Ethical Sharing and Reuse of Qualitative Data
Ethical Sharing and Reuse of Qualitative Data
复制标题
DOI：
10.1002/j.1839-4655.2009.tb00145.x
复制
发表时间：
2009-03-01
影响因子：
2.5
通讯作者：
Bishop, Libby
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Bishop, Libby
这篇论文的目的是试图超越伦理上反对重用定性数据的僵局。这样做的目的并不是要否定伦理辩论的重要性，事实上，恰恰相反。关于道德再利用的辩论需要深化和扩大。首先，将总结当前研究伦理学的领域，并将其置于更广泛的哲学伦理框架的背景下。相比之下，围绕档案伦理的争论往往狭隘地集中在参与者的权利上。首先应该扩大辩论的框架，承认传统上被认为在研究伦理范围内的其他实体，即学术界和公众。该框架的第二个有用的拓宽是由道义伦理立场提供的，其重点是责任。在最后一节，这个扩展的框架将被用来反驳反对将定性数据存档的几个常见的伦理论点：存档违反保密；对重复使用数据的知情同意是不可能的；重复使用数据违反了研究人员和参与者之间的信任；以及，存档造成了不可接受的高风险的数据失实陈述。如果一场关于伦理的更广泛的哲学辩论有什么贡献的话，那么其核心信息肯定是，没有哪一种伦理主张是无可争辩的。结论将把这些辩论置于更广泛的背景下，提出这样一个问题：当关于共享数据的伦理讨论的边界被划得太窄时，会有什么利害关系。
The objective of this paper is to attempt to move beyond the impasse of ethical objections to reusing qualitative data. In doing so, there is no intention of dismissing the importance of ethical debates, in fact, quite the opposite. The debate about ethical reuse needs to be deepened and broadened. First, the current terrain of research ethics will be summarised and situated in the context of broader philosophical ethical frameworks. In contrast, the debates around ethics of archiving have often been narrowly focused on participants' rights. The framework of debate should be broadened first by recognising other entities traditionally deemed within the scope of research ethics, namely the scholarly community and the public. The second useful broadening of the framework is provided by a deontological ethical stance with its focus on duties. In the final section, this expanded framework will be used to rebut several common ethical arguments against archiving qualitative data: archiving violates confidentiality; informed consent for reusing data is impossible; reusing data violates trust between researcher and participant; and, archiving creates an unacceptably high risk of data misrepresentation. If a more general philosophical debate on ethics has something to contribute, the central message must be that no single ethical claim is incontestable. The conclusion will position these debates in a wider context by asking what is at stake when the boundaries of ethical discourse about sharing data are drawn too narrowly.