Research Ethics for Social Scientists

2007 ◽  
Vol 44 (3) ◽  
pp. 572-573
Author(s):  
Richard V. Adkisson
Societies ◽  
2019 ◽  
Vol 9 (4) ◽  
pp. 79 ◽  
Author(s):  
Mathilde Cecchini

Many social scientists are interested in studying stereotypes and stereotyped reasoning. This interest often comes from a wish to contribute to creating a more just and equal society. However, when we as scholars study stereotypes and stereotyped reasoning, we risk reproducing and maybe even reinforcing these processes, and thereby harming individuals or groups of individuals. The debates of this ethical issue mainly take the form of general discussions of research ethics and of weighing the aim of the research against potential harm to participants. While these reflections are extremely important, there is a need for discussing how this ethical issue can be handled in practice. The aim of this article is to develop a set of practical guidelines for managing this ethical issue, based on the examination of ethically delicate moments experienced during an ethnographic study of the construction of health and risk identities among seventh-graders in Denmark. Three guiding principles are proposed: Develop an ethical sensibility in order to identify ethically delicate moments; consider ethics as well as methods when constructing and posing questions; more specifically, briefings and debriefings can be used to address ethical issues; and, finally, make participants reflect upon their opinions and answers.


KWALON ◽  
2017 ◽  
Vol 22 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Koen Leurs

In this contribution the author reviews Research ethics and integrity for social scientists (2nd ed.) by Mark Israel.


2006 ◽  
Vol 2 (4) ◽  
pp. 147-147
Author(s):  
Nathan Emmerich

2002 ◽  
Vol 7 (1) ◽  
pp. 218-221 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ross Coomber

This brief commentary discusses the problematic incursion of Research Ethics Committees on social research, particularly on those groups who wish (and/or indeed it is vital for their safety) to remain anonymous. It is argued that REC's, often ignorant of social science methodology, commonly attempt to impose restrictions on research and researchers that contradict their own ethical guidelines and expose them to unreasonable risk. It is further pointed out that REC's are as yet not fully established within all UK institutions but fear of litigation will mean that those who do not already have them fully in place either have some form of REC in embryonic structure or are looking to implement REC's in the near future. It is in this context that it is argued we as social scientists should be helping to actively shape the workings of incumbent and emerging REC's in order to protect research, researchers, research participants and the integrity of what REC's actually do.


2016 ◽  
Vol 21 (4) ◽  
pp. 16-29 ◽  
Author(s):  
Nathan Emmerich

This article is premised on the idea that were we able to articulate a positive vision of the social scientist's professional ethics, this would enable us to reframe social science research ethics as something internal to the profession. As such, rather than suffering under the imperialism of a research ethics constructed for the purposes of governing biomedical research, social scientists might argue for ethical self-regulation with greater force. I seek to provide the requisite basis for such an ‘ethics’ by, first, suggesting that the conditions which gave rise to biomedical research ethics are not replicated within the social sciences. Second, I argue that social science research can be considered as the moral equivalent of the ‘true professions.’ Not only does it have an ultimate end, but it is one that is – or, at least, should be – shared by the state and society as a whole. I then present a reading of confidentiality as a methodological – and not simply ethical – aspect of research, one that offers further support for the view that social scientists should attend to their professional ethics and the internal standards of their disciplines, rather than the contemporary discourse of research ethics that is rooted in the bioethical literature. Finally, and by way of a conclusion, I consider the consequences of the idea that social scientists should adopt a professional ethics and propose that the Clinical Ethics Committee might provide an alternative model for the governance of social science research.


2006 ◽  
Vol 1 (1) ◽  
pp. 41-45
Author(s):  
Klaus Hoeyer ◽  
Lisa Dahlager ◽  
Niels Lynöe

When anthropologists and other social scientists study health services in medical institutions, tensions sometimes arise as a result of the social scientists and health care professionals having different ideas about the ethics of research. In order to resolve this type of conflict and to facilitate mutual learning, we describe two general categories of research ethics framing: those of anthropology and those of medicine. The latter focuses on protection of the individual through the preservation of autonomy expressed through the requirement of informed consent whereas the former focuses on broader political implications. After providing an example of a conflict, we outline four issues that characterize the occasional clashes between social scientists and medical staff: (1) a discrepancy in the way anthropologists perceive patients and medical staff; (2) ambiguity concerning the role of medical staff in anthropological research; (3) impediments to informed consent in qualitative research projects; and (4) property rights in data. Enhanced dialogue could serve to invigorate the ethical debate in both traditions.


2017 ◽  
Vol 12 (3) ◽  
pp. 161-168 ◽  
Author(s):  
Liliana Mondragón Barrios ◽  
Tonatiuh Guarneros García ◽  
Alberto Jiménez Tapia

The objective of this article is to compare various ethical issues considered by social scientists and research ethics committees in the evaluation of mental health social research protocols. We contacted 47 social scientists and 10 members of ethics committees in Mexico with two electronic national surveys that requested information from both groups related to the application of ethical principles in mental health social research. The results showed no significant difference between these groups in the value placed on the ethical issues explored. Based on this finding, we make proposals to strengthen the collaboration between the two groups.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document