We are doing ethical principles and practices this week. The reading is closely related to the practice of social dilemma we worked on in the workshop.
The reading for week 7 is Ethics and Ethnography: An Experiential Account (2003) which written by Doctor Maggie and her mates and we mainly focus on a new situation in area of research ethics that names ‘two-pronged’ ethical dilemma. To begin with, the writers introduces the situation that ‘ethical dilemmas do not exist in a vacuum, in isolation from the current climate in which they are situated, there exists a kind of reciprocal relation- ship in which literature on research ethics influences research in practice and research practice will, in turn, affect the literature on research ethics.’ …show more content…
Maggie set the situation as a community which attacked by a terrible flu. It affected particularly the very young and very old and some healthy younger people at first, the flu soon became much more effective in healthy adults aged 18-30, and the first case of flu was diagnosed in my community in a primary school aged child afterwards. We were divided into six different social identities, parents, public health, vaccine researchers, primary care, hospital care and age concern. My group was facing an ethical dilemma as Goodwin did as well. Because I was the vaccine researcher, it is easier for me to save myself than people in other social identities, but there were a great deal of people waiting for the limited vaccine. Which is the better choice? In my point of view, I will save two groups of people except the vaccine researchers. As I put my position as a researcher, I didn't think it is correct to be selfish. The most important reason for us to work on the vaccine was to save others as much as possible! At the same time, almost all of my group mates disagreed. They held the opinion that they were the future of the country so they should be saved at first anyhow the breaking news came. But the group of parents impressed me a lot. They never changed the idea of saving the children, for they were parents, they were eager to protect their kid from the flu and did not care about themselves. It shows that people in different positions would make different decisions in the same
The reading for week 7 is Ethics and Ethnography: An Experiential Account (2003) which written by Doctor Maggie and her mates and we mainly focus on a new situation in area of research ethics that names ‘two-pronged’ ethical dilemma. To begin with, the writers introduces the situation that ‘ethical dilemmas do not exist in a vacuum, in isolation from the current climate in which they are situated, there exists a kind of reciprocal relation- ship in which literature on research ethics influences research in practice and research practice will, in turn, affect the literature on research ethics.’ …show more content…
Maggie set the situation as a community which attacked by a terrible flu. It affected particularly the very young and very old and some healthy younger people at first, the flu soon became much more effective in healthy adults aged 18-30, and the first case of flu was diagnosed in my community in a primary school aged child afterwards. We were divided into six different social identities, parents, public health, vaccine researchers, primary care, hospital care and age concern. My group was facing an ethical dilemma as Goodwin did as well. Because I was the vaccine researcher, it is easier for me to save myself than people in other social identities, but there were a great deal of people waiting for the limited vaccine. Which is the better choice? In my point of view, I will save two groups of people except the vaccine researchers. As I put my position as a researcher, I didn't think it is correct to be selfish. The most important reason for us to work on the vaccine was to save others as much as possible! At the same time, almost all of my group mates disagreed. They held the opinion that they were the future of the country so they should be saved at first anyhow the breaking news came. But the group of parents impressed me a lot. They never changed the idea of saving the children, for they were parents, they were eager to protect their kid from the flu and did not care about themselves. It shows that people in different positions would make different decisions in the same