Disciplining bioethics: towards a standard of methodological rigor in bioethics research

Contemporary bioethics research is often described as multi- or interdisciplinary. Disciplines are characterized, in part, by their methods. Thus, when bioethics research draws on a variety of methods, it crosses disciplinary boundaries. Yet each discipline has its own standard of rigor--so when multiple disciplinary perspectives are considered, what constitutes rigor? This question has received inadequate attention, as there is considerable disagreement regarding the disciplinary status of bioethics. This disagreement has presented five challenges to bioethics research. Addressing them requires consideration of the main types of cross-disciplinary research, and consideration of proposals aiming to ensure rigor in bioethics research.     

The Responsible Conduct of Bioethics Research

The responsible conduct of research in the biomedical and behavioral sciences has received significant attention since the late 1980s. However, very little has been written about the responsible conduct of bioethics research. Bioethics is an interdisciplinary field and brings together divergent ethical standards and practices which may be the source of tension or conflict. This article argues that bioethicists should reflect more on ethical issues in the responsible conduct of bioethics research through examination of authorship practices and peer review. I also outline three possible approaches to promote research integrity in bioethics.     

The responsible conduct of bioethics research

The responsible conduct of research in the biomedical and behavioral sciences has received significant attention since the late 1980s. However, very little has been written about the responsible conduct of bioethics research. Bioethics is an interdisciplinary field and brings together divergent ethical standards and practices which may be the source of tension or conflict. This article argues that bioethicists should reflect more on ethical issues in the responsible conduct of bioethics research through examination of authorship practices and peer review. I also outline three possible approaches to promote research integrity in bioethics.     

Qualitative Evaluation Methods in Ethics Education: A Systematic Review and Analysis of Best Practices

Although qualitative research offers some unique advantages over quantitative research, qualitative methods are rarely employed in the evaluation of ethics education programs and are often criticized for a lack of rigor. This systematic review investigated the use of qualitative methods in studies of ethics education. Following a review of the literature in which 24 studies were identified, each study was coded based on 16 best practices characteristics in qualitative research. General thematic analysis and grounded theory were found to be the dominant approaches used. Researchers are effectively executing a number of best practices, such as using direct data sources, structured data collection instruments, non-leading questioning, and expert raters. However, other best practices were rarely present in the courses reviewed, such as collecting data using multiple sources, methods, raters, and timepoints, evaluating reliability, and employing triangulation analyses to assess convergence. Recommendations are presented for improving future qualitative research studies in ethics education.     

人文社会科学的学科创新体系与学科建设

目前,人文社会科学领域的学科创新,大多从发现问题、解决问题的工作实际出发,鲜有从古今问题、中外问题等比较角度出发来思考人文社会科学领域的学科建设与科研管理。本文通过分析学科创新的维度与学科建设的原则,借宏观考察民国时期的学科布局和新中国的学科建设等历史经验、回顾我们自身经历的过程,来探索未来学科建设与学科创新的可行与合理的方法。     

Problems in collecting social data: a review for the information researcher

Discusses some of the problems which the information scientist faces when having to select a particular social science research strategy. The established measurement approach is disfavoured as it is incompatible with the actual social and psychological conditions under which data are collected. Qualitative methods may also be biased by social and psychological constrains inherent in their use. It is recommended to base data collection practices on a realistic consideration of data collection settings as social situations in their own right. This is illustrated by reviewing the case of the research interview. Finally, two possibilities are outlined which help to increase the adequacy of data collection. One is to use more than one method so that a more complete picture of phenomena can be obtained. The other involves an action-psychological approach which is useful in the scrutiny of the effects of social and psychological processes operating on data in research settings.     

Working through disagreement in deliberative forums

Working through disagreement is a core deliberative activity, yet our knowledge of how disagreement exchanges unfold during deliberation is limited. This study analyzes this issue using eight National Issues Forums and a framework that identifies specific activities related to working through disagreement. Even though deliberators expressed opposing viewpoints during forums, there was minimal “working through” of these differences. Specific points of contention were not articulated clearly, causal logics were not critiqued, the accuracy and relevance of evidence went unexamined, and the relative costs and benefits of proposals were not compared. Even when disagreements were explored at length, the conversations often lacked explicit efforts at working through. These findings suggest that deliberative democracy scholars need to focus greater attention on factors that can promote or inhibit working through disagreements, as well as how participants’ approach to disagreement can influence whether desired deliberative outcomes are realized.     

Misconduct versus Honest Error and Scientific Disagreement

Researchers sometimes mistakenly accuse their peers of misconduct. It is important to distinguish between misconduct and honest error or a difference of scientific opinion to prevent unnecessary and time-consuming misconduct proceedings, protect scientists from harm, and avoid deterring researchers from using novel methods or proposing controversial hypotheses. While it is obvious to many researchers that misconduct is different from a scientific disagreement or simply an inadvertent mistake in methods, analysis or misinterpretation of data, applying this distinction to real cases is sometimes not easy. Because the line between misconduct and honest error or a scientific dispute is often unclear, research organizations and institutions should distinguish between misconduct and honest error and scientific disagreement in their policies and practices. These distinctions should also be explained during educational sessions on the responsible conduct of research and in the mentoring process. When researchers wrongfully accuse their peers of misconduct, it is important to help them understand the distinction between misconduct and honest error and differences of scientific judgment or opinion, pinpoint the source of disagreement, and identify the relevant scientific norms. They can be encouraged to settle the dispute through collegial discussion and dialogue, rather than a misconduct allegation.     

Misconduct versus honest error and scientific disagreement

Researchers sometimes mistakenly accuse their peers of misconduct. It is important to distinguish between misconduct and honest error or a difference of scientific opinion to prevent unnecessary and time-consuming misconduct proceedings, protect scientists from harm, and avoid deterring researchers from using novel methods or proposing controversial hypotheses. While it is obvious to many researchers that misconduct is different from a scientific disagreement or simply an inadvertent mistake in methods, analysis or misinterpretation of data, applying this distinction to real cases is sometimes not easy. Because the line between misconduct and honest error or a scientific dispute is often unclear, research organizations and institutions should distinguish between misconduct and honest error and scientific disagreement in their policies and practices. These distinctions should also be explained during educational sessions on the responsible conduct of research and in the mentoring process. When researchers wrongfully accuse their peers of misconduct, it is important to help them understand the distinction between misconduct and honest error and differences of scientific judgment or opinion, pinpoint the source of disagreement, and identify the relevant scientific norms. They can be encouraged to settle the dispute through collegial discussion and dialogue, rather than a misconduct allegation.     

Current ethical issues in synthetic biology: where should we go from here?

Synthetic biology (SynBio) is an emerging scientific field which has quickly established momentum and visibility. Although no single definition of SynBio prevails, the field broadly encompasses the application of engineering principles to biology, redesigning biological materials and using them as new substrates to create products and entities not otherwise found in nature. This article first reviews SynBio, highlighting the novel aspects of this technology. It then synthesizes ethical issues highlighted in the literature to date and makes some initial claims that research on the ethical aspects of SynBio should: avoid creating a new subtype of bioethics, concentrate on novel concepts and problems, and be situated within a context of cooperative interdisciplinary investigation.     

张力：在文学与文化之间——2011年文艺学前沿研究报告

2011年的文艺学研究覆盖了文学理论与文化研究两大界域,在马克思主义文艺理论、文学的全球化、视觉文化、西方文论、中国古代文论以及文学研究的观念与方法等诸多论域,均有较为出色的研究成果,使文艺学研究呈现出多层级的深入与科际之间的互动。文化研究丰富、扩大了传统的文学研究,突破、超越了文艺学既定的学术体制,但是,作为一种＂后学科＂,文化研究是当代＂学科大联合＂的一种积极努力,文化只是文学研究不可或缺的一个维度,文化研究不可能完全取代文学研究。如何在理论与实践上将文学研究与文化研究融为一体,对研究者而言仍是任重道远。     

Validation of the CoRE Questionnaire for a Medical Journal Peer Review

If a peer review instrument asks concrete questions (defined as items that can only generate disagreement if reviewers have different degrees of expertise), then questionnaires could become more meaningful in terms of resolving subjectivity thus leading to more reviewer agreement. A concrete item questionnaire with well-chosen questions can also help resolve disagreement when reviewers have the same level of expertise. We have recently created the core-item reviewer evaluation (CoRE) questionnaire for which decision-threshold score levels have been created, but which have not been validated. This prospective validation of these thresholds for the CoRE questionnaire demonstrated strong agreement between reviewer recommendations and their reported score levels when tested prospectively at Clinical Medicine and Research. We conclude that using the CoRE questionnaire will help reduce peer reviewer disagreement. More importantly, when reviewer expertise varies, editors can more easily detect this and decide which opinion reflects the greater expertise.     

Minding the Gap: Positivism, Psychology, and the Politics of Qualitative Methods

This article explores the politics and practices of qualitative research, in particular by interrogating the "gap" between qualitative and quantitative approaches to research. Two main claims are elaborated: first, that despite being recommended on grounds of ethical superiority (such as of nonmanipulation and instrumentality), qualitative research is not immune from such problems and may indeed harbor its own practices of exploitation; second, and correspondingly, that the moral high ground associated with qualitative research arises from the ways it is used rather than from any intrinsic features of the methodology. The argument is made that it is important to maintain this distinction in order to counter the tendency toward methodological fetishism so prevalent in scientistic (i.e., aspiring to "natural" scientific status) disciplines such as psychology. After framing these issues with some comments on the current popularity of qualitative methods, the article illustrates these claims by exploring 5 key ways that the positivist agenda of the discovery and control of a natural world can return in qualitative research, especially when this is mistakenly evaluated according to criteria formulated for quantitative analyses. The article concludes with a consideration of the epistemological and political status of attempts either to bridge or exacerbate the gap between qualitative and quantitative approaches.     

Pulling Toward or Pulling Away: Deliberation,Disagreement, and Opinion Extremity in Political Participation*

Objective. Evidence supports two somewhat contradictory notions: deliberation is to encourage engagement, but disagreement may decrease participation. This study aims to provide a common denominator in the debate. It distinguishes between deliberation and political disagreement that emerges during deliberation to test which factors advance or thwart participatory goals. This study also accounts for opinion extremity, which may moderate the tested relationships. Methods. This study draws on quasi‐experimental data from participants in structured, moderated, and heterogeneous face‐to‐face deliberations on sexual minority rights in Poland (N=181). Results. Relative to the pretest, deliberation discouraged moderates from active engagement and pulled them away from communicative participation. As predicted, extreme participants who perceived high disagreement intended to be more active than their counterparts in like‐minded groups. Conclusions. Research on deliberative versus participatory democracy should differentiate between deliberation and political disagreement as well as account for individual characteristics that affect responses to deliberation and disagreement. Theoretical and practical implications are discussed.     

Parents who wait: Acknowledging the support needs and vulnerabilities of approved adopters during their wait to become adoptive parents

There is a significant amount of existing research exploring adoption policies, processes, and the experiences and safeguarding of children. However, although much research has children at the focus, little research has been conducted into the experiences of approved and waiting adopters. Where research has included adopters, focus tends to be on how adopters can aid an adoptive placement and what support they can provide to an adoptive child. In this article, the experiences of approved and waiting adopters are at the centre. This article reports on a digital ethnographic research project, which used unobtrusive methods to conduct a thematic analysis of over 600 posts made by waiting adopters on publically available UK online adoption forums in 2015. Online posts discussed the perceived over‐recruitment of adopters; the decision‐making behind adopters' initial preferences; and the negative emotional effects of the waiting period following approval. This article argues that more consideration needs to be given to the needs of and support for approved adopters whilst they wait for an adoptive child.     

Minimal Risk in Pediatric Research: A Philosophical Review and Reconsideration

Despite more than thirty years of debate, disagreement persists among research ethicists about the most appropriate way to interpret the U.S. regulations on pediatric research, specifically the categories of “minimal risk” and a “minor increase over minimal risk.” Focusing primarily on the definition of “minimal risk,” we argue in this article that the continued debate about the pediatric risk categories is at least partly because their conceptual status is seldom considered directly. Once this is done, it becomes clear that the most popular strategy for interpreting “minimal risk”—defining it as a specific set of risks—is indefensible and, from a pragmatic perspective, unlikely to resolve disagreement. Primarily this is because judgments about minimal risk are both normative and heavily intuitive in nature and thus cannot easily be captured by reductions to a given set of risks. We suggest instead that a more defensible approach to evaluating risk should incorporate room for reflection and deliberation. This dispositional, deliberative framework can nonetheless accommodate a number of intellectual resources for reducing reliance on sheer intuition and improving the quality of risk evaluations.     

Developing and delivering new medical technologies: issues beyond access

The articles in this issue illuminate psychosocial issues raised by the development and delivery of new medical technologies. Five kinds of questions surface repeatedly: questions about a technology's purpose(s), the value judgments it presumes, the locus of its control, the external forces that drive it, and its long-term social risks. These questions take the discussion of new technologies beyond the challenge of improving access to their benefits. They also raise issues that will become increasingly important as the capabilities of medical technology expand. For example, they suggest research questions for three other emerging medical technologies: use of biosynthetic growth hormone to treat short stature in hormonally normal children, genetic tests on fetal cells from the circulating maternal blood, and development of clinically reliable biomarkers of the aging process. Part Three of this issue provides a theoretical basis for encouraging psychosocial perspectives in this area, by illustrating the central role that "robust," multifaceted analysis has come to play within the methods of bioethics.     

Ambiguity Aversion in the Field of Insurance: Insurers’ Attitude to Imprecise and Conflicting Probability Estimates

This article presents the results of a survey designed to test, with economically sophisticated participants, Ellsberg’s ambiguity aversion hypothesis, and Smithson’s conflict aversion hypothesis. Based on an original sample of 78 professional actuaries (all members of the French Institute of Actuaries), this article provides empirical evidence that ambiguity (i.e. uncertainty about the probability) affect insurers’ decision on pricing insurance. It first reveals that premiums are significantly higher for risks when there is ambiguity regarding the probability of the loss. Second, it shows that insurers are sensitive to sources of ambiguity. The participants indeed, charged a higher premium when ambiguity came from conflict and disagreement regarding the probability of the loss than when ambiguity came from imprecision (imprecise forecast about the probability of the loss). This research thus documents the presence of both ambiguity aversion and conflict aversion in the field of insurance, and discuses economic and psychological rationales for the observed behaviours.     

Engaging the public in policy development: The national bioethics advisory commission report on research involving persons with mental disorders that may affect decisionmaking capacity

U.S. bioethics commissions have used a variety of methods to involve the public. All share a common requirement: as federal advisory committees they are required to comply with the Federal Advisory Committee Act, the federal law established during the Nixon administration which provides the public with an assurance that groups established by the government to advise the government should be publicly accountable. This paper will describe some of the ways the National Bioethics Advisory Commission (NBAC) sought to involve the public in its report on Research Involving Persons with Mental Disorders that May Affect Decisionmaking Capacity.