生物伦理学中实证研究的应用：对十二个欧洲国家研究人员的调查
The use of empirical research in bioethics: a survey of researchers in twelve European countries.
作者信息
Wangmo Tenzin, Provoost Veerle
机构信息
Institute for Biomedical Ethics, University of Basel, Basel, Switzerland.
Bioethics Institute Ghent, University of Ghent, Ghent, Belgium.
出版信息
BMC Med Ethics. 2017 Dec 22;18(1):79. doi: 10.1186/s12910-017-0239-0.
BACKGROUND
The use of empirical research methods in bioethics has been increasing in the last decades. It has resulted in discussions about the 'empirical turn of bioethics' and raised questions related to the value of empirical work for this field, methodological questions about its quality and rigor, and how this integration of the normative and the empirical can be achieved. The aim of this paper is to describe the attitudes of bioethics researchers in this field towards the use of empirical research, and examine their actual conduct: whether they use empirical research methods (and if so, what methods), and whether (and how) they have made attempts at integrating the empirical and the normative.
METHODS
An anonymous online survey was conducted to reach scholars working in bioethics/biomedical ethics/ethics institutes or centers in 12 European countries. A total of 225 bioethics researchers participated in the study. Of those, 200 questionnaires were fully completed, representing a response rate of 42.6%. The results were analysed using descriptive statistics.
RESULTS
Most respondents (n = 175; 87.5%) indicated that they use or have used empirical methods in their work. A similar proportion of respondents (61.0% and 59.0%) reported having had at least some training in qualitative or quantitative methods, respectively. Among the 'empirical researchers', more than a fifth (22.9%) had not received any methodological training. It appears that only 6% or less of the 'empirical researchers' considered themselves experts in the methods (qualitative or quantitative) that they have used. Only 35% of the scholars who have used empirical methods reported having integrated empirical data with normative analysis, whereas for their current projects, 59.8% plan to do so.
CONCLUSIONS
There is a need to evaluate the current educational programs in bioethics and to implement rigorous training in empirical research methods to ensure that 'empirical researchers' have the necessary skills to conduct their empirical research in bioethics. Also imperative is clear guidance on the integration of the normative and the empirical so that researchers who plan to do so have necessary tools and competences to fulfil their goals.
背景
在过去几十年中，实证研究方法在生物伦理学中的应用日益增加。这引发了关于“生物伦理学的实证转向”的讨论，并提出了与实证工作对该领域的价值、其质量和严谨性的方法论问题，以及如何实现规范与实证的整合相关的问题。本文的目的是描述该领域生物伦理学研究人员对使用实证研究的态度，并考察他们的实际行为：他们是否使用实证研究方法（如果是，使用哪些方法），以及他们是否（以及如何）尝试将实证与规范进行整合。
方法
开展了一项匿名在线调查，以联系在12个欧洲国家的生物伦理学/生物医学伦理学/伦理学研究所或中心工作的学者。共有225名生物伦理学研究人员参与了该研究。其中，200份问卷填写完整，回复率为42.6%。使用描述性统计分析结果。
结果
大多数受访者（n = 175；87.5%）表示他们在工作中使用或曾经使用过实证方法。类似比例的受访者（分别为61.0%和59.0%）报告称至少接受过一些定性或定量方法的培训。在“实证研究人员”中，超过五分之一（22.9%）没有接受过任何方法论培训。似乎只有6%或更少的“实证研究人员”认为自己是所使用方法（定性或定量）的专家。仅35%使用过实证方法的学者报告称已将实证数据与规范分析进行整合，而对于他们当前的项目，59.8%计划这样做。
结论
有必要评估当前生物伦理学的教育项目，并实施实证研究方法的严格培训，以确保“实证研究人员”具备在生物伦理学中开展实证研究所需的技能。同样迫切需要的是关于规范与实证整合的明确指导，以便计划这样做的研究人员拥有实现其目标所需的工具和能力。
Zotero 插件