Toward Methodological Innovation in Empirical Ethics Research

Dunn, Michael; Sheehan, Mark; Hope, Tony; Parker, Michael

doi:10.1017/s0963180112000242

Cited by 79 publications

(68 citation statements)

References 29 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…“So the reasons anyone should accept that q follows from ‘If p then q’ and p are reasons that apply to him or her in virtue of his or her logical or reasoning capacities generally—those features that he or she holds in common with all beings capable of logic and reason”. (Dunn et al ., 2012, Sheehan and Dunn, 2013) This is not say that arguments always or mostly succeed but the extent to which they do not is the extent to which they fail in this abstraction and in this appeal to reasons. As was suggested above, an appeal to contingently felt emotions like repugnance or disgust seems unlikely from the outset to come close to meeting this aspiration.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

The role of emotion in ethics and bioethics: dealing with repugnance and disgust

Sheehan¹

2015

J Med Ethics

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

mentioning

confidence: 99%

The role of emotion in ethics and bioethics: dealing with repugnance and disgust

Sheehan¹

2015

J Med Ethics

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…Although, they stated, bioethics has increasingly accommodated empirical research, the difficulties regarding the role of empirical evidence in bioethics remain. Given the difference between the descriptive and the normative, numerous authors have discussed the methodological questions of integrating empirical research findings in normative ethics (for example: De vries and Van Leeuwen 2010; Dunn et al 2012;Frith 2012;Hedgecoe 2004;Molewijk et al 2004; Van der Scheer and Widdershoven 2004). Most of these methodological papers have focussed on empirical studies set up, conducted and reported by (bio)ethicists with the purpose of supporting their normative analysis.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Secondary use of empirical research data in medical ethics papers on gamete donation: forms of use and pitfalls

Provoost

2015

Monash Bioeth. Rev.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This paper aims to provide a description of how authors publishing in medical ethics journals have made use of empirical research data in papers on the topic of gamete or embryo donation by means of references to studies conducted by others (secondary use). Rather than making a direct contribution to the theoretical methodological literature about the role empirical research data could play or should play in ethics studies, the focus is on the particular uses of these data and the problems that can be encountered with this use. In the selection of papers examined, apart from being used to describe the context, empirical evidence was mainly used to recount problems that needed solving. Few of the authors looked critically at the quality of the studies they quoted, and several instances were found of empirical data being used poorly or inappropriately. This study provides some initial baseline evidence that shows empirical data, in the form of references to studies, are sometimes being used in inappropriate ways. This suggests that medical ethicists should be more concerned about the quality of the empirical data selected, the appropriateness of the choice for a particular type of data (from a particular type of study) and the correct integration of this evidence in sound argumentation. Given that empirical data can be misused also when merely cited instead of reported, it may be worthwhile to explore good practice requirements for this type of use of empirical data in medical ethics.

show abstract

“…The literature here is wide and varied, and points towards new ways of doing bioethics that challenge traditional disciplinary orthodoxies (e.g. Davies et al 2015;Ives 2014;Dunn et al 2012;Frith 2010;de Vries and van Leeuwen 2010;Widdershoven et al 2009;Leget et al 2009;Haimes and Williams 2007;Molewijk et al 2004). One of the driving tenets of this literature is that by changing the way we 'do bioethics' we can make our theorising more relevant to policy.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Monash editorial

Ives

Provoost

2015

Monash Bioeth. Rev.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This editorial begins, perhaps unusually, with a personal anecdote from Ives, one of the editors of this special edition, which sets the scene for the edition and, to some extent, explains why the debates presented in these pages are needed:When I was first starting out as a Ph.D. student in 2004, I submitted a paper to a philosophy journal that discussed the ethics of creating fatherless families. The paper tried to unpick the debate, sort out the moral claims from the empirical ones, and consider how implicit value claims affected the way that the empirical data were used in 'ethical' argument. As such, a good deal of the paper was devoted to critically assessing various key pieces of empirical evidence, which made claims either that children were harmed by being without a father, or that they were not. The paper was not accepted for publication (and most probably for good reason), but I was struck by one comment from a reviewer, who asked what business I had looking critically at research evidence, and why on earth did I think I had the skills to do so? What I should do as an ethicist, I was implicitly told, is cite the evidence and be done with it.

show abstract

Toward Methodological Innovation in Empirical Ethics Research

Cited by 79 publications

References 29 publications

The role of emotion in ethics and bioethics: dealing with repugnance and disgust

The role of emotion in ethics and bioethics: dealing with repugnance and disgust

Secondary use of empirical research data in medical ethics papers on gamete donation: forms of use and pitfalls

Monash editorial

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About