首页> 外文期刊>BMC Medical Ethics >Developing new ways to listen: the value of narrative approaches in empirical (bio)ethics
【24h】

Developing new ways to listen: the value of narrative approaches in empirical (bio)ethics

机译:制定新的倾听方式:实证(BIO)道德的叙事方法的价值

获取原文
           

摘要

The use of qualitative research in empirical bioethics is becoming increasingly popular, but its implementation comes with several challenges, such as difficulties in aligning moral epistemology and methods. In this paper, we describe some problems that empirical bioethics researchers may face; these problems are related to a tension between the different poles on the spectrum of scientific paradigms, namely a positivist and interpretive stance. We explore the ideas of narrative construction, ‘genres’ in medicine and dominant discourses in relation to empirical research. We also reflect on the loss of depth and context that may occur with thematic or content analyses of interviews, and discuss the need for transparency about methodologies in empirical bioethics. Drawing on insights from narrative approaches in the social sciences and the clinical-educational discipline of Narrative Medicine, we further clarify these problems and suggest a narrative approach to qualitative interviewing in empirical bioethics that enables researchers to ‘listen (and read) in new ways’. We then show how this approach was applied in the first author’s research project about euthanasia decision-making. In addition, we stress the important ethical task of scrutinizing methodologies and meta-ethical standpoints, as they inevitably impact empirical outcomes and corresponding ethical judgments. Finally, we raise the question whether a ‘diagnostic’, rather than a ‘problem-solving’, mindset could and should be foregrounded in empirical ethics, albeit without losing a commitment to ethics’ normative task, and suggest further avenues for theorizing about listening and epistemic (in)justice in relation to empirical (bio)ethics.
机译:在经验生物伦理中使用定性研究变得越来越受欢迎,但其实现具有几个挑战,例如对抗道德认识论和方法的困难。在本文中,我们描述了实证生物伦理研究人员可能面临的一些问题;这些问题与不同杆之间的张力相关,不同的杆子上的科学范式谱,即积极主义者和解释性姿态。我们探讨了医学叙事建设,“流派”的思想与实证研究。我们还反映了对面试专题或内容分析可能发生的深度和背景的丧失,并讨论了对经验生物伦理学中的方法透明度的需求。从社会科学中的叙事方法和叙事医学临床教育学科的洞察中阐述,我们进一步澄清了这些问题,并提出了一种叙述性地对经验性生物伦理的定性面试方法,使研究人员能够“以新的方式倾听(和阅读)” 。然后,我们展示了如何在第一作者的研究项目中应用这种方法关于安乐死的决策。此外,我们强调了审查方法和元伦理观点的重要道德任务,因为它们不可避免地影响了实证结果和相应的道德判断。最后,我们提出了“诊断”,而不是“问题解决”的问题,不能在经验伦理中前景,尽管没有失去对道德规范任务的承诺,但建议更多地理解听力的途径与经验(生物)伦理有关的司法司法。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
获取原文

客服邮箱:kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备:11010802029741号 ICP备案号:京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有
  • 客服微信

  • 服务号