真实性是欺骗性研究伦理保障的基础:研究人员访谈研究。

IF 2.8 1区 哲学 Q1 MEDICAL ETHICS Accountability in Research-Policies and Quality Assurance Pub Date : 2024-06-03 DOI:10.1080/08989621.2024.2362777
Kamiel Verbeke, Jan Piasecki, Dieter Baeyens, Tomasz Krawczyk, Pascal Borry
{"title":"真实性是欺骗性研究伦理保障的基础:研究人员访谈研究。","authors":"Kamiel Verbeke, Jan Piasecki, Dieter Baeyens, Tomasz Krawczyk, Pascal Borry","doi":"10.1080/08989621.2024.2362777","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Ethical safeguards such as debriefing are often recommended or required for research studies in which participants are deceived. However, existing guidance on these safeguards seems insufficiently coherent and precise, which may be associated with their suboptimal implementation in practice. This study aimed to contribute to a more coherent and precise framework of ethical safeguards in deceptive studies through semi-structured interviews with a diverse sample of 24 researchers who had significant experience with deception. Interviewees discussed which ethical safeguards they implemented and how, as well as their relation to the notion of truthfulness (i.e., the intentional communication of true information). Moreover, interviewees provided a variety of reasons for and against implementing these safeguards, as well as how these reasons varied with the particular context of a study. Overall, the current study contributes to a more coherent and precise understanding of ethical safeguards in deceptive research that could be useful for guiding researchers and ethics reviewers in their ethical decision-making, although certain imprecisions and incoherent aspects remain in need of further investigation and normative reflection.</p>","PeriodicalId":50927,"journal":{"name":"Accountability in Research-Policies and Quality Assurance","volume":" ","pages":"1-29"},"PeriodicalIF":2.8000,"publicationDate":"2024-06-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Truthfulness as the basis for ethical safeguards in deceptive research: An interview study with researchers.\",\"authors\":\"Kamiel Verbeke, Jan Piasecki, Dieter Baeyens, Tomasz Krawczyk, Pascal Borry\",\"doi\":\"10.1080/08989621.2024.2362777\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>Ethical safeguards such as debriefing are often recommended or required for research studies in which participants are deceived. However, existing guidance on these safeguards seems insufficiently coherent and precise, which may be associated with their suboptimal implementation in practice. This study aimed to contribute to a more coherent and precise framework of ethical safeguards in deceptive studies through semi-structured interviews with a diverse sample of 24 researchers who had significant experience with deception. Interviewees discussed which ethical safeguards they implemented and how, as well as their relation to the notion of truthfulness (i.e., the intentional communication of true information). Moreover, interviewees provided a variety of reasons for and against implementing these safeguards, as well as how these reasons varied with the particular context of a study. Overall, the current study contributes to a more coherent and precise understanding of ethical safeguards in deceptive research that could be useful for guiding researchers and ethics reviewers in their ethical decision-making, although certain imprecisions and incoherent aspects remain in need of further investigation and normative reflection.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":50927,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Accountability in Research-Policies and Quality Assurance\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"1-29\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.8000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-06-03\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Accountability in Research-Policies and Quality Assurance\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"98\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1080/08989621.2024.2362777\",\"RegionNum\":1,\"RegionCategory\":\"哲学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"MEDICAL ETHICS\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Accountability in Research-Policies and Quality Assurance","FirstCategoryId":"98","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/08989621.2024.2362777","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"MEDICAL ETHICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

对于参与者受到欺骗的研究,通常会建议或要求采取汇报等伦理保障措施。然而,有关这些保障措施的现有指导似乎不够连贯和精确,这可能与这些措施在实践中未得到最佳执行有关。本研究旨在通过对 24 位具有丰富欺骗经验的研究人员进行半结构式访谈,为欺骗性研究中的伦理保障措施建立一个更加连贯和精确的框架做出贡献。受访者讨论了他们实施了哪些伦理保障措施,如何实施,以及这些措施与真实性概念(即有意传达真实信息)的关系。此外,受访者还提供了各种支持和反对实施这些保障措施的理由,以及这些理由如何随研究的特定背景而变化。总之,本研究有助于对欺骗性研究中的伦理保障措施有一个更加连贯和准确的理解,这对指导研究人员和伦理审查人员做出伦理决策很有帮助,但某些不准确和不连贯的方面仍需要进一步调查和规范性反思。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
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
Truthfulness as the basis for ethical safeguards in deceptive research: An interview study with researchers.

Ethical safeguards such as debriefing are often recommended or required for research studies in which participants are deceived. However, existing guidance on these safeguards seems insufficiently coherent and precise, which may be associated with their suboptimal implementation in practice. This study aimed to contribute to a more coherent and precise framework of ethical safeguards in deceptive studies through semi-structured interviews with a diverse sample of 24 researchers who had significant experience with deception. Interviewees discussed which ethical safeguards they implemented and how, as well as their relation to the notion of truthfulness (i.e., the intentional communication of true information). Moreover, interviewees provided a variety of reasons for and against implementing these safeguards, as well as how these reasons varied with the particular context of a study. Overall, the current study contributes to a more coherent and precise understanding of ethical safeguards in deceptive research that could be useful for guiding researchers and ethics reviewers in their ethical decision-making, although certain imprecisions and incoherent aspects remain in need of further investigation and normative reflection.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
4.90
自引率
14.70%
发文量
49
审稿时长
>12 weeks
期刊介绍: Accountability in Research: Policies and Quality Assurance is devoted to the examination and critical analysis of systems for maximizing integrity in the conduct of research. It provides an interdisciplinary, international forum for the development of ethics, procedures, standards policies, and concepts to encourage the ethical conduct of research and to enhance the validity of research results. The journal welcomes views on advancing the integrity of research in the fields of general and multidisciplinary sciences, medicine, law, economics, statistics, management studies, public policy, politics, sociology, history, psychology, philosophy, ethics, and information science. All submitted manuscripts are subject to initial appraisal by the Editor, and if found suitable for further consideration, to peer review by independent, anonymous expert referees.
期刊最新文献
Procrastination and inconsistency: Expressions of concern for publications with compromised integrity. A policy toolkit for authorship and dissemination policies may benefit NIH research consortia. A randomized trial alerting authors, with or without coauthors or editors, that research they cited in systematic reviews and guidelines has been retracted. Citation bias, diversity, and ethics. Industry effects on evidence: a case study of long-acting injectable antipsychotics.
×
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