Research across the disciplines: a road map for quality criteria in empirical ethics research

BMC Medical Ethics

Silke Schicktanz⁴  Sabine Wöhlke⁴  Jan Schildmann³  Sabine Salloch³  Lillian Geza Rothenberger²  Günter Renz¹  Julia Inthorn⁴  Marcel Mertz⁵ 

[1] Protestant Academy Bad Boll, Bad Boll, Akademieweg 11, D-73087 Bad Boll, Germany;Formerly at: Institute of Ethics and History in Medicine, Centre for Medicine, Society and Prevention, University of Tübingen, Gartenstr 47, D-72074 Tübingen, Germany;Institute for Medical Ethics and History of Medicine, NRW Junior Research Group “Medical Ethics at the End of Life: Norm and Empiricism”, Ruhr University Bochum, Malakowturm, Markstr 258a, D-44799 Bochum, Germany;Department of Medical Ethics and History of Medicine, University Medical Center Göttingen, Humboldtallee 36, D-37073 Göttingen, Germany;Institute for Ethics, History and Philosophy of Medicine, Hannover Medical School, Carl-Neuberg-Str. 1, D-30625 Hannover, Germany

关键词: Quality criteria;    Methodology;    Interdisciplinarity;    Applied bioethics;    Empirical methodology;    Evidence-based ethics;    Empirical ethics;   

Others  :  799575
DOI  :  10.1186/1472-6939-15-17

 received in 2013-04-16, accepted in 2014-02-10,  发布年份 2014

【 摘 要 】

Background

Research in the field of Empirical Ethics (EE) uses a broad variety of empirical methodologies, such as surveys, interviews and observation, developed in disciplines such as sociology, anthropology, and psychology. Whereas these empirical disciplines see themselves as purely descriptive, EE also aims at normative reflection. Currently there is literature about the quality of empirical research in ethics, but little or no reflection on specific methodological aspects that must be considered when conducting interdisciplinary empirical ethics. Furthermore, poor methodology in an EE study results in misleading ethical analyses, evaluations or recommendations. This not only deprives the study of scientific and social value, but also risks ethical misjudgement.

Discussion

While empirical and normative-ethical research projects have quality criteria in their own right, we focus on the specific quality criteria for EE research. We develop a tentative list of quality criteria – a “road map” – tailored to interdisciplinary research in EE, to guide assessments of research quality. These quality criteria fall into the categories of primary research question, theoretical framework and methods, relevance, interdisciplinary research practice and research ethics and scientific ethos.

Summary

EE research is an important and innovative development in bioethics. However, a lack of standards has led to concerns about and even rejection of EE by various scholars. Our suggested orientation list of criteria, presented in the form of reflective questions, cannot be considered definitive, but serves as a tool to provoke systematic reflection during the planning and composition of an EE research study. These criteria need to be tested in different EE research settings and further refined.

【 授权许可】

   
2014 Mertz et al.; licensee BioMed Central Ltd.

【 图 表 】

Figure 1.

Figure 2.

【 参考文献 】

• [1]Haimes E: What can the social sciences contribute to the study of ethics? Theoretical, empirical and substantive considerations. Bioethics 2002, 16(2):89-113.
• [2]Hedgecoe AM: Critical bioethics: beyond the social science critique of applied ethics. Bioethics 2004, 18(2):120-143.
• [3]Borry P, Schotsmans P, Dierickx K: The birth of the empirical turn in bioethics. Bioethics 2005, 19(1):49-71.
• [4]Salloch S, Schildmann J, Vollmann J: Empirische Medizinethik: Eine Übersicht zu Begriff und Konzepten. In Empirische Medizinethik. Konzepte, Methoden und Ergebnisse. Edited by Vollmann J, Schildmann J. Münster: LIT Verlag; 2011:11-24.
• [5]Hope T: Empirical medical ethics. J Med Ethics 1999, 25:219-220.
• [6]Molewijk B, Stiggelbout AM, Otten W, Dupuis HM, Kievit J: Empirical data and moral theory. A plea for integrated empirical ethics. Med Health Care Philos 2004, 7:55-69.
• [7]Widdershoven G, Van der Scheer L: Theory and methodology of empirical ethics: a pragmatic hermeneutic perspective. In Empirical ethics in psychiatry. Edited by Widdershoven G, McMillan J, Hope T, Van der Scheer L. New York: Oxford University Press; 2008:23-36.
• [8]McMillan J, Hope T: The possibility of empirical psychiatric ethics. In Empirical ethics in psychiatry. Edited by Widdershoven G, McMillan J, Hope T, Van der Scheer L. New York: Oxford University Press; 2008:9-22.
• [9]Tyson JE, Stoll BJ: Evidence-based ethics and the care and outcome of extremely premature infants. Clin Perinatol 2003, 30:363-387.
• [10]Strech D: Evidence-based ethics – What it should be and what it shouldn’t. BMC Med Ethics 2008, 9:16. BioMed Central Full Text
• [11]Mertz M: Zur Möglichkeit einer evidenzbasierten Klinischen Ethik. Philosophische Untersuchungen zur Verwendung von Empirie und Evidenz in der (Medizin-)Ethik. GRIN Verlag: München/Ravensburg; 2009.
• [12]Kalichman M: Evidence-Based Research Ethics. Am J Bioeth 2009, 9(6–7):85-87.
• [13]Salloch S: Evidenzbasierte Ethik“? – Über hypothetische und kategorische Handlungsnormen in der Medizin. Ethik Med 2012, 24:5-17.
• [14]Borry P, Schotsmans P, Dierickx K: What is the role of empirical research in bioethical reflection and decision-making? An ethical analysis. Med Health Care Philos 2004, 7:41-53.
• [15]Musschenga AW: Empirical ethics, context-sensitivity, and contextualism. J Med Philos 2005, 30(5):467-490.
• [16]Sulmasy DP, Sugarman J: The Many Methods of Medical Ethics (Or, Thirteen Ways of Looking at a Blackbird). In Methods in Medical Ethics. 2nd edition. Edited by Sugarman J, Sulmasy DP. Washington D.C: Georgetown University Press; 2010:3-20.
• [17]Kon AA: The Role of Empirical Research in Bioethics. Am J Bioeth 2009, 9(6–7):59-65.
• [18]Birnbacher D: Ethics and social science: which kind of cooperation? Ethical Theory Moral Pract 1999, 2:319-336.
• [19]Schicktanz S, Schildmann J: Medizinethik und Empirie – Standortbestimmungen eines spannungsreichen Verhältnisses. Ethik Med 2009, 21(3):183-186.
• [20]Ives J, Draper H: Appropriate methodologies for empirical bioethics: It’s all relative. Bioethics 2009, 23(4):249-258.
• [21]Reiter-Theil S: What does empirical research contribute to medical ethics? A methodological discussion using exemplar studies. Camb Q Healthc Ethics 2012, 21(4):425-435.
• [22]Düwell M: Wofür braucht die Medizinethik empirische Methoden? Eine normativ-ethische Untersuchung. Ethik Med 2009, 21:201-211.
• [23]De Vries R, Gordijn B: Empirical ethics and its alleged meta-ethical fallacies. Bioethics 2009, 23(4):193-201.
• [24]Dunn M, Sheehan M, Hope T, Parker M: Towards Methodological Innovation in Empirical Ethics Research. Camb Q Healthc Ethics 2012, 21:466-480.
• [25]Lindseth A, Norberg A: A Phenomenological Hermeneutical Method for Researching Lived Experience. Scand J Caring Sci 2004, 18:145-153.
• [26]Ebbesen M, Pedersen B: Using empirical research to formulate normative ethical principles in biomedicine. Med Health Care Philos 2007, 10:33-48.
• [27]Rehmann-Sutter C, Porz R, Scully JL: How to relate the empirical to the normative. Toward a phenomenologically informed hermeneutic approach to bioethics. Camb Q Healthc Ethics 2012, 21:436-447.
• [28]Strong RW: Living-donor liver transplantation: an overview. J Hepato-Biliary-Pancreat Surg 2006, 13(5):370-377.
• [29]Decker O, Winter M, Brähler E, Beutel M: Between commodification and altruism: gender imbalance and attitudes towards organ donation. A representative survey of German. Journal of Gender studies 2006, 17(3):251-255.
• [30]Schicktanz S, Rieger JW, Lüttenberg B: Geschlechterunterschiede bei der Lebendnierentransplantation: Ein Vergleich bei globalen, mitteleuropäischen und deutschen Daten und deren ethische Relevanz. Transplantationsmedizin 2006, 19:83-90.
• [31]Kranenburg LW, Richards M, Zuidema WC, Weimar W, Hilhorst MT, Ijzermans JN, Passchier J, Busschbach JJ: Avoiding the issue: Patients’ (non)communication with potential living kidney donors. Patient Educ Couns 2009, 74:39-44.
• [32]Gill P, Lowes L: Gift exchange and organ donation: Donor and recipient experiences of live related kidney transplantation. Int J Nurs Stud 2008, 45:1607-1617.
• [33]Andersen MH: Follow-up interviews of 12 living kidney donors one year after open donor nephrectomy. Clin Transplant 2007, 21:702-709.
• [34]Truog R: The Ethics of Organ Donation by Living Donors. N Engl J Med 2005, 353:444-446.
• [35]Eibach U: Organspende von Lebenden: Auch unter Freunden ein Akt der „Nächstenliebe“? Zeitschrift für Medizinische Ethik 1999, 45:217-231.
• [36]Paul N: Zu den Grenzen des Altruismus in der Lebendorganspende. In Ethik der Lebendorganspende. Edited by Rittner C, Paul N. Mainz: Akademie der Wissenschaften und der Literatur; 2005:205-215.
• [37]Gutmann T: Die Ethik der Lebendspende. In Organlebendspende in Europa. Edited by Gutmann T, Schroth U. Berlin: Springer; 2002:107-122.
• [38]Ressing M, Blettner M, Klug SJ: Systematic literature reviews and meta-analyses. Part 6 of a Series on Evaluation of Scientific Publications. Dtsch Arztebl Int 2009, 106(27):456-463.
• [39]Fogelin RJ, Sinnott-Armstrong W: Understanding Arguments. An Introduction to Informal Logic. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth; 2005.
• [40]Toulmin SE: The Uses of Arguments. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 1993.
• [41]Wuchterl K: Methoden der Gegenwartsphilosophie. Stuttgart: Paul Haupt; 1999.
• [42]Dietrich J: Zur Methode ethischer Urteilsbildung in der Umweltethik. In Umweltkonflikte verstehen und bewerten: Ethische Urteilsbildung im Natur und Umweltschutz. Edited by Eser U, Mueller A. München: Oekom-Verlag; 2006:177-193.
• [43]Bortz J, Döring N: Forschungsmethoden und Evaluation für Human- und Sozialwissenschaftler. Berlin/Heidelberg: Springer-Verlag; 2002.
• [44]Lamnek S: Qualitative Sozialforschung. Lehrbuch. Psychologie Verlagsunion: Weinheim; 2005.
• [45]Steinke I: Gütekriterien qualitativer Forschung. In Qualitative Forschung – Ein Handbuch. Edited by Flick U, Von Kardoff E, Steinke I. Reinbek: Rowohlt Verlag; 2000:319-331.
• [46]Seale C: The Quality of Qualitative Research. London: SAGE Publications Ltd.; 1999.
• [47]Bourgeault I, Dingwall R, De Vries R: Qualitative Methods in Health Research. London: SAGE Publications Ltd.; 2011.
• [48]Green J, Thorogood N: Qualitative Methods for Health Research. 2nd edition. London: SAGE Publications Ltd.; 2009.
• [49]Bergman MM: Mixed Methods Research. London: SAGE Publications Ltd.; 2009.
• [50]Denzin N, Lincoln YS: The SAGE Handbook of Qualitative Research. 4th edition. London: SAGE Publications Ltd.; 2012.
• [51]Inthorn J: Quantitative und qualitative Forschungsmethoden in den Sozialwissenschaften. Eine philosophische Analyse der Argumente des Methodenstreits. Munich: PhD thesis. Munich School of Philosophy; 2010.
• [52]Taylor HA, Hull SC, Kass NE: Qualitative Methods. In Methods in Medical Ethics. 2nd edition. Edited by Sugarman J, Sulmasy DP. Washington: Georgetown University Press; 2010:193-214.
• [53]Pearlman RA, Starks HE: Quantitative Surveys. In Methods in Medical Ethics. 2nd edition. Edited by Sugarman J, Sulmasy DP. Washington: Georgetown University Press; 2010:233-250.
• [54]Hurst S: What ‘empirical turn in bioethics’? Bioethics 2010, 24:439-444.
• [55]Salloch S, Schildmann J, Vollmann J: Empirical research in medical ethics: How conceptual accounts on normative-empirical collaboration may improve research practice. BMC Med Ethics 2012, 13:5. BioMed Central Full Text
• [56]Forschungsgemeinschaft D: Sicherung guter wissenschaftlicher Praxis. Denkschrift. Wiley-VCH: Weinheim; 1998.
• [57]Fuchs M: Gute wissenschaftliche Praxis. In Forschungsethik. Eine Einführung. Edited by Fuchs M, Heinemann T, Heinrichs B, Hübner D, Kipper J, Rottländer K, Runkel T, Spranger TM, Vermeulen V, Völker-Albert M. Stuttgart/Weimar: J.B. Metzler; 2010:41-55.
• [58]Emanuel EJ, Wendler D, Grady C: An ethical framework for biomedical research. In The Oxford Textbook of Clinical Research Ethics. Edited by Emanuel EJ, Grady C, Crouch RA, Lie RK, Miller FG, Wendler D. New York: Oxford University Press; 2008:123-135.
• [59]Heinemann T: Forschung und Gesellschaft. In Forschungsethik. Eine Einführung. Edited by Fuchs M, Heinemann T, Heinrichs B, Hübner D, Kipper J, Rottländer K, Runkel T, Spranger TM, Vermeulen V, Völker-Albert M. Stuttgart/Weimar: J.B. Metzler; 2010:98-119.
• [60]Schünemann HJ, Wiercioch W, Etxeandia I, Falavigna M, Santesso N, Mustafa R, Ventresca V, Brignardello-Petersen R, Laisaar K-T, Kowalski S, Baldeh T, Zhang Y, Raid U, Neumann I, Norris SL, Thornton J, Harbour R, Treweek S, Guyatt G, Alonso-Coello P, Reinap M, Brožek J, Oxman A, Akl EA: Guidelines 2.0: systematic development of a comprehensive checklist for a successful guideline enterprise. CMAJ 2013. http://cebgrade.mcmaster.ca/guidelinechecklistprintable.pdf webcite
• [61]Scottish Intercollegiate Guidelines Network: SIGN 50: A guideline developer’s handbook. Revised edition 2011. Edinburgh. 2011. http://sign.ac.uk/guidelines/fulltext/50/compchecklist.html webcite
• [62]Schulz KF, Altman DG, Moher D, CONSORT Group. CONSORT 2010 Statement: Updated Guidelines for Reporting Parallel Group Randomised Trials. PLoS Med 2010, 7(3):e1000251. http://www.consort-statement.org/consort-statement/overview0/#checklist webcite
• [63]Von Elm E, Altman DG, Egger M, Pocock SJ, Gøtzsche PC, Vandenbroucke JP: The Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) statement: guidelines for reporting observational studies. PLoS Med 2007, 4:e296. http://www.strobe-statement.org/fileadmin/Strobe/uploads/checklists/STROBE_checklist_v4_combined.pdf webcite
• [64]Young JM, Solomon MJ: How to critically appraise an article. Nat Rev Gastroenterol Hepatol 2009, 6:82-91.
• [65]The Critical Appraisal Company. http://www.criticalappraisal.com webcite
• [66]Graumann S, Lindemann G: Medizin als gesellschaftliche Praxis, sozialwissenschaftliche Empirie und ethische Reflexion: ein Vorschlag für eine soziologisch aufgeklärte Medizinethik. Ethik Med 2009, 21:235-245.
• [67]Hirschauer S, Kalthoff H: Lindemann G (eds.): Theoretische Empirie. Zur Relevanz qualitativer Forschung. Frankfurt am Main. Berlin: Suhrkamp; 2008.
• [68]Kelle U: Integration qualitativer und quantitativer Methoden in der empirischen Sozialforschung. Theoretische Grundlagen und methodologische Konzepte, 2. ed. VS Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften: Wiesbaden; 2008.
• [69]De Vries R: How can we help? From “Sociology in” to “Sociology of” Bioethics. J Law Med Ethics 2003, 32(2):279-292.
• [70]Schicktanz S, Schweda M, Wynne B: The ethics of ‘public understanding of ethics’ – Why and how bioethics expertise should include public and patients’ Voices. Med Health Care Philos 2011, 15(2):129-139.
• [71]Taylor C: Quellen des Selbst, Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp. 1994.
• [72]Anderson J: Neuro-Prosthetics, the Extended Mind, and Respect for Persons with Disability. In The Contingent Nature of Life. 39th edition. Edited by Düwell M, Rehmann-Sutter C, Mieth D. New York: International Library of Ethics, Law, and the New Medicine; 2008:259-274.
• [73]Khushf G: Why Bioethics needs the Philosophy of Medicine: Some Implications of Reflection on Concepts of Health and Disease. Theor Med 1997, 18:145-163.
• [74]Appiah KA: The ethics of identity. University Press: Princeton; 2005.
• [75]Strech D: Evidenz und Ethik. Kritische Analysen zur Evidenz-basierten Medizin und empirischen Ethik. Berlin: Lit Verlag; 2008.
• [76]Weaver GR, Trevino LK: Normative and Empirical Buisness Ethics: Separation, Marriage of Convenience, or Marriage of Necessity? Bus Ethics Q 1994, 4(2):129-143.
• [77]Reiter-Theil S, Mertz M, Schürmann J, Stingelin Giles N, Meyer-Zehnder B: Evidence – competence – discourse: the theoretical framework of the multi-centre clinical ethics support project METAP. Bioethics 2011, 25(7):403-412.
• [78]Leget C, Borry P, De Vries R: Nobody tosses a dwarf!The relation between the empirical and the normative reexamined. Bioethics 2009, 23:226-235.
• [79]Lenk H: Einführung in die Angewandte Ethik. Verantwortlichkeit und Gewissen. W. Kohlhammer GmbH: Stuttgart/Berlin/Köln; 1997.
• [80]Wöhlke S: The morality of giving and receiving living kidneys: Empirical findings on opinions of affected patients. In Public Engagement in Organ Donation. Edited by Schicktanz S. Randhawa. Lengerich: Pabst Science Publishers; in press
• [81]Ashcroft RE: Constructing empirical bioethics: Foucauldian reflections on the empirical turn in bioethics research. Health Care Anal 2003, 11:3-13.
• [82]Salloch S, Vollmann J, Schildmann J: Ethics by opinion poll? The functions of attitudes research for normative deliberations in medical ethics. J Med Ethicsdoi:10.1136/medethics-2012-101253
• [83]Parker M: Two concepts of empirical ethics. Bioethics 2009, 23(4):202-213.
• [84]Strech D, Synofzik M, Marckmann G: Systematic reviews of empirical bioethics. J Med Ethics 2008, 34:472-477.
• [85]Solbakk JH: Use and abuse of empirical knowledge in contemporary bioethics. A critical analysis of empirical arguments employed in the controversy surrounding studies of maternal-fetal HIV-transmission and HIV-prevention in developing countries. Med Health Care Philos 2004, 7:5-16.
• [86]Israel M, Hay I: Research Ethics for Social Scientists. London: Sage Publications; 2006.
• [87]Beauchamp TL, Childress JF: Principles of Biomedical Ethics. 6th edition. New York: Oxford University Press; 2009.
• [88]Armstrong PW, Califf RM: Data and safety monitoring boards: academic credit where credit is due? JAMA 2013, 310(15):1563-1564.
• [89]National Academy of Sciences: Committee on Ensuring the Utility and Integrity of Research Data in a Digital Age; Committee on Science, Engineering, and Public Policy (COSEPUP); Policy and Global Affairs (PGA); Institute of Medicine (IOM): Ensuring the Integrity, accessibility, and Stewardship of research data in the digital age. Washington, D.C: The National Academies Press; 2009. http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=12615 webcite
• [90]Faden RR, Beauchamp TL: A History and Theory of Informed Consent. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 1986.
• [91]Annas GJ, Grodin MA: The Nuremberg Code. In The Oxford Textbook of Clinical Research Ethics. Edited by Emanuel EJ, Grady C, Crouch RA, Lie RK, Miller FG, Wendler D. New York: Oxford University Press; 2008:136-140.
• [92]National Academy of Sciences, National Academy of Engineering: Committee on Science, Engineering, and Public Policy (COSEPUP); Institute of Medicine (IOM); Policy and Global Affairs (PGA): On being a scientist. A guide to responsible conduct in research. Third edition. Washington, D.C: The National Academies Press; 2009. http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=12192 webcite
• [93]Institute of Medicine (IOM): Conflicts of Interest in Medical Research, Education, and Practice. Washington D.C: National Academic Press; 2009.
• [94]European Medicines Agency (EMA): ICH Topic E6 (R1) Guideline for Good Clinical Practice. http://www.emea.europa.eu/docs/en_GB/document_library/Scientific_guideline/2009/09/WC500002874.pdf webcite
• [95]World Medical Association (WMA): WMA-Declaration of Helsinki – Ethical Principles for Medical Research Involving Human Subjects. http://www.wma.net/en/30publications/10policies/b3/ webcite
• [96]German Psychological Society (DGP) and the Association of German Professional Psychologists (BDP): Ethical Principles of the German Psychological Society and the Association of German Professional Psychologists. http://www.bdp-verband.org/bdp/verband/clips/ethic.pdf webcite
• [97]Ethics Committee of the British Psychological Society: Code of Ethics and Conduct. Guidance. 2009. http://www.bps.org.uk/sites/default/files/documents/code_of_ethics_and_conduct.pdf webcite
• [98]National Committees for Research Ethics in Norway: Guidelines for Research Ethics in the Social Sciences, Law and the Humanities. http://graduateschool.nd.edu/assets/21765/guidelinesresearchethicsinthesocialscienceslawhumanities.pdf webcite
• [99]Respect Project: RESPECT Code of Practice for Socio-Economic Research. http://www.respectproject.org/code/respect_code.pdf webcite
• [100]Canadian Institutes of Health Research: Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada, and Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada: Tri-Council Policy Statement: Ethical Conduct for Research Involving Humans. http://www.pre.ethics.gc.ca webcite
• [101]Jacoby L, Siminoff L: Empirical Methods for Bioethics. Oxford: A Primer. Elsevier JAI; 2008.
• [102]Miller FG, Wendler D: The relevance of empirical research in bioethics. Schizophr Bull 2006, 32:37-41.
• [103]Nilstun T, Melltorp G, Hermeren G: Surveys on attitudes to active euthanasia and the difficulty of drawing normative conclusions. Scand J Public Health 2000, 28:111-116.
• [104]Strech D, Schildmann J: Quality of ethical guidelines and ethical content in clinical guidelines: the example of end-of-life decision-making. J Med Ethics 2011, 37(7):390-396.