Show simple item record

dc.contributor.authorJacobs, Stephen
dc.contributor.authorApperley, Alan
dc.date.accessioned2018-06-28T13:48:15Z
dc.date.available2018-06-28T13:48:15Z
dc.date.issued2018-03-13
dc.identifier.citationRisk-Aversion or Ethical Responsibility? Towards a New Research Ethics Paradigm 2018, 12 (2):148 Fieldwork in Religion
dc.identifier.issn1743-0615
dc.identifier.doi10.1558/firn.35665
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/2436/621364
dc.description.abstractEthics seems to be of increasing concern for researchers in Higher Education Institutes and funding bodies demand ever more transparent and robust ethics procedures. While we agree that an ethical approach to fieldwork in religion is critical, we take issue with the approach that ethics committees and reviews adopt in assessing the ethicality of proposed research projects. We identify that the approach to research ethics is informed by consequentialism – the consequences of actions, and Kantianism – the idea of duty. These two ethical paradigms are amenable to the prevailing audit culture of HE. We argue that these ethical paradigms, while might be apposite for bio-medical research, are not appropriate for fieldwork in religion. However, because ethics should be a crucial consideration for all research, it is necessary to identify a different approach to ethical issues arising in ethnographic research. We suggest that a virtue ethics approach – concerned with character – is much more consistent with the situated, relational and ongoing nature of ethnographic research.
dc.formatapplication/PDF
dc.language.isoen
dc.publisherEquinox
dc.relation.urlhttps://www.equinoxpub.com/journals/index.php/FIR/article/view/35665
dc.subjectAudit culture
dc.subjectconsequentialism
dc.subjectethical codes
dc.subjectethnographic research
dc.subjectKantianism
dc.subjectvirtue ethics
dc.titleRisk-Aversion or Ethical Responsibility? Towards a New Research Ethics Paradigm
dc.typeJournal article
dc.identifier.journalFieldwork in Religion
dc.contributor.institutionUniversity of Wolverhampton
dc.contributor.institutionUniversity of Wolverhampton
dc.date.accepted2018-01-28
rioxxterms.funderUniversity of Wolverhampton
rioxxterms.identifier.projectUOW280618AA
rioxxterms.versionAM
rioxxterms.licenseref.urihttps://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/
rioxxterms.licenseref.startdate2020-03-13
dc.source.volume12
dc.source.issue2
dc.source.beginpage148
dc.source.endpage162
refterms.dateFCD2018-10-19T08:34:28Z
refterms.versionFCDAM
html.description.abstractEthics seems to be of increasing concern for researchers in Higher Education Institutes and funding bodies demand ever more transparent and robust ethics procedures. While we agree that an ethical approach to fieldwork in religion is critical, we take issue with the approach that ethics committees and reviews adopt in assessing the ethicality of proposed research projects. We identify that the approach to research ethics is informed by consequentialism – the consequences of actions, and Kantianism – the idea of duty. These two ethical paradigms are amenable to the prevailing audit culture of HE. We argue that these ethical paradigms, while might be apposite for bio-medical research, are not appropriate for fieldwork in religion. However, because ethics should be a crucial consideration for all research, it is necessary to identify a different approach to ethical issues arising in ethnographic research. We suggest that a virtue ethics approach – concerned with character – is much more consistent with the situated, relational and ongoing nature of ethnographic research.


Files in this item

Thumbnail
Name:
FIR Final 11-12-2017.pdf
Embargo:
2020-03-13
Size:
292.3Kb
Format:
PDF

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record