educated man, undertaking research in Kakuma refugee camp, Kenya, I encountered ethical dilemmas related to my privileged racial and gender status. These include power imbalances between researchers and refugees and conducting research in the face of human suffering. Through critical self-reflexivity, I analyze my own experiences to reveal the personal and professional vulnerabilities that researchers from high-income countries (HICs) may encounter when working in contexts where oppression and forced displacement are prominent. I conclude that researchers who work in contexts of forced migration must extend beyond the boundaries of procedural research ethics and include components of relational ethics. This involves close collaboration with refugee participants to develop more culturally relevant research ethics guidelines for refugee-specific populations.","PeriodicalId":38096,"journal":{"name":"Research Ethics","volume":"45 1","pages":"435 - 447"},"PeriodicalIF":1.7,"publicationDate":"2021-10-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"73590838","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2021-10-01DOI: 10.1177/17470161211042658
Aidan C. Cairns, Caleb L. Linville, Tyler Garcia, B. Bridges, Scott Tanona, J. Herington, James T. Laverty
When scientists act unethically, their actions can cause harm to participants, undermine knowledge creation, and discredit the scientific community. Responsible Conduct of Research (RCR) training is one of the main ways institutions try to prevent scientists from acting unethically. However, this only addresses the problem if scientists value the training, and if the problem stems from ignorance. This study looks at what scientists think causes unethical behavior in science, with the hopes of improving RCR training by shaping it based on the views of the targeted audience (n = 14 scientists). Previous studies have surveyed scientists about what they believe causes unethical behavior using pre-defined response items. This study uses a qualitative research methodology to elicit scientists’ beliefs without predefining the range of responses. The data for this phenomenographic study were collected from interviews which presented ethical case studies and asked subjects how they would respond to those situations. Categories and subcategories were created to organize their reasonings. This work will inform the development of future methods for preventing unethical behavior in research.
{"title":"A phenomenographic study of scientists’ beliefs about the causes of scientists’ research misconduct","authors":"Aidan C. Cairns, Caleb L. Linville, Tyler Garcia, B. Bridges, Scott Tanona, J. Herington, James T. Laverty","doi":"10.1177/17470161211042658","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/17470161211042658","url":null,"abstract":"When scientists act unethically, their actions can cause harm to participants, undermine knowledge creation, and discredit the scientific community. Responsible Conduct of Research (RCR) training is one of the main ways institutions try to prevent scientists from acting unethically. However, this only addresses the problem if scientists value the training, and if the problem stems from ignorance. This study looks at what scientists think causes unethical behavior in science, with the hopes of improving RCR training by shaping it based on the views of the targeted audience (n = 14 scientists). Previous studies have surveyed scientists about what they believe causes unethical behavior using pre-defined response items. This study uses a qualitative research methodology to elicit scientists’ beliefs without predefining the range of responses. The data for this phenomenographic study were collected from interviews which presented ethical case studies and asked subjects how they would respond to those situations. Categories and subcategories were created to organize their reasonings. This work will inform the development of future methods for preventing unethical behavior in research.","PeriodicalId":38096,"journal":{"name":"Research Ethics","volume":"22 1","pages":"501 - 521"},"PeriodicalIF":1.7,"publicationDate":"2021-10-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"74448076","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2021-09-22DOI: 10.1177/17470161211045557
Sara Bamdad, D. Finaughty, Sarah E. Johns
Are social science, cross-border research projects, where recruitment and data collection are carried out remotely (e.g. through social media and online platforms), required to follow similar ethical and data-sharing procedures as ‘on-the-ground’ studies that use traditional means of recruitment and participant engagement? This article reflects on our experience of dealing with this question when we (multi-national but UK based researchers) had to switch to online data collection due to the restrictions posed by the COVID-19 pandemic, such as the inability to travel or work in person with local communities and collaborators. Using social media platforms and online data collection when conducting research brings many advantages, such as being able to communicate remotely but directly with gatekeepers and collaborators, and in reaching potential participants on a global scale. However, neither the guidelines and advice for conducting ethically sound internet-based research, nor the academic literature focussed on building equitable research partnerships between the Global North and the Global South, offer much information regarding the ethical concerns, or address the grey areas, posed by this type of digital and distanced transnational research. In our experience, conducting research remotely made negotiations of access very challenging due to the politics of positionality between Global North and South researchers, lack of clarity on ethical processes and (mis)perceptions of gatekeepers who we could not meet in person. We hope the reflections on, and discussion of, our experience encourage deliberation on the present ethical challenges posed by online and social-media-disseminated data collection, particularly in cross-border circumstances.
{"title":"‘Grey areas’: ethical challenges posed by social media-enabled recruitment and online data collection in cross-border, social science research","authors":"Sara Bamdad, D. Finaughty, Sarah E. Johns","doi":"10.1177/17470161211045557","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/17470161211045557","url":null,"abstract":"Are social science, cross-border research projects, where recruitment and data collection are carried out remotely (e.g. through social media and online platforms), required to follow similar ethical and data-sharing procedures as ‘on-the-ground’ studies that use traditional means of recruitment and participant engagement? This article reflects on our experience of dealing with this question when we (multi-national but UK based researchers) had to switch to online data collection due to the restrictions posed by the COVID-19 pandemic, such as the inability to travel or work in person with local communities and collaborators. Using social media platforms and online data collection when conducting research brings many advantages, such as being able to communicate remotely but directly with gatekeepers and collaborators, and in reaching potential participants on a global scale. However, neither the guidelines and advice for conducting ethically sound internet-based research, nor the academic literature focussed on building equitable research partnerships between the Global North and the Global South, offer much information regarding the ethical concerns, or address the grey areas, posed by this type of digital and distanced transnational research. In our experience, conducting research remotely made negotiations of access very challenging due to the politics of positionality between Global North and South researchers, lack of clarity on ethical processes and (mis)perceptions of gatekeepers who we could not meet in person. We hope the reflections on, and discussion of, our experience encourage deliberation on the present ethical challenges posed by online and social-media-disseminated data collection, particularly in cross-border circumstances.","PeriodicalId":38096,"journal":{"name":"Research Ethics","volume":"2015 1","pages":"24 - 38"},"PeriodicalIF":1.7,"publicationDate":"2021-09-22","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"73463810","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2021-09-15DOI: 10.1177/17470161211043703
H. Davies
Consent is one necessary foundation for ethical research and it’s one of the research ethics committee’s major roles to ensure that the consent process meets acceptable standards. Although on Oxford ‘A’ REC (an NHS Research Ethics Committee based in the UK) we’ve been impressed by the thought and work put into this aspect of research ethics, we’ve continued to have concerns about the suitability and effectiveness of consent processes in supporting decision making, particularly for clinical trials. There’s poor understanding of what people want to help them decide; current processes don’t provide the best grounding for informed consent and there’s inadequate public involvement. We’ve also found a lack of proportionality with researchers failing to adapt consent procedures in proportion to the burdens and consequences of the study. As a result, people are often not best helped to make an informed choice when asked to join a research study. To address these concerns, we considered how we might improve this aspect of research ethics review. Recognising the central importance of the dialogue between the volunteer and researcher, we’ve drawn up a model or flowchart of what we deem good consent practice, proposing consent should be built around four simple steps: Step 1: Introducing the study and the choices: helping the potential participants get an overview of the proposal and introducing the key issues. Step 2: Explaining all the details of the study using the detailed Participant Information Sheet. Step 3: After a gap, if necessary, reviewing and checking understanding. Step 4: Reaching agreement and recording consent. These steps, we believe, could help all involved and this article lays out ways we might improve participant choice while complying with accepted principles and current regulations.
{"title":"Reshaping the review of consent so we might improve participant choice","authors":"H. Davies","doi":"10.1177/17470161211043703","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/17470161211043703","url":null,"abstract":"Consent is one necessary foundation for ethical research and it’s one of the research ethics committee’s major roles to ensure that the consent process meets acceptable standards. Although on Oxford ‘A’ REC (an NHS Research Ethics Committee based in the UK) we’ve been impressed by the thought and work put into this aspect of research ethics, we’ve continued to have concerns about the suitability and effectiveness of consent processes in supporting decision making, particularly for clinical trials. There’s poor understanding of what people want to help them decide; current processes don’t provide the best grounding for informed consent and there’s inadequate public involvement. We’ve also found a lack of proportionality with researchers failing to adapt consent procedures in proportion to the burdens and consequences of the study. As a result, people are often not best helped to make an informed choice when asked to join a research study. To address these concerns, we considered how we might improve this aspect of research ethics review. Recognising the central importance of the dialogue between the volunteer and researcher, we’ve drawn up a model or flowchart of what we deem good consent practice, proposing consent should be built around four simple steps: Step 1: Introducing the study and the choices: helping the potential participants get an overview of the proposal and introducing the key issues. Step 2: Explaining all the details of the study using the detailed Participant Information Sheet. Step 3: After a gap, if necessary, reviewing and checking understanding. Step 4: Reaching agreement and recording consent. These steps, we believe, could help all involved and this article lays out ways we might improve participant choice while complying with accepted principles and current regulations.","PeriodicalId":38096,"journal":{"name":"Research Ethics","volume":"47 1","pages":"3 - 12"},"PeriodicalIF":1.7,"publicationDate":"2021-09-15","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"80581191","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2021-09-08DOI: 10.1177/17470161211045772
F. Maduka-Okafor, O. Okoye, N. Oguego, N. Udeh, A. Aghaji, O. Okoye, I. Ezegwui, E. Nwobi, E. Ezugwu, E. Onwasigwe, R. Umeh, Chiamaka Aneji
School-based research presents ethical challenges, especially with respect to informed consent. The manner in which pupils and their parents respond to an invitation to participate in research is likely to depend on several factors, including the level of trust between them and the researchers. This paper describes our recruitment and consent process for a school-based eye study in Nigeria. In the course of our study, a particular governmental incident helped to fuel public mistrust in governmental programs and posed a potential threat to our recruitment efforts. The recruitment and consent process included series of advocacy visits to stakeholders in the education sector, highly interactive briefing and health talk sessions in schools, use of telephone services as a medium for information dissemination, age-appropriate study information, parental consent, and pupil assent. Of the 6598 pupils provided with study information, 5723 returned parental consent forms. There were 69 cases of pupils who dissented despite having parental consent. The two leading concerns for the parents/guardians were the rumors regarding a military/governmental-sponsored health campaign and the side-effects of the dilating eye-drops. Nevertheless, our high level of recruitment suggests our recruitment and consent process was successful in assuaging fears for the vast majority of pupils and their parents.
{"title":"Recruiting pupils for a school-based eye study in Nigeria: Trust and informed consent concerns","authors":"F. Maduka-Okafor, O. Okoye, N. Oguego, N. Udeh, A. Aghaji, O. Okoye, I. Ezegwui, E. Nwobi, E. Ezugwu, E. Onwasigwe, R. Umeh, Chiamaka Aneji","doi":"10.1177/17470161211045772","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/17470161211045772","url":null,"abstract":"School-based research presents ethical challenges, especially with respect to informed consent. The manner in which pupils and their parents respond to an invitation to participate in research is likely to depend on several factors, including the level of trust between them and the researchers. This paper describes our recruitment and consent process for a school-based eye study in Nigeria. In the course of our study, a particular governmental incident helped to fuel public mistrust in governmental programs and posed a potential threat to our recruitment efforts. The recruitment and consent process included series of advocacy visits to stakeholders in the education sector, highly interactive briefing and health talk sessions in schools, use of telephone services as a medium for information dissemination, age-appropriate study information, parental consent, and pupil assent. Of the 6598 pupils provided with study information, 5723 returned parental consent forms. There were 69 cases of pupils who dissented despite having parental consent. The two leading concerns for the parents/guardians were the rumors regarding a military/governmental-sponsored health campaign and the side-effects of the dilating eye-drops. Nevertheless, our high level of recruitment suggests our recruitment and consent process was successful in assuaging fears for the vast majority of pupils and their parents.","PeriodicalId":38096,"journal":{"name":"Research Ethics","volume":"61 1","pages":"13 - 23"},"PeriodicalIF":1.7,"publicationDate":"2021-09-08","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"87399274","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2021-07-01DOI: 10.1177/17470161211028740
S. Nicholls
Creative Commons Non Commercial CC BY-NC: This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 License (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/) which permits non-commercial use, reproduction and distribution of the work without further permission provided the original work is attributed as specified on the SAGE and Open Access pages (https://us.sagepub.com/en-us/nam/open-access-at-sage). Research integrity: emphasising our commitment
{"title":"Research integrity: emphasising our commitment","authors":"S. Nicholls","doi":"10.1177/17470161211028740","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/17470161211028740","url":null,"abstract":"Creative Commons Non Commercial CC BY-NC: This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 License (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/) which permits non-commercial use, reproduction and distribution of the work without further permission provided the original work is attributed as specified on the SAGE and Open Access pages (https://us.sagepub.com/en-us/nam/open-access-at-sage). Research integrity: emphasising our commitment","PeriodicalId":38096,"journal":{"name":"Research Ethics","volume":"255 1","pages":"265 - 266"},"PeriodicalIF":1.7,"publicationDate":"2021-07-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"74509742","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2021-06-07DOI: 10.1177/17470161211022790
C. Hine
There has been considerable debate around the ethical issues raised by data-driven technologies such as artificial intelligence. Ethical principles for the field have focused on the need to ensure that such technologies are used for good rather than harm, that they enshrine principles of social justice and fairness, that they protect privacy, respect human autonomy and are open to scrutiny. While development of such principles is well advanced, there is as yet little consensus on the mechanisms appropriate for ethical governance in this field. This paper examines the prospects for the university ethics committee to undertake effective review of research conducted on data-driven technologies in the university context. Challenges identified include: the relatively narrow focus of university-based ethical review on the human subjects research process and lack of capacity to anticipate downstream impacts; the difficulties of accommodating the complex interplay of academic and commercial interests in the field; and the need to ensure appropriate expertise from both specialists and lay voices. Overall, the challenges identified sharpen appreciation of the need to encourage a joined-up and effective system of ethical governance that fosters an ethical culture rather than replacing ethical reflection with bureaucracy.
{"title":"Evaluating the prospects for university-based ethical governance in artificial intelligence and data-driven innovation","authors":"C. Hine","doi":"10.1177/17470161211022790","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/17470161211022790","url":null,"abstract":"There has been considerable debate around the ethical issues raised by data-driven technologies such as artificial intelligence. Ethical principles for the field have focused on the need to ensure that such technologies are used for good rather than harm, that they enshrine principles of social justice and fairness, that they protect privacy, respect human autonomy and are open to scrutiny. While development of such principles is well advanced, there is as yet little consensus on the mechanisms appropriate for ethical governance in this field. This paper examines the prospects for the university ethics committee to undertake effective review of research conducted on data-driven technologies in the university context. Challenges identified include: the relatively narrow focus of university-based ethical review on the human subjects research process and lack of capacity to anticipate downstream impacts; the difficulties of accommodating the complex interplay of academic and commercial interests in the field; and the need to ensure appropriate expertise from both specialists and lay voices. Overall, the challenges identified sharpen appreciation of the need to encourage a joined-up and effective system of ethical governance that fosters an ethical culture rather than replacing ethical reflection with bureaucracy.","PeriodicalId":38096,"journal":{"name":"Research Ethics","volume":"7 1","pages":"464 - 479"},"PeriodicalIF":1.7,"publicationDate":"2021-06-07","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"75229500","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2021-05-22DOI: 10.1177/17470161211018257
M. V. Dougherty
Qualitative fieldwork research on sensitive topics sometimes requires that interviewees be granted confidentiality and anonymity. When qualitative researchers later publish their findings, they must ensure that any statements obtained during fieldwork interviews cannot be traced back to the interviewees. Given these protections to interviewees, the integrity of the published findings cannot usually be verified or replicated by third parties, and the scholarly community must trust the word of qualitative researchers when they publish their results. This trust is fundamentally abused, however, when researchers publish articles reporting qualitative fieldwork data that they never collected. Using only publicly available information, I argue that a 2017 article in an Elsevier foreign policy and international relations journal presents anonymised fieldwork interviews that could not have occurred as described. As an exercise in post-publication peer review (PPPR), this paper examines the evidence that calls into question the reliability of the putative fieldwork quotations. I show further that the 2017 article is not a unique case. The anonymity and confidentiality protections common in some areas of research create an ethical problem: the protections necessary for obtaining research data can be used as a cover to hide substandard research practices as well as research misconduct.
{"title":"The use of confidentiality and anonymity protections as a cover for fraudulent fieldwork data","authors":"M. V. Dougherty","doi":"10.1177/17470161211018257","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/17470161211018257","url":null,"abstract":"Qualitative fieldwork research on sensitive topics sometimes requires that interviewees be granted confidentiality and anonymity. When qualitative researchers later publish their findings, they must ensure that any statements obtained during fieldwork interviews cannot be traced back to the interviewees. Given these protections to interviewees, the integrity of the published findings cannot usually be verified or replicated by third parties, and the scholarly community must trust the word of qualitative researchers when they publish their results. This trust is fundamentally abused, however, when researchers publish articles reporting qualitative fieldwork data that they never collected. Using only publicly available information, I argue that a 2017 article in an Elsevier foreign policy and international relations journal presents anonymised fieldwork interviews that could not have occurred as described. As an exercise in post-publication peer review (PPPR), this paper examines the evidence that calls into question the reliability of the putative fieldwork quotations. I show further that the 2017 article is not a unique case. The anonymity and confidentiality protections common in some areas of research create an ethical problem: the protections necessary for obtaining research data can be used as a cover to hide substandard research practices as well as research misconduct.","PeriodicalId":38096,"journal":{"name":"Research Ethics","volume":"22 1","pages":"480 - 500"},"PeriodicalIF":1.7,"publicationDate":"2021-05-22","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"75286834","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2021-05-09DOI: 10.1177/17470161211014941
G. Sherwood, S. Parsons
The real-world navigation of ethics-in-practice versus the bureaucracy of institutional ethics remains challenging. This is especially true for research with children and young people who may be considered vulnerable by the policies and procedures of ethics committees but agentic by researchers. Greater transparency is needed about how this tension is navigated in practice to provide confidence and effective strategies for social researchers, including those new to the field, for negotiating informed consent. Twenty-three social science researchers with a range of experience were interviewed about their practices for gaining informed consent from children and young people in social research and the development of their ‘ethics in practice’ over time. Main themes focused on navigating ethics protocols within institutions, practices to prepare for data collection, and a critical evaluation of the resources that can be applied to gaining consent and managing relationships. A range of methods and concrete steps that address ethical challenges are outlined to illustrate what can be done in practice to achieve authentic consent and appropriate participation.
{"title":"Negotiating the practicalities of informed consent in the field with children and young people: learning from social science researchers","authors":"G. Sherwood, S. Parsons","doi":"10.1177/17470161211014941","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/17470161211014941","url":null,"abstract":"The real-world navigation of ethics-in-practice versus the bureaucracy of institutional ethics remains challenging. This is especially true for research with children and young people who may be considered vulnerable by the policies and procedures of ethics committees but agentic by researchers. Greater transparency is needed about how this tension is navigated in practice to provide confidence and effective strategies for social researchers, including those new to the field, for negotiating informed consent. Twenty-three social science researchers with a range of experience were interviewed about their practices for gaining informed consent from children and young people in social research and the development of their ‘ethics in practice’ over time. Main themes focused on navigating ethics protocols within institutions, practices to prepare for data collection, and a critical evaluation of the resources that can be applied to gaining consent and managing relationships. A range of methods and concrete steps that address ethical challenges are outlined to illustrate what can be done in practice to achieve authentic consent and appropriate participation.","PeriodicalId":38096,"journal":{"name":"Research Ethics","volume":"190 1","pages":"448 - 463"},"PeriodicalIF":1.7,"publicationDate":"2021-05-09","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"86731662","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2021-04-16DOI: 10.1177/17470161211010863
Bukola Oyinloye
This paper presents a participant-centred virtue ethics approach, the Ọmọlúàbí moral-ethical framework, which moves beyond researcher-centred reflexivity to incorporate participants’ moral virtues within a broader research ethics framework. It demonstrates a methodical application of the framework during research with rural Yorùbá communities in Northcentral Nigeria through the principles of continuity; adherence to local and national processes; adaptation to local ways of being and doing; and provision of tangible benefit. After proposing a conceptual approach for participant-centred ethics, the paper explores the tensions and complexities that may occur when attempting to reconcile diverse ethical traditions and provides practical suggestions for researchers who wish to conduct moral and ethical fieldwork in similar contexts. Ultimately, the paper argues for an integration of participants’ values and virtues within research ethics in order to affirm diverse ethical and intellectual traditions.
{"title":"Towards an Ọmọlúàbí code of research ethics: Applying a situated, participant-centred virtue ethics framework to fieldwork with disadvantaged populations in diverse cultural settings","authors":"Bukola Oyinloye","doi":"10.1177/17470161211010863","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/17470161211010863","url":null,"abstract":"This paper presents a participant-centred virtue ethics approach, the Ọmọlúàbí moral-ethical framework, which moves beyond researcher-centred reflexivity to incorporate participants’ moral virtues within a broader research ethics framework. It demonstrates a methodical application of the framework during research with rural Yorùbá communities in Northcentral Nigeria through the principles of continuity; adherence to local and national processes; adaptation to local ways of being and doing; and provision of tangible benefit. After proposing a conceptual approach for participant-centred ethics, the paper explores the tensions and complexities that may occur when attempting to reconcile diverse ethical traditions and provides practical suggestions for researchers who wish to conduct moral and ethical fieldwork in similar contexts. Ultimately, the paper argues for an integration of participants’ values and virtues within research ethics in order to affirm diverse ethical and intellectual traditions.","PeriodicalId":38096,"journal":{"name":"Research Ethics","volume":"17 1","pages":"401 - 422"},"PeriodicalIF":1.7,"publicationDate":"2021-04-16","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"81873671","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
京公网安备 11010802042870号
京ICP备2023020795号-1
扫码关注我们
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：