Regler, begrunnelse og ansvar i forskningsetisk skjønn

Fossheim, Hallvard

doi:10.18261/9788215025162-2015-02

Cited by 1 publication

(7 citation statements)

References 3 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…In this paper, ethical judgement is used as an analytical concept in interpreting practical challenges, and in considering ethical guidelines and the vulnerability of certain groups. Ethical judgement pertains to both particular and more general situations (Fossheim, 2015), and this capacity for judgement also entails the ability to learn from mistakes (Ess, 2014: 239). The concept of ethical judgement makes the discussion and conclusion of this article relevant to other methodological situations.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The concept of ethical judgement makes the discussion and conclusion of this article relevant to other methodological situations. We learn from one experience and carry it with us to the next to build more general knowledge and insight (Fossheim, 2015: 13, 17).…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…This kind of practical/ethical judgement is often referred to as phronesis in Aristotelian terms (AoIR, 2012; Ess, 2014: 239; McKee and Porter, 2009: 12). Fossheim presents Aristotele’s theory of phronesis as the most trustworthy and developed theory on ethical judgement (Fossheim, 2015: 14). This theory often reflects a practical reason about how to act when general principles or rules do not automatically explain how to act in a given situation (Fossheim, 2015: 4; Smeeton, 2017: 18).…”

Section: Guidelines Judgement and Current Debates In The Fieldmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Fossheim presents Aristotele’s theory of phronesis as the most trustworthy and developed theory on ethical judgement (Fossheim, 2015: 14). This theory often reflects a practical reason about how to act when general principles or rules do not automatically explain how to act in a given situation (Fossheim, 2015: 4; Smeeton, 2017: 18). Phronesis is a quality of mind, a quality that consists of being open to experience and prepared to take moral responsibility for our actions and their consequences (Kemmis, 2012: 155–156).…”

Section: Guidelines Judgement and Current Debates In The Fieldmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…When a risk of harm is present, consent is required, and when no risk of harm is present, conducting research without consent may be considered (Elgesem, 2015: 18). Risks of harm may involve, for example, poor anonymization, chances of stigmatizing a whole group, or less grave, for example, undermining people’s trust in research (Fossheim, 2015: 12).…”

Section: Guidelines Judgement and Current Debates In The Fieldmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 4 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: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%