Good Ethics Can Sometimes Mean Better Science: Research Ethics and the Milgram Experiments

Research ethics is concerned with ethical issues that can arise while conducting research. Social science research entails a combination of three equal entities: process, context and human agency. In each study, these entities demand rich interaction with each other. Generally, research ethics questions the interrelation between the research context and the human involvement established within that context. The research context and interaction between researcher and research participants lead to variations in the construction of knowledge, while research ethics plays a major role throughout all undertakings. In this narrative review paper, I have critically reflected my arguments on behalf of research ethics as a context-specific issue. I argued that the one-size-fits-all approach of research ethics is not viable by presenting ethical practices from the South Asian perspective. The paper is organized in three specific sections – ethical theories, research ethics and its contextual practices. Research ethics is very much a private affair and directly linked to the personal outlook of the researcher towards others. The ethical issue in research is not generic, but specific to the research context, i.e. the context of the research determines what form of behaviour is ethical and what is not. I explore the idea that the South Asian context may have its own system to conduct research ethically, as in euro-western and indigenous systems.

Download Full-text

Social science ethics: the changing context for research

Clinical Ethics ◽

10.1258/147775006776173327 ◽

2006 ◽

Vol 1 (1) ◽

pp. 39-40 ◽

Cited By ~ 1

Author(s):

Andrew Webster

Keyword(s):

Social Science ◽

Research Ethics ◽

Social Science Research ◽

Science Research ◽

Science Ethics ◽

Ethics Framework ◽

Ethical Content ◽

Recent Developments ◽

New Research ◽

The Way

This article looks at recent developments that have had an impact upon the way in which the ethical content of research is judged. It then goes on to look in some detail at the guidance offered to social science researchers in the Economic and Social Science Research Council's new Research Ethics Framework.

Download Full-text

Why the Biomedical Research Ethics Model Is Inappropriate for Social Sciences: A Response to ‘Responsible to Whom? Obligations to Participants and Society in Social Science Research’ by Matt Sleat

Finding Common Ground: Consensus in Research Ethics Across the Social Sciences - Advances in Research Ethics and Integrity ◽

10.1108/s2398-601820170000001006 ◽

2017 ◽

pp. 55-60

Author(s):

Kenneth M. Boyd

Keyword(s):

Social Sciences ◽

Social Science ◽

Research Ethics ◽

Biomedical Research ◽

Social Science Research ◽

Science Research

Download Full-text

TRENDS: Toward a Separate Ethics of Political Field Experiments

Political Research Quarterly ◽

10.1177/1065912919835970 ◽

2019 ◽

Vol 72 (3) ◽

pp. 527-538 ◽

Cited By ~ 2

Author(s):

Gregory Whitfield

Keyword(s):

Research Ethics ◽

Political Science ◽

Biomedical Research ◽

Field Experiments ◽

Science Research ◽

Political Research ◽

Research Designs ◽

Principles Of Justice ◽

State Of Research ◽

Political Norms

In this article, I develop a critical view of the development and state of research ethics in political science. The central problem is that political scientists have inappropriately followed the lead of clinical biomedical research ethics in thinking about their own designs. Specifically I argue that the focus on institutional and group decision-making contexts distinctive to political research presents normative problems not well-addressed by clinical biomedical approaches. First, I make the case that research ethics as it has been conceived won’t capture all that might be wrong in political research designs because some of the potential harms/wrongs will be to political norms and institutions and thus will violate political (although not individual ethical) rights/values/and so on. Second, I rebut the challenge that principles of justice and equipoise standard to biomedical research ethics might be suitable for political research. And third, I argue that political theorists and philosophers must involve themselves in empirical political science research ethics if we are to effectively communicate the stakes of these research designs to practitioners, consumers, funders, and editors who remain steeped in the norms of biomedical research ethics.

Download Full-text

The introduction of research ethics review procedures at a university in South Africa: review outcomes of a social science research ethics committee

Research Ethics ◽

10.1177/1747016119898408 ◽

2020 ◽

Vol 16 (1-2) ◽

pp. 1-26

Author(s):

Simeon EH Davies

Keyword(s):

Social Science ◽

Research Ethics ◽

South African ◽

Ethics Education ◽

Critical Role ◽

Social Science Research ◽

Science Research ◽

Ethics Committee ◽

Research Ethics Committee ◽

Education Training

The research ethics committee (REC) is a key element of university administration and has gained increasing importance as a review mechanism for those institutions that wish to conduct responsible research, along with safeguarding research ethics standards, scientific merit and human rights of participants. Given the critical role of the university REC, it is argued that there is a need to assesses and understand the work of RECs to identify areas for improvement and thus focus on capacity building to respond to the escalating volume, type and complexity of research. This paper reports on the research ethics outcomes of a social science REC in a Business Faculty at a South African university during its seminal period of operation (2010–2015). Content methodology and a standardised questionnaire were used to assess the REC. The results show the increasing workload of the REC with favourable scores for submission/review processes and minute-taking. However, lower scores were seen for ethics education/training and tracking previously approved research. These shortcomings appear to be related to inadequate funding and resource support for research ethics education/training and administrative structures. Factors contributing to proposal rejections included weak research questions or hypotheses, poor questionnaires/interview schedule design and inadequate research ethics consideration in the proposal. It is argued that the complexity and escalation of research submissions to South African RECs necessitates that they are appropriately developed and capacitated to enhance their utility and thereby support the research mandate of universities.

Download Full-text