Search results

Studies on vulnerability in the workplace, although relevant, are rare because it is difficult to access. This article aims to focus on the benefits of using autopraxeography to study and step back from vulnerability at work.

Autopraxeography uses researchers' experience to build knowledge.

Autopraxeography provides a better understanding of vulnerability and the opportunity to step back from the difficulties experienced. Instead of ignoring experiences related to vulnerability, this method makes it possible to transform them into new avenues of knowledge. Moreover, it enables researchers to step back from experiences of vulnerability, thus making them feel more secure.

The main differences from other self-studies stem from the epistemological paradigm in which this method is anchored: pragmatic constructivism. The most important difference is the production of generic knowledge in three recursive steps: writing in a naïve way, developing the epistemic work and building generic knowledge.

The purpose of the current study is to examine the applicability of general strain and procedural justice theories to retail banking deviance in an effort to improve compliance programs.

This objective is achieved through a qualitative case study of active members of the retail banking industry guided by three research questions. First, how do participants view their companies' current compliance programs? Second, what types of crime or deviance are present in the data in which general strain and procedural justice theories are indicated? Third, what ethics and compliance recommendations can be made from the identified deviance and underlying theories?

Results indicate that current ethics and compliance programs are viewed as having serious flaws. Results also show the presence of a large amount of fraud based deviance in which both general strain and procedural justice theories seem to be implicated. Specific compliance enhancements are proposed in light of these findings.

The current study is one of the first to examine white collar crime deviance and ethics and compliance programs in the retail banking industry. Conducting research in specific industries is key as findings from a study in a particular industry may not extrapolate to another. Further, the current study uses a qualitative approach, which allows a deeper understanding of underlying mechanisms, with participants who have committed some form of deviance and are active members in their industry. Because of this fact, this study has the potential to provide new and different insights than a study conducted using students or other such participants and hypothetical scenarios.

The purpose of this paper is to reflect on the authors’ experiences of conducting research with refugees and asylum seekers in Malaysia over multiple research projects in order to identify limitations to current procedures for receiving ethical approval for a study. It argues that the moral complexity of working with marginalized and excluded groups is not reflected in existing approaches.

Ensuring that research is ethical is integral to any empirical study, using any research design. Procedures for ensuring ethics have been developed by professional bodies across many academic fields, predominantly drawing on western legal frameworks and conceptions of agency. However, these procedures may not have applicability to certain cultural, social and political settings. The discussion in this paper focuses on devising ethical approaches for research participants from marginalized and excluded communities in diverse parts of the world, including those with no possibility of legal recourse.

Problems with the use of established procedures for four aspects of ethical research are identified, namely, access and gatekeepers; consent; reciprocity; and confidentiality.

The paper develops a framework for continuous ethical reflexivity. It argues that this framework should replace the established procedural approach to ethics, approved by an Institutional Review Board or ethics committee. Instead, the IRB should assign an ethical mentor who is jointly responsible with the researcher for ensuring research ethics through the use of the framework.

This study aims to explore and discuss the ethical challenges that the authors encountered in the SWIPSER project, a study about the well-being of West-African women who work in the red-light district in Brussels.

The study was commissioned by the municipality of Schaerbeek and executed by a Nigerian–Belgian research team. Data were collected using a multi-method qualitative approach, predominantly through ethnographic fieldwork that consisted of detailed observations, informal interviews (with 38 participants), complemented by document analysis and stakeholder interviews.

The study presents the main ethical dilemmas in four themes: (1) representing diversity, i.e. how do we get access to all members of a migrant community that is inherently hierarchical?; (2) in the margin, i.e. how can we conduct research with undocumented migrants and what do we do when faced with violence and injustice?; (3) attraction and repulsion, i.e. what ethical consequences are involved when working in a multi-ethnic research team?; and (4) unveiling secrets, i.e. which ethical challenges are we faced with when presenting the results of research on vulnerable migrant communities?

This study goes beyond procedural research ethics and highlights the specific relational ethics (related to the relation between research(er) and participant) and the socio-political ethics (related to the relation between the research(er) and the socio-political context) involved in qualitative research with female migrants who work in prostitution.

This paper examines the ethical tensions in social entrepreneurship (SE) research by focusing on the ethical consequences of obtaining ethics approval in a university in the developed world while executing fieldwork for data collection in a developing country. It aims to offer insight into ethical research practice to protect vulnerable research participants from being further silenced and marginalised by the dominant social order that developed world universities embody.

The ethical tensions are described through narratives drawn from a Filipino Ph.D. candidate's experience. The candidate obtained ethics approval from the university in New Zealand and collected interview data from social enterprise beneficiaries in the Philippines. A critical reflexive lens carves a space for a deepened understanding of these ethical tensions.

This paper offers critical insights into ethical SE research involving participants from vulnerable communities. These insights suggest that closer consideration needs to be given to contextual sensitivity, particularly on the part of researchers and research ethics committees, in crafting ethical data collection protocols. Findings also show how it is important for the indigenous researcher to filter ethical protocols through their local knowledge.

The paper uses critical reflexivity to examine ethical tensions in SE research involving vulnerable beneficiaries. It offers insights into ethical research procedures and practices that engender mindfulness of the contextual and relational aspects of doing SE research in the developing world.

Organizational justice research traditionally focuses on individuals’ reactions to how they are treated by others. However, little attention has been given to why individuals choose to behave fairly or unfairly in the first place. Our chapter draws on the literature in ethical decision making (Rest, 1986) to identify five distinct factors that influence an individual's decision to treat others fairly. Using this model as a foundation, and drawing on extant research in justice, we explore five different types of roadblocks to fair behavior. We explore the implications of these roadblocks for organizations concerned with creating and maintaining a fair workplace. Finally, we discuss future research suggested by the five factors and some dilemmas, issues, and caveats relevant to the proposed model.

The purpose of this paper is to explore the possibility of a procedural deliberative alternative to an atomistic conception of individuals and an economic logic of markets or a priori universal lists, as ethical foundation for evaluating socio‐economic change.

To develop this argument, the paper combines a modified Kantian categorical imperative with deliberative ethics drawing on the writings of Habermas and Dewey. The journey through the European Enlightenment thought of Kant to the contemporary thought of Habermas and Bourdieu aims at mapping continuity and change in key themes in development ethics. These ideas are then given practical application in a case‐study of the people‐forestry interface in Nepal.

The paper shows how Kantian non‐deception links to Habermas' notion of communicative action and Dewey's notion of cooperative inquiry, and how Kantian non‐coercion links to the inclusion of subaltern voices. While the paper proposes that more open deliberative processes can potentially produce ethical gains, it also identifies an idealistic risk in this position. Bourdieu's thinking is utilised to reveal limitations on improving deliberative processes where there are powerful mechanisms reproducing inequalities.

The paper makes the case for greater attention being given to exploring deliberative processes as a prerequisite for ethical developmental actions.

The paper brings together authors who rarely feature in the development studies discourse and applies their ideas to a practical case study.