Innledende bemerkninger

Fossheim, Hallvard; Ingierd, Helene

doi:10.18261/9788215025162-2015-01

Cited by 3 publications

(6 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The methodological challenges of the project exemplified some of the ethical dilemmas raised in literature on Internet research ethics (for example Elgesem, 2015;Fossheim and Ingierd, 2015). Subsequently, I found it useful to evaluate my experiences to determine if any lessons could be learned.…”

Section: Public-private Dimension -Informing Participants or Notmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Informed consent is the “golden standard” in research that involves human beings, and deviations from this standard require justification (Fossheim and Ingierd, 2015: 11). Between the examples that clearly require consent (for example, personal blogs with sensitive content) and those that are usually considered public (politics on Twitter), there are grey areas, which require concrete assessments (Segadal, 2015: 44).…”

Section: Guidelines Judgement and Current Debates In The Fieldmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…A participant’s interests can be safeguarded in other ways (Elgesem, 2015: 15). If consent is not required, informing the relevant persons about the research is one way to ensure ethically responsible practice (Fossheim and Ingierd, 2015: 11). This might be the best option in many cases, but publicly informing participants on social networking sites has its drawbacks, for example the possibility of disturbing naturally occurring communication.…”

Section: Guidelines Judgement and Current Debates In The Fieldmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…A considerable amount of literature focuses on ethical questions in Internet research (for example Elgesem, 2002; Ess, 2014; Fossheim and Ingierd, 2015; McKee and Porter, 2009). There is also literature on the ethical questions connected to resistance and protest groups on social media (Reilly and Trevisan, 2016; Trevisan and Reilly, 2014).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

Ethical decision-making in internet research – Investigating protest groups against Child Welfare Services on Facebook

Stang

2018

Qualitative Social Work

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

At a time when both extensive international and national protest and criticisms are directed toward the Norwegian Child Welfare Services, it is of great interest to researchers to gain insight into the viewpoints presented in protest groups on social media. The paper aims to give insight into the ethical judgement involved in research on digital communities where it is difficult to decide whether certain material is public or not. In addition, the paper reflects on the social consequences of understanding some participants as vulnerable versus understanding them as citizens, in a social work/child protection context on social media. A considerable amount of literature focuses on ethical questions in Internet research. There is also literature on the ethical considerations connected to resistance and protest groups on social media. There is, however, less existing research about the ethical decision-making within the field of social work, child protection and client protests on the Internet. This paper analyses certain experiences from a qualitative research project regarding Facebook groups protesting Child Welfare Services in Norway. The paper concludes that in some social media research contexts, as the one presented here, taking extra care to anonymize participants in publications is sufficient to secure privacy, and covert collection of data is possible without jeopardizing ethical guidelines. Further, by developing practical ethical judgement, we can – in some social work contexts – avoid putting people into categories like “vulnerable” and instead approach the participants in public Facebook groups as citizens with socio-political opinions.

show abstract

Section: Public-private Dimension -Informing Participants or Notmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Guidelines Judgement and Current Debates In The Fieldmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Guidelines Judgement and Current Debates In The Fieldmentioning

confidence: 99%

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Ethical decision-making in internet research – Investigating protest groups against Child Welfare Services on Facebook

Stang

2018

Qualitative Social Work

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…No recommendations were given, but the anthology was intended to start a debate about money and health. 5 The Austrian Bio-ethics Commission has discussed the balance between morality and economics, and it recommends transparent solutions and that limited resources are used as responsibly as possible. 6 The German Ethics Council stated that it is impossible to reach consensus among the parties involved and recommends an open debate involving medical, economic, ethical, and legal expertise to avoid decisions exclusively based on economics, and that rationing decisions should never be made by the individual nurse or physician.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Empirical Investigation of Ethical Challenges Related to the Use of Biological Therapies

Bladt¹,

Vorup-Jensen²,

Sædder³

et al. 2020

J. Law. Med. Ethics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The aim of this study was to investigate the ethical dilemma of prioritising financial resources to expensive biological therapies. For this purpose, the four principles of biomedical ethics formulated by ethicists Tom Beauchamp and James Childress were used as a theoretical framework. Based on arguments of justice, Beauchamp and Childress advocate for a health care system organised in line with the Danish system. Notably, our study was carried out in a Danish setting.

show abstract

Does the type of funding influence research results – and do researchers influence funders?

Hove¹

2020

Prometheus

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Does a shift from hard to soft funding have an impact on research outcomes? Existing literature suggests that moving from hard money, such as lump-sum government-funded research, to commissioned research entails a greater risk of the researchers being influenced by the principal (the funding body). Based on literature and an empirical study, we identify two types of researcher roles: the influential consultant and the technical realist. The first type studies more advanced, important, and diffuse topics on behalf of principals high up in the hierarchy. They have a much greater experience of the issues discussed in this paper than the technical consultants. During the course of this study, we also discovered that the balance of power is not necessarily as one-sided as theory suggests: researchers can wield significant influence over the principals as well.

show abstract

Innledende bemerkninger

Cited by 3 publications

References 0 publications

Ethical decision-making in internet research – Investigating protest groups against Child Welfare Services on Facebook

Ethical decision-making in internet research – Investigating protest groups against Child Welfare Services on Facebook

Empirical Investigation of Ethical Challenges Related to the Use of Biological Therapies

Does the type of funding influence research results – and do researchers influence funders?

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About