Secondary use of empirical research data in medical ethics papers on gamete donation: forms of use and pitfalls

Provoost, Veerle

doi:10.1007/s40592-015-0029-8

Cited by 6 publications

(3 citation statements)

References 45 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…In light of the latter, it is time that we address the question concerning the appropriateness of the empirical methods used and the quality of the data collections and analyses. This type of scrutiny has not been done (to our knowledge) and is needed to shed light on the methodological rigor issue that have been raised by other scholars [ 6 , 14 , 24 ].…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

An update on the “empirical turn” in bioethics: analysis of empirical research in nine bioethics journals

et al. 2018

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

BackgroundA review of literature published a decade ago noted a significant increase in empirical papers across nine bioethics journals. This study provides an update on the presence of empirical papers in the same nine journals. It first evaluates whether the empirical trend is continuing as noted in the previous study, and second, how it is changing, that is, what are the characteristics of the empirical works published in these nine bioethics journals.MethodA review of the same nine journals (Bioethics; Journal of Medical Ethics; Journal of Clinical Ethics; Nursing Ethics; Cambridge Quarterly of Healthcare Ethics; Hastings Center Report; Theoretical Medicine and Bioethics; Christian Bioethics; and Kennedy Institute of Ethics Journal) was conducted for a 12-year period from 2004 to 2015. Data obtained was analysed descriptively and using a non-parametric Chi-square test.ResultsOf the total number of original papers (N = 5567) published in the nine bioethics journals, 18.1% (n = 1007) collected and analysed empirical data. Journal of Medical Ethics and Nursing Ethics led the empirical publications, accounting for 89.4% of all empirical papers. The former published significantly more quantitative papers than qualitative, whereas the latter published more qualitative papers. Our analysis reveals no significant difference (χ2 = 2.857; p = 0.091) between the proportion of empirical papers published in 2004–2009 and 2010–2015. However, the increasing empirical trend has continued in these journals with the proportion of empirical papers increasing from 14.9% in 2004 to 17.8% in 2015.ConclusionsThis study presents the current state of affairs regarding empirical research published nine bioethics journals. In the quarter century of data that is available about the nine bioethics journals studied in two reviews, the proportion of empirical publications continues to increase, signifying a trend towards empirical research in bioethics. The growing volume is mainly attributable to two journals: Journal of Medical Ethics and Nursing Ethics. This descriptive study further maps the still developing field of empirical research in bioethics. Additional studies are needed to completely map the nature and extent of empirical research in bioethics to inform the ongoing debate about the value of empirical research for bioethics.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

An update on the “empirical turn” in bioethics: analysis of empirical research in nine bioethics journals

et al. 2018

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Apart from that, there is need for training that will allow those scholars to also design and conduct empirical research, as well as use the results of such studies in relation to a normative analysis. These trainings must also underline the necessity of upholding the methodological standards of both bioethics and the disciplines that provide the social science methods as noted by many other scholars [ 16 – 18 , 39 ]. Apart from that, and in absence of a state of the art of the use of empirical research in bioethics, transparency about the methods being used is of utmost importance.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

The use of empirical research in bioethics: a survey of researchers in twelve European countries

Wangmo

Provoost

2017

BMC Med Ethics

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

BackgroundThe use of empirical research methods in bioethics has been increasing in the last decades. It has resulted in discussions about the ‘empirical turn of bioethics’ and raised questions related to the value of empirical work for this field, methodological questions about its quality and rigor, and how this integration of the normative and the empirical can be achieved. The aim of this paper is to describe the attitudes of bioethics researchers in this field towards the use of empirical research, and examine their actual conduct: whether they use empirical research methods (and if so, what methods), and whether (and how) they have made attempts at integrating the empirical and the normative.MethodsAn anonymous online survey was conducted to reach scholars working in bioethics/biomedical ethics/ethics institutes or centers in 12 European countries. A total of 225 bioethics researchers participated in the study. Of those, 200 questionnaires were fully completed, representing a response rate of 42.6%. The results were analysed using descriptive statistics.ResultsMost respondents (n = 175; 87.5%) indicated that they use or have used empirical methods in their work. A similar proportion of respondents (61.0% and 59.0%) reported having had at least some training in qualitative or quantitative methods, respectively. Among the ‘empirical researchers’, more than a fifth (22.9%) had not received any methodological training. It appears that only 6% or less of the ‘empirical researchers’ considered themselves experts in the methods (qualitative or quantitative) that they have used. Only 35% of the scholars who have used empirical methods reported having integrated empirical data with normative analysis, whereas for their current projects, 59.8% plan to do so.ConclusionsThere is a need to evaluate the current educational programs in bioethics and to implement rigorous training in empirical research methods to ensure that ‘empirical researchers’ have the necessary skills to conduct their empirical research in bioethics. Also imperative is clear guidance on the integration of the normative and the empirical so that researchers who plan to do so have necessary tools and competences to fulfil their goals.Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (10.1186/s12910-017-0239-0) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

show abstract

“…For several decades, research in bioethics has seen an increased interest in using and incorporating empirical data [1, 2]. This interest manifests in myriad ways, from bioethics research using empirical data to support empirical premises in argument [3], through comment on poor or unreflective use of empirical data in argument [4], to attempts to fully integrate empirical analysis into ethical theorising [5]. This latter activity, dubbed the ‘empirical turn’ in bioethics by some [1], but increasingly simply referred to as ‘empirical bioethics’, is perhaps the most controversial and challenging, requiring the development of new methodologies that provide both practical and theoretical solutions to the problem of how to develop normative claims that are richly informed by the empirical world but that do not fall into the trap of ‘doing ethics by opinion poll’.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Mapping, framing, shaping: a framework for empirical bioethics research projects

Huxtable¹,

Ives²

2019

BMC Med Ethics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

BackgroundThere is growing interest in the use and incorporation of empirical data in bioethics research. Much of the recent focus has been on specific “empirical bioethics” methodologies, which attempt to integrate the empirical and the normative. Researchers in the field are, however, beginning to explore broader questions, including around acceptable standards of practice for undertaking such research.The framework:In this article, we further widen the focus to consider the overall shape of an empirical bioethics research project. We outline a framework that identifies three key phases of such research, which are conveyed via a landscaping metaphor of Mapping-Framing-Shaping. First, the researcher maps the field of study, typically by undertaking literature reviews. Second, the researcher frames particular areas of the field of study, exploring these in depth, usually via qualitative research. Finally, the researcher seeks to (re-)shape the terrain by issuing recommendations that draw on the findings from the preceding phases. To qualify as empirical bioethics research, the researcher will utilise a methodology that seeks to bridge these different elements in order to arrive at normative recommendations. We illustrate the framework by citing examples of diverse projects which broadly adopt the three-phase framework. Amongst the strengths of the framework are its flexibility, since (as the examples indicate) it does not prescribe any specific methods or particular bridging methodology. However, the framework might also have its limitations, not least because it appears particularly to capture projects that involve qualitative – as opposed to quantitative – research.ConclusionsDespite its possible limitations, we offer the Mapping-Framing-Shaping framework in the hope that this will prove useful to those who are seeking to plan and undertake empirical bioethics research projects.

show abstract

Secondary use of empirical research data in medical ethics papers on gamete donation: forms of use and pitfalls

Cited by 6 publications

References 45 publications

An update on the “empirical turn” in bioethics: analysis of empirical research in nine bioethics journals

An update on the “empirical turn” in bioethics: analysis of empirical research in nine bioethics journals

The use of empirical research in bioethics: a survey of researchers in twelve European countries

Mapping, framing, shaping: a framework for empirical bioethics research projects

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About