识别和解决REB伦理决策中的非理性过程

IF 2.1 Q2 ETHICS
Simon Nuttgens
{"title":"识别和解决REB伦理决策中的非理性过程","authors":"Simon Nuttgens","doi":"10.1177/1747016121994011","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Ethical decision-making is inherent to the research ethics committee (REC) deliberation process. While ethical codes, regulations, and research standards are indispensable in guiding this process, decision-making is nonetheless susceptible to nonrational factors that can undermined the quality, consistency, and perceived fairness REC decisions. In this paper I identify biases and heuristics (i.e., nonrational factors) that are known to influence the reasoning processes among the general population and various professions alike. I suggest that such factors will inevitably arise within the REC review process. To help mitigate this potential, I propose an interventive questioning process that can be used by RECs to identify and minimize the influence of the nonrational factors most likely to impact REC judgment and decision-making.","PeriodicalId":38096,"journal":{"name":"Research Ethics","volume":"37 1","pages":"328 - 345"},"PeriodicalIF":2.1000,"publicationDate":"2021-02-11","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Identifying and addressing nonrational processes in REB ethical decision-making\",\"authors\":\"Simon Nuttgens\",\"doi\":\"10.1177/1747016121994011\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Ethical decision-making is inherent to the research ethics committee (REC) deliberation process. While ethical codes, regulations, and research standards are indispensable in guiding this process, decision-making is nonetheless susceptible to nonrational factors that can undermined the quality, consistency, and perceived fairness REC decisions. In this paper I identify biases and heuristics (i.e., nonrational factors) that are known to influence the reasoning processes among the general population and various professions alike. I suggest that such factors will inevitably arise within the REC review process. To help mitigate this potential, I propose an interventive questioning process that can be used by RECs to identify and minimize the influence of the nonrational factors most likely to impact REC judgment and decision-making.\",\"PeriodicalId\":38096,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Research Ethics\",\"volume\":\"37 1\",\"pages\":\"328 - 345\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.1000,\"publicationDate\":\"2021-02-11\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Research Ethics\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1177/1747016121994011\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"ETHICS\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Research Ethics","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/1747016121994011","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"ETHICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

伦理决策是研究伦理委员会(REC)审议过程所固有的。虽然伦理准则、法规和研究标准在指导这一过程中不可或缺,但决策仍然容易受到非理性因素的影响,这些因素可能会破坏REC决策的质量、一致性和可感知的公平性。在本文中,我确定了偏见和启发式(即非理性因素),这些因素已知会影响一般人群和各种职业的推理过程。我认为,这些因素将不可避免地出现在检讨REC的过程中。为了帮助减轻这种可能性,我提出了一种可被REC用来识别和最小化最有可能影响REC判断和决策的非理性因素影响的干预性提问过程。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Identifying and addressing nonrational processes in REB ethical decision-making
Ethical decision-making is inherent to the research ethics committee (REC) deliberation process. While ethical codes, regulations, and research standards are indispensable in guiding this process, decision-making is nonetheless susceptible to nonrational factors that can undermined the quality, consistency, and perceived fairness REC decisions. In this paper I identify biases and heuristics (i.e., nonrational factors) that are known to influence the reasoning processes among the general population and various professions alike. I suggest that such factors will inevitably arise within the REC review process. To help mitigate this potential, I propose an interventive questioning process that can be used by RECs to identify and minimize the influence of the nonrational factors most likely to impact REC judgment and decision-making.
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
Research Ethics
Research Ethics Arts and Humanities-Philosophy
CiteScore
4.30
自引率
11.80%
发文量
17
审稿时长
15 weeks
×
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