scholarly journals Inside/Outside and Around: Complexity and the Relational Ethics of Global Life

2020 ◽  
Vol 34 (4) ◽  
pp. 467-486
Author(s):  
Emilian Kavalski
Keyword(s):  
Relational Ethics

Relational Ethics and Partiality

Theoria ◽  
2017 ◽  
Vol 64 (152) ◽  
pp. 53-76 ◽  
Author(s):  
Motsamai Molefe
Keyword(s):  
Moral Theory ◽  
Relational Ethics ◽  
The Individual

AbstractIn this article, I question the plausibility of Metz’s African moral theory from an oft neglected moral topic of partiality. Metz defends an Afro-communitarian moral theory that posits that the rightness of actions is entirely definable by relationships of identity and solidarity (or, friendship). I offer two objections to this relational moral theory. First, I argue that justifying partiality strictly by invoking relationships (of friendship) ultimately fails to properly value the individual for her own sake – this is called the ‘focus problem’ in the literature. Second, I argue that a relationship-based theory cannot accommodate the agent-related partiality since it posits some relationship to be morally fundamental. My critique ultimately reveals the inadequacy of a relationship-based moral theory insofar as it overlooks some crucial moral considerations grounded on the individual herself in her own right.

scholarly journals Negotiating Ethics-in-Action in a Long-term Research Relationship with a Young Child

Human Arenas ◽  
2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Niina Rutanen ◽  
Raija Raittila ◽  
Kaisa Harju ◽  
Yaiza Lucas Revilla ◽  
Maritta Hännikäinen
Keyword(s):  
Early Childhood ◽  
Young Child ◽  
Data Collection ◽  
Critical Incidents ◽  
Relational Ethics ◽  
Spatial Context ◽  
Childhood Education ◽  
Research Relationship ◽  
Education And Care

AbstractThis article continues the discussions of relational ethics put forward in Human Arenas in “Arena of Ethics” (Hilppö et al., 2019). Our aim in this article is to explore and discuss relational ethics, as ethics-in-action, in a long-term research relationship with a child. Our question is: How is ethics-in-action negotiated during critical incidents in the construction of a research space that involves a long-term research relationship with a young child? This article is based on a research project that focused on children’s transitions in early childhood education and care (ECEC). These transitions include the transition from home care to ECEC as well as transitions from child groups or settings to other ECEC groups or settings, and the transition to pre-primary education. We apply a particular lens to the corpus of data, analyzing and reflecting critical incidents vis-à-vis a negotiation of ethics-in-action during the construction of our research space, which involved a long-term research relationship with a child. Our results show that critical incidents in our study’s negotiation of ethics-in-action included (a) the focus child’s spontaneous contributions to the study’s interviews, (b) interdependencies between the child and diverse researchers, and (c) the child’s evolving expertise in data collection, which restructured our study’s research space. We conclude that ethical questions cannot be separated from the mutually constituted relationships or socio-spatial context in where they emerge; thus, they are relationally and spatially embedded.

scholarly journals COVID-19 and Youth Living in Poverty: The Ethical Considerations of Moving From In-Person Interviews to a Photovoice Using Remote Methods

Affilia ◽  
2020 ◽  
pp. 088610992093905
Author(s):  
Maria Liegghio ◽  
Lea Caragata
Keyword(s):  
Social Work ◽  
Low Income ◽  
Relational Ethics ◽  
Original Research ◽  
Ethical Considerations ◽  
Roles And Responsibilities ◽  
Lone Mother ◽  
Critical Social Work ◽  
Procedural Ethics ◽  
Ongoing Project

COVID-19 hit and instantaneously research using in-person methods were paused. As feminist and critical social work scholars and researchers, we began to consider the implications of pausing our ongoing project exploring the provisioning and resilience of youth living in low-income, lone mother households. Reflexively, we wondered how the youth, families, and issues we were connected to would be impacted by the pandemic. We were pulled into both ethical and methodological questions. While the procedural ethics of maintaining safety were clear, what became less clear were the relational ethics. What was brought into question were our own social positions and our roles and responsibilities in our relationships with the youth. For both ethical and methodological reasons, we decided to expand the original research scope from in-person interviews to include a photovoice to be executed using online, remote methods. In this article, we discuss those ethical and methodological tensions. In the first part, we discuss the relational ethics that propelled us to commit to expanding our work, while in the second part, we discuss our move to combining photovoice and remote methods.

Interprofessional collaboration-in-practice

2013 ◽  
Vol 20 (3) ◽  
pp. 325-335 ◽  
Author(s):  
Carol Ewashen ◽  
Gloria McInnis-Perry ◽  
Norma Murphy
Keyword(s):  
Virtue Ethics ◽  
Healthcare Professionals ◽  
Interprofessional Collaboration ◽  
Ways Of Knowing ◽  
Community Analysis ◽  
Relational Ethics ◽  
Biomedical Ethics ◽  
Political Community ◽  
Main Question ◽  
Institutional Relations

The main question examined is: How do nurses and other healthcare professionals ensure ethical interprofessional collaboration-in-practice as an everyday practice actuality? Ethical interprofessional collaboration becomes especially relevant and necessary when interprofessional practice decisions are contested. To illustrate, two healthcare scenarios are analyzed through three ethics lenses. Biomedical ethics, relational ethics, and virtue ethics provide different ways of knowing how to be ethical and to act ethically as healthcare professionals. Biomedical ethics focuses on situated, reflective, and nonabsolute principled justification, all things considered; relational ethics on intersubjective, professional, and institutional relations; and virtue ethics on prephilosophical tradition and what it means to be good and to be human embedded in social and political community. Analysis suggests that interprofessional collaboration-in-practice may be more rhetoric than actuality. Key challenges of interprofessional collaboration-in-practice and specific conditions perpetuating dissension and conflict are outlined with specific education and policy recommendations included.

A Test of Contextual Theory: The Relationship Among Relational Ethics, Marital Satisfaction, Health Problems, and Depression

2008 ◽  
Vol 30 (4) ◽  
pp. 183-198 ◽  
Author(s):  
Heath A. Grames ◽  
Richard B. Miller ◽  
W. David Robinson ◽  
Derrel J. Higgins ◽  
W. Jeff Hinton
Keyword(s):  
Marital Satisfaction ◽  
Health Problems ◽  
Relational Ethics ◽  
Contextual Theory ◽  
The Relationship

Friendship and Filial Piety: Relational Ethics in Aristotle and Early Confucianism

2012 ◽  
Vol 39 (1) ◽  
pp. 71-88
Author(s):  
Tim Connolly
Keyword(s):  
Filial Piety ◽  
Family Members ◽  
Relational Ethics

This article examines the origins of and philosophical justifications for Aristotelian friendship (philia) and early Confucian filial piety (xiao ).What underlying assumptions about bonds between friends and family members do the philosophies share or uniquely possess? Is the Aristotelian emphasis on relationships between equals incompatible with the Confucian regard for filiality? As I argue, the Aristotelian and early Confucian accounts, while different in focus, share many of the same tensions in the attempt to balance hierarchical and familial associations with those between friends who are on the same footing.

The language of prison re-education between agency and responsibility

2020 ◽  
Vol 13 (62) (1) ◽  
pp. 135-166
Author(s):  
Marco BRANCUCCI
Keyword(s):  
Life Experiences ◽  
Educational Interventions ◽  
Relational Ethics ◽  
Educational Approach ◽  
The Social ◽  
Close Proximity ◽  
Working Together ◽  
The One ◽  
The Relationship ◽  
The Capability Approach

"Learning about freedom as freedom to make right choices responsibly is the pivotal task of educational intervention (Chionna 2001). As a practitioner of juvenile penitentiary re-education I experiment it, trying to re-educate young offenders in a prison, where the “capability approach” should be invoked (Sen 2011) and, according to the relational ethics paradigm (Muschitiello, 2012), we teach the young the capacity/ability of choice between alternative life experiences, which should be inspired and embodied by the educational authority of the adults. As agency is a constitutive element of a capability, I wonder: who is the agent? The one who re-educates an inmate? Or the inmate himself? Who should be more efficient and responsible to act in prison? Is it all about specific required competencies that are influenced by the context where penitentiary personnel and inmates act/react reciprocally? Penitentiary educators should adjust their approach, improving their language-as-dialogue tools first, just because the relationship with inmates is based on a dialogic axis. No exception can be made for cultural and linguistic mediators, who are involved in the treatment of foreign inmates (Brancucci 2018). So, I investigate the agency level of penitentiary educators and cultural/linguistic mediators, working together synergistically and/or autonomously. They try to respond to different scenarios, recognizing there is no one-size -fits-all approach to managing cases of re-educational emergencies, and assuming that educational interventions recall a daily presence in the context (Bertolini 1993), especially in prison where people ‘live’ in close proximity (WHO, 2020). But, how to achieve agency when this proximity fades away, or is temporarily interrupted, even turning into a virtual telematic educational approach? The challenge is to transform the consolidated educational-linguistic-dialogic practices into a new bidirectional way to think, act/react (from prison personnel towards inmates and vice-versa), because of the social distance required by the COVID-19 breakthrough."

Rooting Evaluation Guidelines in Relational Ethics: Lessons From Africa

2019 ◽  
Vol 41 (3) ◽  
pp. 404-419
Author(s):  
Caitlin Blaser Mapitsa ◽  
Tara Polzer Ngwato
Keyword(s):  
Culturally Responsive ◽  
Social Research ◽  
Relational Ethics ◽  
Developed Country ◽  
Evaluation Standards ◽  
The Public ◽  
Trade Offs ◽  
Context Specific ◽  
Ethical Clearance ◽  
Made In

As global discussions of evaluation standards become more contextually nuanced, culturally responsive conceptions of ethics have not been sufficiently discussed. In academic social research, ethical clearance processes have been designed to protect vulnerable people from harm related to participation in a research project. This article expands the ambit of ethical protection thinking and proposes a relational ethics approach for evaluation practitioners. This centers an analysis of power relations among and within all the different stakeholder groups in order to establish, in a context-specific manner, which stakeholders are vulnerable and in need of protection. The approach also contextualizes the nature of “the public good,” as part of an ethical consideration of interest trade-offs during evaluations. The discussion is informed by our experiences in African contexts and speaks to the “Made in Africa” research agenda but is also relevant to other global contexts where alternatives to “developed country” ontological assumptions about the roles of researchers and participations and the nature of vulnerability are being reconsidered.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document