Ethics in Critical Research: Stories from the Field

  • Catriona Ida MacleodEmail author
  • Jacqueline Marx
  • Phindezwa Mnyaka
  • Gareth J. Treharne


In this chapter we introduce the approaches to ethics in critical research applied throughout this handbook. Critical research questions who benefits from research and offers critiques rooted in postmodern and liberatory theories, including feminism, Marxism, and postcolonialism. Authors of chapters in the handbook explore ethical issues faced when conducting critical research through stories from the field across a range of methodologies, disciplines, and locations. The chapter overviews the four sections of the handbook and the ethical challenges associated with conducting critical research within the bureaucracy of ethics committees and other systems of governance, blurring the boundaries between researchers and participants/co-researchers, giving voice through research whilst applying anonymity or naming participants/co-researchers, and conducting research with various configurations of power between researchers and participants/co-researchers.


Critical Inquiry fieldField Principlism Ethics Committeesethics Committee Critical Researchers 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


  1. Baines, P. (2008). Medical ethics for children: Applying the four principles to paediatrics. Journal of Medical Ethics, 34(3), 141–145. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. Baum, M. (1994). The four principles may clash. British Medical Journal, 309(6962), 1159–1160. Retrieved from
  3. Beauchamp, T. (1995). Principlism and its alleged competitors. Kennedy Institute of Ethics Journal, 5(3), 181–198. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. Beauchamp, T. (2010). Standing on principles: Collected essays. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  5. Beauchamp, T., & Childress, J. (2009). Principles of biomedical ethics (6th ed.). New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  6. Clouser, D., & Gert, B. (1990). A critique of principlism. The Journal of Medicine and Philosophy: A Forum for Bioethics and Philosophy of Medicine, 15(2), 219–236. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Dawson, A., & Garrard, E. (2006). In defence of moral imperialism: Four equal and universal prima facie principles. Journal of Medical Ethics, 32(4), 200–204. CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  8. Evans, J. (2000). A sociological account of the growth of principlism. Hastings Center Report, 30(5), 31–39. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. Fairchild, A. L., & Bayer, R. (1999). Uses and abuses of Tuskegee. Science, 284(5416), 919–921.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Finlay, L. (2002). “Outing” the researcher: The provenance, process, and practice of reflexivity. Qualitative Health Research, 12(4), 531–545.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Foster, D. (2008). Critical psychology: A historical overview. In D. Painter & C. Van Ommen (Eds.), Interiors: A history of psychology in South Africa (pp. 92–122). Pretoria: Unisa Press.Google Scholar
  12. Israel, M., & Hay, I. (2006). Research ethics for social scientists: Between ethical conduct and regulatory compliance. London: Sage.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Lyons, A. C., & Chamberlain, K. (2006). Health psychology: A critical introduction. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Murray, M. (Ed.). (2014). Critical health psychology (2nd ed.). London: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
  15. National Commission for the Protection of Human Subjects of Biomedical and Behavioral Research. (1978). The Belmont report: Ethical principles and guidelines for the protection of human subjects of research. Washington, DC: United States Government Printing Office. Retrieved September 7, 2017, from
  16. Nuremberg Code. (1947/1949). Trials of War Criminals before the Nuremberg Military Tribunals under Control Council Law No. 10. Vol. 2, pp. 181–182. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.Google Scholar
  17. Painter, D., Kiguwa, P., & Böhmke, W. (2013). Contexts and continuities of critique: Reflections on the current state of critical psychology in South Africa. Annual Review of Critical Psychology, 13, 849–869.Google Scholar
  18. Piper, H., & Simons, H. (2005). Ethical responsibility in social research. In B. Somekh & C. Lewin (Eds.), Research methods in the social sciences (pp. 56–63). London: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
  19. Posel, D., & Ross, F. C. (2014). Opening up the quandaries of research ethics: Beyond the formalities of institutional ethical review. In D. Posel & F. C. Ross (Eds.), Ethical Quandaries in Social Research (pp. 1–26). Pretoria: HSRC Press.Google Scholar
  20. Simons, H., & Usher, R. (Eds.). (2000). Situated ethics in educational research. London: Psychology Press.Google Scholar
  21. Usher, P. (2000). Feminist approaches to a situated ethics. In H. Simons & R. Usher (Eds.), Situated ethics in educational research (pp. 22–38). London: Psychology Press.Google Scholar
  22. World Medical Association. (1964). Declaration of Helsinki: Ethical principles for medical research involving human subjects. Retrieved September 7, 2017, from

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Catriona Ida Macleod
    • 1
    Email author
  • Jacqueline Marx
    • 1
  • Phindezwa Mnyaka
    • 2
  • Gareth J. Treharne
    • 3
  1. 1.Critical Studies in Sexualities and Reproduction, Department of PsychologyRhodes UniversityGrahamstownSouth Africa
  2. 2.Department of HistoryUniversity of the Western CapeBellvilleSouth Africa
  3. 3.University of OtagoDunedinNew Zealand

Personalised recommendations