狼中的狼。“强者”犯罪学研究的伦理和伦理委员会

Rita Faria, Yarin Eski
{"title":"狼中的狼。“强者”犯罪学研究的伦理和伦理委员会","authors":"Rita Faria, Yarin Eski","doi":"10.5553/TCC/221195072018008003004","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"For quite some years now, crimes of ‘the powerful’ have been studied by criminologist. While researching crimes of ‘the powerful’, research aim to maintain and safeguard their integrity and ethics. However, there seems to be a friction between, on the one hand, ethics of the researchers themselves and on the other hand, ethics (policies) of universities. Obviously, not only do they have to justify their actions and decisions to themselves and ‘science’ as a whole; they must justify their research to ethics committees (EC’s) of universities. It could result in complex and difficulties situation when researchers suspect that EC’s themselves may be instruments and products of powerful group they are studying. In that case, EC’s might undermine ethics and research integrity themselves. What do certain EC- ‘conditions’ look like for research ethics and to which extent do they have to be adjusted or reconsidered when criminologists are researching ‘the powerful’? The key question that will be answered in this contribution is as follows: how can criminologist (re)act ethically responsibly when confronted with (un)ethical committees? In doing retrieving insights to answer that and other relevant questions, after reviewing literature, we reflect on a biographical study of a legal arms trader. We then elaborate on the ‘ethics creep’ (Haggerty, 2004) that seems to haunt social sciences nowadays.","PeriodicalId":270645,"journal":{"name":"Tijdschrift over Cultuur & Criminaliteit","volume":"70 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2019-05-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"4","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Een wolf onder de wolven. Ethiek en Ethische Commissies in criminologisch onderzoek naar ‘the powerful’\",\"authors\":\"Rita Faria, Yarin Eski\",\"doi\":\"10.5553/TCC/221195072018008003004\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"For quite some years now, crimes of ‘the powerful’ have been studied by criminologist. While researching crimes of ‘the powerful’, research aim to maintain and safeguard their integrity and ethics. However, there seems to be a friction between, on the one hand, ethics of the researchers themselves and on the other hand, ethics (policies) of universities. Obviously, not only do they have to justify their actions and decisions to themselves and ‘science’ as a whole; they must justify their research to ethics committees (EC’s) of universities. It could result in complex and difficulties situation when researchers suspect that EC’s themselves may be instruments and products of powerful group they are studying. In that case, EC’s might undermine ethics and research integrity themselves. What do certain EC- ‘conditions’ look like for research ethics and to which extent do they have to be adjusted or reconsidered when criminologists are researching ‘the powerful’? The key question that will be answered in this contribution is as follows: how can criminologist (re)act ethically responsibly when confronted with (un)ethical committees? In doing retrieving insights to answer that and other relevant questions, after reviewing literature, we reflect on a biographical study of a legal arms trader. We then elaborate on the ‘ethics creep’ (Haggerty, 2004) that seems to haunt social sciences nowadays.\",\"PeriodicalId\":270645,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Tijdschrift over Cultuur & Criminaliteit\",\"volume\":\"70 1\",\"pages\":\"0\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2019-05-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"4\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Tijdschrift over Cultuur & Criminaliteit\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.5553/TCC/221195072018008003004\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Tijdschrift over Cultuur & Criminaliteit","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.5553/TCC/221195072018008003004","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 4

摘要

多年来,犯罪学家一直在研究“权贵”犯罪。在研究“权贵”犯罪时,研究的目的是维护和维护权贵的诚信和道德。然而,一方面研究者自身的伦理与另一方面大学伦理(政策)之间似乎存在摩擦。显然,他们不仅要为自己和整个“科学”的行为和决定辩护;他们必须向大学的伦理委员会(EC)证明他们的研究是正确的。当研究者怀疑电子商务本身可能是他们所研究的强大集团的工具和产品时,就会造成复杂和困难的局面。在这种情况下,EC可能会破坏伦理道德和研究诚信。研究伦理的某些EC“条件”是什么样的?当犯罪学家研究“权贵”时,它们在多大程度上需要调整或重新考虑?本文将回答的关键问题如下:当面对(非)道德委员会时,犯罪学家如何(重新)以道德负责的方式行事?在回顾文献之后,为了回答这个问题和其他相关问题,我们回顾了一个合法武器商人的传记研究。然后,我们详细阐述了“伦理蠕变”(哈格蒂,2004),这似乎困扰着当今的社会科学。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Een wolf onder de wolven. Ethiek en Ethische Commissies in criminologisch onderzoek naar ‘the powerful’
For quite some years now, crimes of ‘the powerful’ have been studied by criminologist. While researching crimes of ‘the powerful’, research aim to maintain and safeguard their integrity and ethics. However, there seems to be a friction between, on the one hand, ethics of the researchers themselves and on the other hand, ethics (policies) of universities. Obviously, not only do they have to justify their actions and decisions to themselves and ‘science’ as a whole; they must justify their research to ethics committees (EC’s) of universities. It could result in complex and difficulties situation when researchers suspect that EC’s themselves may be instruments and products of powerful group they are studying. In that case, EC’s might undermine ethics and research integrity themselves. What do certain EC- ‘conditions’ look like for research ethics and to which extent do they have to be adjusted or reconsidered when criminologists are researching ‘the powerful’? The key question that will be answered in this contribution is as follows: how can criminologist (re)act ethically responsibly when confronted with (un)ethical committees? In doing retrieving insights to answer that and other relevant questions, after reviewing literature, we reflect on a biographical study of a legal arms trader. We then elaborate on the ‘ethics creep’ (Haggerty, 2004) that seems to haunt social sciences nowadays.
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
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
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
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
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 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信