CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 2,671Qualitative Research Methods and EthicsQualitative Research Methods and ApplicationsData Analysis and Archiving

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 26 of the 27 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Ethics, Reflexivity, and “Ethically Important Moments” in Research

Guillemin, Marilys, Gillam, Lynn·2004·Qualitative Inquiry
DOI 10.1177/1077800403262360
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

Ethical tensions are part of the everyday practice of doing research—all kinds of research. How do researchers deal with ethical problems that arise in the practice of their research, and are there conceptual frameworks that they can draw on to assist them? This article examines the relationship between reflexivity and research ethics. It focuses on what constitutes ethical research practice in qualitative research and how researchers achieve ethical research practice. As a framework for thinking through these issues, the authors distinguish two different dimensions of ethics in research, which they term procedural ethics and “ethics in practice.” The relationship between them and the impact that each has on the actual doing of research are examined. The article then draws on the notion of reflexivity as a helpful way of understanding both the nature of ethics in qualitative research and how ethical practice in research can be achieved.

Overview

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1177/1077800403262360

Cites

26 of 26 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Verification

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Citations

Cites

Show all 27 references

Research works printed but not linked: 4

  1. American Association of University Professors. (2000). Protecting human beings: Institutional review boards and social science research. Retrieved December 13, 2002, from http://www.aaup.org/statements/Redbook/repirb.htm
  2. Hertz, R. (1997). Introduction: Reflexivity and voice. In R. Hertz (Ed.), Reflexivity and voice (pp. vi-xviii). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
  3. Hornsby-Smith, M. (1993). Gaining access. In N. Gilbert (Ed.), Researching social life (pp. 52-67). London: Sage.
  4. Jenkins, R. (1992). Pierre Bourdieu. London: Routledge Kegan Paul.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

See all

Metadata

Authors
Guillemin, M., & Gillam, L.
Affiliations
The University of Melbourne (AU)
ORCID
Venue
Qualitative Inquiry
Publisher
SAGE Publications
Published
2004-04
Volume
10
Issue
2
Pages
261-280
ISSN
  • 1077-8004 (ISSN-L)
  • 1552-7565
DOI
10.1177/1077800403262360
OpenAlex
W2103099631
Cited by
2,671
References
27
Citations by year
2026: 226 · 2025: 216 · 2024: 200 · 2023: 235 · 2022: 197 · 2021: 191 · 2020: 212 · 2019: 219 · 2018: 148 · 2017: 125 · 2016: 134 · 2015: 102 · 2014: 122 · 2013: 79 · 2012: 65
FWCI
48.16
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Licence
journals.sagepub.com/page/policies/text-and-data-mining-license (tdm)
Locations
Qualitative Inquiry (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Qualitative Research Methods and Ethics
  • Social Sciences › Education › Qualitative Research Methods and Applications
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Data Analysis and Archiving
Keywords
research ethics, reflexivity, qualitative research ethics, procedural ethics, ethics in practice

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review