Research Ethics for Social Scientists: Between Ethical Conduct and Regulatory Compliance [Book Review]

2008 ◽  
Vol 8 (1) ◽  
pp. 85-86
Author(s):  
Supriya Singh
2021 ◽  
pp. 39-59
Author(s):  
Kevin D. Haggerty

This chapter accentuates some of the reasons why crime ethnographies can face difficulties with the ethics review process, including prominent issues relating to informed consent, risk and harm, anonymity, and criminal behavior. Universities in most Western countries have established research ethics boards over the past twenty years responsible for assessing the ethical conduct of research. Qualitative research can fit poorly into the largely positivist ethics framework, resulting in an often-frustrating situation for ethnographers seeking to move ahead with their research. One paradox of this situation is that the ethics process itself seems poised to give rise to a subset of academic deviants in the form of crime ethnographers who may find that they are obliged to circumvent or disregard some formal ethical strictures in order to engage in ethnographic practices that otherwise seem uncontroversial or even innocuous.


Author(s):  
Melissa Park ◽  
Donald Fogelberg

A focus on social accountability and responsibility in public and private sectors raises questions about if and how social scientists should act upon the concerns of those with whom they conduct research. Leonardo Campoy argues that anthropologists should be empowered to intervene in the clinical situations they study rather than being limited to actions associated with participant observation. Although his reflections raise issues pertinent to the ethical practices of many researchers, we situate our response in conversation with the historical shifts in ethnographic interest that, most recently, has moved from the suffering subject towards an anthropology of the good. Grounding our reflections in medical anthropology, we discuss the challenge of appropriating positivist–scientific terms to propose the utility of research and, more specifically, of how research results could be used to think through and, thus, guide how researchers respond to—enact and embody—the care required in the ethical conduct of research.


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.


2019 ◽  
Vol 18 ◽  
pp. 160940691986944
Author(s):  
Gabriele Griffin ◽  
Doris Leibetseder

Transnational research funders such as the European Commission and NordForsk increasingly require researchers to conduct transnational research. Yet, there is little research on what this means for seeking ethics approval, not least for qualitative researchers. Much work on ethics approval comes from Canada, the United States, and other Anglophone countries, often in a health-related context, and centers on issues between researchers and research ethics boards (REBs), or on inconsistent or inappropriate decision-making by REBs. Ethical conduct within research has, of course, generated a rich literature but not on gaining ethics approval when conducting qualitative transnational research. Rather, the underlying situation usually is that the research is conducted in the same geopolitical space as where the REB is located. Drawing on two cases studies, in which researchers located in one country, Sweden, sought ethics approval to conduct research in other European countries, we explore some of the challenges that we faced in gaining such approval and provide some suggestions how this process might be made both more efficient and more productive for researchers and research funders alike.


2007 ◽  
Vol 44 (3) ◽  
pp. 572-573
Author(s):  
Richard V. Adkisson

2010 ◽  
Vol 7 (1) ◽  
pp. 25-25
Author(s):  
Tyrone A. Forman

As readers of the Du Bois Review: Social Science Research on Race are well aware, this journal aims to be the principal journal for social scientists exploring the intersection of race, ethnicity and culture. As book review editor it gives me great pleasure to introduce a new feature of the journal to our readers. From time to time in the State of the Discourse section of the Du Bois Review we will spotlight multiple reviews of a single book. In focusing intently on a single contribution our purpose is to highlight significant pieces of scholarship that provide novel conceptual and/or empirical analysis of ethnoracial dynamics in society. We are especially interested in bringing to the attention of our readers books that provide alternative frameworks and/or set new and daring intellectual agendas for the study of race and ethnicity.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document