Ethical Regulation and Visual Methods: Making Visual Research Impossible or Developing Good Practice?
Ethical Regulation and Visual Methods: Making Visual Research Impossible or Developing Good Practice?
复制标题
道德规范和视觉方法：使视觉研究变得不可能还是发展良好的实践？
DOI：
--
复制
发表时间：
2012
期刊：
影响因子：
--
通讯作者：
J. Prosser
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
R. Wiles;A. Coffey;J. Robison;J. Prosser
在过去十年左右的时间里，英国对社会研究的伦理监管一直在稳步加强，包括一种形式的审计，所有高等教育研究人员都要接受这种形式的审计。使用视觉方法的社会研究人员提出了担忧，认为这种伦理审查和监管将对视觉研究的发展和实践施加严重限制。本文借鉴了英国使用视觉方法对社会研究人员进行的定性研究。这项研究探讨了他们的观点、他们面临的挑战以及他们在道德审查过程中采取的做法。研究人员反思了他们为管理与视觉研究有关的伦理审批过程而采取的各种策略。对于一些人来说，这意味着尽管存在伦理挑战，但明确地说要进行视觉研究，而对另一些人来说，这涉及到以一种界定视觉方法可能面临的伦理困境的方式，使视觉方法“正常化”。研究人员很少从伦理审批过程中发现进行可视化研究的重大障碍，尽管经常需要熟练的谈判和积极管理系统。尽管如此，越来越多的道德规范被认为对视觉研究实践和发展具有潜在的有害影响，在某些情况下，导致在传播研究结果时进行微妙但重要的自我审查。
The ethical regulation of social research in the UK has been steadily increasing over the last decade or so and comprises a form of audit to which all researchers in Higher Education are subject. Concerns have been raised by social researchers using visual methods that such ethical scrutiny and regulation will place severe limitations on visual research developments and practice. This paper draws on a qualitative study of social researchers using visual methods in the UK. The study explored their views, the challenges they face and the practices they adopt in relation to processes of ethical review. Researchers reflected on the variety of strategies they adopted for managing the ethical approval process in relation to visual research. For some this meant explicitly ‘making the case’ for undertaking visual research, notwithstanding the ethical challenges, while for others it involved ‘normalising’ visual methods in ways which delimited the possible ethical dilemmas of visual approaches. Researchers only rarely identified significant barriers to conducting visual research from ethical approval processes, though skilful negotiation and actively managing the system was often required. Nevertheless, the climate of increasing ethical regulation is identified as having a potential detrimental effect on visual research practice and development, in some instances leading to subtle but significant self-censorship in the dissemination of findings.