Skip to main content

Ethically important moments – a pragmatic-dualist research ethics

A pragmatic-dualist research ethics

Journal of Academic Ethics volume 19, pages 279–289 (2021)Cite this article

Abstract

This article analyses and discusses dilemmas, ambivalences and problematic issues related to research ethics. This is done firstly by making a distinction between procedural research ethics and particularistic research ethics. Such a distinction reflects a theoretical construction and generalization. In practice, there can be a very close correlation between the two types. In the following, the distinction will therefore be used as a starting point for the presentation of a pragmatic-dualist research ethics. The approach is dualist because it draws on the presence of two independent, contrasting understandings, which are essentially different yet equal aspects of good research ethics; it is pragmatic because this dualism is structural and institutional by nature, and designed with an eye to what can realistically and expediently be done in practice. Thus the intention of the article is to both analyze and discuss two different understandings of research ethics and simultaneously qualify a research ethics that draws on both of these understandings. Furthermore, the intention is to visualize a different understanding of research ethics which others can address and elaborate on or qualify. Even at this point, this research ethic can be included in a catalogue of understandings of ethical research practice an can be exploited in ethical research practice.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

Access options

Buy single article

Instant access to the full article PDF.

USD 39.95

Price includes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Notes

  1. The title and the introductory framing draw on Niels Lehmann’s discussion of the concept of Bildung as a ‘pragmatic dualism’ between rationality and the criticism of rationality (Lehmann 2002: 257–275). The title “Ethically important moments” is indepted to Guillemin and Gillam 2004.

  2. The procedure is indebted to Strand and Slettebø 2012.

References

  • Aitken, R. (2003). The democratic method of obtaining capital – Culture, governmentality and ethics of mass investment. Consumption Markets & Culture, 6(4), 293–317.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ajana, B. (2008). In Defence of Poststructural ethics in sociological praxis. Enquire, 1(1), 1–8.

    Google Scholar 

  • Aluwihare-Samaranayake, D. (2012). Ethics in qualitative research: A view of the participants’ and researchers’ world from a critical standpoint. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 11(2), 64–81. https://doi.org/10.1177/160940691201100208.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brandt, A. M. (1978). Racism and research: The case of the Tuskegee syphilis study. The Hastings Center Report, 8(6), 21–29. https://doi.org/10.2307/3561468.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brandstrup, M. (2016). Et feltarbejde i Pusherstreet – om indgang, adgang og forskningsetik. Masters Thesis, University of Copenhagen.

  • Campbell, D., & Shapiro, M. (1999). Introduction: From ethical theory to the ethical relation. In D. Campbell & M. Shapiro (Eds.), Moral spaces: Rethinking ethics and world politics (pp. vii–xx). Minneapolis: University of Minnesota.

    Google Scholar 

  • Canelle, G. S., & Lincoln, Y. S. (2016). Critical qualitative research in global neoliberalism. In N. K. Denzin & M. D. Giardina (Eds.), Qualitative inquiry and the politics of research (pp. 51–74). New York: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Capron, A. M. (1989). Human experimentation. In R. M. Veatch (Ed.), Medical ethics (pp. 125–172). Boston: Jones & Bartlett.

    Google Scholar 

  • Denzin, N. K., & Giardina, M. D. (2007). Decolonizing and politics of knowledge: Ethicalfutures in qualitative research. California: Left Coast Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dutton, D. B. (1988). Worse than the disease: Pitfalls of medical progress. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1016/0008-6215(88)80051-x.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Fangen, K. (1998a). Fangens dilemma. Nytt Norsk Tidsskrift, 15(3), 257–269.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fangen, K. (1998b). Right-wing skinheads: Nostalgia and binary oppositions. Nordic Journal of Youth Research, 6(3), 33–49.

    Google Scholar 

  • Field, P. A., & Morse, J. M. (1992). Nursing research. The application of qualitative approaches. London: Chapman & Hall. https://doi.org/10.1021/ac00048a013.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Franzen, J. (1996). How to be alone. London: Macmillan. https://doi.org/10.3109/02844319609056404.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Fink, H. (2003). Universitetsfagenes etik. In H. Fink, P. C. Kjærgaard, H. Kragh, & J. E. Kristensen (Eds.), Universitet og videnskab (pp. 193–221). København: Hans Reitzels Forlag.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gray, F. D. (1998). The Tuskegee syphilis study: The real story and beyond. Montgomery: NewSouth Books. https://doi.org/10.1364/ao.37.006037.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Guillemin, M., & Gillam, L. (2006). Telling moments: Everyday ethics in health care. East Hawthorn, Australia: IP Communications. https://doi.org/10.1159/000095520.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Guillemin, M., & Gillam, L. (2004). Ethics, reflexivity, and “ethically important moments”. Research Qualitative Inquiry, 10(2), 261–280.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Haimes, E. (2002). What can the social sciences contribute to the study of ethics? Theoretical, empirical and substantive considerations. Bioethics, 6(2), 89–113.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Halai, A. (2006). Ethics dilemmas in qualitative research. HEC News & Views, 2-4. Retrieved 06.03.17 from http://www.edqual.org/publications/workingpaper/edqualwp4.pdf

  • Howarth, G. (1993). Investigating Deathwork: A personal account. In D. Clark (Ed.), The sociology of death: Theory, culture, practice (pp. 221–237). London: Blackwell Publishers.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kellehear, A. (1996). Unobtrusive methods in delicate situations. In J. Daly (Ed.), Ethical intersections: Health research, methods and researcher responsibility (pp. 97–105). Sydney, Australia: Allen & Unwin.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lehmann, N. (2002). Pragmatisk dualisme: dannelse mellem rationalitet og rationalitetskritik. In M. B. Johansen (Ed.), Dannelse (pp. 257–275). Aarhus: Aarhus Universitetsforlag.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mason, J. (1996). Qualitative researching. London: Sage. https://doi.org/10.7870/cjcmh-1996-0015.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Mauthner, M., & Birch, M. (2002). Ethics in qualitative research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Meskell, L., & Pels, P. (Eds.). (2005). Embedding ethics: Shifting boundaries of the anthropological profession. Oxford, GB: Berg Publishers.

    Google Scholar 

  • Miller, T., & Boulton, M. (2007). Changing constructions of informed consent: Qualitative research and complex social worlds. Social Science & Medicine, 65(11), 2199–2211. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.socscimed.2007.08.009.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Orb, A., Eisenhauer, L., & Wynaden, D. (2001). Ethics in qualitative research. Journal of Nursing Scholarship, 33(1), 93–96. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1547-5069.2001.00093.x.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pels, P. (1999). Professions of Duplexity: A prehistory of ethical codes in anthropology. Current Anthropology, 40(2), 101–136. https://doi.org/10.1086/200001.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Popke, J. (2003). Poststructuralist ethics: Subjectivity, responsibility and the space of community. Progress in Human Geography, 27(3), 298–316.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Redwood, S. (2005). Colliding discourses: Deconstructing the process of seeking ethical approval for a participatory evaluation project. Journal of Research in Nursing, 10(2), 217–230.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rosenthal, R., & Jacobson, L. (1968). Pygmalion in the classroom. In Pygmalion in the classroom: Teacher expectation and pupils’ intellectual development. New York/London: Holt, Rinehart and Winston. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.1968.03150130051017.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Samaras, A. P. (2011). Self-study teacher research: Improving your practice through collaborative inquiry. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Skovdal, M., & Abebe, T. (2012). Reflexivity and dialogue: Methodological and socio-ethical dilemmas in research with HIV-affected children in East Africa. Ethics, Policy & Environment, 15(1), 77–96. https://doi.org/10.1080/21550085.2012.672691.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shavers, V. L., Lynch, C. F., & Burmeister, L. F. (2000). Knowledge of the Tuskegee study and its impact on the willingness to participate in medical research studies. Journal of the National Medical Association, 92(12), 563–572.

    Google Scholar 

  • Steinmetz, G. (2005). Scientific authority and the transition to post-Fordism: The plausibility of positivism in U.S. sociology since 1945. In The Politics of Method in The Human Sciences (Ed.), Steinmetz, G (pp. 275–323). London: Duke University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Strand, P. O., & Slettebø, Å. (2012). Grunnleggende verdier, moral og etikk. Oslo: Politidirektoratet. Retrieved 06.03.17 from https://www.politi.no/vedlegg/rapport/Vedlegg_1939.pdf. https://doi.org/10.4161/jig.23749.

  • Thompson, F. E. (2002). Moving from codes of ethics to ethical relationships for midwifery practice. Nurse Ethics, 9(5), 522–536.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tjørnhøj-Thomsen, T. (2003). Samværet. Tilblivelser i tid og rum. In K. Hastrup (Ed.), Ind i Verden. En grundbog i antropologisk metode (pp. 93–115). København: Hans Reitzels Forlag.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tjørnhøj-Thomsen, T. & Hansen, H.P. (2009). Overskridelsens etik. In Hastrup, K. (Ed.), Mellem Mennesker. En grundbog i antropologisk forskningsetik, 223–248. København: Hans Reitzels Forlag.

  • Webster, A., Boulton, M., Brown, N. & Lewis, G. (2004). Crossing boundaries: Social science, health and bioscience research and the process of ethics review. Retrieved 06.03.17 from http://www.york.ac.uk/res/ref/docs/REFpaper1_v2.pdf.

  • Zion, D., Gillam, L., & Loff, B. (2000). The declaration of Helsinki, CIOMS and ethics of research on vulnerable populations. Nature Medicine, 6(6), 615–617. https://doi.org/10.1038/76174.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Faculty of Education and Social Studies, VIA University College, Aarhus, Denmark, Ceresbyen 24, 8000, Aarhus C, Denmark

    Martin Blok Johansen

  2. Department of Communication, University of Copenhagen, Denmark, Karen Blixens Plads 8, 2300, København S, Denmark

    Jan Thorhauge Frederiksen

Authors
  1. Martin Blok Johansen
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Jan Thorhauge Frederiksen
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Martin Blok Johansen.

Additional information

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Johansen, M.B., Frederiksen, J.T. Ethically important moments – a pragmatic-dualist research ethics. J Acad Ethics 19, 279–289 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10805-020-09377-y

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10805-020-09377-y

Keywords

  • Research ethics
  • Procedural
  • Particularistic
  • Pragmatic-dualist