“道德行为取决于你”在养老院的定性实地调查中应用道德协议

IF 0.8 Q4 GERONTOLOGY Quality in Ageing and Older Adults Pub Date : 2021-11-12 DOI:10.1108/qaoa-06-2021-0050
T. Backhouse, R. Daly
{"title":"“道德行为取决于你”在养老院的定性实地调查中应用道德协议","authors":"T. Backhouse, R. Daly","doi":"10.1108/qaoa-06-2021-0050","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"\nPurpose\nResearch ethics committees (RECs) and ethical standards govern research. To conduct research involving participants, researchers must first gain a favourable opinion on their protocol from a REC. This paper aims to promote researcher reflexivity and openness about applying agreed ethical protocols in practice.\n\n\nDesign/methodology/approach\nUsing examples from qualitative fieldwork in two care home studies, the authors critically reflect on the issues encountered when applying ethics committee agreed protocols in real-world situations.\n\n\nFindings\nThree areas of research practice are reflected on given as follows: recruitment and consent; approach to observations; and research processes, shared spaces and access to data. The interface between researcher and participant did not always mirror textbook scenarios. Ultimately, this left researchers accountable for taking ethically acceptable actions while conducting research.\n\n\nOriginality/value\nDrawing on research experiences in care homes, the authors consider the reliance on the researcher to be authentic and morally driven over and above formal ethical approvals. The authors conclude that the researcher is the bridging agent between ethical protocols and ethical practice in the field. As such, researchers need to be open and reflexive about their practices in fieldwork.\n","PeriodicalId":44916,"journal":{"name":"Quality in Ageing and Older Adults","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.8000,"publicationDate":"2021-11-12","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"“Acting ethically is down to you” applying ethical protocols in qualitative fieldwork in care homes\",\"authors\":\"T. Backhouse, R. Daly\",\"doi\":\"10.1108/qaoa-06-2021-0050\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"\\nPurpose\\nResearch ethics committees (RECs) and ethical standards govern research. To conduct research involving participants, researchers must first gain a favourable opinion on their protocol from a REC. This paper aims to promote researcher reflexivity and openness about applying agreed ethical protocols in practice.\\n\\n\\nDesign/methodology/approach\\nUsing examples from qualitative fieldwork in two care home studies, the authors critically reflect on the issues encountered when applying ethics committee agreed protocols in real-world situations.\\n\\n\\nFindings\\nThree areas of research practice are reflected on given as follows: recruitment and consent; approach to observations; and research processes, shared spaces and access to data. The interface between researcher and participant did not always mirror textbook scenarios. Ultimately, this left researchers accountable for taking ethically acceptable actions while conducting research.\\n\\n\\nOriginality/value\\nDrawing on research experiences in care homes, the authors consider the reliance on the researcher to be authentic and morally driven over and above formal ethical approvals. The authors conclude that the researcher is the bridging agent between ethical protocols and ethical practice in the field. As such, researchers need to be open and reflexive about their practices in fieldwork.\\n\",\"PeriodicalId\":44916,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Quality in Ageing and Older Adults\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.8000,\"publicationDate\":\"2021-11-12\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Quality in Ageing and Older Adults\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1108/qaoa-06-2021-0050\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q4\",\"JCRName\":\"GERONTOLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Quality in Ageing and Older Adults","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1108/qaoa-06-2021-0050","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"GERONTOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

目的研究伦理委员会(REC)和伦理标准管理研究。要进行有参与者参与的研究,研究人员必须首先从REC获得对其协议的有利意见。本文旨在促进研究人员在实践中应用商定的伦理协议的反思性和开放性。设计/方法/方法使用两项养老院研究中定性实地调查的例子,作者批判性地反思了在现实世界中应用伦理委员会商定的协议时遇到的问题。研究发现,研究实践的三个方面体现在以下几个方面:招募和同意;观察方法;以及研究过程、共享空间和数据访问。研究者和参与者之间的界面并不总是反映教科书中的场景。最终,这让研究人员在进行研究时有责任采取合乎道德的行动。独创性/价值根据养老院的研究经验,作者认为对研究人员的依赖是真实的,道德驱动高于正式的伦理批准。作者得出结论,研究人员是该领域伦理协议和伦理实践之间的桥梁。因此,研究人员需要对他们在实地工作中的实践持开放和反思的态度。
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
“Acting ethically is down to you” applying ethical protocols in qualitative fieldwork in care homes
Purpose Research ethics committees (RECs) and ethical standards govern research. To conduct research involving participants, researchers must first gain a favourable opinion on their protocol from a REC. This paper aims to promote researcher reflexivity and openness about applying agreed ethical protocols in practice. Design/methodology/approach Using examples from qualitative fieldwork in two care home studies, the authors critically reflect on the issues encountered when applying ethics committee agreed protocols in real-world situations. Findings Three areas of research practice are reflected on given as follows: recruitment and consent; approach to observations; and research processes, shared spaces and access to data. The interface between researcher and participant did not always mirror textbook scenarios. Ultimately, this left researchers accountable for taking ethically acceptable actions while conducting research. Originality/value Drawing on research experiences in care homes, the authors consider the reliance on the researcher to be authentic and morally driven over and above formal ethical approvals. The authors conclude that the researcher is the bridging agent between ethical protocols and ethical practice in the field. As such, researchers need to be open and reflexive about their practices in fieldwork.
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
2.30
自引率
6.70%
发文量
17
期刊最新文献
Involving older adults and unpaid carers in the research cycle: reflections on implementing the UK national standards for public involvement into practice The relationship between older adults’ perceptions of ageing and depression: a systematic review Participatory action research and empowerment of nursing home residents Cognitive functioning and life satisfaction as predictors of subjective health complaints in elderly people Editorial: Recognising new partners and activities in older peoples’ care but also potential burdens in new forms of care and research
×
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