Reasonable disagreement and the justification of pre-emptive ethics governance in social research: a response to Hammersley
In this response, we first tackle what we take to be the core disagreement between ourselves and Hammersley, namely the justification for our model of social research ethics governance. We then consider what follows from our defence of governance for ethics review and show how these claims attend to...
Authors: | ; ; |
---|---|
Format: | Electronic Article |
Language: | English |
Check availability: | HBZ Gateway |
Journals Online & Print: | |
Fernleihe: | Fernleihe für die Fachinformationsdienste |
Published: |
BMJ Publ.
2018
|
In: |
Journal of medical ethics
Year: 2018, Volume: 44, Issue: 10, Pages: 719-720 |
Online Access: |
Presumably Free Access Volltext (JSTOR) Volltext (lizenzpflichtig) Volltext (lizenzpflichtig) |
Summary: | In this response, we first tackle what we take to be the core disagreement between ourselves and Hammersley, namely the justification for our model of social research ethics governance. We then consider what follows from our defence of governance for ethics review and show how these claims attend to the specific concerns outlined by Hammersley. |
---|---|
ISSN: | 1473-4257 |
Contains: | Enthalten in: Journal of medical ethics
|
Persistent identifiers: | DOI: 10.1136/medethics-2018-104975 |