欺骗参与者时的知情同意和汇报:研究伦理准则的系统回顾。

IF 1.7 4区 哲学 Q2 ETHICS
Kamiel Verbeke, Tomasz Krawczyk, Dieter Baeyens, Jan Piasecki, Pascal Borry
{"title":"欺骗参与者时的知情同意和汇报:研究伦理准则的系统回顾。","authors":"Kamiel Verbeke,&nbsp;Tomasz Krawczyk,&nbsp;Dieter Baeyens,&nbsp;Jan Piasecki,&nbsp;Pascal Borry","doi":"10.1177/15562646231173477","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Informed consent and debriefing of research participants in studies that use deception are ethical safeguards for which existing scholarly work on their implementation remains variable and insufficiently clear. A systematic review of research ethics guidelines was conducted to sketch a picture of whether, why and how informed consent and debriefing are recommended when using deception. Documents roughly agreed on several general principles, but varied significantly in the specifics of why and whether these safeguards are necessary, in which conditions and how they should be implemented. Various aspects that appear in the literature could not be found in the guidelines. In our review, guidance was integrated and showed a variation of implementation strategies that could help in contextualizing these safeguards.</p>","PeriodicalId":50211,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Empirical Research on Human Research Ethics","volume":"18 3","pages":"118-133"},"PeriodicalIF":1.7000,"publicationDate":"2023-07-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Informed Consent and Debriefing When Deceiving Participants: A Systematic Review of Research Ethics Guidelines.\",\"authors\":\"Kamiel Verbeke,&nbsp;Tomasz Krawczyk,&nbsp;Dieter Baeyens,&nbsp;Jan Piasecki,&nbsp;Pascal Borry\",\"doi\":\"10.1177/15562646231173477\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>Informed consent and debriefing of research participants in studies that use deception are ethical safeguards for which existing scholarly work on their implementation remains variable and insufficiently clear. A systematic review of research ethics guidelines was conducted to sketch a picture of whether, why and how informed consent and debriefing are recommended when using deception. Documents roughly agreed on several general principles, but varied significantly in the specifics of why and whether these safeguards are necessary, in which conditions and how they should be implemented. Various aspects that appear in the literature could not be found in the guidelines. In our review, guidance was integrated and showed a variation of implementation strategies that could help in contextualizing these safeguards.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":50211,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Empirical Research on Human Research Ethics\",\"volume\":\"18 3\",\"pages\":\"118-133\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.7000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-07-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Empirical Research on Human Research Ethics\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"98\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1177/15562646231173477\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"哲学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"ETHICS\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Empirical Research on Human Research Ethics","FirstCategoryId":"98","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/15562646231173477","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"ETHICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

在使用欺骗的研究中,对研究参与者的知情同意和汇报是道德保障措施,而现有的关于其实施的学术工作仍然是可变的,而且不够明确。对研究伦理准则进行了系统的审查,以概述在使用欺骗时是否、为什么以及如何建议知情同意和汇报。文件大致同意了几项一般原则,但在为什么和是否需要这些保障措施、在什么条件下以及如何实施这些保障措施的具体问题上差异很大。在文献中出现的许多方面在指南中都找不到。在我们的审查中,指南是综合的,并显示了有助于将这些保障措施置于背景下的实施战略的变化。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Informed Consent and Debriefing When Deceiving Participants: A Systematic Review of Research Ethics Guidelines.

Informed consent and debriefing of research participants in studies that use deception are ethical safeguards for which existing scholarly work on their implementation remains variable and insufficiently clear. A systematic review of research ethics guidelines was conducted to sketch a picture of whether, why and how informed consent and debriefing are recommended when using deception. Documents roughly agreed on several general principles, but varied significantly in the specifics of why and whether these safeguards are necessary, in which conditions and how they should be implemented. Various aspects that appear in the literature could not be found in the guidelines. In our review, guidance was integrated and showed a variation of implementation strategies that could help in contextualizing these safeguards.

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
3.50
自引率
7.70%
发文量
30
审稿时长
>12 weeks
期刊介绍: The Journal of Empirical Research on Human Research Ethics (JERHRE) is the only journal in the field of human research ethics dedicated exclusively to empirical research. Empirical knowledge translates ethical principles into procedures appropriate to specific cultures, contexts, and research topics. The journal''s distinguished editorial and advisory board brings a range of expertise and international perspective to provide high-quality double-blind peer-reviewed original articles.
×
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