首页> 外文OA文献 >Negotiating Responsibility for Navigating Ethical Issues in Qualitative Research: A Review of Miller, Birch, Mauthner, and Jessop’s (2012) Ethics in Qualitative Research, Second Edition
【2h】

Negotiating Responsibility for Navigating Ethical Issues in Qualitative Research: A Review of Miller, Birch, Mauthner, and Jessop’s (2012) Ethics in Qualitative Research, Second Edition

机译:在定性研究中探讨伦理问题的谈判责任:Miller,Birch,Mauthner和Jessop(2012)的《定性研究伦理》第二版的评论

摘要

Ethics in Qualitative Research (Miller, Birch Mauthner, u26 Jessop, 2012), now in its second edition, uses a feminist framework to present a variety of issues pertinent to qualitative researchers. Topics include traditional challenges for qualitative researchers (e.g., access to potential participants, informed consent, overlapping roles), as well as those that have garnered more attention in recent years, particularly with regard to uses and consequences of technological advances in research. The book is critical of committees whose function it is to review proposed research and grant research ethics approval (e.g., University Research Ethics Committees [URECs], Research Ethics Boards [REBs], and Institutional Review Boards [IRBs]). The authors of this book are situated within the United Kingdom. The editors take the position that ethics oversight by the researchers themselves is preferable and that such boards and committees are not well equipped to review qualitative research. A rebuttal to this position is presented within this review. Ethics in Qualitative Research provides a good overview of ethical issues that researchers face and is effective in merging theory with practice. It would be strengthened by avoiding the debate over URECs or by offering concrete suggestions for how URECs can improve their reviews of qualitative research.
机译:定性研究中的伦理学(Miller,Birch Mauthner,Jessop,2012年出版)第二版使用女权主义框架来提出与定性研究者有关的各种问题。主题包括定性研究人员面临的传统挑战(例如,与潜在参与者的接触,知情同意,角色重叠)以及近年来受到更多关注的挑战,特别是在研究技术进步的用途和后果方面。该书批评了其职能是审查拟议的研究并授予研究伦理批准的委员会(例如,大学研究伦理委员会[UREC],研究伦理委员会[REB]和机构审查委员会[IRB])。本书的作者位于英国。编辑者的立场是,最好由研究人员本人进行道德监督,并且这样的董事会和委员会没有足够的能力来审查定性研究。对此评论提出了对此立场的反驳。定性研究中的伦理学很好地概述了研究人员面临的伦理学问题,并有效地将理论与实践相结合。通过避免关于UREC的辩论或通过提供有关UREC如何改善其对定性研究的评论的具体建议,可以加强这一点。

著录项

  • 作者

    McCarron Michelle C.E.;

  • 作者单位
  • 年度 2013
  • 总页数
  • 原文格式 PDF
  • 正文语种
  • 中图分类

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献

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