dc.contributor |
Háskóli Íslands |
dc.contributor |
University of Iceland |
dc.contributor.author |
Stefansdottir, Astridur |
dc.date.accessioned |
2017-04-27T10:35:18Z |
dc.date.available |
2017-04-27T10:35:18Z |
dc.date.issued |
2013-12-31 |
dc.identifier.citation |
Ástriður Stefánsdóttir. (2013). Eigindlegar rannsóknir og siðferðileg álitamál. Netla – Veftímarit um uppeldi og menntun: Sérrit 2013 – Rannsóknir og skólastarf. Menntavísindasvið Háskóla Íslands. Sótt af http://netla.hi.is/serrit/2013/rannsoknir_og_skolastarf/002.pdf |
dc.identifier.issn |
1670-0244 |
dc.identifier.uri |
https://hdl.handle.net/20.500.11815/242 |
dc.description.abstract |
Í þessari grein fæst ég við þrjár meginspurningar. Í fyrsta lagi: Hvernig birtast
siðferðileg álitamál í eigindlegum rannsóknum? Í öðru lagi: Eru þau að einhverju
leyti frábrugðin siðferðilegum álitamálum við íhlutunarrannsóknir í læknisfræði?
Og í þriðja lagi: Getur núverandi regluverk í siðfræði rannsókna á Íslandi gilt um
allar eigindlegar rannsóknir á fólki?
Í íslenskri löggjöf er einungis gert ráð fyrir að rannsóknaráætlanir á heilbrigðissviði
skuli metnar af siðanefnd áður en þeim er hrint í framkvæmd. Þær reglur sem siðanefndir
vinna eftir við siðferðilegt mat slíkra áætlana hafa einkum þróast sem andsvar
við þeirri áhættu sem þátttakandi getur verið útsettur fyrir í íhlutunarrannsóknum
innan læknisfræði. Í greininni lýsi ég þeim siðferðilegu álitamálum sem vakna í
eigindlegum rannsóknum og nefni dæmi um hvernig þau geta skorið sig frá þeim
álitamálum sem glíma þarf við þegar til dæmis eru gerðar lyfjarannsóknir eða aðrar
íhlutunarrannsóknir á fólki innan heilbrigðisvísinda.
Með því að draga fram þann mun, sem er á þessum tveimur rannsóknaraðferðum,
vakna alvarlegar efasemdir um að núverandi vinnureglur um siðfræði rannsókna á
fólki geti þjónað ákveðnum tegundum eigindlegra rannsókna sem skildi. |
dc.description.abstract |
My experience in reviewing and participating in social science research projects
and being a member of various institutional review boards (IRBs) in the health
sciences has alerted me to the fact that the current framework for research ethics
in Iceland may not be sensitive enough to the special moral issues that arise in
the social sciences. The type of research that particularly concerns me is qualitative
research. I refer in this article to examples from children’s research and
disability research and to methodologies like inclusive research, life history research
and action research. Such research is often based on close collaboration
between the researcher and the participant. I believe that the relationship that
develops in these kinds of research studies may be of an ethically different kind
than that which develops between a researcher and participant in, for instance,
drug trials in the health sciences. In Iceland, the current ethical framework and regulations regarding research on human subjects is mainly based on the latter
model of researcher/participant relationship. I therefore wonder whether there is
not a real danger that the ethical issues linked with the use of qualitative methods
will be overlooked or not responded to in the right manner.
In this article, I address three main questions: First, what types of ethical concerns
do arise in qualitative research? Second, are these ethical concerns different
from ethical issues that arise in intervention studies, such as clinical trials
in medicine? And third, could existing regulation in research ethics in Iceland
serve adequately all types of qualitative research on human subjects?
To approach these questions, I begin by outlining the historical roots and main
principles in research ethics. I briefly describe the international agreements and
laws which the Icelandic Bioethics committee – the only IRB in Iceland based in
Icelandic law – draws on in its work. To analyze whether these regulations are
likely to be helpful and sufficient when reviewing research on humans in social
sciences, I look especially into the nature of the relationship between researchers
and participants in different research traditions. My suggestion is that the
nature of these relationships and different research aims can impact the ethical
issues that may arise during the course of the research. Hence, I compare two
types of methodology in research: first, medical research, e.g. pharmacological
clinical trials, and second, qualitative research, and I analyze the difference of the
relationships in these research traditions.
I further look specifically into the primary ethical concerns and nuances of qualitative
research. To do so, I concentrate on issues regarding both the balance
between responsibility and duties, as well as on the aim of the research. I analyze
these issues by looking especially at protection of the participant, the relationship
between the researcher and the participant and the tension between social
justice and the methodological validity of the research. In evaluating these
issues, I refer to basic ethical values in science: autonomy and respect for the
participant, welfare of participants and society as well as justice and true or valid
knowledge. This gives rise to ethical questions that are in many ways different
from those asked within traditional research on human subjects in medicine.
My conclusion is that these questions have not been addressed properly in the
current regulations governing research ethics. |
dc.format.extent |
1-17 |
dc.language.iso |
is |
dc.publisher |
Menntavísindasvið Háskóla Íslands |
dc.relation.ispartofseries |
Netla; |
dc.rights |
info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccess |
dc.subject |
Eigindlegar rannsóknir |
dc.subject |
Siðferði |
dc.subject |
Rannsóknir |
dc.subject |
Félagsvísindi |
dc.subject |
Ábyrgð |
dc.title |
Eigindlegar rannsóknir og siðferðileg álitamál |
dc.title.alternative |
Ethical concerns in qualitative research |
dc.type |
info:eu-repo/semantics/article |
dc.description.version |
Ritrýnd grein |
dc.description.version |
Peer Reviewed |
dc.identifier.journal |
Netla |
dc.relation.url |
http://netla.hi.is/serrit/2013/rannsoknir_og_skolastarf/002.pdf |
dc.contributor.school |
Menntavísindasvið (HÍ) |
dc.contributor.school |
School of Education (UI) |