The Virtuous researcher (original) (raw)
We all know how to get our research proposal past a research-ethics committee, don't we? Everything participants say will be kept confidential; their anonymity is assured. "Informed" consent will be obtained, and all data will be securely stored. The benefits of carrying out the study will far outweigh any risks, of course. And there is no need for the university to worry. There is no risk of litigation or to the university's reputation. Everyone's in the clear. Honestly! Such is the game that goes on. Research ethics has become another example of political correctness: the spouting of scripted communication designed to imply commitment to a set of sacred principles, whether one believes in them or not. We are encouraged to idly assert many of the same mantras in the methodology sections of our academic papers or doctoral theses. It is inauthentic, scripted communication-to satisfy the demands of a surveillance society-that only scratches the surface of real research ethics. We must broaden our concept of research ethics to consider the fundamental virtues that underlie what we, as individual researchers, actually do. A historical perspective helps us to understand how we have got into this position. Despite the atrocities of Nazi human experimentation and the resulting Nuremburg Code, it took a series of postwar scientific scandals before research ethics was taken seriously. The ill-fated testing of the thalidomide drug during the 1960s and the four-decade-long Tuskegee syphilis study were probably the most influential. In the Tuskegee case, syphilitic black men were systematically misled and exploited for decades. Today, academics around the world face bureaucratic approval processes every time they want to do research. These are largely The Virtuous Researcher -Commentary -The Chronicle of Higher Education our own values rather than trying to substitute individual responsibility with the mantras of bioethics. Getting better at handling ethical issues comes only with practice, experience, and learning from the good or bad examples of others. Being an ethical researcher requires an authentic engagement with our own beliefs and the values of our disciplines. Ethics is a bit like jazz, in that it is about more than simply following the notes on the page. It demands an ability to improvise and to think for ourselves. No researchethics committee can do that for us. Bruce Macfarlane is head of academic development and a professor of higher education at the University of Portsmouth, in England, and author of Researching With Integrity: The Ethics of Academic Enquiry (Routledge, 2009).
Related papers
Whose Ethics? Which Research? Some Implications for a Universal Code of Research Ethics
nrv.gov.au
Over the last decade the question of a code or framework of Ethics in Research has become central to the work of Ethics committees across the country. The National Health and Medical Research Council has produced a National Statement and has undertaken nation-wide consultations to facilitate broad engagement with the Statement on Ethical Conduct in Research Involving Humans (1999). As members of a Social and Behavioural Research Ethics Committee at Flinders University, we, not unlike all members of such committees are consistently experiencing the tensions and contradictions that a universal statement of ethics can produce. In this paper we will focus upon these experiences to discuss some of the implications of a universal approach to ethical conduct in the field of human research.
Issues and Guidance in Research Ethics
Journal of Business Systems, Governance & Ethics, 2014
This paper addresses the principles that govern the outlook and decisions of research ethics committees. The purpose of the paper is to outline such underlying principles in order to aid understanding for researchers into aspects of social and commercial behaviour. Prior to conducting research in any corporate area there is an obligation toward any human participants. That obligation is set out most clearly in the information and forms put out by the various ethics committees charged with examining the proposal, and with giving formal ethical approval. The principles that invest the understanding of ethics committees are those of protecting the vulnerable, and of protecting justifiably good reputations. Ethics committees should be seen as enabling and protecting rather than as a barrier to research. Peer reviews should be seen to include ethics matters in research, and are thus a natural extension of the common scientific endeavour. To this end the article outlines and discusses the issues commonly addressed by research ethics committees. By highlighting these principles, this paper aims to give insights and suggestions that should make the ethics application task easier.
Introduction to Research Ethics
ABSTRACT This module will introduce you to the ethical concepts underlying applied ethical decision-making in the area of research involving human participants. We will also learn what the issues are that people involved in research on research ethics are concerned with. Ethics without an understanding of historical and legal context makes arguably little sense. It is for this reason that this module will begin with a brief history of research ethics and ends with a brief overview of the relevant national and international guidelines pertaining to ethical issues in research involving human participants.
New Angles and Tangles in the Ethics Review of Research
Journal of Academic Ethics, 2006
This articles considers the larger, external and the micro, internal forces that impinge on the nature and impact of contemporary research-ethics codes. The larger forces that shape the impact of codes involve the increase in public and governmental concern with privacy protection, changes within disciplines, and the rise of research entrepreneurship. In terms of micro-level forces, the article explores the continuing problems associated with the biomedical approach to research-ethics, ongoing instability for some types of social research, slippages between REBs and researchers, and variability of local interpretations of ethics codes. A number of ethics-review fads also produce instability in the ethics regime. KEY WORDS: changes in ethics regimes, ethics fads, ethics in research In the passage of time, nothing stands still when it comes to the dynamics of research-ethics review. While complaints of researchers about national research-ethics policies are commonplace (some complaints are justified and some are not), they are rapidly overtaken by developments outside and inside the research-ethics regime. As a consequence, some complaints now take on an archaic character in light of these new developments. Any wellfounded, constructive critique of national research-ethics codes must take into account the rapidly shifting sands of change. This articles considers the larger (external) and the micro (internal) forces that impinge on the nature and impact of contemporary researchethics codes. The larger forces that shape the impact of codes involve the increase in public and governmental concern with privacy protection, changes within disciplines themselves, and the rise of research entrepreneurship. In terms of micro-level forces, the article explores the continuing problems associated with the bio-medical approach to research-ethics, ongoing instability for some types of social research, slippages between REBs and researchers, and variability of local interpretations of ethics codes. A number of research-ethics fads also produce instability in the ethics regime. THE LARGER FORCES THAT SHAPE THE RESEARCH-ETHICS REGIMES Of note, there are at least three areas in research-ethics regimes that are currently reshaping the relationship between research-ethics review and
Loading Preview
Sorry, preview is currently unavailable. You can download the paper by clicking the button above.