![]() ![]() 50) although the text which is read is not another person, “it was written by a person to embody his or her thinking and feeling,” and in the act of reading, “the author is not there, only the text” (ibid). 50).” The most basic fact, Larmore writes about the reader’s relation to text, “is that this relation is asymmetrical” (p. 49), and similar questions, Larmore takes as his starting point his belief that “our very relation as readers to what we read-to books or more generally to texts-is of ethical significance” (p. ![]() Instead of considering whether our lives are enriched “if we read some good books” (p. Contrasting his view with Hillis Miller’s, Charles Larmore takes a different approach to the ethics of reading (Larmore 2014). Hillis Miller has recently discussed the notion of “the ethics of reading,” in arguing that thinking about it triggers questions about “the role of literature in individual and social life, as well as in our schools, colleges, and universities” (Hillis Miller 1987, p. The ethical dimension of reading was studied systemically already in Ancient Greece as an element of general hermeneutics (Mantzavinos 2016). In this article, I argue that when reading such texts researchers have special moral obligations to the authors. Their analyses are interpretative and theory-dependent. Researchers in the humanities read texts treating abstract issues, written by authors who present their views on those issues. One of those moral problems concern reading. However, researchers in the humanities face moral problems that are specific for their research practices and, arguably, are not encompassed by the principles and arguments in these works either. 2009 Hansson 2017 Smith Iltis 2006 Iphofen and Tolich 2018 NESH 2016). In addition to the topics mentioned above, the problems treated in these works include values in social research, respect for private interests and other cultures, preservation of monuments and remains, deep interviews, the ethics of doing ethics, social power structures, participatory research, and more (see, e.g., Allmark et al. Many of these topics are important for research in the humanities, but much of the discussion is against the background, or in the context, of the natural sciences.Īlthough fewer, there are also books, articles, and reports targeting social scientists and qualitative research. The topics they treat usually include scientific misconduct, data handling, collaboration between academia and industry, authorship issues, publication and peer review, intellectual property, conflicts of interests, the use of animals in research, protection of human subjects, the researcher in society, laboratory safety, and regulatory frameworks, among other things (see, e.g., Institute of Medicine 2009 Koepsell 2017 Oliver 2010 Shamoo and Resnik 2015). There are countless books on research ethics. It is argued that the principle respect the author is reason-giving in research contexts. In the fourth section, a research ethical principle for reading for research purposes is formalized. The third section, which holds the major normative content of this article, introduces the notion of deep respect. Thin reading is formal, literal, and only concerns the author’s stated intentions, whereas thick reading also considers the author and the text from a social perspective. In the second section, the distinction is made between thin and thick reading. The first section is devoted to a discussion of research ethics, the ethics of reading, and respect. The article has four main sections that are structured as follows. This article develops a research ethical principle for reading for research purposes, specifically targeting readers and authors in the humanities. However, moral issues in the humanities have gained less attention from research ethicists. Research ethical considerations have subsequently been extended to cover topics in the sciences and technology such as data handling, precautionary measures, engineering codes of conduct, among other things. Much of contemporary research ethics was developed in the latter half of the twentieth century as a response to the unethical treatment of human beings in biomedical research. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
Details
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |