Ética e deontologia no exercício da sociologia. Novos desafios

Abstract

Este artigo constitui uma abordagem exploratória ao tema da ética e da deontologia em Sociologia. A partir do repto feito pela Direcção da Associação Portuguesa de Sociologia ao seu Conselho Deontológico para proceder à revisão do código que regulamenta a actividade científico-profissional dos sociólogos em Portugal, este ensaio tem por objectivo identificar alguns dos desafios que hoje se colocam ao exercício desta actividade e que urge ver equacionados nessa actualização normativa. O suporte empírico desta reflexão baseia-se na recolha e análise documental de regulamentos deontológicos em Ciências Sociais afins, bem como das cartas de princípios éticos elaboradas pelas principais associações europeia e internacional de sociólogos. Este confronto comparativo permite delimitar um conjunto de nove temas dilemáticos e uma sugestão final, que pretendem ser contributos para desencadear um debate alargado à comunidade de sociólogos sobre ética e deontologia profissional.

Data Protection in Sociological Health Research: A Critical Narrative about the Challenges of a New Regulatory Landscape

“…This means that the return of the first round of invitations did not reach the number of participants foreseen in the sample design of our project (n = 750) 3 . While this is not entirely unexpected, given the increasing number of studies with multiple attempts to attract individuals, it indeed confirms a trend of decreasing willingness to participate in academic research (Sappleton and Lourenço, 2016;Van Mol, 2017;Vercruyssen et al, 2014;Vieira et al, 2020).…”

“…To this extent, it can be argued that the implementation of the GDPR only accentuated the constraints currently imposed on the multiple modalities of development of scientific knowledge. Although it was not the case for the present research, it is thus clear that the imperious requirement for privacy and data protection becomes an unequivocal normative burden, whose effects can limit scientific freedom, namely, but not only, the choice of themes, methodologies, or populations that, if not attuned to the regulatory framework, can be considered as 'sensitive', 'maladjusted', or 'vulnerable' in view of the codified rules (Hilário and Augusto, 2020; Van den Hoonaard, 2020; Vieira et al, 2020;Wiles et al, 2007).…”

“…That is, when the detailed prescriptions and proscriptions lead the researchers to blindly follow the rules to conform to the norms and institutional demands and relinquish a truly ethical reflection in face of the concrete dilemmas of their study, according to the references of their own disciplinary traditions (Hammersley, 2010; Vermeylen and Clark, 2017) and the premises of their research cultures (Hoeyer et al, 2005). This is a trend that, particularly in the Social Sciences, is always potentially harmful, given that the ‘risk(s) of standardising procedures (are) contrary to the exercise of theoretical-methodological reflexivity to be observed in each new process of knowledge production’ (Vieira et al, 2020: 37).…”

“…On the one hand, we acknowledge that the growing concern about data protection is understandable and welcome, given the technological developments that allow new possibilities for aggregating, analysing, and disseminating data (e.g. in social media), as well as new possibilities for managing and storing information (Lauber-Rönsberg, 2018; Vieira et al, 2020). However, on the other hand, the pressure for scrutiny over academic work has increased, reinforcing already established ethical frameworks and setting more regulatory requirements for scientific research.…”

“…As a result, an intricate reconciliation process arises, as the restrictions now placed on personal data protection make it challenging to achieve the values inherent to research. The freedom of choice on how to obtain the data, define the populations to be studied, the methodological options taken, and the freedom of conceptualisation can thus be conditioned by a set of constraints that conflict with the premises of scientific research (namely in the social sciences), opening space for it to become more defensive or less innovative (Derbyshire, 2008; Kent et al, 2002; Reed, 2007; Truman, 2003; Van den Scott, 2020; Vieira et al, 2020).…”