Parker Michael
Department of Public Health, The Ethox Centre, Gibson Building/Block 21, Radcliffe Infirmary Woodstock Road, Oxford OX2 6HE, UK.
Soc Sci Med. 2007 Dec;65(11):2248-59. doi: 10.1016/j.socscimed.2007.08.003. Epub 2007 Sep 14.
This paper situates discussion of the ethics of ethnographic research against the background of a theoretical and methodological debate about the relationship between ethics and method, and about the relationships between research methods and their objects. In particular, the paper investigates the implications of folding together the ethical and the empirical in research and argues that this requires the development of new ethico-ethnographic methods for the investigation of ethico-moral objects. The paper falls into three main parts. The first considers calls for what has come to be known as empirical ethics, that is, for a more empirically informed bioethics, by way of an exploration of the integration of ethnographic methods in bioethics, and concludes that approaches which see the ethical and the empirical as 'complementary' do not do justice to the methodological implications of enfolding the ethical and the ethnographic. The second part juxtaposes this with calls for the integration of ethics in ethnography and, similarly, argues that the enfolding of the ethical and the empirical in ethnography calls for the development of new methods. The paper goes on to problematise the 'negotiational' approaches to informed consent preferred by many ethnographers, arguing that the concept of negotiation, rather than offering a solution to the problem of consent, is itself ethically complex and in need of analysis. The paper argues that, in the context of ethnographic research, the possibility of negotiational forms of consent depends upon engagement between researchers and researched, with unavoidably 'ethical' concepts such as 'respect', 'recognition', 'dignity', 'justice' and so on, and that this poses methodological challenges to ethnography. The paper's third section explores the implications of these arguments for research practice, using The Genethics Club as an example.
本文将人种志研究的伦理讨论置于一场关于伦理与方法之间关系,以及研究方法与其研究对象之间关系的理论和方法论辩论的背景之下。具体而言,本文探讨了在研究中将伦理与实证结合起来的影响,并认为这需要开发新的伦理人种志方法来研究伦理道德对象。本文分为三个主要部分。第一部分通过探索人种志方法在生物伦理学中的整合,考量了对所谓实证伦理学的呼吁,即对一种更具实证依据的生物伦理学的呼吁,并得出结论,那些将伦理与实证视为“互补”的方法,并未公正地对待将伦理与人种志结合所带来的方法论影响。第二部分将此与在人种志中整合伦理的呼吁并列,并同样认为在人种志中将伦理与实证结合需要开发新方法。本文接着对许多人种志学者所青睐的知情同意的“协商式”方法提出质疑,认为协商概念本身在伦理上很复杂且需要分析,而非为同意问题提供解决方案。本文认为,在人种志研究的背景下,协商式同意形式的可能性取决于研究者与被研究者之间的互动,以及诸如“尊重”“认可”“尊严”“正义”等不可避免的“伦理”概念,而这给人种志带来了方法论挑战。本文的第三部分以基因伦理俱乐部为例,探讨了这些论点对研究实践的影响。