不是我搜索,而是你搜索:涉及边缘化外群体研究的伦理考虑。

IF 2.8 1区 哲学 Q1 MEDICAL ETHICS Accountability in Research-Policies and Quality Assurance Pub Date : 2024-10-03 DOI:10.1080/08989621.2024.2408287
Hannah R Snidman, Katarina S Swaringen, Lindsay Rice
{"title":"不是我搜索,而是你搜索:涉及边缘化外群体研究的伦理考虑。","authors":"Hannah R Snidman, Katarina S Swaringen, Lindsay Rice","doi":"10.1080/08989621.2024.2408287","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p><b>Background:</b> This study explored experiences of quantitative researchers who work with marginalized populations.<b>Methods/materials:</b> Participants were recruited from the Society for Personality and Social Psychology forum, and asked questions regarding their struggles and best practices while working with marginalized populations in which they are or are not a member.<b>Results:</b> Responses included concerns regarding bidirectional trust, community norms, perceived bias, diversity and participant recruitment and compensation. We explore the benefits of qualitative understandings of bias (i.e. positionality, reflexivity), salient concerns reported by quantitative researchers, and our recommendations for the ethical inclusion of these practices across quantitative work.<b>Conclusions:</b> This paper contributes to understanding of current struggles and best practices while conducting research among marginalized populations. Additionally, we encourage quantitative researchers to engage in reflexive research practices, particularly for the benefit of marginalized group research. We extend the insider-outsider researcher discussion to quantitative researchers.</p>","PeriodicalId":50927,"journal":{"name":"Accountability in Research-Policies and Quality Assurance","volume":" ","pages":"1-22"},"PeriodicalIF":2.8000,"publicationDate":"2024-10-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Not me-search, you-search: Ethical considerations for research involving marginalized outgroups.\",\"authors\":\"Hannah R Snidman, Katarina S Swaringen, Lindsay Rice\",\"doi\":\"10.1080/08989621.2024.2408287\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p><b>Background:</b> This study explored experiences of quantitative researchers who work with marginalized populations.<b>Methods/materials:</b> Participants were recruited from the Society for Personality and Social Psychology forum, and asked questions regarding their struggles and best practices while working with marginalized populations in which they are or are not a member.<b>Results:</b> Responses included concerns regarding bidirectional trust, community norms, perceived bias, diversity and participant recruitment and compensation. We explore the benefits of qualitative understandings of bias (i.e. positionality, reflexivity), salient concerns reported by quantitative researchers, and our recommendations for the ethical inclusion of these practices across quantitative work.<b>Conclusions:</b> This paper contributes to understanding of current struggles and best practices while conducting research among marginalized populations. Additionally, we encourage quantitative researchers to engage in reflexive research practices, particularly for the benefit of marginalized group research. We extend the insider-outsider researcher discussion to quantitative researchers.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":50927,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Accountability in Research-Policies and Quality Assurance\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"1-22\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.8000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-10-03\",\"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/10.1080/08989621.2024.2408287\",\"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/10.1080/08989621.2024.2408287","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

背景:本研究探讨了与边缘化人群合作的定量研究人员的经验:参与者是从人格与社会心理学学会论坛招募的,他们被问及在与边缘化人群合作时遇到的困难和最佳实践等问题,无论他们是否是该论坛的成员:回答内容包括双向信任、社区规范、感知偏见、多样性以及参与者招募和补偿等方面的问题。我们探讨了定性理解偏见的益处(即立场性、反身性)、定量研究人员报告的突出问题,以及我们对在定量工作中纳入这些做法的道德建议:本文有助于理解当前在边缘化人群中开展研究时遇到的困难和最佳实践。此外,我们鼓励定量研究人员参与反思性研究实践,尤其是为了边缘化群体研究的利益。我们将局内局外研究人员的讨论扩展到定量研究人员。
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
Not me-search, you-search: Ethical considerations for research involving marginalized outgroups.

Background: This study explored experiences of quantitative researchers who work with marginalized populations.Methods/materials: Participants were recruited from the Society for Personality and Social Psychology forum, and asked questions regarding their struggles and best practices while working with marginalized populations in which they are or are not a member.Results: Responses included concerns regarding bidirectional trust, community norms, perceived bias, diversity and participant recruitment and compensation. We explore the benefits of qualitative understandings of bias (i.e. positionality, reflexivity), salient concerns reported by quantitative researchers, and our recommendations for the ethical inclusion of these practices across quantitative work.Conclusions: This paper contributes to understanding of current struggles and best practices while conducting research among marginalized populations. Additionally, we encourage quantitative researchers to engage in reflexive research practices, particularly for the benefit of marginalized group research. We extend the insider-outsider researcher discussion to quantitative researchers.

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