Studies in Philosophy and Education

, Volume 34, Issue 2, pp 217–228 | Cite as

Ethical and Epistemic Dilemmas in Empirically-Engaged Philosophy of Education

Article

Abstract

This essay examines several ethical and epistemological issues that arise when philosophers conduct empirical research focused on, or in collaboration with, community groups seeking to bring about systemic change. This type of research can yield important policy lessons about effective community-driven reform and how to incorporate the voices of marginalized citizens in public policy debates. Community-based reform efforts are also particularly ripe for philosophical analysis since they can demonstrate the strengths and shortcomings of democratic and egalitarian ideals. This type of research also raises unique ethical dilemmas that challenge central tenets of research ethics. We focus on two foundational questions: What does informed consent mean in the context of community-based research (CBR) when CBR may dissolve differences between researcher and research participant, and its parameters can be hard to delineate? And what ethical, democratic, and epistemic issues arise when conducting research with and on community groups, given potentially competing commitments to respect the epistemological contributions of all participants while also meeting research norms to warrant findings and conclusions? Our examination has two aspects: we grapple with these issues through examples from our work to reveal their significance in our own philosophic practice, and more broadly, to reveal their significance as problems within traditional research ethics. We believe that this approach will demonstrate the utility of philosophic engagement with dilemmas in research ethics as a reflective matter, and in the course of empirical research itself.

Keywords

Community-based research Ethics Epistemology Democratic theory Research ethics Informed consent 

References

  1. Allen, D. S., & Reich, R. (Eds.). (2013). Education, justice and democracy. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  2. Beckett, L., Glass, R. D., & Moreno, A. P. (2012). A pedagogy of community building: Re-imagining parent involvement and community organizing in popular education efforts. Journal of the Association of Mexican American Educators, 6(2), 5–14.Google Scholar
  3. Bowles, S., Gintis, H., & Groves, M. O. (Eds.). (2008). Unequal chances: Family background and economic success. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  4. Brydon-Miller, M. (2008). Ethics and action research: Deepening our commitment to principles of social justice and democratic practice. In P. Reason & H. Bradbury (Eds.), The Sage handbook of action research (pp. 199–210). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  5. Brydon-Miller, M. (2009). Covenantal ethics and action research. In D. M. Mertens & P. E. Ginsberg (Eds.), The handbook of social research ethics (pp. 243–258). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Buchanan, A. E., & Brock, D. W. (1989). Deciding for others: The ethics of surrogate decision making. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  7. Calhoun, C. (Ed.). (1992). Habermas and the public sphere. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  8. Chambers, S. (2003). Deliberative democratic theory. Annual Review of Political Science, 6, 307–326.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Church, K., Bascia, N., & Shragge, E. (Eds.). (2008). Learning through community: Exploring participatory practices. London: Springer.Google Scholar
  10. Cottrell, B., & Parpart, J. (2006). Academic-community collaboration, gender research, and development: Pitfalls and possibilities. Development in Practice, 16(1), 15–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Eckenwiler, L., Feinholz, D., Ells, C., & Schonfeld, T. (2008). The Declaration of Helsinki through a feminist lens. International Journal of Feminist Approaches to Bioethics, 1(1), 161–177.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Faden, R., & Beauchamp, T. (1986). A theory and history of informed consent. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  13. Fraser, N. (1990). Rethinking the public sphere: A contribution to the critique of actually existing democracy. Social Text, 25(26), 56–80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Freire, P. (1970). Pedagogy of the oppressed. New York: Seabury.Google Scholar
  15. Kirsch, G. E. (1999). Ethical dilemmas in feminist research: The politics of location, interpretation, and publication. Albany: State University of New York Press.Google Scholar
  16. Malone, R., et al. (2006). “It’s Like Tuskegee in Reverse”: A case study of ethical tensions in Institutional Review Board review of community-based participatory research. American Journal of Public Health, 96(11), 1914–1919.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. McLaughlin, M., Scott, W. R., Deschenes, S., Hopkins, K., & Newman, A. (2009). Between movement and establishment: Organizations advocating for youth. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Nelson, L. H. (1993). Epistemological communities. In L. Alcoff & E. Potter (Eds.), Feminist epistemologies (pp. 49–82). New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  19. Newman, A. (2013). Realizing educational rights: Advancing school reform through courts and communities. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Newman, A., & Glass, R. D. (2014). Comparing ethical and epistemic standards for investigative journalists and equity-oriented collaborative community-based researchers: Why working for a university matters. The Journal of Higher Education, 85(3), 283–311.Google Scholar
  21. Rawls, J. (1999). A theory of justice (Rev ed.). Cambridge, MA: The Belknap Press.Google Scholar
  22. Sanders, L. (1997). Against deliberation. Political Theory, 25(3), 347–376.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Schrag, Z. M. (2010). Ethical imperialism: Institutional review boards and the social sciences, 1965–2009. Baltimore, MD: The Johns Hopkins University Press.Google Scholar
  24. Young, I. M. (2000). Inclusion and democracy. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  25. Young, I. M. (2001). Activist challenges to deliberative democracy. Political Theory, 29(5), 670–690.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.University of California Center for Collaborative Research for an Equitable CaliforniaUniversity of CaliforniaSanta CruzUSA

Personalised recommendations