理解经验生命伦理学研究参与者的意义:来自威廉·詹姆斯和路德维希·维特根斯坦的历史警告

K. Weinfurt
{"title":"理解经验生命伦理学研究参与者的意义:来自威廉·詹姆斯和路德维希·维特根斯坦的历史警告","authors":"K. Weinfurt","doi":"10.1080/21507716.2013.807893","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Methods from psychology are informing much empirical research in bioethics by helping to understand the thoughts, feelings, and beliefs of people as they relate to a variety of bioethical issues. This can lead to improvements in practice or policy only if the subjective mental states under study have been characterized accurately. In this article, I describe two cautions from the history of psychology concerning the accurate characterization of mental states that have significant implications for how we elicit and interpret data in empirical bioethical studies. Both make reference to tendencies of mind that can be difficult to combat and that are the cause of other more specific methodological errors. The first historical caution, William James's “psychologist's fallacy,” warns against substituting the ethicist/researcher's point of view with that of the person under study. Failure to appreciate this essentially egocentric bias can result in asking people to report on things (e.g., probability of benefit from an experimental therapy) that are not a part of the person's experience in the same way they are a part of the researcher's worldview. The responses the person provides in such cases do not provide good information about his or her experience and so cannot be used to guide sound policy. The second historical caution is Wittgenstein's discursive perspective, which urges us to interpret the meaning of things said by a person in a research study by examining the function each utterance serves for the person. For example, one should avoid assuming that people respond to queries about understanding by simply describing their understanding. Instead, research participants might provide responses to achieve other goals, such as establishing a desired attitude in themselves. I suggest that both cautions can be addressed through careful qualitative investigation at the beginning of a research project.","PeriodicalId":89316,"journal":{"name":"AJOB primary research","volume":"26 1","pages":"49 - 54"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2013-07-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"11","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Understanding What Participants in Empirical Bioethical Studies Mean: Historical Cautions From William James and Ludwig Wittgenstein\",\"authors\":\"K. Weinfurt\",\"doi\":\"10.1080/21507716.2013.807893\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Methods from psychology are informing much empirical research in bioethics by helping to understand the thoughts, feelings, and beliefs of people as they relate to a variety of bioethical issues. This can lead to improvements in practice or policy only if the subjective mental states under study have been characterized accurately. In this article, I describe two cautions from the history of psychology concerning the accurate characterization of mental states that have significant implications for how we elicit and interpret data in empirical bioethical studies. Both make reference to tendencies of mind that can be difficult to combat and that are the cause of other more specific methodological errors. The first historical caution, William James's “psychologist's fallacy,” warns against substituting the ethicist/researcher's point of view with that of the person under study. Failure to appreciate this essentially egocentric bias can result in asking people to report on things (e.g., probability of benefit from an experimental therapy) that are not a part of the person's experience in the same way they are a part of the researcher's worldview. The responses the person provides in such cases do not provide good information about his or her experience and so cannot be used to guide sound policy. The second historical caution is Wittgenstein's discursive perspective, which urges us to interpret the meaning of things said by a person in a research study by examining the function each utterance serves for the person. For example, one should avoid assuming that people respond to queries about understanding by simply describing their understanding. Instead, research participants might provide responses to achieve other goals, such as establishing a desired attitude in themselves. I suggest that both cautions can be addressed through careful qualitative investigation at the beginning of a research project.\",\"PeriodicalId\":89316,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"AJOB primary research\",\"volume\":\"26 1\",\"pages\":\"49 - 54\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2013-07-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"11\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"AJOB primary research\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1080/21507716.2013.807893\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"AJOB primary research","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/21507716.2013.807893","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 11

摘要

心理学的方法通过帮助理解人们与各种生物伦理问题相关的思想、感情和信仰,为生物伦理学的实证研究提供了很多信息。只有准确地描述所研究的主观心理状态,才能导致实践或政策的改进。在这篇文章中,我描述了心理学史上关于精神状态准确表征的两个警告,这对我们如何在经验生物伦理学研究中引出和解释数据具有重要意义。两者都提到了难以克服的心理倾向,这些倾向是导致其他更具体的方法错误的原因。第一个历史警告,威廉·詹姆斯的“心理学家谬误”,警告不要用被研究对象的观点来代替伦理学家/研究者的观点。未能认识到这种本质上以自我为中心的偏见,可能会导致要求人们报告的事情(例如,从实验性治疗中获益的可能性)不是个人经历的一部分,就像它们是研究人员世界观的一部分一样。在这种情况下,当事人提供的答复不能提供有关他或她的经历的良好信息,因此不能用于指导合理的政策。第二个历史警告是维特根斯坦的话语视角,它敦促我们通过检查每个话语对人的功能来解释研究性研究中一个人所说的事情的意义。例如,人们应该避免假设人们通过简单地描述他们的理解来回答关于理解的问题。相反,研究参与者提供的回应可能是为了实现其他目标,比如在自己身上建立一种理想的态度。我建议,在研究项目开始时,可以通过仔细的定性调查来解决这两个问题。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Understanding What Participants in Empirical Bioethical Studies Mean: Historical Cautions From William James and Ludwig Wittgenstein
Methods from psychology are informing much empirical research in bioethics by helping to understand the thoughts, feelings, and beliefs of people as they relate to a variety of bioethical issues. This can lead to improvements in practice or policy only if the subjective mental states under study have been characterized accurately. In this article, I describe two cautions from the history of psychology concerning the accurate characterization of mental states that have significant implications for how we elicit and interpret data in empirical bioethical studies. Both make reference to tendencies of mind that can be difficult to combat and that are the cause of other more specific methodological errors. The first historical caution, William James's “psychologist's fallacy,” warns against substituting the ethicist/researcher's point of view with that of the person under study. Failure to appreciate this essentially egocentric bias can result in asking people to report on things (e.g., probability of benefit from an experimental therapy) that are not a part of the person's experience in the same way they are a part of the researcher's worldview. The responses the person provides in such cases do not provide good information about his or her experience and so cannot be used to guide sound policy. The second historical caution is Wittgenstein's discursive perspective, which urges us to interpret the meaning of things said by a person in a research study by examining the function each utterance serves for the person. For example, one should avoid assuming that people respond to queries about understanding by simply describing their understanding. Instead, research participants might provide responses to achieve other goals, such as establishing a desired attitude in themselves. I suggest that both cautions can be addressed through careful qualitative investigation at the beginning of a research project.
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