Research Ethics最新文献_第10页

The use of confidentiality and anonymity protections as a cover for fraudulent fieldwork data 利用保密和匿名保护作为欺诈实地调查数据的掩护

IF 1.7

Research Ethics Pub Date : 2021-05-22 DOI: 10.1177/17470161211018257

M. V. Dougherty

{"title":"The use of confidentiality and anonymity protections as a cover for fraudulent fieldwork data","authors":"M. V. Dougherty","doi":"10.1177/17470161211018257","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/17470161211018257","url":null,"abstract":"Qualitative fieldwork research on sensitive topics sometimes requires that interviewees be granted confidentiality and anonymity. When qualitative researchers later publish their findings, they must ensure that any statements obtained during fieldwork interviews cannot be traced back to the interviewees. Given these protections to interviewees, the integrity of the published findings cannot usually be verified or replicated by third parties, and the scholarly community must trust the word of qualitative researchers when they publish their results. This trust is fundamentally abused, however, when researchers publish articles reporting qualitative fieldwork data that they never collected. Using only publicly available information, I argue that a 2017 article in an Elsevier foreign policy and international relations journal presents anonymised fieldwork interviews that could not have occurred as described. As an exercise in post-publication peer review (PPPR), this paper examines the evidence that calls into question the reliability of the putative fieldwork quotations. I show further that the 2017 article is not a unique case. The anonymity and confidentiality protections common in some areas of research create an ethical problem: the protections necessary for obtaining research data can be used as a cover to hide substandard research practices as well as research misconduct.","PeriodicalId":38096,"journal":{"name":"Research Ethics","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.7,"publicationDate":"2021-05-22","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"75286834","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 4

Negotiating the practicalities of informed consent in the field with children and young people: learning from social science researchers 与儿童和年轻人协商实地知情同意的可行性:向社会科学研究人员学习

IF 1.7

Research Ethics Pub Date : 2021-05-09 DOI: 10.1177/17470161211014941

G. Sherwood, S. Parsons

{"title":"Negotiating the practicalities of informed consent in the field with children and young people: learning from social science researchers","authors":"G. Sherwood, S. Parsons","doi":"10.1177/17470161211014941","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/17470161211014941","url":null,"abstract":"The real-world navigation of ethics-in-practice versus the bureaucracy of institutional ethics remains challenging. This is especially true for research with children and young people who may be considered vulnerable by the policies and procedures of ethics committees but agentic by researchers. Greater transparency is needed about how this tension is navigated in practice to provide confidence and effective strategies for social researchers, including those new to the field, for negotiating informed consent. Twenty-three social science researchers with a range of experience were interviewed about their practices for gaining informed consent from children and young people in social research and the development of their ‘ethics in practice’ over time. Main themes focused on navigating ethics protocols within institutions, practices to prepare for data collection, and a critical evaluation of the resources that can be applied to gaining consent and managing relationships. A range of methods and concrete steps that address ethical challenges are outlined to illustrate what can be done in practice to achieve authentic consent and appropriate participation.","PeriodicalId":38096,"journal":{"name":"Research Ethics","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.7,"publicationDate":"2021-05-09","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"86731662","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 5

Towards an Ọmọlúàbí code of research ethics: Applying a situated, participant-centred virtue ethics framework to fieldwork with disadvantaged populations in diverse cultural settings 建立Ọmọlúàbí研究伦理准则:将一个以参与者为中心的美德伦理框架应用于不同文化背景下弱势群体的实地调查

IF 1.7

Research Ethics Pub Date : 2021-04-16 DOI: 10.1177/17470161211010863

Bukola Oyinloye

引用次数: 6

How ethical challenges of covert observations can be met in practice 如何在实践中应对隐蔽观察的伦理挑战

IF 1.7

Research Ethics Pub Date : 2021-04-10 DOI: 10.1177/17470161211008218

N. Podschuweit

{"title":"How ethical challenges of covert observations can be met in practice","authors":"N. Podschuweit","doi":"10.1177/17470161211008218","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/17470161211008218","url":null,"abstract":"This paper aims to bring into the ethical debate on covert research two aspects that are neglected to date: the perspective of the research subjects and the special responsibility of investigators towards their observers. Both aspects are falling behind, especially in quantitative social research. From a methodological point of view, quantitative forms of covert observation involve a great distance between the researcher and the research subjects. When human observers are involved, the focus is usually on the reliable application of the measuring instrument. Therefore, herein, a quantitative study is used as an example to show how the protection needs of both the observed persons and the observers can be met in practice. The study involved 40 student observers who covertly captured everyday conversations in real-world settings (e.g. in cafés or trains) by a highly standardised observation scheme. The study suggests that the anonymity of the research subjects and their trust in the observers are crucial for their subsequent consent. However, many participants showed only little or even no interest in the written information they were provided. Further, this study strongly emphasises how mentally stressful covert observations are to the observers. Almost all observers were worried in advance that the people they were observing would prematurely blow their cover and confront them. Role-playing and in-depth discussions in teams are good strategies to alleviate such and other fears and to prepare student assistants well for their demanding work in the field.","PeriodicalId":38096,"journal":{"name":"Research Ethics","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.7,"publicationDate":"2021-04-10","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"80635248","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 6

Editor’s Note Editor’s音符

IF 1.7

Research Ethics Pub Date : 2021-04-01 DOI: 10.1177/1747016119867566

Martha R. Kelso

引用次数: 0

Queer considerations: Exploring the use of social media for research recruitment within LGBTQ communities 酷儿思考:探索在LGBTQ社区中使用社交媒体进行研究招聘

IF 1.7

Research Ethics Pub Date : 2021-03-17 DOI: 10.1177/17470161211003021

C. Littler, P. Joy

引用次数: 5

What are the most common reasons for return of ethics submissions? An audit of an Australian health service ethics committee 最常见的原因是什么?对澳大利亚卫生服务伦理委员会的审计

IF 1.7

Research Ethics Pub Date : 2021-03-11 DOI: 10.1177/1747016121999935

C. Brandenburg, Sarah Thorning, Carine Ruthenberg

{"title":"What are the most common reasons for return of ethics submissions? An audit of an Australian health service ethics committee","authors":"C. Brandenburg, Sarah Thorning, Carine Ruthenberg","doi":"10.1177/1747016121999935","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/1747016121999935","url":null,"abstract":"One of the key criticisms of the ethical review process is the time taken to decision, and associated resource use. A key source of delay is that most submissions are required to respond to at least one request for further information or clarification from the Human Research Ethics Committee (HREC). This study audited the request letters of a single Australian public health HREC using content analysis. Twenty-four submissions were analysed, including 355 individual request elements. Most submissions received a single request letter. There was a mean number of 14.2 (SD = 5.5) elements per letter for the first request and a mean of 2.1 (SD = 1.2) for subsequent requests. Administrative errors were the most common source of request for further information, occurring in all submissions. The second most common theme was the content of the Participant Information and Consent Form, occurring in 79% of submissions. Other common themes, present in over 50% of submissions, concerned: data collection and study procedures; general ethical considerations; recruitment and consent; site, setting or patient pool; research design and methodology; and data management and security. In terms of the general purpose of the HREC comments, 44% were direct corrections or specific requests for changes, 42% were asking for more information or clarification of existing information, and 14% were the HREC expressing concerns about an element of the study, without directly suggesting a change. Overall, the study provides some evidence to show that the quality of the submission (ensuring correct attachments, up to date documents, clear information etc.) could account for a significant proportion of the burden and delay associated with ethical review.","PeriodicalId":38096,"journal":{"name":"Research Ethics","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.7,"publicationDate":"2021-03-11","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"82683717","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 6

Ethics in global research: Creating a toolkit to support integrity and ethical action throughout the research journey 全球研究中的伦理:创建一个工具包，以支持整个研究过程中的诚信和道德行为

IF 1.7

Research Ethics Pub Date : 2021-02-27 DOI: 10.1177/1747016121997522

Corinne Reid, C. Calia, Cristóbal Guerra, L. Grant, Matilda Anderson, Khama Chibwana, Paul Kawale, Action Amos

{"title":"Ethics in global research: Creating a toolkit to support integrity and ethical action throughout the research journey","authors":"Corinne Reid, C. Calia, Cristóbal Guerra, L. Grant, Matilda Anderson, Khama Chibwana, Paul Kawale, Action Amos","doi":"10.1177/1747016121997522","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/1747016121997522","url":null,"abstract":"Global challenge-led research seeks to contribute to solution-generation for complex problems. Multicultural, multidisciplinary, and multisectoral teams must be capable of operating in highly demanding contexts. This brings with it a swathe of ethical conflicts that require quick and effective solutions that respect both international conventions and cultural diversity. The objective of this article is to describe the process of creating a toolkit designed to support global researchers in navigating these ethical challenges. The process of creating the toolkit embodied the model of ethical research practice that it advocates. Specifically, at the heart of ethical decision-making is consideration of the following: Place, solutions must be relevant to the context in which they are to be used; People, those impacted by the outcomes must be partners in co-creation; Principles, ethical projects must be guided by clear values; and Precedent, the existing evidence-base should guide the project and, in turn, the project should extend the evidence-base. It is the thesis underlying the toolkit that consideration of these 4Ps provides a strong basis for understanding ethical conflicts and allows for the generation of potential solutions. This toolkit has been designed in two phases of collaborative work. More than 200 researchers participated from more than 30 countries and more than 60 different disciplines. This allowed us to develop a model for contextual, dynamic analysis of ethical conflicts in global research that is complementary to traditional codes of ethics. It emphasizes the need to consider ethical analysis as an iterative, reflective, process relevant at all stages of the research journey, including, ultimately, in evaluating the legacy of a project. The toolkit is presented as an open access website to promote universal access. A downloadable “pocket guide” version is also now available in 11 languages.","PeriodicalId":38096,"journal":{"name":"Research Ethics","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.7,"publicationDate":"2021-02-27","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"87509127","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 6

Identifying and addressing nonrational processes in REB ethical decision-making 识别和解决REB伦理决策中的非理性过程

IF 1.7

Research Ethics Pub Date : 2021-02-11 DOI: 10.1177/1747016121994011

Simon Nuttgens

引用次数: 0

Ethical approval: none sought. How discourse analysts report ethical issues around publicly available online data 伦理认可:无人寻求。话语分析师如何报告围绕公开在线数据的道德问题

IF 1.7

Research Ethics Pub Date : 2021-01-19 DOI: 10.1177/1747016120988767

Wyke J P Stommel, Lynn de Rijk

{"title":"Ethical approval: none sought. How discourse analysts report ethical issues around publicly available online data","authors":"Wyke J P Stommel, Lynn de Rijk","doi":"10.1177/1747016120988767","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/1747016120988767","url":null,"abstract":"Although ethical guidelines for doing Internet research are available, most prominently those of the Association of Internet Researchers (www.aoir.org), ethical decision-making for research on publicly available, naturally-occurring data remains a major challenge. As researchers might also turn to others to inform their decisions, this article reviews recent research papers on publicly available, online data. Research involving forums such as Facebook pages, Twitter, YouTube, news comments, blogs, etc. is examined to see how authors report ethical considerations and how they quote these data. We included 132 articles published in discourse analysis-oriented journals between January 2017 and February 2020. Roughly one third of the articles (85 out of 132) did not discuss ethical issues, mostly claiming the data were publicly available. Quotations nevertheless tended to be anonymized, although retrievability of posts was generally not taken into account. In those articles in which ethical concerns were reported, related decisions appeared to vary substantially. In most cases it was argued that informed consent was not required. Similarly, approval from research ethics committees was mostly regarded unnecessary. Other ethical issues like consideration of users’ expectations and intentions, freedom of choice, possible harm, sensitive topics, and vulnerable groups were rarely discussed in the articles. We argue for increased attention to ethical issues and legal aspects in discourse analytic articles involving online data beyond mentioning general concerns. Instead, we argue for more involvement of users/participants in ethical decision-making, for consideration of retrievability of posts and for a role for journal editors.","PeriodicalId":38096,"journal":{"name":"Research Ethics","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.7,"publicationDate":"2021-01-19","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"76668221","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 27