首页> 外文期刊>The British Journal of Social Psychology >Ethics in action: Consent-gaining interactions and implications for research practice
【24h】

Ethics in action: Consent-gaining interactions and implications for research practice

机译:行动中的伦理:获得共识的互动以及对研究实践的启示

获取原文
获取原文并翻译 | 示例
           

摘要

This article deals with the topic of social psychological research methods in practice, by examining how informed consent is gained from research participants. In most research, the consent-gaining process is hidden from analytic scrutiny and is dealt with before data collection has begun. In contrast, conversation analytic research, which records interactional encounters from beginning to end, enables examination of this methodological 'black box'.We explored how 'requests' to consent in research played out across different institutional settings. We found that participants had to 'opt-out' of a research process that was already underway. Consent-gaining sequences constrained opting out in two ways: (1) because research activity was already underway, it must be stopped affirmatively by participants; (2) consent-gaining turns were tilted in favour of continued participation, making opting out a dispreferred response. We also found a mismatch between what ethics guidelines specify about consent-gaining 'in theory' and what actually happens 'in practice'. Finally, we make suggestions about interventions in and recommendations for existing practice to best achieve informed consent.
机译:本文通过研究如何从研究参与者那里获得知情同意,来探讨实践中的社会心理学研究方法。在大多数研究中,获取同意的过程不会进行分析审查,并且会在数据收集开始之前进行处理。相比之下,对话分析研究记录了从头到尾的互动遭遇,可以检查这种方法上的“黑匣子”。我们探索了在不同机构环境下如何进行研究中的“同意”请求。我们发现参与者必须“退出”已经进行的研究过程。同意获得的序列以两种方式限制选择退出:(1)由于研究活动已经在进行中,因此必须由参与者肯定地停止。 (2)获得同意的倾向倾向于继续参与,因此选择了不受欢迎的回应。我们还发现,道德准则中关于“获得理论上的”同意的具体规定与“实践中”实际发生的内容之间存在不匹配。最后,我们对干预措施提出建议,并为现有实践提供建议,以最好地获得知情同意。

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