Talk:Research Ethics

From Critical Practice Chelsea
Jump to: navigation, search


I moved 4 Obligations to the end of 2 Guiding Principles
I thought to start with principles and then get to obligations. I think we should move the definition to an appendix too.--Neil 17:40, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

I've got to the appendices, as perhaps there is enoug here to consider at our next meeting. I guess this will at least provide a starting point for considering to what extent the CoP imposes constraints on artistic practice. I would suggest that as it stand here it would discourage what Michael characterised as a strategy of doing a small bad/harm to highlight a greater bad/harm--Stephen 18:15, 11 February 2010 (UTC)


I don't know why in 2.3 the principle of 'justice and the fair treatment of participants in research' is introduced. The principle of justice has not been introduced previously, or explained. We only have the principle of not doing harm, and trying to do good. If we introduce 'justice' do we need to define what we mean by it? --Neil 13:18, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

I've introduced the principle or respect for persons, clarified beneficence and brought up justice as suggested by Neil. These principles are to be found in most codes of research practice.--Stephen 10:13, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Go back to Ethics page

I've deleted 'Rights and' since I can see no rights of the researcher at all, and 'General principles' as it merely causes confusion with repect to guiding principles. All of this section can be seen as following from the guiding principles.--Stephen 10:22, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

2.2 Researchers must weigh up the potential harm or benefits of any particular research. Deleted as it repeats guiding principle of justice.--Stephen 10:27, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

I've played around with the direct and indirect clause. This is a problematic clause and worthy of discussion in its own right. I can see where it is coming from, but it seems to include knowledge as being good or bad and then forces the researchers into an impossible situation since knoweldge, as we know, can be put to good or evil purposes. I take it that knowledge is true or false, not good or bad. Hence, risks to the participant and others can only arise from the way in which knowledge is acquired or communicated. For example, knowledge of genetic engineering is not an ethical issue, but the fact that its method of acquisition presents environmental risks that would have consequences for us all is something that I would hope the researcher would consider. Similary, we have a researcher who is making drawings of cadavers in the anatomy room which are intended or likely to be placed in the public domain. Remote as it might seem, that researcher should consider the possibility that the person depicted in the drawing might be recognised by family and friends. --Stephen 11:15, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

2.9 I'm not sure why we are referring to these rather than other codes.--Stephen 17:42, 11 February 2010 (UTC)


I consider this item tautological, and unworkable.--Neil 17:40, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

3.7 Researchers should consider the ethical implications of the research and the physiological, psychological, social, political, religious, cultural and economic consequences of the work for the participants. Researchers should be sensitive to the possibility of blasphemy arising from a piece of work.

2.9 I'm not sure why we are referring to these rather than other codes.

I've made major revision here bringing some clauses relating to procedure from Annex to into this section as they are do not alsways relate to non minimal risk and in any case mean that procedural components might be missed of the annex is not referred to. I've also made many changes to Annex 2.--Stephen 18:17, 18 February 2010 (UTC)


I edited this down, and then it seemed unnecessary. --Neil 17:55, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

d) Research undertaken in public places

3.17 Researchers should pay particular attention to the implications of research undertaken in public places.

5 )

This is already covered, and is therefore unnecessary.--Neil 14:07, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

4.8 The researcher should explain how confidentiality, anonymity and privacy shall be maintained.

Return to Research Ethics

6 )

I took this out, because it seems to me, that all the points are already covered. --Neil 14:18, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

ANNEX 1a. TO CODE; Guidance on Ethical Dimensions and Potential Areas of Breach of the Code

Researchers should consider the parameters of their intended research and its potential impact. Should any of the following elements be involved, then the research is likely to have an ethical dimension and approval must be obtained from the appropriate college research body and, in certain circumstances, the Research Ethics Sub-Committee.

An indicative list of those affected by potential risks follows:

Active involvement of other participants
Passive involvement of other participants
Colleagues and staff within other higher education institutions
Members of the public
Children and young persons
External bodies

Potential influencing factors:

Potential adverse impact on the environment
Moral obligations
Legal liabilities
Health and safety