Posted by alexandra_k on July 24, 2005, at 1:22:40
In reply to Re: question to Dr. Bob about other boards research? » alexandra_k, posted by gardenergirl on July 23, 2005, at 21:23:31
> I do know that whether a person is a member of a professional organization or not, the ethical standards are set forth for the entire profession.
Okay
>The APA and the ApA do not have jurisdiction to enforce these standards. State licensing boards do. And state licensing boards enforce state laws, which are often based at least in part on professional standards as set forth by the national professional organization.
Right. So if one had a lisence to practice then one could lose ones lisence to practice if one got into trouble with the state lisencing board.
But if one didn't have / didn't want a lisence to practice anyway....
>it's such a standard in research with human participants in all fields to have a specific informed consent in place, that I would be surprised.Yeah. I bet there is a difference between recruiting subjects to participate in an experiment vs making observations too... I mean... I can see why there are strict ethical guidelines around running experiments. But what about recording observations? Does that run differently or are they as strict about that too???
>It also depends on whether the research is conducted as part of an institution, which would have an institution review board in place with their own requirements for research.
yup.
> > To the best of my knowledge the Australasian Philosophical Association (and probably the American one too) wouldn't have a problem with fair use of posts so long as they are referenced with URL and time of access.
> You'd be a better resource for this. I have no idea about professional philosophical organizations.Well... There isn't a lisencing board to start with. You don't need a lisence to practice philosophy! Philosophers don't run experiments though we do typically study scientific methodology. Philosophers don't typically make observations of the world / people in the world either... Well... Some do. Some are more naturalistically inclined... But philosophers don't typically conduct surveys or anything like that.
If I wanted to run an experiment I would need to get ethical approval for that.
If I wanted to conduct a survey... I'm not sure. I'm not so sure. I said (rather jokingly) to my supervisor that I would be interested to do a survey on what the 'common man' believed (Austin is fond of making claims about what the 'common man' believes about knowledge, reality, language etc). I thought that we could use 1st years as the 'common men' and maybe give them course credit ;-) My supervisor said that he didn't think I'd get ethical approval for that. I'm not sure why. Maybe he was worried about Austins use of the term 'common man'. Maybe he was kidding. I've mentioned it to others in the dept. and they couldn't figure why he would say that. They didn't think I'd need ethical approval.And so...
Best I can figure all that is there in philosophy is the copyright restriction on reproducing other peoples words. To properly reference for the most part...
Probably... The laws aren't all caught up with the technology yet.
And philosophy might be a bit lax with observations / quotations.
I do have sympathy with the thought that it is unethical to quote parts of peoples posts without their permission. Especially given the point that they post here to give / receive support - and not to be quoted in doing so. I do get that. My point is just that if someone felt differently... I don't know that there would be anything to stop them.
Maybe some professionals
But not all.
Not all.
So my thought is that it is better to be explicit about that than to make promises that one might well be unable to keep...
poster:alexandra_k
thread:531823
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20050716/msgs/532542.html