ARAŞTIRMA YÖNTEMLERİ

Research ethics is a matter of judgment and/ or evaluation in terms of right/wrong actions (of researchers) and/or good/bad consequences (resulting from those actions). In fact, “Making evaluations is central to all aspects of human life- we are continually engaged in judging things, including ourselves and other people. Furthermore, our evaluations can vary in several important respects; notably according to what sort of thing is being evaluated (for example, persons, courses of action, outcomes, institutions, cultures, societies, etc.), and in terms of what standard (for instance, in the case of actions this may be according to what is needed, what is pleasurable, what is fair, what is courageous, etc.)” (Hammersley and Traianou, 2012, p. 19).

Research ethics is a matter of judgment and/ or evaluation in terms of right/wrong actions (of researchers) and/or good/bad consequences (resulting from those actions). In fact, “Making evaluations is central to all aspects of human life- we are continually engaged in judging things, including ourselves and other people. Furthermore, our evaluations can vary in several important respects; notably according to what sort of thing is being evaluated (for example, persons, courses of action, outcomes, institutions, cultures, societies, etc.), and in terms of what standard (for instance, in the case of actions this may be according to what is needed, what is pleasurable, what is fair, what is courageous, etc.)” (Hammersley and Traianou, 2012, p. 19).

Research ethics is a matter of judgment and/ or evaluation in terms of right/wrong actions (of researchers) and/or good/bad consequences (resulting from those actions). In fact, “Making evaluations is central to all aspects of human life- we are continually engaged in judging things, including ourselves and other people. In this regard, Patton (2002) provides a very illuminating example about the meaning of evaluation and/or judgment. He provides a dialogue that took place between him and a participant in a workshop about the purpose of evaluation (with regard to the distinction between formative and summative types of evaluation) by using the metaphor of “fishing.” As Patton (2002) clearly illustrates every action starts with some aims/intentions but may end up with different results/consequences. So the main question here is “What should be the priority?”: Aims/intentions for an action/activity (be it evaluation, fishing, or research, etc.) or the results/consequences of that action/activity.

Consent:  A voluntarily and competently given permission to be researched. Autonomy:  The capacity of a participant to make a reasoned decision for himself/herself, for example, whether to take part in a research voluntarily. Deontology: An ethical perspective that judges researchers’ actions according to some absolute/universal duties requiring certain types of action. Utilitarianism: An ethical perspective that judges actions of researchers according to which they produce most happiness and/or utility for the participants. Consequentialism: An ethical perspective that evaluates researchers’ actions according to their consequences.

Consent:  A voluntarily and competently given permission to be researched. Autonomy:  The capacity of a participant to make a reasoned decision for himself/herself, for example, whether to take part in a research voluntarily. Deontology: An ethical perspective that judges researchers’ actions according to some absolute/universal duties requiring certain types of action. Utilitarianism: An ethical perspective that judges actions of researchers according to which they produce most happiness and/or utility for the participants. Consequentialism: An ethical perspective that evaluates researchers’ actions according to their consequences.

Consent:  A voluntarily and competently given permission to be researched. Autonomy:  The capacity of a participant to make a reasoned decision for himself/herself, for example, whether to take part in a research voluntarily. Deontology: An ethical perspective that judges researchers’ actions according to some absolute/universal duties requiring certain types of action. Utilitarianism: An ethical perspective that judges actions of researchers according to which they produce most happiness and/or utility for the participants. Consequentialism: An ethical perspective that evaluates researchers’ actions according to their consequences.

The term “research ethics” has also been associated with how researchers ought to treat research participants in terms of protecting their rights (such as causing them no harm, respecting their autonomy, or preserving their privacy, etc.). According to Schüklenk (2005, p. 3), for example, “Research ethics is basically about means of ensuring that vulnerable people are protected from exploitation and other forms of harm.”

Hammersley and Traianou (2012) conceptualize “research ethics” as a form of “occupational/professional ethics” and assert that a distinction needs to be made between “intrinsic” and “extrinsic” values of research. Intrinsic values (such as dedication, objectivity, and independence of researchers) relate to the goal of research (i.e., the production of knowledge) while extrinsic values relate to how research participants ought to be treated in the course of research (such as respecting for autonomy, protection of privacy, and/or minimization of harm).

The Nuremberg Code is the most important milestone in research ethics. Because the ethic codes developed in different areas of social sciences were based on the Nuremberg Code.

A widely accepted definition of “research misconduct”, as it appears in the USA Federal Policy on Research Misconduct (https://www.aps. org/policy/statements/upload/federalpolicy.pdf) is as follows: •Research misconduct is defined as fabrication, falsification, or plagiarism in proposing, performing, or reviewing research, or in reporting research results. •Fabrication is making up data or results and recording or reporting them. •Falsification is manipulating research materials, equipment, or processes, or changing or omitting data or results such that the research is not accurately represented in the research record. •Plagiarism is the appropriation of another person’s ideas, processes, results, or words without giving appropriate credit. •Research misconduct does not include honest error or honest difference of opinion. Consent:  A voluntarily and competently given permission to be researched. Autonomy:  The capacity of a participant to make a reasoned decision for himself/herself, for example, whether to take part in a research voluntarily.

a

c

c

a

A

e

A

a

b

a