 |
 |
I can see why ethical codes like this can be frustrating for individuals involved in qualitative work - and it seems to be the rules are applied so arbitrarily between different institutions. And I agree, my experience is that these codes are generally enforced to stop universities getting their asses sued off. But I do wonder quite how getting someone's permission to be interviewed, informing them of the purposes of the research, and ensuring the subject's anonymity "excludes the very possibility of ethnographic or other qualitative research". What are we saying here, that it's alright to lie about what you're doing? That despite it being the - I think - morally correct thing to do to keep the subject fully informed of what's happening, it gets in the way of a juicy story? -----Original Message----- From: A forum for critical and radical geographers [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Justus Uitermark Sent: 06 October 2006 13:56 To: [log in to unmask] Subject: codes of conduct for research Dear critters, I recently received a message from my department that I'm required to sign a code of conduct for the collection, processing and presentation of data. I did some quick research and found out that all permanent employees were automatically subject to this code. İt is, in fact, a specification a law that protects the privacy of individuals. All temporary employees (including PhD-students like myself) have to sign it. I would like to ask list members to share negative, neutral or positive experiences with such codes or the institutions that enforce them, either privately or via the list. Some background: I am very concerned about the ethics of research but I have big problems with this code since it is: - imposed from above; - contains numerous vague statements. For example, we can share data with other people provided that we have made 'sufficient' effort to ensure that they 'know about' the code. What is sufficient seems quite arbitrary to me and also I wonder what happens if others know about the code but have not signed it; - it appears to exclude since individuals (or their parents) have to consent to being researched prior to the investigation, should be fully informed of the purposes of the research and only information that has been provided with their full knowledge can be used for research. Before publication everything that could identify the persons in question should be removed; - apparently without consequences. There is no agency that will enforce the code. For the next 3 years they will only register complaints; - no real (or for that matter: ethical) reasons are given to sign the code. The only reason I heard is that it allows researchers to use each others data for educational purposes but ironically this contradicts a statement in the code (data will only be used for research, i.e. a publication, i.e. not for education). I fear that in reality this code will lead to more bureaucracy and a separation of ethical considerations and research practice. I mean that I can imagine that ethical research is equated with research that conforms to the letter of the code and that real ethical questions are evaded because of it. Alternatively, it could be that the code remains a dead letter and that people continue their research as they do now. But then again, it may happen at some point that the rules are enforced. My suspicions only grow stronger because of some experiences I heard from people abroad, especially in Australia and the US (to simplify: ethics is in reality more or less the same as avoiding a court case and ethics commissions take months to approve a plan before the researcher can proceed without making a single change). Thanks a lot in advance, Very best wishes Justus --------------------------------------------- Dit bericht is verzonden via Postbakje Free. http://www.postbakje.nl/ - Gratis WebMail