Does Germany Need a (New) Research Ethics for the Social Sciences (original) (raw)
Related papers
Ethics & Behavior, 2015
Although international research is increasing in volume and importance, there remains a dearth of knowledge on similarities and differences in "national human research ethics" (NHREs), that is, national ethical guidelines (NEGs), Institutional Review Boards (IRBs), and research stakeholder' ethical attitudes and behaviors (EABs). We begin to address this situation by reporting upon our experiences in conducting a multinational study into the mental health of children who had a parent/carer in prison. The study was conducted in 4 countries: Germany, Great Britain, Romania, and Sweden. Data on NHREs were gathered via a questionnaire survey, two ethics-related seminars, and ongoing contact between members of the research consortium. There was correspondence but even more so divergence between countries in the availability of NEGs and IRBs and in researcher' EABs. Differences in NHREs have implications particularly in terms of harmonization but also for ethical philosophy and practice and for research integrity.
European Journal for the History of Medicine and Health, 2021
Although already established in West Germany since the 1970s, with the introduction of research ethics committees (rec s) into the Tokyo revision of the Declaration of Helsinki, they gained in importance. From 1985, a duty to consult rec s in human subject research was written into West German physicians' codes of conduct. In East Germany ("Deutsche Demokratische Republik", DDR), a central rec was set up in 1981 within the ddr Ministry of Health, and after German reunification, a duty to consult rec s was introduced in the federal Medical Products Act (Arzneimittelgesetz). Since 2001, European regulations were incorporated into national laws which applied in Germany as in other member states. Regarding the institution and legal history of rec s in Germany, this contribution seeks to answer three questions: (1) Were rec s developed in response to a specifically German experience of medical crimes and the abuse of human research subjects, or were they part of an internationalization of medical research ethics and international integration of German research? (2) Was the setting up of rec s in Germany a more top-down, centralized process or a more bottom-up, grassroots undertaking, and what does this tell us about the status that biomedical researchers gave to the ethics of human subject research in that period? And (3) who has traditionally held authority over human subject research in Germany and who holds it today?
The formalisation of social-science research ethics: How did we get there?
HAU: Journal of Ethnographic Theory
In the United States, the “common law,” that regulates ethics review is being overhauled. We ask how UK University Research Ethics Committees (U-RECs), following the American model, have been able to shape social-science research without much commotion, and whether it is time for change.Despite the misbehavior of some ethnographic researchers, most social science research is valued for and motivated by its expert engagement with moral questions regarding discrimination, unfairness, exploitation, and so on, at home and abroad: knowledge of and sensitivity to the complexities around the violation of socio-economic, political, and cultural norms and values are carried high in the social science banner. Yet, since the 1990s, social science research projects in the Anglo-American world have increasingly entrusted research ethics to the scrutiny of U-RECs.This ethical delegation gives a mandate to U-RECs, often without suitable expertise, to vet research projects in a bureaucratic and tim...
The formalization of social-science research ethics
HAU: Journal of Ethnographic Theory, 2017
In the United States, the “common law,” that regulates ethics review is being overhauled. We ask how UK University Research Ethics Committees (U-RECs), following the American model, have been able to shape social-science research without much commotion, and whether it is time for change.Despite the misbehavior of some ethnographic researchers, most social science research is valued for and motivated by its expert engagement with moral questions regarding discrimination, unfairness, exploitation, and so on, at home and abroad: knowledge of and sensitivity to the complexities around the violation of socio-economic, political, and cultural norms and values are carried high in the social science banner. Yet, since the 1990s, social science research projects in the Anglo-American world have increasingly entrusted research ethics to the scrutiny of U-RECs.This ethical delegation gives a mandate to U-RECs, often without suitable expertise, to vet research projects in a bureaucratic and tim...
In the German social and cultural sciences attention to research ethics is growing, with empirical researchers increasingly seeking advice and addressing ethical issues in their research practice. In addition, there is an infrastructural debate in this country about whether the use of ethics review boards for research projects should be widened. Researchers who apply for international funding or seek to publish internationally increasingly are expected to gain ethical approval for their empirical projects.
Reconsidering the Research Ethics in Social Sciences
Academia Letters, 2021
Research ethics in social sciences empowers researchers and the academic community with knowledge about accepted norms and values associated with research activity. It helps in disseminating guidance and advice to researchers about the do’s and don’ts of research. Ethics inculcates scientific vigor in a study by preventing unethical misconduct. Ethics in social sciences are primarily used as an academic tool to assess the quality of a research along with the planning of a research design, reporting, and publishing findings and results.
The research ethics evolution: From Nuremberg to Helsinki
South African Medical Journal, 2014
Carol Levine has stated that research ethics was 'born in scandal and reared in protectionism'. [1] Concerns about the conduct of researchers in healthcare date back to at least the end of the 19th century. [2] Because individuals and groups were being exploited and harmed, the concept of vulnerability steadily gained prominence, [3-6] with concerns over the participation of vulnerable individuals and groups appearing in national and international policy and guideline documents. [5] With this surfaced the all-too-familiar tensions between scientific progress and societal interests on the one hand and individual rights and interests on the other, regarding the goals of health research. There is no question that health research sets out to acquire not only theoretical knowledge but also benefits for individuals and society as a whole, and is therefore justified. The quandary posed is how such an important, shared purpose can be pursued with full protection of individuals and communities, [2] and those with vulnerabilities in particular.
The role of descriptive ethics in the design of research ethics procedures in the social sciences
Sentio, 2020
This paper examines how the growing field of descriptive ethics (the empirical study of ethical beliefs and behaviours) can inform the design of formal research ethics procedures. While social science, particularly in the United Kingdom, has increasingly adopted formalised procedures of ethical review, little attention has been paid to what researchers across different disciplines understand ethical practices and standards to mean, and how social scientists arrive at moral judgements about their work, negotiate dilemmas and resolve competing ethical demands. This paper considers how turning the lens of descriptive ethics onto the practice of social science may interrogate some of these issues. Potential areas for study include how particular disciplines conceive of what it means to be ethical and the negotiation of moral dilemmas when performing research in real-world contexts.