Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Working from Both Ends: The Dual Role of Philosophy in Research Ethics

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Philosophy and Political Engagement

Part of the book series: International Political Theory ((IPoT))

  • 421 Accesses

Abstract

If ethical principles can come into conflict, for example, in the debates about research ethics, in what way can philosophical analysis help resolve such conflicts? Through an examination of the work of Beauchamp and Childress, John Rawls, and Bernard Williams, Fives identifies a dual role for philosophy in research ethics. Through abstract and general theoretical reflection, which requires a significant degree of disengagement, we can examine such issues as whether moral conflicts arise in our ethical evaluation of research protocols. Through practical reasoning, which requires ongoing, direct involvement, we can pursue agreement on public matters, including cases where we are faced with moral dilemmas. This chapter combines theoretical analysis with a close examination of the moral dilemmas arising in one case study.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
eBook
USD 19.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 29.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 54.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Altman, D. G. (1991). Randomization: Essential for reducing bias. British Medical Journal, 302(6791), 1481–1482.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Association of Research Ethics Committees (AREC). (2013). A framework of policies and procedures for university research ethics committees. Retrieved July 20, 2015, from http://s3.spanglefish.com/s/21217/documents/independent-membership/12-11-13-framework-complete.pdf.

  • Barnardos. (2008). Wizards of words’ manual for volunteers. Dublin: Barnardos.

    Google Scholar 

  • Beauchamp, T. L., & Childress, J. F. (2009). Principles of biomedical ethics (6th ed.). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bonell, C. P., Hargreaves, J., Ciousens, S., Ross, D., Hayes, R., Petticrew, M., & Kirkwood, B. R. (2011). Alternatives to randomisation in the evaluation of public health interventions: Design challenges and solutions. Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health, 65(7), 582–587.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Boruch, R., Weisburd, D., Turner, H. M., III, Karpyn, A., & Littell, J. (2009). Randomized controlled trials for evaluation and planning. In L. Bickman & D. J. Rog (Eds.), The sage handbook of applied social research (2nd ed., pp. 147–181). London: Sage.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Brooks, G. (2002). What works for children with literacy difficulties? The effectiveness of intervention schemes. London: Department for Education and Skills. Retrieved July, 20, 2015 from http://www.dcsf.gov.uk/research/data/uploadfiles/RR380.pdf.

  • de Haan, J. (2001). The definition of moral dilemmas: A logical problem. Ethical Theory and Moral Practice, 4(3), 267–284.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Donagan, A. (1993). Moral dilemmas, genuine and spurious: A comparative anatomy. Ethics, 104(1), 7–21.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dryzek, J. S., & Niemeyer, S. (2006). Reconciling pluralism and consensus as political ideals. American Journal of Political Science, 50(3), 634–649.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fins, J. J., Bacchetta, M. D., & Miller, F. G. (1997). Clinical pragmatism: A method of moral problem solving. Kennedy Institute of Ethics Journal, 7(2), 129–143.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fives, A. (2013a). Non-coercive promotion of values in civic education for democracy. Philosophy and Social Criticism, 39(6), 577–590.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fives, A. (2013b). Political reason: Morality and the public sphere. Houndmills: Palgrave.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fives, A., Russell, D., Kearns, N., Lyons, R., Eaton, P., Canavan, J., Devaney, C., & O’Brien, A. (2013a). The role of random allocation in randomized controlled trials: Distinguishing selection bias from baseline imbalance. Journal of MultiDisciplinary Evaluation, 9(20), 33–42.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fives, A., Kearns, N., Devaney, C., Canavan, J., Russell, D., Lyons, R., Eaton, P., & O’Brien, A. (2013b). A one-to-one programme for at-risk readers delivered by older adult volunteers. Review of Education, 1(3), 254–280.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fives, A., Russell, D., Kearns, N., Lyons, R., Eaton, P., Canavan, J., Devaney, C., & O’Brien, A. (2015). The ethics of randomized controlled trials in social settings: Can social trials be scientifically promising and must there be equipoise? International Journal of Research & Method in Education, 38(1), 56–71.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Foot, P. (2002). Moral dilemmas revisited. In P. Foot (Ed.), Moral dilemmas and other topics in moral philosophy (pp. 175–188). Oxford: Clarendon Press.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Freedman, B. (1987). Equipoise and the ethics of clinical research. New England Journal of Medicine, 317(3), 141–145.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Freedman, B. (1990). Placebo-controlled trials and the logic of clinical purpose. IRB: A Review of Human Subjects Research, 12(6), 1–6.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Freedman, B., Glass, K. C., & Weijer, C. (1996). Placebo orthodoxy in clinical research: II. Ethical, legal, and regulatory myths. Journal of Law, Medicine & Ethics, 24(3), 252–259.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Freeman, S. (2000). Deliberative democracy: A sympathetic comment. Philosophy & Public Affairs, 29(4), 371–418.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fried, C. (1974). Medical experimentation: Personal integrity and social policy. New York: American Elsevier.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ghate, D. (2001). Community-based evaluations in the UK: Scientific concerns and practical constraints. Children and Society, 15(1), 23–32.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hammersley, M. (2008). Paradigm war revived? On the diagnosis of resistance to randomized controlled trials and systematic review in education. International Journal of Research and Method in Education, 31(1), 3–10.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hare, R. M. (1981). Moral thinking: Its levels, method, and point. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Irish Council for Bioethics (ICB). (2004). Operational procedures for research ethics committees: Guidance 2004. Dublin: Irish Council for Bioethics.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jaded, A. (1998). Randomised controlled trials: A user’s guide. London: BMJ Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • Joffe, S., & Miller, F. G. (2008). Bench to bedside: Mapping the moral terrain of clinical research. Hastings Center Report, 38(2), 30–42.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jonsen, A. R. (1995). Casuistry: An alternative or complement to principles? Kennedy Institute of Ethics Journal, 5(3), 237–251.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jonsen, A. R., & Toulmin, S. (1988). The abuse of casuistry: A history of moral reasoning. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Juni, P., Altman, D. G., & Egger, M. (2001). Assessing the quality of controlled clinical trials. British Medical Journal, 323(7303), 42–46.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Meier, J., & Invernizzi, M. (2001). Book buddies in the Bronx: Testing a model for America reads. Journal of Education for Students Placed at Risk, 6(4), 319–333.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Miller, F. G., & Brody, H. (2003). Therapeutic misconception in the ethics of clinical trials. Hastings Center Report, 33(3), 19–28.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Miller, F. G., & Brody, H. (2007). Clinical equipoise and the incoherence of research ethics. Journal of Medicine and Philosophy, 32(2), 151–165.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Miller, P. B., & Weijer, C. (2006). Fiduciary obligation in clinical research. Journal of Law, Medicine & Ethics, 34(2), 424–440.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Miller, P. B., & Weijer, C. (2007). Equipoise and the duty of care in clinical research: A philosophical response to our critics. Journal of Medicine and Philosophy, 32(2), 117–133.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Morrison, K. (2001). Randomised controlled trials for evidence-based education: Some problems in judging “what works”. Evaluation and Research in Education, 15(2), 69–83.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • National Economic and Social Forum (NESF). (2005). Early childhood care and education, Report 31. Dublin: NESF.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pullen, P. C., Lane, H. B., & Monaghan, M. C. (2004). Effects of a volunteer tutoring model on the early literacy development of struggling first grade students. Reading Research and Instruction, 43(4), 21–40.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rawls, J. (1999a [1987]). The idea of an overlapping consensus. In S. Freeman (Ed.), John Rawls: Collected papers (pp. 421–448). Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rawls, J. (1999b [1997]). The idea of public reason revisited. In S. Freeman (Ed.), John Rawls: Collected papers (pp. 573–615). Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Raz, J. (1990). Facing diversity: The case of epistemic abstinence. Philosophy & Public Affairs, 19(1), 3–46.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rimm-Kaufman, S. E., Kagan, J., & Byers, H. (1999). The effectiveness of adult volunteer tutoring on reading among ‘at risk’ first grade children. Reading Research and Instruction, 38(2), 143–152.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Scanlon, T. M. (2002). Reasons, responsibility, and reliance: Replies to Wallace, Dworkin, and Deigh. Ethics, 112(3), 507–528.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shadish, W. R., Cook, T. D., & Campbell, D. T. (2002). Experimental and quasi-experimental designs for generalized causal inferences. Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin Company.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stewart-Brown, S., Anthony, R., Wilson, L., Wintsanley, S., Stallard, N., Snooks, H., & Simkiss, D. (2011). Should randomised controlled trials be the “gold standard” for research on preventive interventions for children? Journal of Children’s Services, 6(4), 228–235.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Thunder, D. (2006). A Rawlsian argument against the duty of civility. American Journal of Political Science, 50(3), 676–690.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Veatch, R. M. (1995). Resolving conflicts among principles: Ranking, balancing, and specifying. Kennedy Institute of Ethics Journal, 5(3), 199–218.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Veatch, R. M. (2007). The irrelevance of equipoise. Journal of Medicine and Philosophy, 32(2), 167–183.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Williams, B. (1965). Ethical consistency. Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society, 39(Suppl.), 103–124.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

I would like to thank the anonymous reviewers for their comments on an earlier draft of this chapter. I would also like to thank Keith Breen, in particular, for his critical insights. I have written on this topic elsewhere, including a number of joint-authored papers with colleagues in the UNESCO Child and Family Research Centre at NUI Galway. I would also like to acknowledge the importance, for my own understanding of this field, of the work of colleagues on the NUI Galway Research Ethics Committee, including Heike Schmidt-Felzmann, Brian McGuire, and Saoirse Nic Gabhainn. Finally, I would like to thank Joseph Mahon for starting my formal education in this area.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. School of Political Science and Sociology and the UNESCO Child and Family Research Centre, at the National University of Ireland, Galway, Republic of Ireland

    Allyn Fives

Authors
  1. Allyn Fives
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Political Science & Sociol, National University of Ireland, Galway, Seershin , Galway, Ireland

    Allyn Fives

  2. Sch Politics, Intl Studies, Queen's University Belfast, Belfast, United Kingdom

    Keith Breen

Copyright information

© 2016 The Editor(s) (if applicable) and The Author(s)

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Fives, A. (2016). Working from Both Ends: The Dual Role of Philosophy in Research Ethics. In: Fives, A., Breen, K. (eds) Philosophy and Political Engagement. International Political Theory. Palgrave Macmillan, London. https://doi.org/10.1057/978-1-137-44587-2_9

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation