The RESPECT Guidelines: Ethical, Cultural, and Meta-Ethical Considerations

Charles Ess
Chair, ethics working committee, Association of Internet Researchers; Committee for Scientific Freedom and Responsibility, American Association for the Advancement of Science

Interdisciplinary Studies, Drury University cmess@drury.edu www.drury.edu/ess/ess.html

Philosophical Prelude - Nietzsche

It is the Age of comparison! That is its pride but also what it suffers from. Let us not fear this suffering! On the contrary, we want to understand the task set before us by the Age as comprehensively as we can. And so the world following ours (Nachwelt) will bless us. That world will be as much beyond the original but utterly closed off cultures of isolated peoples, as it is also beyond the culture of comparison: but that world will also look back with gratitude on both kinds of culture as honorable antiquities. -Nietzsche, Menschliches, Allzumenschliches, Erstes Hauptstck, 23. In Rolf Elberfeld, Einleitung. Vom Nutzen komparativer Ethik fr die Gegenwart, in Rolf Elberfeld and Gnter Wohlfart (eds.), Komparative Ethik: Das gute leben zwischen den Kulturen (Acadmie du Midi), 12. 2002. Cologne: edition chora.

Philosophical Prelude - Nietzsche

Es ist das Zeitalter der Vergleichung! Das ist sein Stolz, - aber billgerweise auch sein leiden. Frchten wir uns vor diesem Leiden nicht! Vielmehr wollen wir die Aufgabe, welche das Zeitalter uns stellt, so gross verstehen, als wir nur vermgen: so wird uns die Nachwelt darob segnen, - eine Nachwelt, die ebenso sich ber die abgeschlossenen originalen VolksCulturen hinaus weiss, als ber die Cultur der Vergleichung, aber auf beide Arten der Cultur als auf verehrungswrdige Alterthmer mit Dankbarkeit zurckblickt. -- Nietzsche, Menschliches, Allzumenschliches, Erstes Hauptstck, 23. In Rolf Elberfeld, Einleitung. Vom Nutzen komparativer Ethik fr die Gegenwart, in Rolf Elberfeld and Gnter Wohlfart (eds.), Komparative Ethik: Das gute leben zwischen den Kulturen (Acadmie du Midi), 12. 2002. Cologne: edition chora.

Outline
1. An ethicists approach
Preliminary overview

Deontology vs. utilitarian approaches + other/global ethics

Initial overview of Guidelines in terms of deontology [D] / utilitarian [U] bases
Where D / U approaches converge: 2 [4, 6,] Where D / U approaches conflict: 11[ 5] Where D / U approaches are distinct: 1 [U] / 15-18 [D] possible tensions in Guidelines?

2. Convergences / Divergences in Inter/national law: 2

3. Cultural Perspectives: 3, 5
4. Meta-ethical concluding questions

[5. Suggestions for a Global Research Ethics]

1. An Ethicists First Perspective

The guidelines can be helpfully understood to be divided as follows: Utilitarian starting point: research must balance benefits and costs (1) Professional ethics - especially as oriented towards deontological / basic rights / respects perspectives, 2 - 5

Professional Ethics - especially as concomitant with basic research methodology and the professional ethics codes of specific disciplines (sociology, anthropology, etc.), 6 - 14 Human Subjects Protections (basic - deontological - values /rights emphasized in post-WWII Western research ethics codes), 15 - 18

1. An Ethicists First Perspective

Human Subjects Protections: post-WWII Western research ethics codes, e.g.
Office for Protection from Research Risks, National Institutes of Health, Department Of Health And Human Services. 1991. Code of Federal Regulations. 1991. Title 45, Part 46, Protection of Human Subjects. <http://ohsr.od.nih.gov/mpa/45cfr46.php3>.

Tri-Council Policy Statement: Ethical Conduct for Research Involving Humans (Natural Sciences and Engineering Resarch Council of Canada) <www.nserc.ca/programs/ethics/english/policy.htm>
American Psychological Association, Ethical Principles of Psychologists and Codes of Conduct, 2002 <www.apa.org/ethics/codecompare.html>

See: AoIR ethics report for more extensive list <www.aoir.org/reports/ethics.pdf>

2. Deontology, Utilitarianism, and other/global ethics

Utilitarianism and Deontology: two interwoven but distinct approaches to ethical decision-making
Definitions: UTILITARIANISM

an ethical theory claiming that what makes behavior right or wrong depends wholly on the consequences.utilitarianism affirms that what is important about human behavior is the outcome or results of the behavior and not the intention a person has when he or she acts (36: emphasis added, CE).
(From: Deborah Johnson, Computer Ethics, 3rd. ed. Upper Saddle River, New Jersey: Prentice-Hall, 2001.

2. Deontology, Utilitarianism, and other/global ethics

UTILITARIANISM

At work in the RESPECT Guidelines, beginning with 1 and throughout. Central utilitarian issues in research ethics:
Risks of harm to subjects, including psychological harm, breach of trust, expectations established with research subjects, especially through failure to monitor the consequences of research activities, including, e.g., appearance of research in mass media vis--vis possible research benefits (for whom / over what period of time, etc.)

2. Deontology, Utilitarianism, and other/global ethics

Definitions: DEONTOLOGY

put[s] the emphasis on the internal character of the act itself, and thus focuses instead on the motives, intentions, principles, values, duties, etc., that may guide our choices (Johnson 2001, 42: emphasis added, CE). language of rights including rights fundamental to Human Subjects Protections, i.e., autonomy, privacy, confidentiality, informed consent, freedom from unnecessary harm(s), etc. at least some values, principles, or duties require (near) absolute endorsement no matter the consequences.

2. Deontology, Utilitarianism, and other/global ethics

Intersects

with cultural/national differences:

Scandinavian Guidelines (NESH, Swedish Research Council), EU Data Privacy Protection Guidelines deontological emphases on individual rights vs. U.S. law, policy, as more oriented towards the market, stressing corporate/business rights over individuals (e.g., shrink-wrap licenses) utilitarian emphases See aoir ethics document for discussion <www.aoir.org/reports/ethics.pdf>

2. Deontology, Utilitarianism, and other/global ethics

But thats not all Virtue Ethics

from Plato and Aristotle. The English word virtue in this context translates the Greek arete - better translated as excellence. In this tradition, ethics was concerned with excellences of human character. A person possessing such qualities exhibited the excellences of human goodness. To have these qualities is to function well as a human being (Johnson 2001, 51).

Contemporary feminist ethics / ethics of care / dialogical ethics / open source ethics [AoIR, RESPECT processes] [recovery of premodern traditions] [movement towards global dialogue, ethics]

2. Deontology, Utilitarianism, and other/global ethics

Contemporary feminist ethics / virtue ethics / ethics of care / dialogical ethics / Good Samaritan ethics, etc.:
(From Carol Gilligan and others): women as a group tend to emphasize the details of relationships and caring, choosing those acts that best sustain the web of relationships constituting an ethical community in contrast with men who as a group tend to rely more on general principles and rules. NOT an either / or but a both / and

2. Deontology, Utilitarianism, and other/global ethics

Ethics of Care
Reinforced especially by Postmodern critiques of Modern rationalism and the Enlightenment (if not Western) project of discerning ethical universals valid for all times / peoples / circumstances
(see: Margaret Emerton, Ethical and Methodological Problems in Online Research. Available from the author: <me21@uow.edu.au>)

Contemporary examples:
R. Capurro & C. Pingel. 2002. Ethical Issues of Online Research. Ethics and Information Technology (4:3). <www.nyu.edu/projects/nissenbaum/projects_ethics.html> D. Berry. 2003. Internet Research: Privacy, Ethics and Alienation An Open Source Approach. <www.sussex.ac.uk/Users/hbp17/>

2. Deontology, Utilitarianism, and other/global ethics

Ethics of Care // Confucian ethics, etc.

movement towards global dialogue, ethics, e.g.
Chenyang Li. Revisiting Confucian Jen Ethics and Feminist Care Ethics: A Reply. Hypatia: a Journal of Feminist Philosophy. Winter, 2002. 130-140. Henry Rosemont, Jr. Rationality and Religious Experience: The Continuing Relevance of the Worlds Spiritual Traditions. LaSalle, Illinois: Open Court, 2002. Charles Ess. Forthcoming. Computer-Mediated Colonization, the Renaissance, and Educational Imperatives for an Intercultural Global Village. In Robert Cavalier (ed.), The Internet and our Moral Lives. Albany, NY: SUNY Press.

2. Deontology, Utilitarianism, and other/global ethics

How do the RESPECT guidelines fit these (Western) ethical categories especially deontology and utilitarianism?
Where D / U approaches converge : 2 [also: 4, 6] Where D / U approaches conflict: 11, 5 Where D / U approaches are distinct: 1 [U] / 15-18 [D]

possible tensions in Guidelines?

Where D / U approaches converge:

2. Professional integrity must be balanced with respect for national and international law Deontological: both professional ethics standards and inter/national law may codify absolute values - first of all, those basic to Human Subjects Protections codes:

Autonomy (freedom)
rights to informed consent / confidentiality anonymity / protection against undue risk of harm [These are articulated here in Guidelines 15 - 18]

Where D / U approaches converge:

2. Professional integrity must be balanced with respect for national and international law

Deontologist: just law rooted in (quasi- or soft) universals of human rights, etc. cannot be disobeyed. (Cf. Martin Luther King, Letter)
Utilitarian: breaking the law has consequences/costs. Convergence: the utilitarian and the human rights deontologist might agree that it is best not to break those laws designed to protect basic human rights.

Where D / U approaches conflict:

[PROFESSIONAL / METHODOLOGICAL ETHICS (6 - 14)]

11. Researchers and commissioners should reflect on the consequences of research engagement for all participants
Utilitarian - we reflect on these consequences in order to determine if the costs outweigh the benefits. Deontological - are there some costs that are so high that no research benefit can justify them? Example: in a chatroom that functions as a support group for incest survivors both the overt and covert presence of a researcher might destroy the sense of privacy, intimacy, and trust that is crucial for the support group to function. What possible research outcomes are worth this risk / cost to the chatroom participants?

Where D / U approaches conflict:

Deontological: In case of a conflict between probable harm to a human being and the outcomes of the study - the harm to a human being is to be avoided, even at the cost of the study.

Utilitarian:
It is arguable that if great benefit is to be gained from the study, then even high costs to individual human beings ranging from psychological and reputational harms to ones very life - can be justified.

Where D / U approaches conflict:

Utilitarian Analogies: sacrifice of the few for the many in warfare (bombing of Coventry)

medicine (Tuskeegee Institute Syphilis Study)

Deontological counterpoints:

the morality of fascism - including the medical experiments in the Nazi death camps;
the morality of racism as the Tuskeegee study shows.

Where D / U approaches conflict:

[PROFESSIONAL / METHODOLOGICAL ETHICS (6 - 14)] 6. Researchers should address the concerns of relevant stakeholders and user groups Utilitarian - such concerns may be undertaken as part of a costbenefit analysis

Problem for the utilitarian: who are the relevant stakeholders and how is their membership in the moral community to be determined?
Deontological - in some cases, basic rights may come into play (e.g., to confidentiality, anonymity, etc.) that will limit - or, in worst-case scenarios, eliminate a research design. National / International: These rights are construed differently depending on national law and traditions of ethical decisionmaking

Where D / U approaches are distinct:

1. The research aims of any study should both benefit society and minimise social harm Comment: Utilitarian:cost-benefit analysis Research which offers no probable benefit to society cannot be justified. Any probable / possible benefits must be balanced by clear and complete awareness of possible / probable costs.

Where D / U approaches are distinct

Human Subjects Protections: 15-18
18. Research participants should be protected from undue intrusion, harm or distress
Ethical: 1. This is the prime directive of Human Subjects Protections, as rooted in (a) Hippocratic oath - do no harm; (b) reactions against WWII experimentation and (c) U.N. and other declarations of human rights
Michelfelder, Diane. 2001. The Moral Value of Informational Privacy in Cyberspace. Ethics and Information Technology 3 (2), 129-135. Walther, Joseph B. 2002. Research Ethics in Internet-Enabled Research: Human Subjects Issues and Methodological Myopia. Ethics and Information Technology, 4 (3), 205-216. Available online <http://www.nyu.edu/projects/nissenbaum/ethics_walther.html>.

Where D / U approaches are distinct

Human Subjects Protections: 15-18
18. Research participants should be protected from undue intrusion, harm or distress
Ethical: It is on this primary right that the other rights in these guidelines (15 - 18) are rooted. 2. Whether harm and intrusion are ever justified depends on (a) possible benefits of research, and (b) whether one takes a primarily deontological or

utilitarian
ethical stance.

Where D / U approaches are distinct

Human Subjects Protections: 15-18
15. Participation in research should be voluntary
Ethical: rests on the basic right of human beings to autonomy / free choice, respect for that free choice (Enlightenment / Kant) deontology Alternatives: Habermasian / feminist perspective-taking and an ethic of care would apply empathy, Golden Rule, principle of non-alienation: would the researcher, if in the position of the research subject, wish to have his/her freedom and sense of autonomy curtailed for any reason?

(see Berry, 2003; cf. M. Barkardjiava and A. Feenberg, 2001.

Involving the Virtual Subject: Conceptual, Methodological and Ethical Dimensions. Ethics and Information Technology 2 (4), 233-240.)

Where D / U approaches are distinct

Human Subjects Protections: 15-18
15. Participation in research should be voluntary
Cultural / communicative: Modern Western notions of freedom and autonomy tend towards atomistic individualism; but
Pre-modern / non-Western notions of the human person emphasize greater role of the community in shaping decisions - an important consideration especially with immigrant groups; appearance and voice of authority vary from culture to culture - what might not seem coercive in one context may be experienced as such in another; Hence: for some peoples / cultures, the community will play the equivalent of a gatekeeper role, whose authority and permission will also be crucial. Examples: Asian, Indigenous cultures (see Ess <www.drury.edu/ess/herg/CATaC-CC.ppt>; cf. Hofstede, Marg Emerton)

2. Convergences / Divergences in Inter/national Law

2. Professional integrity must be balanced with respect for national and international law Which laws apply to internet research?
E.U. Data Privacy Protection acts: more deontological, favoring the individual citizens protections over other interests <http://europa.eu.int/comm/internal_market/privacy/law_en. htm>

NESH Guidelines: very deontological, favoring the individual citizen and his/her close relations protections over other interests <www.etikkom.no/Engelsk/NESH>
Contra U.S. laws (more utilitarian, market-based, favoring the benefit of business and thus the larger economy over individual interests in privacy, etc. - see AoIR Guidelines for discussion)

2. Convergences / Divergences in Inter/national Law

2. Professional integrity must be balanced with respect for national and international law Which laws apply to internet research? Further complications: are there strong analogies vs. disanalogies between offline / online research and thus between the laws / policies / practices of offline human subjects protections and Online research?

3. Cultural: where relevant (especially guidelines 3-5) - what differences in foundational cultural values are important for researchers to note?

Does Culture Make a Difference?

(see <www.drury.edu/ess/herg/CATaC-CC.ppt>)
US Europe Middle East Asia indigenous peoples Malaysia Kelabit (Harris et al, 2001); Philippines (Sy, 2001); South Africa (Postma, 2001)

Contrast/Conflict

white middle class males vis--vis females / AfricanAmericans / Hispanics / AsianAmericans / Native Americans (Stewart et al, 2001)

Reys study of German-, French-, Italianspeaking Swiss (2001)

Israel (Dahan, 1999); Kuwait (Wheeler, 2001)

Singapore; Japan (Heaton, 2001); Malaysia (Abdat & Pervan, 2000) Indonesia (Rahmati, 2000); Thailand (Hongladarom, 2001)

NO THANKS! eKiribati (Solomon Islands)

CULTURAL CLUSTER: GUIDELINES 3-5

3. Research must be commissioned and conducted with respect for and awareness of gender differences
Deontological or utilitarian? Where significant gender differences exist, will these be overridden for the sake of a study - or respected, even at the cost of sacrificing the study?

Comment: understanding of what constitutes harm may have a gendered component U.S. example of rape in cyberspace in which words constituted harm for the female victim - vs. legal definitions of harm as physical harm (real rape)

CULTURAL CLUSTER: GUIDELINES 3-5

3. Research must be commissioned and conducted with respect for and awareness of gender differences

Cultural issues - Contrasts between

Gender-based access to CMC technologies, in terms of cultural capital - education, language facility, etc. - needed for successfully utilizing CMC technologies, and socio-economic / infrastructure differences (crudely: white middleclass male technology/communication style vis--vis everyone else)
See: Stewart, Concetta M., Stella F. Shields, and Nandini Sen. 2001. Diversity in OnLine Discussions: A Study of Cultural and Gender Differences in Listservs. In Ess (ed.), Culture, Technology, Communication: Towards an Intercultural Global Village, 161-186. Albany, NY: SUNY Press.

CULTURAL CLUSTER: GUIDELINES 3-5

5. Research must be commissioned and conducted with respect for under-represented social groups and the avoidance of marginalisation or exclusion of these

Cultural contrasts different cultural groups use / respond to media, including new media, in diverse ways: the choice of media for research thus itself may contain biases, affordances that inadvertently exclude specific groups.
Applies as well to immigrant communities: Mary Wilson. 2002. Communication, organizations and diverse populations. In F. Sudweeks & C. Ess (eds.), Cultural Attitudes towards Technology and Communication 2002, 69-88. Murdoch, Western Australia: School of Information Technology, Murdoch University.

CULTURAL CLUSTER: GUIDELINES 3-5

Cultural contrasts different cultural groups use / respond to media, including new media, in diverse ways: the choice of media for research thus itself may contain biases, affordances that inadvertently exclude specific groups. ...IT tends to be instrumental in Western hegemonic encroachment into the Filipino lifeworld (Peter Sy, 2001) Most Internet sites pose a danger to our education system and our culture, in particular pornography sites and sites that promote consumerism to our students. -- Sardjiman (in de Kloet, 2002) The Internet is profoundly disrespectful of tradition, established order and hierarchy, and that is very American. -- Fareed Zakaria, managing editor of Foreign Affairs

CULTURAL CLUSTER: GUIDELINES 3-5

5. Research must be commissioned and conducted with respect for under-represented social groups and the avoidance of marginalisation or exclusion of these

Cultural - Contrasts between

Acceptability of public / private communication between sexes (Islamic countries/Muslim populations):
unsolicited e-mail from a male researcher to a female subject could be very problematic - especially if discovered by the family! Research on male-female online communication must be undertaken with recognition that cultural conservatives see such communication itself as undermining traditional cultural mors.

CULTURAL CLUSTER: GUIDELINES 3-5

5. Research must be commissioned and conducted with respect for under-represented social groups and the avoidance of marginalisation or exclusion of these

Cultural Contrasts
See: Technologies of Despair and Hope: CMC in the Middle East, Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, Vol. 8, issue 2, 2003, <http://www.ascusc.org/jcmc/>, especially Deborah Wheeler, Kuwaiti Youth and the Net <http://www.ascusc.org/jcmc/vol8/issue2/wheeler.html>

4. Meta-ethical Concluding Considerations?

A. What to do in the face of diverse ethical judgments on the part of Individual researchers / participants Oversight bodies (IRBs in the U.S.; Research Ethics Boards in Canada; National Health and Medical Research Council in Australia; UK) National laws /policies / practices? Diverse cultural value systems and ethical decision-making traditions?

4. Metaethical Concluding Considerations?

A. What to do in the face of diverse ethical judgments?
Prevailing strategy: ethical pluralism as a middle ground between ethical relativism: anything goes because (it is argued / assumed) there are no universally valid values, etc. [Problem: cannot distinguish between Hitler and Mother Teresa, fascism and democracy, etc.] ethical dogmatism: only a single view / value / belief is valid and thus must be imposed monolithically / homogenously upon all peoples / times / places / circumstances Ethical pluralism: some views are arguably better than others and application of ethical norms in praxis is always contextual and multi-valent.

4. Metaethical Concluding Considerations?

A. What to do in the face of diverse ethical judgments? Ethical pluralism: shared values/norms diverse interpretations / applications / judgments (phronesis). Example 1: normative value of expectations of privacy vis--vis is informed consent for recording (audio/video) public spaces?

U.S. context: no expectations of privacy (vs. psychologists office, etc.) Therefore, no informed consent required (Walther, 2002)

Norway: people do not expect to be recorded in public without consent. Therefore, informed consent required (Elgesem, 2002)

4. Metaethical Concluding Considerations?

Example 2: Divergences in U.S. / E.U. privacy law? Joel Reidenberg: while there is global convergence on what he calls the First Principles of data protection - there are clear differences in how these First Principles are implemented, i.e., through "either liberal, market-based governance or socially-protective, rights-based governance." (Resolving Conflicting International Data Privacy Rules in Cyberspace, STANFORD LAW REVIEW [Vol. 52 (2000):1315-1376], 1315)

4. Metaethical Concluding Considerations?

Example 2: Divergences in U.S. / E.U. privacy law? First Principles: 1) Data quality (accuracy) 2) Transparency / openness of processing (purposes) 3) Treatment of sensitive data, including data re. Health, race, religious beliefs, sexual life

4) Enforcement mechanisms

4. Metaethical Concluding Considerations?

Example 2: Divergences in U.S. / E.U. privacy law?

First Principles

U.S.: liberal, marketbased governance

E.U.: socially-protective, rights-based governance

4. Metaethical Concluding Considerations?

Example 2: Divergences in U.S. / E.U. privacy law? First Principles: exemplified in U.K. Younger Committee, 1972 (!) organizations
1. Are accountable for personal information they obtain; 2. Should identify the purposes for which the information is processed at or before the time of collection; 3. Should only collect personal information with the knowledge and consent of the individual (with exceptions); 4. Should limit the collection of personal information for purposes other than those identified, except with the consent of the individual;

5. Should retain information only as long as necessary;

4. Metaethical Concluding Considerations?

Example 2: Divergences in U.S. / E.U. privacy law? First Principles: exemplified in U.K. Younger Committee, 1972 (!) organizations
6. Should ensure that personal information is kept accurate, complete, and up to date; 7. Should protect personal information with appropriate security safeguards; 8. Should be open about its policies and practices and maintain no secret information systems 9. Should allow data subjects access to their personal information, with an ability to amend if necessary. (Riedenberg, 1327)

E.U. citizens enjoy a priority on individual privacy vis-avis business interests -i.e., a deontological emphasis on respect for persons in the form of privacy protections -vs. U.S. favoring business interests over individual privacy: no such privacy protections: rather, businesses are allowed to establish their own privacy policies, requiring the consumer to (a) inform him/herself of the policy and then (b) decide whether to agree or opt-out - i.e., a utilitarian emphasis on the good of the many (minimal state intervention greater economic efficiency) over possible violations of individual rights

the European model is one in which omnibus legislation strives to create a complete set of rights and responsibilities for the processing of personal information, whether by the public or private sector. First Principles become statutory rights and these statutes create data protection supervisory agencies to assure oversight and enforcement of those rights. Within this framework, additional precision and flexibility may also be achieved through codes of conduct and other devices. Overall, this implementation approach treats data privacy as a political right anchored among the panoply of fundamental human rights and the rights are attributed to data subjects or citizens. (1331f.)

By contrast, the United States is distinctive in its approach, in which the primary source for the terms and conditions of information privacy is self-regulation. Instead of relying on governmental regulation, this approach seeks to protect privacy through practices developed by industry norms, codes of conduct, and contracts rather than statutory legal rights. Data privacy becomes a market issue rather than a basic political question, and the rhetoric casts the debate in terms of consumers and users rather than citizens. (1332) - i.e., a consequentialist position, one that emphasizes economic benefit at large over possible risks to individual privacy.

4. Metaethical Concluding Considerations?

See: D. Elgesem. 2002. What is Special about the Ethical Issues in Online Research? Ethics and Information Technology, 4(3). 195203.
<www.nyu.edu/projects/nissenbaum/ethics_elgesem.html>

J. Walther. 2002. Research Ethics in Internet-Enabled Research: Human Subjects Issues and Methodological Myopia. Ethics and Information Technology, 4(3). <www.nyu.edu/proejcts/nissenbaum/ethics_walther.html>
C. Ess. 2002. Introduction, special issue on Internet Research Ethics. Ethics and Information Technology 4(3), 177-188.
<www.nyu.edu/projects/nissenbaum/ethics_ess.html>

4. Metaethical Concluding Considerations?

B. Global Ethical Perspectives? Information Ethics Resources:
U.K.: Luciano Floridi, Jeff Sanders. Information Ethics Group, Oxford Computing Laboratory <web.comlab.ox.ac.uk/oucl/research/areas/ieg>
U.S.: International Association for Computing and Philosophy <www.iacap.org> Germany: Rafael Capurro (Stuttgart), International Center for Information Ethics <icie.zkm.de> Australia: Centre for Applied Ethics and Public Policy <www.csu.edu.au/faculty/arts/cappe/>

5. Suggestions for a global research ethics

A. Coherencies between Confucian / Aristotelian / feminist conceptions of human excellence (arete / junzi) as virtue ethics syntheses of both utilitarian and deontological approaches

5. Suggestions for a global research ethics

B. An ethical starting point: the Golden Rule of perspective-taking? i) Never treat a research subject online in a way that you would not be comfortable explaining to that person face-to-face. ii) (Habermasian/feminist perspective taking - or: love your neighbor as yourself): Before deciding on a research design and the specific ethical elements you will follow (e.g., either to ask for informed consent or not, whether to use pseudonyms or not, etc.) - ask: if you were the research subject, how would you want to be treated?

5. Suggestions for a global research ethics

B. An ethical starting point: the Golden Rule of perspective-taking? Critique: the researcher cannot place himself/herself in the place of the subject - in part because of the diversity of (rapidly changing) venues. Allen, Christina. 1996. Whats Wrong with the Golden Rule? Conundrums of Conducting Ethical Research in Cyberspace. The Information Society 12 (2), 175 187.

5. Suggestions for a global research ethics

B. An ethical starting point: the Golden Rule of perspective-taking? My critique of the critique: perhaps - but taken to the logical extreme, this becomes a relativism that would also mean that whatever we learn from the subjects as different from the observer/scientist may have no relevance to any other subjects!

5. Suggestions for a global research ethics

Such guidelines, finally, are not ethically "homogenous" or univocal but pluralist or, in Michael Walzer's term, "thin": these can be interpreted and applied in different ways through the diverse "lenses" of defining cultural beliefs, practices, traditions, etc. (Aristotles pros hen and analogical equivocals pluralist traditions of ethics in both East (Confucius) and West (Socrates / Plato / Aristotle)

5. Suggestions for a global research ethics

moral arguments are thin when they are shorn of their particular histories and other cultural embodiments which make them integral parts of a cultural entity. These are the parts that make the arguments thick. . when Americans watched Czechs carry placards bearing words like Truth and Justice, they could relate immediately to the situation and sympathized with the marchers. However, when the arguments are at the local level, as to which version of distributive justice should be in place, there might well be disagreements, and Americans may find themselves disagreeing with the particular conception of justice which is eventually adopted. The sympathetic feeling one feels across the Ocean is part of the thin morality, but the localized and contextualized working of those moral concepts is part of the thick (Walzer 1994, 1-19, in Hongladarom, 2001).