student from 01.01.2019 to 01.01.2021
Moskva, Moscow, Russian Federation
BISAC EDU037000 Research
BISAC PSY030000 Research & Methodology
BISAC SCI043000 Research & Methodology
Many sociologists are interested in studying stereotypes and stereotypical reasoning. This interest often stems from a desire to contribute to a more just and equal society. When scientists design and conduct research, they are engaged in conducting effective research in accordance with the research criteria. However, when scientists study stereotypes and stereotypical reasoning, they run the risk of reproducing and possibly even amplifying these processes, and thus harming individuals or groups of people. Scientists are constantly faced with methodological obstacles that have to be overcome in order to promote research in the most effective way. However, sometimes scientists find themselves in situations where conducting effective research may contradict ethical considerations or principles. Research projects that study stereotypes and stereotypical reasoning fall into this category. The debate on this ethical issue mainly takes the form of General discussions on the ethics of the study and weighing the purpose of the study against the potential harm to participants. While these reflections are extremely important, it is necessary to discuss how this ethical issue can be resolved in practice. The purpose of this article is to develop a set of practical recommendations for solving this ethical problem, based on the study of ethically sensitive moments experienced in the course of ethnographic research on the formation of health identity and risk. Three guiding principles are suggested: develop ethical sensitivity to identify ethically sensitive issues; ethics and methods should be taken into account when formulating and posing questions; more specifically, briefings and reviews can be used to address ethical issues; and, finally, to get participants to reflect on their views and responses.
research ethics, ethical sensibility, reflexivity, stereotypes, stereotyped reasoning, research with children, qualitative research, focus groups
1. Alvesson M.; Billing Y.D. Understanding Gender and Organizations; SAGE Publications: Thousand Oaks, CA, USA, 2009. P. 266.
2. Colucci E. «Focus groups can be fun»: The use of activity-oriented questions in focus group discussions. Qual. Health Res. 2007. 17, P. 1422-1433.
3. Eisner E.W.; Peshkin A. Qualitative Inquiry in Education: The Continuing Debate; Teachers College, Columbia University: New York, UY, USA, 1990. P. 387.
4. Ellis C. Telling Secrets, Revealing Lives: Relational Ethics in Re-search With Intimate Others. Qual. Inq. 2007. Vol. 13, P. 3-29.
5. Fujii L.A. 2012. Research Ethics 101: Dilemmas and Responsibilities. PS: Political Sci. Politics 5, P. 717-723.
6. Gilliam L. De Umulige Born Og Det Ordentlige Menneske: Identitet, Ballade Og Muslimske Fillesskaber Blandt Etniske Minoritetsborn; Aarhus Universitetsforlag: Arhus, Denmark, 2009. P. 479.
7. Greenwald A.G.; McGhee D.E.; Schwartz J.L. Measuring individual differences in implicit cognition: The implicit association test. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 1998. Vol. 74, P. 1464-1480.
8. Griffin K.M.; Lahman M.K.E.; Opitz M.F. Shoulder-to-shoulder research with children: Methodological and ethical considerations. J. Early Child. 2016. Res. 14, P. 18-27.
9. Guillemin M.; Gillam L. Ethics, reflexivity and «ethically important moments» in research. Qual. Inq. 2004. 10, P. 261-280.
10. Halkier B. Fokusgrupper 3rd ed.; Samfundslitteratur: Fredeiksberg, Denmark, 2016. P. 126.
11. Hammersley M.; Atkinson P. Ethnography: Principles in Practice, 3rd ed.; Routledge: London, UK, 2007. P. 275.
12. Harrits G.S.; Moller M.O. Prevention at the Front Line: How home nurses, pedagogues, and teachers transform public worry into decisions on special efforts. Public Adm. 2014. Rev. 16, P. 447-480.
13. Hviid Jacobsen M.; Kristiansen S. Farligt Feltarbejde: Etik Og Etnografi i Sociologien; Aalborg Universitetsforlag: Aalborg, Denmark, 2001. P. 141.
14. Lahman M.K.E. Always Othered: Ethical research with children. J. Early Child. 2008. Res. 6, P. 281-300.
15. Mertens D.M.; Ginsberg P.E. Thehandbook of Social Research Ethics; SAGE Publications: Thousand Oaks, CA, USA, 2008. P. 667.
16. Murphy E.; Dingwall R. The ethics of ethnography. In Handbook of Ethnography; Atkinson, A.C.P., Delamont, S., Lofland, J., Lofland, L., Eds.; SAGE Publications: Thousand Oaks, CA, USA, 2008. P. 339-351.
17. Pader E. Seing with an Ethnographc Sensibility. In Interpretation and Method: Empirical Research and the Interpretive Turn; Yanow, D., Schwartz-Shea, P., Eds.; M.E. Sharp, Inc.: New York, NY, USA2001.
18. Rossman G.B.; Rallis S.F. Everyday ethics: Reflections on practice. Int. J. Qual. Stud. Educ. 2010. Vol. 23, P. 379-391.
19. Schram S.F.; Soss J.; Fording R.C.; Houser L. Deciding to Discipline: Race, Choice, and Punishment at the Frontlines of Welfare Re-form. Am. Sociol. Rev. 2009. Vol. 74, P. 398-422.
20. Schwartz-Shea P.; Yanow D. Interpretive research design: Concepts and processes. In Routledge Series on Interpretive Methods; Routledge: New York, NY, USA, 2012. P. 184.
21. Skewes L.; Fine C.; Haslam N. Beyond Mars and Venus: The role of gender essentialism in support for gender inequality and backlash. 2018. PLoS ONE 13, e0200921.
22. Tajfel H. Social Identity and Intergroup Relations; Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, MA, USA, 1982. P. 528.
23. Wang C.C. Youth Participation in Photovoice as a Strategy for Community Change. J. Community Pract. 2006. Vol. 14, P. 147-161.
24. Watts J.H. Ethical and practical challenges of participant oservation in sensitive health research. Int. Journal Soc. Res. Methodol. 2011. Vol. 14, P. 301-312.
25. Ybema S. Organizational Ethnography: Studying the Comlexities of Everyday Life; SAGE: Los Angeles, CA, USA, 2009. P. 288.
