Reading Knight's chapter this week, along with the UofT guidelines on ethical research, I couldn't help but feel that there is an awful lot of room for interpretation for what constitutes ethical research. While there are some principles that seem set in stone, such as confidentiality and informed consent, there are plenty more that seem up to leave a lot of room for flexibility on the part of the researcher.
Knight outlines several examples in which a researcher might ignore certain ethical conventions because they disagree with them (such as not attempting to directly assist subjects) and yet their research is potentially still as valid as someone who followed the conventions to the letter. The majority of the ethical research guidelines seem like they could be summarized as "think about it, and then do what you think is best". As long as you're always honest and use a little common sense, it seems that almost any action taken can be defended somewhere in the UofT guidelines. Maybe the key is just reminding researchers to always use their conscience when conducting research.
No comments:
Post a Comment