Abstract
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.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Notes
- 1.
The bodies tasked with reviewing research ethics prior to researchers’ engagement in the field have different names, depending on context. In this handbook, authors have been free to use the names pertinent to their context (e.g., Internal Review Board in the United States). We use a generic term, ethics committees , in our introductions and conclusions.
References
Baines, P. (2008). Medical ethics for children: Applying the four principles to paediatrics. Journal of Medical Ethics, 34(3), 141–145. https://doi.org/10.1136/jme.2006.018747
Baum, M. (1994). The four principles may clash. British Medical Journal, 309(6962), 1159–1160. Retrieved from http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2541918/
Beauchamp, T. (1995). Principlism and its alleged competitors. Kennedy Institute of Ethics Journal, 5(3), 181–198. https://doi.org/10.1353/ken.0.0111
Beauchamp, T. (2010). Standing on principles: Collected essays. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Beauchamp, T., & Childress, J. (2009). Principles of biomedical ethics (6th ed.). New York: Oxford University Press.
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. https://doi.org/10.1093/jmp/15.2.219
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. https://doi.org/10.1136/jme.2005.012591
Evans, J. (2000). A sociological account of the growth of principlism. Hastings Center Report, 30(5), 31–39. https://doi.org/10.2307/3527886
Fairchild, A. L., & Bayer, R. (1999). Uses and abuses of Tuskegee. Science, 284(5416), 919–921.
Finlay, L. (2002). “Outing” the researcher: The provenance, process, and practice of reflexivity. Qualitative Health Research, 12(4), 531–545.
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.
Israel, M., & Hay, I. (2006). Research ethics for social scientists: Between ethical conduct and regulatory compliance. London: Sage.
Lyons, A. C., & Chamberlain, K. (2006). Health psychology: A critical introduction. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Murray, M. (Ed.). (2014). Critical health psychology (2nd ed.). London: Palgrave Macmillan.
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 https://videocast.nih.gov/pdf/ohrp_belmont_report.pdf
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.
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.
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.
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.
Simons, H., & Usher, R. (Eds.). (2000). Situated ethics in educational research. London: Psychology Press.
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.
World Medical Association. (1964). Declaration of Helsinki: Ethical principles for medical research involving human subjects. Retrieved September 7, 2017, from https://www.wma.net/policies-post/wma-declaration-of-helsinki-ethical-principles-for-medical-research-involving-human-subjects/
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2018 The Author(s)
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Macleod, C.I., Marx, J., Mnyaka, P., Treharne, G.J. (2018). Ethics in Critical Research: Stories from the Field. In: Macleod, C., Marx, J., Mnyaka, P., Treharne, G. (eds) The Palgrave Handbook of Ethics in Critical Research. Palgrave Macmillan, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-74721-7_1
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-74721-7_1
Published:
Publisher Name: Palgrave Macmillan, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-319-74720-0
Online ISBN: 978-3-319-74721-7
eBook Packages: Behavioral Science and PsychologyBehavioral Science and Psychology (R0)