Search results

Tourism researchers, like those in other fields, are subject to multiple ethical dilemmas. Consequently, scholars in the field have called for researcher reflectivity, and specifically ethical reflexivity. Based on this it is recognized that when conducting research merely meeting procedural ethics requirements may not be sufficient. Rather, there is a need to move beyond procedural ethics to capture ethics in practice and to critically recognize what it takes to be ethical when undertaking research. This reflective chapter contributes to the discussion on research ethics in tourism by sharing critical reflections on the ethical journeys of the chapter authors, all of who, in differing ways, study sensitive topics. As such, the chapter draws on work looking at sensitive content on social media, disabled children, sex, and bestiality. The chapter highlights the ongoing and responsive approach to being ethical adopted by these researchers. The chapter reveals how ethical issues and challenges unique to the individual researcher were navigated in practice. Overall, the chapter challenges researchers to be ethical in their research rather than simply conform to research ethics procedural requirements. It calls on researchers to engage in critical and adaptive thinking while balancing radical and traditional approaches to ethics.

This chapter seeks to advance the neglected debate on the ethical issues between formal organization and practice arising from innovation in an organization. To that end, the chapter discusses the sources of possible moral dilemmas for practitioners who belong to a practice with a shared identity, values, and standards of excellence, and who need to conform to new rules of formal organization. While formal organization ideally strives for generalized fairness principles for all organizational members when introducing an innovation, the contextualized nature of practices may lead to particular needs and goals of the practice which can only be recognized as such by practitioners and not by formal management, and to which procedural justice cannot respond. The chapter proposes how practitioners may interpret moral dilemmas, aligned with their practice-based identity and ethical values, and what options for action they may seek. The discussion is illustrated with examples of innovation in the field of information systems design.

The purpose of this paper is to explore ethical issues associated with using the shadowing method.

Ethical issues that arose during a 12-week shadowing study that examined the work activities and practices of Canadian healthcare CEOs are discussed.

Dividing the ethics process into two phases – those addressed by ethics committees (procedural ethics) and those that revealed themselves in the field (ethics in practice) – issues and relating to sampling, informed consent, researcher roles, objectivity, participant discomforts, the impact of research on participants, confidentiality, and anonymity are investigated. This paper illustrates that while useful, procedural ethics committees are unable to establish ethical practice in and of themselves. In response, it suggests that the concept of reflexivity be applied to ethics to help researchers consider the implications of using the shadowing method, and develop a contingency for possible challenges, before they enter the field.

This paper provides researchers considering using the shadowing method with critical insights into some of the ethical issues associated with the method. A number of questions are posed and a number of suggestions offered as to how ethical practice can be attained in the field. Given practice-based similarities between shadowing and other qualitative methodologies such as participant observation and ethnography, many of the lessons derived from this case study are also pertinent to researchers using other techniques to examine organizational and management phenomenon.

Building on the formal and critical discussion about the shadowing method ignited by McDonald (2005), this paper identifies and discusses ethical issues associated with the shadowing method that have not been examined in either ethics or research methods literature.

This conceptual paper aims to examine theoretical issues in the proactive ethical assessment of technology development, with a focus on uncertainty. Although uncertainty is a fundamental feature of complex technologies, its importance has not yet been fully recognized within the field of ethics. Hence, the purpose of this paper is to study uncertainty in technology development and its consequences for ethics.

Going on the insight of various scientific disciplines, the concept of uncertainty will be scrutinised and a typology of uncertainty is proposed and introduced to ethical theory. The method used is theoretical and conceptual analysis.

The analysis results in questions with regard to the collection of information about the object of assessment (i.e. complex technologies and their development) and the framework of assessment (i.e. ethical theory and its practical aim of guiding the assessment of technology development). Moreover, based on the insights of the analysis of uncertainty, it is argued that substantive ethical theories prove to be inapt for the ethical assessment of complex technology development and therefore require a concomitant procedural approach. The paper concludes with requirements for any future ethics of technology under uncertainty.

The value of the paper consists in establishing the need of researching and incorporating uncertainty in ethics. The results are consequently of practical and theoretical interest for anyone working in the field of ethics and technology.

The purpose of this paper is to explore the “ethics and transparency‐accountability” paradox in which the oft‐repeated mantras of ethical luminosity, such as transparency and accountability, appear designed to assure one that all is well when such confirmation is, possibly, no more than part of an illusion – a superficiality purporting to confirm that what is seen is the only reality of public ethics.

Utilizing an analytical approach based on the comparative analysis of historical and contemporary isomorphisms this paper suggests that despite post‐modern voices about fracture, the multiplicity of “realities” and possible futures, there still remains an almost paradigmatic conviction that “visibility” is politically more efficacious than “invisibility.” Rendering situations visible supposedly exposes violations of ethical standards, professional norms and protects one from “criminogenic” elites. This paper questions whether light always cast out darkness and whether “Dark Times” demand relentless transparency?

This paper finds that constructing “realities” has always involved a manipulation of what is seen and not seen – what is real and what is illusionary. “Shadows” and “disorder” are also important in understanding how visibility, invisibility and ethics are parts of the pervasive apparatus of political and economic hegemony. This paper also finds that the translucence of accountability policies, supposedly encompassing the pillars of professional propriety/integrity, might be encompassed within Offe's “procedural ethics”.

The social implications of this paper involve the development of a public administration able to calibrate whether the fluxing of visibility/invisibility/ethics is constructive or destructive of social capital and legitimacy.

This paper concludes that a public administration solely focused on transparency not only misdirects attention and political resources, but also is actually self‐defeating, leaving citizens less informed and more subjugated than before.

Jürgen Habermas is one of the most important authors in contemporary philosophy. In this chapter, we analyse his contribution to the philosophical debate on universalism and relativism and consider its implications for organization studies and organizations operating in an intercultural environment. We briefly describe the critique of a universal concept of reason that has been forwarded by sceptical and postmodern philosophers. As a response to this critique, we outline the contribution of discourse ethics and analyse the theories of Jürgen Habermas and his colleague Karl-Otto Apel. We explore the justification of discourse ethics and point out some problems in its argumentative logic. In the light of this critique, we outline some characteristics of an intercultural ethics that is based on constructivist philosophy and point to some encouraging prospects on the consolidation of the debate between relativistic and universalistic philosophers.

This chapter discusses ethics in participatory photography with focus on refugee participants and informal refugee camp setting. The chapter draws on ethics in participatory photography projects elsewhere and especially the experiences of photographers who work with these methods. The context here is the Calais Jungle camp, where the authors worked with a group of participants, who were residents of the camp, over several months to encourage photographing and documenting life in the camp and beyond, and to work on life stories that can be drawn from and inspired by these photos. The project, and hence the ethics in our work, were framed by the experiences of the refugee participants, and so at all times the authors needed to navigate temporality, violence, state oppression, lack of resources, human rights violations, language barriers, religious and cultural differences, national and supranational immigration policies, shame, and more. This chapter discusses how the authors navigated these ethical issues, the limitations of the approaches and solutions they found, and the lessons they learned, which can be applied to research using participatory visual methods with refugees.

There has been a growing call regarding broad criteria for assessing qualitative methods' reliability and validity in international marketing (IM) research. In response, this study synthesizes the past literature to present an overarching, yet adaptable, trustworthiness verification framework for assessing the rigor of various qualitative methods used in IM.

The paper draws on qualitative research from various disciplines. It uses content analysis to examine how trustworthiness is conceptualized in qualitative studies in International Marketing Review (IMR) from 2005 to 2019.

The analysis reveals that strategies to ensure rigor and trustworthiness of qualitative research in IMR are partially applied. There remain gaps in implementing quality criteria across the trustworthiness dimensions of credibility, transferability, dependability, conformability and ethics.

This paper highlights the importance of incorporating strategies for assessing the quality of qualitative research in IM research. Since the analysis only focused on IMR, future research should explore and test the framework in other IM and business journals to reach a broader consensus in assessing qualitative studies' rigor.

IM researchers have yet to develop a consensus regarding broad criteria for assessing qualitative methods' reliability and validity. This paper is an attempt to fill this gap.