Towards a model of critical ethics to inform the research process in postgraduate research

Abstract

The ethics narrative has become embedded in the contemporary research process, as is evident in the emergence of Ethical Committees in faculty and both public and private organisations. Ethics have been codified, made visible and accessible as text artefacts in the forms of (both voluntary and regulatory) codes, statements, conventions, guidelines, principles, procedures, practices. In this short paper I explore this codification of ethics from the period after the Second World War, detailing some of the milestone text artefacts. I note the case of ethics in social science research and the professions, and then focus on ethics in educational research. Finally I deliberate on the practical application and considerations for my own Doctor in Education (D.Ed.) research in Trinity College Dublin (TCD), suggesting a critical ethics model that aligns well with my current research and scholarship process. The rationale for this latter section is that it might serve as an indicator for novice researchers at postgraduate level towards developing a critical ethical positionality to inform research methodology and methods. The significance of the Nuremberg Code The Nuremberg Code, developed after the Second World War, dealt particularly with research on, or with, human subjects. A key tenet of that code is that the voluntary consent of the human subject in any research is absolutely essential. A relevant extract from the Nuremberg Code with regards to voluntary consent is as follows. (1) The voluntary consent of the human subject is absolutely essential. This means that the person involved should have legal capacity to give consent; should be so situated as to be able to exercise free power of choice, without the intervention of any element of force, fraud, deceit, duress, over-reaching, or other ulterior form of constraint or coercion; and should have sufficient knowledge and comprehension of the elements of the subject matter involved, as to enable him to make an understanding and enlightened decision. This latter element requires that, before the acceptance of an affirmative decision by the experimental subject, there should be made known to him the nature, duration, and purpose of the experiment; the method and means by which it is to be conducted; all inconveniences and hazards reasonably to be expected; and the effects upon his health or person, which may possibly come from his participation in the experiment. The duty and responsibility for ascertaining the quality of the consent rests upon each individual who initiates, directs or engages in the experiment. It is a personal duty and responsibility, which may not be delegated to another with impunity. (Nuremberg Code 1949)