Get 20M+ Full-Text Papers For Less Than $1.50/day. Start a 14-Day Trial for You or Your Team.

Learn More →

Culturally responsive relational reflexive ethics in research: the three rs

Culturally responsive relational reflexive ethics in research: the three rs In this article, the authors define ethics, discuss why researchers should care about ethics, and briefly review the history of ethics and the surrounding contemporary debate as related to research, the development of research ethics codes, research ethics legislation, and the formation of the human subjects research review boards in the West with an emphasis on the United States’ Institutional Review Board. They then explicate the difference between minimalist ethical codes, which all respected researchers must adhere to, and an aspirational ethical stance. Culturally Responsive Relational Reflexive Ethics (CRRRE) is then advanced as a viable aspirational ethical stance for the research community. Finally, the authors draw on their own research for examples of ethical dilemmas involving ethnicity, age, sexual orientation, and power that CRRRE has helped illuminate. http://www.deepdyve.com/assets/images/DeepDyve-Logo-lg.png Quality & Quantity Springer Journals

Culturally responsive relational reflexive ethics in research: the three rs

Loading next page...
1
 
/lp/springer_journal/culturally-responsive-relational-reflexive-ethics-in-research-the-Vv0R6ACuHy

References (93)

Publisher
Springer Journals
Copyright
Copyright © 2010 by Springer Science+Business Media B.V.
Subject
Social Sciences; Methodology of the Social Sciences; Social Sciences, general
ISSN
0033-5177
eISSN
1573-7845
DOI
10.1007/s11135-010-9347-3
Publisher site
See Article on Publisher Site

Abstract

In this article, the authors define ethics, discuss why researchers should care about ethics, and briefly review the history of ethics and the surrounding contemporary debate as related to research, the development of research ethics codes, research ethics legislation, and the formation of the human subjects research review boards in the West with an emphasis on the United States’ Institutional Review Board. They then explicate the difference between minimalist ethical codes, which all respected researchers must adhere to, and an aspirational ethical stance. Culturally Responsive Relational Reflexive Ethics (CRRRE) is then advanced as a viable aspirational ethical stance for the research community. Finally, the authors draw on their own research for examples of ethical dilemmas involving ethnicity, age, sexual orientation, and power that CRRRE has helped illuminate.

Journal

Quality & QuantitySpringer Journals

Published: Jul 16, 2010

There are no references for this article.