Skip to main content Accessibility help

We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.

Close cookie message
×
Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-4rdpn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-03T08:04:47.988Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

21 - Ethics and the Study of Discourse

from Part V - Ethics, Inequality and Inclusion

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  28 September 2020

By
Martyn Hammersley
Edited by
Anna De Fina  and
Alexandra Georgakopoulou
Anna De Fina
Affiliation:
Georgetown University, Washington DC
Alexandra Georgakopoulou
Affiliation:
King's College London
Get access

Summary

Ethical issues are of central importance in the study of discourse, as in other fields. In some respects, these issues are given greater emphasis today than in the past, partly as a result of the rise of ethical regulation, but also because of some fundamental debates among researchers about the politics and ethics of their work. While the issues vary somewhat across the discourse field, here, as elsewhere, there are certain central values that underpin the practical decisions that researchers make. In this chapter, a distinction is drawn between epistemic and non-epistemic values. The first concern the process of enquiry itself – for example, the obligation to pursue worthwhile knowledge, and to do this effectively; to provide sufficient evidence in publications; to be honest about how the research was done; and to engage genuinely with critics. Non-epistemic values include minimizing harm; respecting autonomy; and maintaining reciprocity; and these represent essential constraints on how research is pursued. The chapter examines how all these values relate to discourse research, exploring the complexities involved. It is emphasized that ethicality is not a matter of following a set of rules; rather, it necessarily involves judgment, in which relevant values, along with prudential and methodological considerations, are taken into account, as they relate to the specific situations faced. The chapter ends with a consideration of ethical regulation and the problems generated by the proceduralist approach to research ethics that it tends to encourage.

Keywords

Ethicstruthconsequentialismdeontological ethicsminimizing harmpreserving privacyrespecting autonomyinformed consentreciprocityethical regulationphronesis
Type
Chapter
Information
The Cambridge Handbook of Discourse Studies , pp. 465 - 486
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2020

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Further Reading

This is perhaps the most useful set of ethical guidelines for the field of discourse studies; it provides comprehensive and helpful coverage of the issues.

This is a seminal work which takes a very different stance from that adopted in this chapter. Several chapters provide illuminating insights into concrete ethical problems.

This handbook examines ethical dilemmas via discussion of a wide variety of actual cases; it is designed for teaching anthropology students but is of wider value.

This is a thoughtful and helpful discussion of ethical issues specifically relating to linguistic fieldwork.

This general account of research ethics, in the context of qualitative research, elaborates on the arguments presented in this chapter.

This recent handbook contains thirty-five chapters discussing a wide range of ethical issues that can arise in carrying out qualitative research.

A useful discussion of a range of ethical debates relating to applied linguistics.

This is a review of issues arising in qualitative research in the field of applied linguistics and of some of the contrasting views taken about them.

British Association for Applied Linguistics. (2006). Recommendations on Good Practice in Applied Linguistics. www.bbk.ac.uk/linguistics/research/baal%20ethics%20and%20good%20practice%20in%20research%20guidelines%202006.pdf.Google Scholar
Cameron, D., Frazer, E., Harvey, P., Rampton, M. B. H. and Richardson, K. (1992). Researching Language: Issues of Power and Method. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Cassell, J. and Jacobs, S.-E. (1987). Handbook on Ethical Issues in Anthropology. Special Publication No. 23. Washington DC: American Anthropological Association. www.psi.uba.ar/academica/carrerasdegrado/psicologia/sitios_catedras/obligatorias/723_etica2/material/normativas/handbook_on_ethical_issues_in_anthropology.pdf.Google Scholar
Eckert, P. (2013). Research Ethics in Linguistics. In Podesva, R. and Sharma, D. (eds.) Cambridge Handbook in Research Methods in Linguistics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 11–26.Google Scholar
Hammersley, M. and Traianou, A. (2012). Ethics in Qualitative Research. London: Sage.Google Scholar
Iphofen, R. and Tolich, M. (eds.) (2018). The Sage Handbook of Qualitative Research Ethics. London: Sage.Google Scholar
Kubanyiova, M. (2012). Ethical Debates in Research on Language and Interaction. In Chapelle, C. (ed.) Encyclopedia of Applied Linguistics. New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
Lazaraton, A. (2012). Ethics in Qualitative Research. In Chapelle, C. (ed.) Encyclopedia of Applied Linguistics. New York: Wiley.Google Scholar

References

Alcadipani, R. and Hodgson, D. (2009). By Any Means Necessary? Ethnographic Access, Ethics and the Critical Researcher. Tamara Journal 7(4): 127–46.Google Scholar
Alcoff, L. (1991–2). The Problem of Speaking for Others. Cultural Critique 20: 5–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bridges, D. (1999). Educational Research: Pursuit of Truth or Flight into Fancy? British Educational Research Journal 25: 597–616.Google Scholar
Brotsky, S. and Giles, D. (2007). Inside the “Pro-ana” Community: A Covert Online Participant Observation. Journal of Eating Disorders 15(2): 93–109.Google Scholar
Bruce, A., Beuthin, R., Sheilds, L., Molzahn, A. and Schick-Makaroff, K. (2016). Narrative Research Evolving: Evolving through Narrative Research. International Journal of Qualitative Methods 15(1): 1–6.Google Scholar
Calvey, D. (2017). Covert Research. London: Sage.Google Scholar
Cameron, D., Frazer, E., Harvey, P., Rampton, M. and Richardson, K. (1992). Researching Language: Issues of Power and Method. London/New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Clifford, J. and Marcus, G. (eds). (1986). Writing Culture: The Poetics and Politics of Ethnography. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.Google Scholar
Dingwall, R. (2008). The Ethical Case against Ethical Regulation in Humanities and Social Science Research. Twenty-First Century Society 3(1): 1–12.Google Scholar
Eckert, P. (2013). Research Ethics in Linguistics. In Podesva, R. and Sharma, D. (eds.) Cambridge Handbook in Research Methods in Linguistics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 11–26.Google Scholar
Emmerich, N. (ed.) (2018). Virtue Ethics in the Conduct and Governance of Social Science Research. Bingley: Emerald.Google Scholar
Giaxoglou, K. (2017). Ethics Revisited: Rights, Responsibilities and Relationships in Online Research. Applied Linguistics Review 8(2–3): 229–50.Google Scholar
Gray, A. (1990). On Anthropological Advocacy. Current Anthropology 31(4): 387–90.Google Scholar
Grinyer, A. (2002). The Anonymity of Research Participants: Assumptions, Ethics and Practicalities. Social Research Update 36: 1–5.Google Scholar
Hastrup, K. and Elsass, P. (1990). Anthropological Advocacy: A Contradiction in Terms? Current Anthropology 31(3): 301–11.Google Scholar
Hammersley, M. (1995). The Politics of Social Research London: Sage.Google Scholar
Hammersley, M. (2000). Taking Sides in Social Research. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Hammersley, M. (2004). Action Research: A Contradiction in Terms? Oxford Review of Education 30(2): 165–81.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hammersley, M. (2009a). Challenging Relativism: The Problem of Assessment Criteria. Qualitative Inquiry 15(1): 3–29.Google Scholar
Hammersley, M. (2009b). Against the Ethicists: On the Evils of Ethical Regulation. International Journal of Social Research Methodology 12(3): 211–25.Google Scholar
Hammersley, M. (2014). On the Ethics of Interviewing for Discourse Analysis. Qualitative Research 14(5): 529–41.Google Scholar
Hammersley, M. (2017). On the Role of Values in Social Research: Weber Vindicated? Sociological Research Online 22(1): 1–12.Google Scholar
Hammersley, M. (2018). Revisiting Objectivity and Commitment in Sociolinguistics: From Labov to Lewis. Unpublished paper. https://martynhammersley.wordpress.com/documents/.Google Scholar
Hammersley, M. and Traianou, A. (2011). Moralism and Research Ethics: A Machiavellian Perspective. International Journal of Social Research Methodology 14(5): 379–90.Google Scholar
Hammersley, M. and Treseder, P. (2007). Identity as an Analytic Problem: Who’s Who in “Pro-ana” Websites? Qualitative Research 7(3): 283–300.Google Scholar
Harvey, P. (1992). Bilingualism in the Peruvian Andes. In Cameron, D., Frazer, E., Harvey, P., Rampton, M. and Richardson, K. (eds.) Researching Language: Issues of Power and Method. London/New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Hydén, M. (2008). Narrating Sensitive Topics. In Andrews, M., Squire, C. and Tamboukou, M. (eds.) Doing Narrative Research. London: Sage. 121–36.Google Scholar
Kingston, A. (2020). Feminist Research Ethics. In Iphofen, R. (ed.) Handbook of Research Ethics and Scientific Integrity. Basingstoke: Palgrave-Macmillan. 531–549.Google Scholar
Kress, G. (1996). Representational Resources and the Production of Subjectivity: Questions for the Theoretical Development of Critical Discourse Analysis in a Multicultural Society. In Caldas-Coulthard, C. and Coulthard, M. (eds.) Text and Practice: Readings in Critical Discourse Analysis. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Kubanyiova, M. (2008). Rethinking Research Ethics in Contemporary Applied Linguistics: The Tension between Macroethical and Microethical Perspectives in Situated Research. Modern Language Journal 92(4): 503–18.Google Scholar
Labov, W. (1982). Objectivity and Commitment in Linguistic Science: The Case of the Black English Trial in Ann Arbor. Language in Society 11(2): 165–201.Google Scholar
Lewis, M. (2018). A Critique of the Principle of Error Correction as a Theory of Social Change. Language in Society 47: 325–84.Google Scholar
Lincoln, Y. S. and Guba, E. G. (1989). Ethics: The Failure of Positivist Science. Review of Higher Education 12(3): 221–40.Google Scholar
Macfarlane, B. (2008). Researching with Integrity. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Nind, M. (2014). What Is Inclusive Research? London: Bloomsbury.Google Scholar
Nöth, W. (2003). Crisis of Representation? Semiotica 143(1/4): 9–15.Google Scholar
O’Reilly, M., Dixon-Woods, M., Angell, E., Ashcroft, R. and Bryman, A. (2009). Doing Accountability: A Discourse Analysis of Research Ethics Committee Letters. Sociology of Health & Illness 31(2): 246–61.Google Scholar
Roulet, T., Gill, M., Stengers, S. and Gill, D. (2017). Reconsidering the Value of Covert Research: The Role of Ambiguous Consent in Participant Observation. Organizational Research Methods 20(3): 487–517.Google Scholar
Spender, D. (1982). Invisible Women: The Schooling Scandal. London: Writers and Readers Publishing Co-operative Society with Chameleon Editorial Group.Google Scholar
Thomas-Hughes, H. (2018). Ethical “Mess” in Co-produced Research: Reflections from a U.K.-Based Case Study. International Journal of Social Research Methodology 21(2): 231–42.Google Scholar
Tomkinson, S. (2015). Doing Fieldwork on State Organizations in Democratic Settings: Ethical Issues of Research in Refugee Decision Making [46 paragraphs]. Forum Qualitative Sozialforschung/Forum: Qualitative Social Research 16(1): Art. 6. http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:0114-fqs150168.Google Scholar
Van den Hoonaard, W. (2018). The Vulnerability of Vulnerability: Why Social Science Researchers Should Abandon the Doctrine of Vulnerability. In Iphofen, R. and Tolich, M. (eds.) The Sage Handbook of Qualitative Research Ethics. London: Sage.Google Scholar
Van den Hoonard, W. and Hamilton, A. (eds.) (2016). The Ethics Rupture. Toronto: University of Toronto Press.Google Scholar
Whiteman, S. (2012). Undoing Ethics: Rethinking Practice in Online Research. New York: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure [email protected] is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Available formats
×

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Available formats
×

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Available formats
×