Ramcharan P, Cutcliffe J R
Department of Mental Health and Learning Disability Nursing, Samuel Fox House, University of Sheffield, Northern General Hospital, Herries Road, Sheffield S5 7AU, UK.
Health Soc Care Community. 2001 Nov;9(6):358-66. doi: 10.1046/j.1365-2524.2001.00323.x.
Decision-making about the ethics of qualitative research is problematic where the research design is emergent, and the balance between risks and benefits for research subjects are difficult to ascertain prior to study implementation. The discourses of health/medical research ethics and those of social research are shown to be divergent and, furthermore, where ethics committees tie themselves to the health/medical model of ethical decision-making, qualitative research approaches can be disadvantaged. Having demonstrated the dual discourses and their relevance to qualitative research ethics, a critical review of current approaches to maximising the success of qualitative research proposals being considered for approval by ethics committees is undertaken. This leads to a call for a system of monitoring qualitative research so that the "benefit to risk" ratio is always on the side of benefit. This has implications for the ways in which ethics committees are organised and the ways in which they function.
在研究设计具有灵活性、且在研究实施前难以确定研究对象的风险与收益平衡的情况下,定性研究的伦理决策存在问题。健康/医学研究伦理话语与社会研究伦理话语存在差异,此外,当伦理委员会将自身与伦理决策的健康/医学模式联系在一起时,定性研究方法可能会处于不利地位。在阐述了这两种话语及其与定性研究伦理的相关性之后,本文对当前旨在提高定性研究提案获批成功率的方法进行了批判性审视,这些提案正等待伦理委员会审批。这引发了对定性研究监测系统的呼吁,以便“收益与风险”之比始终偏向收益。这对伦理委员会的组织方式及其运作方式都有影响。