scholarly journals Navigating Ethics in the Digital Age: Introducing Connected and Open Research Ethics (CORE), a Tool for Researchers and Institutional Review Boards

2017 ◽  
Vol 19 (2) ◽  
pp. e38 ◽  
Author(s):  
John Torous ◽  
Camille Nebeker
Keyword(s):  
Research Ethics ◽  
Digital Age ◽  
Institutional Review Boards ◽  
Open Research ◽  
Institutional Review ◽  
Review Boards

Qualitative research ethics on the spot

2015 ◽  
Vol 23 (4) ◽  
pp. 455-464 ◽  
Author(s):  
Christine Øye ◽  
Nelli Øvre Sørensen ◽  
Stinne Glasdam
Keyword(s):  
Qualitative Research ◽  
Informed Consent ◽  
Research Ethics ◽  
Ethical Issues ◽  
Ethical Dilemmas ◽  
Institutional Review Boards ◽  
Ethical Guidelines ◽  
Ethical Considerations ◽  
Institutional Review ◽  
Review Boards

Background: The increase in medical ethical regulations and bureaucracy handled by institutional review boards and healthcare institutions puts the researchers using qualitative methods in a challenging position. Method: Based on three different cases from three different research studies, the article explores and discusses research ethical dilemmas. Objectives and ethical considerations: First, and especially, the article addresses the challenges for gatekeepers who influence the informant’s decisions to participate in research. Second, the article addresses the challenges in following research ethical guidelines related to informed consent and doing no harm. Third, the article argues for the importance of having research ethical guidelines and review boards to question and discuss the possible ethical dilemmas that occur in qualitative research. Discussion and conclusion: Research ethics must be understood in qualitative research as relational, situational, and emerging. That is, that focus on ethical issues and dilemmas has to be paid attention on the spot and not only at the desktop.

scholarly journals Decolonizing music education research and the (im)possibility of methodological responsibility

2019 ◽  
Vol 42 (2) ◽  
pp. 177-191
Author(s):  
Alexis Anja Kallio
Keyword(s):  
Education Research ◽  
Music Education ◽  
Research Ethics ◽  
Knowledge Production ◽  
Institutional Review Boards ◽  
Education Practice ◽  
Politics Of Knowledge ◽  
Institutional Review ◽  
Education Study ◽  
Review Boards

Whilst increasing attention is paid to decolonizing music education practice in the classroom, the research processes by which scholars identify, understand, and evaluate anti-colonial or decolonizing work are often entrenched in colonial logics themselves. The politics of knowledge and knowledge production between indigenous epistemes and the Academy thus raise questions as to the methodological responsibility of music education research in indigenous settings, particularly when conducted by non-indigenous researchers. Drawing upon a recent music education study conducted together with indigenous Sámi peoples in Finland, this article argues that despite the good intentions of music education scholars methodological responsibility may well be an unachievable goal. However, if we understand research ethics as more than the procedural accountability to institutional review boards or funding committees, methodological responsibility may better be understood as a condition of possibility found in relation with others. Thus, in order to decolonize music education practice, researchers are challenged to step outside of their epistemic and methodological comfort zones, and to consider how we may also decolonize music education research.

Nurse researchers’ perspectives on research ethics in China

2017 ◽  
Vol 26 (3) ◽  
pp. 798-808
Author(s):  
Can Gu ◽  
Man Ye ◽  
Xiaomin Wang ◽  
Min Yang ◽  
Honghong Wang ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Research Ethics ◽  
Nursing Faculty ◽  
Institutional Review Boards ◽  
Ethical Standards ◽  
Ethical Challenges ◽  
Yale University ◽  
Ethical Guidelines ◽  
Clinical Nurses ◽  
Institutional Review ◽  
Review Boards

Background: In China, research ethics is a subject of increasingly formal regulation. However, little is known about how nursing researchers understand the concept of research ethics and the ways in which they can maintain ethical standards in their work. Aim: The aim of this study is to examine nursing researchers’ perspectives on research ethics in China. Research design: We conducted a descriptive qualitative study. Qualitative research methods enabled us to gain an in-depth understanding of nursing researchers’ views on research ethics. Participants and research context: We carefully selected and extensively interviewed 28 nursing researchers, nursing faculty, and clinical nurses who had been involved in research or who may undertake research in the future. We collected data between October 2014 and March 2015. Ethical considerations: This study was approved by the institutional review boards of Yale University and Central South University. Findings: We grouped the data into five categories based on the interviewees’ responses: (1) perceptions of ethics, bioethics, and research ethics; (2) perception of the ethics review process; (3) perception of the function of institutional review boards; (4) the need for comprehensive ethical guidelines for future studies; and (5) ethical challenges faced by the interviewees. Discussion and conclusion: This study contributes new insights into nursing researchers’ views on research ethics in China and finds considerable shortcomings in researchers’ understanding and implementation of ethical principles. Intensive educational efforts are needed to provide nursing researchers, institutional review board members, and even study subjects with accurate and up-to-date information and guidance on research ethics. In addition, while Western research ethics theoretically have guided Chinese clinical research for several years, the ways in which nursing researchers have implemented these ethical standards highlight the differences between the Eastern and Western ethical paradigms. This finding suggests the need for ethical standards that are more tailored to the Chinese context.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document