THE UBIQUITY OF DECEPTION AND THE ETHICS OF DECEPTIVE RESEARCH

Does the fact that deception is widely practised – even though there is a general prohibition against deception – provide insight into the ethics of deceptive methods in research, especially for social-behavioral research? I answer in the affirmative. The ubiquity of deception argument, as I will ca...

Full description

Saved in:  
Bibliographic Details
Main Author: Benham, Bryan (Author)
Format: Electronic Article
Language:English
Check availability: HBZ Gateway
Journals Online & Print:
Drawer...
Fernleihe:Fernleihe für die Fachinformationsdienste
Published: Wiley-Blackwell 2008
In: Bioethics
Year: 2008, Volume: 22, Issue: 3, Pages: 147-156
Further subjects:B ethics of deception
B researcher-participant relationship
B Deception
B deceptive research
Online Access: Volltext (lizenzpflichtig)
Volltext (lizenzpflichtig)

MARC

LEADER 00000naa a22000002 4500
001 1781880972
003 DE-627
005 20211211042757.0
007 cr uuu---uuuuu
008 211211s2008 xx |||||o 00| ||eng c
024 7 |a 10.1111/j.1467-8519.2007.00619.x  |2 doi 
035 |a (DE-627)1781880972 
035 |a (DE-599)KXP1781880972 
040 |a DE-627  |b ger  |c DE-627  |e rda 
041 |a eng 
084 |a 1  |2 ssgn 
100 1 |a Benham, Bryan  |e VerfasserIn  |4 aut 
245 1 0 |a THE UBIQUITY OF DECEPTION AND THE ETHICS OF DECEPTIVE RESEARCH 
264 1 |c 2008 
336 |a Text  |b txt  |2 rdacontent 
337 |a Computermedien  |b c  |2 rdamedia 
338 |a Online-Ressource  |b cr  |2 rdacarrier 
520 |a Does the fact that deception is widely practised – even though there is a general prohibition against deception – provide insight into the ethics of deceptive methods in research, especially for social-behavioral research? I answer in the affirmative. The ubiquity of deception argument, as I will call it, points to the need for a concrete and nuanced understanding of the variety of deceptive practices, and thus promises an alternative route of analysis for why some deception may be permissible in social-behavioral research. As an alternative argument it also promises to break the stalemate that emerges in debates on the ethics of deceptive methods in social-behavioral research. In the current paper I (1) motivate and articulate the ubiquity argument in order to clarify the significance of ubiquity and discharge some initial objections. Then, on the recommendations of the ubiquity argument, I (2) highlight the importance of interpersonal relationships for understanding the ethics of deception. Following this insight I (3) provide an analysis of several features of the researcher-participant relationship relevant to the understanding of the ethics of deception in research. I then (4) conclude the argument with some recommendations for the ethical use of deceptive methods in social-behavioral research. 
650 4 |a ethics of deception 
650 4 |a researcher-participant relationship 
650 4 |a deceptive research 
650 4 |a Deception 
773 0 8 |i Enthalten in  |t Bioethics  |d Oxford [u.a.] : Wiley-Blackwell, 1987  |g 22(2008), 3, Seite 147-156  |h Online-Ressource  |w (DE-627)271596708  |w (DE-600)1480658-7  |w (DE-576)078707986  |x 1467-8519  |7 nnns 
773 1 8 |g volume:22  |g year:2008  |g number:3  |g pages:147-156 
856 4 0 |u https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8519.2007.00619.x  |x Resolving-System  |z lizenzpflichtig  |3 Volltext 
856 4 0 |u https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/j.1467-8519.2007.00619.x  |x Verlag  |z lizenzpflichtig  |3 Volltext 
935 |a mteo 
936 u w |d 22  |j 2008  |e 3  |h 147-156 
951 |a AR 
ELC |a 1 
ITA |a 1  |t 1 
LOK |0 000 xxxxxcx a22 zn 4500 
LOK |0 001 4019003955 
LOK |0 003 DE-627 
LOK |0 004 1781880972 
LOK |0 005 20211211042757 
LOK |0 008 211211||||||||||||||||ger||||||| 
LOK |0 035   |a (DE-Tue135)IxTheo#2021-12-10#D60165693F9BA839AD6B9A7FA3EC5FAA301E3ADA 
LOK |0 040   |a DE-Tue135  |c DE-627  |d DE-Tue135 
LOK |0 092   |o n 
LOK |0 852   |a DE-Tue135 
LOK |0 852 1  |9 00 
LOK |0 935   |a ixzs  |a ixrk  |a zota 
ORI |a SA-MARC-ixtheoa001.raw