印度应对新冠病毒行为和疫苗犹豫的参与性行动研究中的伦理问题:一个带有评论的案例

IF 0.7 Q4 SOCIAL WORK Ethics and Social Welfare Pub Date : 2023-04-03 DOI:10.1080/17496535.2023.2209363
P. Narayanan, M. Brear, Pinky N Shabangu, B. Groot, Charlotte van den Eijnde, Sarah Banks
{"title":"印度应对新冠病毒行为和疫苗犹豫的参与性行动研究中的伦理问题:一个带有评论的案例","authors":"P. Narayanan, M. Brear, Pinky N Shabangu, B. Groot, Charlotte van den Eijnde, Sarah Banks","doi":"10.1080/17496535.2023.2209363","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT This article starts with a case outlining ethical challenges encountered in participatory action research (PAR) on vaccine hesitancy in rural India during Covid-19. Community researchers were recruited by a not-for-profit organisation, with the aim of both discovering the reasons for vaccine hesitancy and encouraging take-up. This raised issues about the roles and responsibilities of local researchers in their own communities, where they might be blamed for adverse reactions to vaccination. They and their mentor struggled with balancing societal protection against individual rights to make choices. These themes are explored in two commentaries discussing the difficulties in balancing ethics in public health (prioritising societal benefits), social research (protecting participants from harm and respecting their rights not to be involved) and participatory research practices (maximising democratic participation and decision-making). As discussed in the first commentary, often these cohere, but tensions can arise. The second commentary also raises the issue of epistemic justice, questioning the extent to which the villagers could have a say in the design, implementation and interpretation of the research, and the dangers of not hearing the voices and arguments of people who reject vaccination. The case and commentaries highlight the complexities of PAR and additional challenges in a public health context.","PeriodicalId":46151,"journal":{"name":"Ethics and Social Welfare","volume":"17 1","pages":"221 - 228"},"PeriodicalIF":0.7000,"publicationDate":"2023-04-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Ethical Issues in Participatory Action Research on Covid-appropriate Behaviour and Vaccine Hesitancy in India: A Case with Commentaries\",\"authors\":\"P. Narayanan, M. Brear, Pinky N Shabangu, B. Groot, Charlotte van den Eijnde, Sarah Banks\",\"doi\":\"10.1080/17496535.2023.2209363\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"ABSTRACT This article starts with a case outlining ethical challenges encountered in participatory action research (PAR) on vaccine hesitancy in rural India during Covid-19. Community researchers were recruited by a not-for-profit organisation, with the aim of both discovering the reasons for vaccine hesitancy and encouraging take-up. This raised issues about the roles and responsibilities of local researchers in their own communities, where they might be blamed for adverse reactions to vaccination. They and their mentor struggled with balancing societal protection against individual rights to make choices. These themes are explored in two commentaries discussing the difficulties in balancing ethics in public health (prioritising societal benefits), social research (protecting participants from harm and respecting their rights not to be involved) and participatory research practices (maximising democratic participation and decision-making). As discussed in the first commentary, often these cohere, but tensions can arise. The second commentary also raises the issue of epistemic justice, questioning the extent to which the villagers could have a say in the design, implementation and interpretation of the research, and the dangers of not hearing the voices and arguments of people who reject vaccination. The case and commentaries highlight the complexities of PAR and additional challenges in a public health context.\",\"PeriodicalId\":46151,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Ethics and Social Welfare\",\"volume\":\"17 1\",\"pages\":\"221 - 228\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.7000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-04-03\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Ethics and Social Welfare\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1080/17496535.2023.2209363\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q4\",\"JCRName\":\"SOCIAL WORK\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Ethics and Social Welfare","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/17496535.2023.2209363","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"SOCIAL WORK","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

本文从一个案例开始,概述了在Covid-19期间印度农村疫苗犹豫的参与式行动研究(PAR)中遇到的伦理挑战。一个非营利组织招募了社区研究人员,目的是发现疫苗犹豫的原因并鼓励接种。这就提出了关于当地研究人员在他们自己的社区中的作用和责任的问题,在那里他们可能会因疫苗接种的不良反应而受到指责。他们和他们的导师努力平衡社会保护和个人选择的权利。在两篇评论中探讨了这些主题,讨论了平衡公共卫生伦理(优先考虑社会利益)、社会研究(保护参与者免受伤害并尊重他们不参与的权利)和参与性研究实践(最大限度地民主参与和决策)方面的困难。正如在第一篇评论中所讨论的,这些通常是一致的,但也会产生紧张。第二篇评论还提出了认识正义的问题,质疑村民在研究的设计、实施和解释中有多大程度的发言权,以及不听取拒绝接种疫苗的人的声音和论点的危险。该病例和评论突出了PAR的复杂性和公共卫生背景下的其他挑战。
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
Ethical Issues in Participatory Action Research on Covid-appropriate Behaviour and Vaccine Hesitancy in India: A Case with Commentaries
ABSTRACT This article starts with a case outlining ethical challenges encountered in participatory action research (PAR) on vaccine hesitancy in rural India during Covid-19. Community researchers were recruited by a not-for-profit organisation, with the aim of both discovering the reasons for vaccine hesitancy and encouraging take-up. This raised issues about the roles and responsibilities of local researchers in their own communities, where they might be blamed for adverse reactions to vaccination. They and their mentor struggled with balancing societal protection against individual rights to make choices. These themes are explored in two commentaries discussing the difficulties in balancing ethics in public health (prioritising societal benefits), social research (protecting participants from harm and respecting their rights not to be involved) and participatory research practices (maximising democratic participation and decision-making). As discussed in the first commentary, often these cohere, but tensions can arise. The second commentary also raises the issue of epistemic justice, questioning the extent to which the villagers could have a say in the design, implementation and interpretation of the research, and the dangers of not hearing the voices and arguments of people who reject vaccination. The case and commentaries highlight the complexities of PAR and additional challenges in a public health context.
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
1.60
自引率
20.00%
发文量
36
期刊介绍: Ethics and Social Welfare publishes articles of a critical and reflective nature concerned with the ethical issues surrounding social welfare practice and policy. It has a particular focus on social work (including practice with individuals, families and small groups), social care, youth and community work and related professions. The aim of the journal is to encourage dialogue and debate across social, intercultural and international boundaries on the serious ethical issues relating to professional interventions into social life. Through this we hope to contribute towards deepening understandings and further ethical practice in the field of social welfare. The journal welcomes material in a variety of formats, including high quality peer-reviewed academic papers, reflections, debates and commentaries on policy and practice, book reviews and review articles. We actively encourage a diverse range of contributions from academic and field practitioners, voluntary workers, service users, carers and people bringing the perspectives of oppressed groups. Contributions might include reports on research studies on the influence of values and ethics in social welfare practice, education and organisational structures, theoretical papers discussing the evolution of social welfare values and ethics, linked to contemporary philosophical, social and ethical thought, accounts of ethical issues, problems and dilemmas in practice, and reflections on the ethics and values of policy and organisational development. The journal aims for the highest standards in its published material. All material submitted to the journal is subject to a process of assessment and evaluation through the Editors and through peer review.
期刊最新文献
A Qualitative Case Study of Undergraduate Social Care Students’ Approaches to Social Justice in a Finnish Context Can Street-Level Bureaucrats Assist with Material Resources? Naming, Trivializing and Privatizing Economic Abuse in Israel In the Periphery: Ethical Considerations When Indirectly Involving Children in Research Ethics of Youth Work Practice in the Twenty-First Century: Change, Challenge and Opportunity Towards a Notion of Relational Sacrifices: Nursing During the COVID-19 Pandemic in Wuhan
×
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