Blog 5# Ethics in research are ever changing

There is so much information and many instances that as a beginner in research I found to be very useful and interesting.  I feel very strange to know the slippery slopes in the field of research . However, the idea that I found to be the most stimulating was the relation between paradigm shift and redefining ethics. The reason was that it gave me a view of what situations I as a researcher may face and how should I deal with it. Looking from a researcher’s perspective I found this relation as a window to what influences ethics and how even a trivialized can bring change to ethics as found in the scenario of Laud Humphrey’s Tea Room Trade study. How ethics are ever changing. As now CITI uses Humphrey’s Tea Room Trade study in its training and how back in mid-1960’s, “informed consent” was not a defined ethical issue.

What  I found to be problematic was defining ethics and self (king & Stahl, 186). The reasons being that ethics are ever changing. Whatever is considered as threat or violation of individual’s right may not be considered the same in future or what if it never changes. These inconsistencies of ethics make it hard for the researcher to get the job done and may even find himself caught under complex dilemma of ethics. Also, it hinders the idea of “be yourself” and “be honest” (King & Stahl, 186). And, the proximity in relation between the researcher and participants leaves me in worried state as at times it may get hard for the researcher to get the precise and unfiltered data (Sitzia’s 2003). Moreover, the effect of biomedical research on researchers in particular qualitative research is leaving little room for reflexivity that is essential for good qualitative research”, Holland(2007) (p. 907) and with more media incursion the definition of data, privacy and protection is also facing the paradigm shift. This makes defining ethics in qualitative research more problematic.

References

King, J., & Stahl, N. (2015). Revisiting ethics: Updating earlier beliefs with a queer exemplar. Qualitative Inquiry, 21(2), 184-193