دورية أكاديمية
Experts, meta-expertise and mediators. Ethical oversight of research in multidisciplinary scenarios
| العنوان: | Experts, meta-expertise and mediators. Ethical oversight of research in multidisciplinary scenarios |
|---|---|
| المؤلفون: | Wilfredo Betancourt Mosquera |
| المصدر: | Revista Colombiana de Sociología, Vol 39, Iss 2, Pp 203-220 (2016) |
| بيانات النشر: | Universidad Nacional de Colombia, 2016. |
| سنة النشر: | 2016 |
| المجموعة: | LCC:Sociology (General) |
| مصطلحات موضوعية: | bioética, ciencia y tecnología, comité de ética en investigación (CEI), ética de la investigación, evaluación ética, experticias, metaexperticias., Sociology (General), HM401-1281 |
| الوصف: | Based on a case study drawn from the written records of a Colombian Research Ethics Committee (rec), this article discusses the impact that its multidisciplinary nature has on its decision-making processes. recs are analyzed as “boundary organizations” in which experts from different disciplines can meet. Additionally, recs are viewed as contemporary socio-epistemic arenas in which research ethics are produced. It was found that multiple expertise is often seen by some of its members as an «anomaly» which impedes ordinary work and ideally should be avoided. During the assessment of research projects the rec sought to manage this task through homogenizing decision-making processes in accordance with the expertise of some of its members, avoiding the convergence of «communities of practice.» Furthermore, the members of the rec frequently base their decisions either on their own ethical judgments, or by mirroring those of more qualified reviewers. This dynamic is largely a consequence of «meta-expertise,» that is to say, rec members’ ability or legitimacy to judge expert knowledge which they do not possess. It is concluded that researchers have wide possibilities to interpret and define the ethical dimension of their work. Within local practices of ethical reviews, researchers act as «interactional» actors able to assess and communicate recs about their own ethics. Paradoxically, despite their character as a public setting for multidisciplinary dialogue, recs end up being spaces in which the professional esotericism of disciplinary communities is reaffirmed and the socio-epistemic authority of experts reinforced. |
| نوع الوثيقة: | article |
| وصف الملف: | electronic resource |
| اللغة: | English Spanish; Castilian Portuguese |
| تدمد: | 0120-159X 2256-5485 |
| العلاقة: | https://revistas.unal.edu.co/index.php/recs/article/view/58972Test; https://doaj.org/toc/0120-159XTest; https://doaj.org/toc/2256-5485Test |
| DOI: | 10.15446/rcs.v39n2.58972 |
| الوصول الحر: | https://doaj.org/article/0832843d0af044feb0202a5df2604dedTest |
| رقم الانضمام: | edsdoj.0832843d0af044feb0202a5df2604ded |
| قاعدة البيانات: | Directory of Open Access Journals |
| تدمد: | 0120159X 22565485 |
|---|---|
| DOI: | 10.15446/rcs.v39n2.58972 |