学习成为一个更注重伦理的实践性研究人员:通过研究伦理过程发展

IF 0.7 Q4 SOCIAL WORK
Louise Blakley
{"title":"学习成为一个更注重伦理的实践性研究人员:通过研究伦理过程发展","authors":"Louise Blakley","doi":"10.1080/17496535.2022.2033397","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT This article captures the learning I gained through the initial rejection of my NHS ethics application as a novice practitioner researcher in England. It explores my use of reflection, sensitive research guidelines and engagement of people with lived experience in becoming a more ethically informed researcher. The focus of the proposed research study, of which the ethics application relates, focused on the experience of Mental Health Act assessment by service users. This is a sensitive subject as it raises emotions and may produce distress. An overarching participatory approach was eventually used in this study, although the people with lived experience initially had no involvement in the ethics application process.","PeriodicalId":46151,"journal":{"name":"Ethics and Social Welfare","volume":"16 1","pages":"322 - 331"},"PeriodicalIF":0.7000,"publicationDate":"2022-02-21","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"2","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Learning to Become a More Ethically Focused Practitioner Researcher: Developing Through the Research Ethics Process\",\"authors\":\"Louise Blakley\",\"doi\":\"10.1080/17496535.2022.2033397\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"ABSTRACT This article captures the learning I gained through the initial rejection of my NHS ethics application as a novice practitioner researcher in England. It explores my use of reflection, sensitive research guidelines and engagement of people with lived experience in becoming a more ethically informed researcher. The focus of the proposed research study, of which the ethics application relates, focused on the experience of Mental Health Act assessment by service users. This is a sensitive subject as it raises emotions and may produce distress. An overarching participatory approach was eventually used in this study, although the people with lived experience initially had no involvement in the ethics application process.\",\"PeriodicalId\":46151,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Ethics and Social Welfare\",\"volume\":\"16 1\",\"pages\":\"322 - 331\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.7000,\"publicationDate\":\"2022-02-21\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"2\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Ethics and Social Welfare\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1080/17496535.2022.2033397\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q4\",\"JCRName\":\"SOCIAL WORK\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Ethics and Social Welfare","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/17496535.2022.2033397","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"SOCIAL WORK","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 2

摘要

摘要:这篇文章记录了我作为一名英国初级执业研究员,在最初被英国国家医疗服务体系(NHS)伦理申请拒绝后所学到的东西。它探讨了我如何利用反思、敏感的研究指南和有生活经验的人的参与,成为一名更符合道德的研究人员。拟议研究的重点是服务使用者对《精神卫生法》的评估经验,与伦理应用有关。这是一个敏感的话题,因为它会引发情绪,并可能产生痛苦。尽管有生活经验的人最初没有参与伦理申请过程,但本研究最终采用了一种全面的参与方法。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Learning to Become a More Ethically Focused Practitioner Researcher: Developing Through the Research Ethics Process
ABSTRACT This article captures the learning I gained through the initial rejection of my NHS ethics application as a novice practitioner researcher in England. It explores my use of reflection, sensitive research guidelines and engagement of people with lived experience in becoming a more ethically informed researcher. The focus of the proposed research study, of which the ethics application relates, focused on the experience of Mental Health Act assessment by service users. This is a sensitive subject as it raises emotions and may produce distress. An overarching participatory approach was eventually used in this study, although the people with lived experience initially had no involvement in the ethics application process.
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
CiteScore
1.60
自引率
20.00%
发文量
36
期刊介绍: Ethics and Social Welfare publishes articles of a critical and reflective nature concerned with the ethical issues surrounding social welfare practice and policy. It has a particular focus on social work (including practice with individuals, families and small groups), social care, youth and community work and related professions. The aim of the journal is to encourage dialogue and debate across social, intercultural and international boundaries on the serious ethical issues relating to professional interventions into social life. Through this we hope to contribute towards deepening understandings and further ethical practice in the field of social welfare. The journal welcomes material in a variety of formats, including high quality peer-reviewed academic papers, reflections, debates and commentaries on policy and practice, book reviews and review articles. We actively encourage a diverse range of contributions from academic and field practitioners, voluntary workers, service users, carers and people bringing the perspectives of oppressed groups. Contributions might include reports on research studies on the influence of values and ethics in social welfare practice, education and organisational structures, theoretical papers discussing the evolution of social welfare values and ethics, linked to contemporary philosophical, social and ethical thought, accounts of ethical issues, problems and dilemmas in practice, and reflections on the ethics and values of policy and organisational development. The journal aims for the highest standards in its published material. All material submitted to the journal is subject to a process of assessment and evaluation through the Editors and through peer review.
×
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:481959085
Book学术官方微信