講倫理才有道理：歐洲研究倫理規範的新進展

Research as Applied Ethics: Research Ethics in the European Context

10.7071/EJIR.201106.0121

朱容萱(Rong-Xuan Chu)；黃之棟(Chih-Tung Huang)

學術倫理 ； 信度 ； 效度 ； 歐洲 ； Ethical issues ； Reliability ； Validity ； Europe

歐洲國際評論

7期（2011 / 06 / 01）

121 - 146

繁體中文

學術倫理、信度、效度被認為是評估研究品質的重要指標，學界一般也多主張三者的關係乃三足鼎立的鐵三角，相互之間不可化約，重要性亦不分軒輊。本文旨在挑戰此傳統理解，並提出學術倫理、信度、效度間層疊關係的看法。我們認為，衡諸當前國際學術脈動，以人權保障為出發點的倫理規範顯然最獲歐美學界重視。對此等國家而言，遵守學術倫理要求早已不再是不甚具約束力的道德勸說，而是一種強化專業素養、鞏固研究根基與確保學術品質的必要條件。此一動向亦可從各國際學術組織紛紛開始擘劃倫理規約的潮流中看出端倪。爲闡明以上思潮，本文以一實證研究為例，剖析學術倫理意識的興起對傳統信度、效度觀點的衝擊。除了文本與法理的分析，文中亦參酌歐洲重要學者的訪談資料，藉以釐清倫理規範如何與專業素養連結，以及此連結建立後隨之而來的可能誤區。在例示並解析倫理規約條文之後，本文重構了學術倫理、信度、效度間的關聯，並指出在捕捉三者關係時，我們不該視它們為鞏固學術品質的金三角，而應該看到層層相疊的金字塔關係。

This paper presents a different viewpoint over research ethics and academic integrity. The role of ethics is undoubtedly crucial in the process of conducting social science research. Indeed, ethics has been the highest priority in all strands of social studies conducted within the European research framework. For some academics, keeping ethical issues in mind is not only the best research conduct, sometimes it is the only conduct considered to be legitimate. Yet, a renewed role of ethics in research is demanded to achieve utmost professional attitude and commitment to academic development. Beyond the traditional focus of ethics on human rights, this paper argues that there is a need to reconceptualize the role of ethics in research and to renegotiate relationships among ethics, reliability and validity.

1. The Association of Language Testers of Europe (ALTE), "The ALTE Code of Practice," Quality Assurance, 1994,
2. The European Association for Language Testing and Assessment (EALTA), "EALTA Guidelines for Good Practice in Language Testing and Assessment," International Language Testing Association, 2006,
3. The European Association for Language Testing and Assessment (EALTA) Annual Conference, International Language Testing Association, 2011,
4. International Language Testing Association (ILTA), "ILTA Guidelines for Practice," International Language Testing Association, 2005,
5. International Language Testing Association (ILTA), "ILTA Code of Ethics," International Language Testing Association, 2000,
6. Spencer, Liz, Jane Ritchie, Jane Lewis and Lucy Dillon, "Quality in Qualitative Evaluation: A Framework for Assessing Research Evidence," Government Social Research Service, 2003,
7. Adcock, Robert,David, Collier(2001).Measurement Validity: A Shared Standard for Qualitative and Quantitative Research.American Political Science Review,95(3),529-546.
8. Atkinson, Paul,Coffey, Amanda,Delamont, Sara(2003).Key Themes in Qualitative Research: Continues and Changes.New York:Altamira Press.
9. Boyd, Kenneth,Davies, Alan(2002).Doctors' Orders for LanguageTesters: The Origin and Purpose of Ethical Codes.Language Testing,19(3),296-322.
10. Bryman, Alan(2008).Social Research Methods.Oxford:Oxford University Press.
11. Cho, Jeasik,Trent, Aleen(2006).Validity in Qualitative Research Revisited.Qualitative Research,6(3),319-340.
12. Coady, Margaret(ed.),Bloch, Sidney(ed.)(1996).Codes of Ethics and the Professions.Melbourne:Melbourne University Press.
13. Cohen, Louis,Manion, Lawrence,Keith, Morrison(2011).Research Methods in Education.London:Routledge Falmer.
14. Creswell, John W.,Miller, Dana L.(2000).Determining Validity in Qualitative Inquiry.Theory Into Practice,39(3),124-130.
15. De Vaus, David A.(1993).Surveys in Social Research.London:University College London Press.
16. Denzin, Norman K.(ed.),Lincoln, Yvonna S.(ed.)(1994).Handbook of Qualitative Research.California:Sage.
17. Fielding, Jane,Gilbert, Nigel(2006).Understanding Social Statistics.London:Sage.
18. Fraser, Sandy(ed.),Lewis, Vicky(ed.),Ding, Sharon(ed.),Kellett, Mary(ed.),Robinson, Chris(ed.)(2004).Doing Research with Children and Young People.London:Sage.
19. Hammersley, Martyn(1992).What's Wrong with Ethnography?.London:Routledge.
20. Howitt, Dennis,Cramer, Duncan(2011).An Introduction to Statistics in Psychology.Harlow:Prentice Hall.
21. Howitt, Dennis,Cramer, Duncan(2011).Introduction to Research Methods in Psychology.London:Pearson.
22. Johnson, Robert B.,Onwuegbuzie, Anthony J.(2004).Mixed Methods Research: A Research Paradigm Whose Time Has Come.Educational Researcher,33(7),14-26.
23. Kirk, Jerome,Miller, Marc L.(1986).Reliability and Validity in Qualitative Research.London:Sage.
24. Le Compte, Margaret D.,Preissle, Judith(1993).Ethnography and Qualitative Design in Educational Research.London:Academic Press Ltd.
25. Lincoln, Yvonna S.,Guba, Egon G.(1985).Naturalistic Inquiry.California:Sage.
26. Luoma, Sari(2004).Assessing Speaking.Cambridge:Cambridge University Press.
27. Marshall, Catherine,Rossman, Gretchen B.(1989).Designing Qualitative Research.London:Sage.
28. Maxwell, Joseph A.(1992).Understanding and Validity in Qualitative Research.Harvard University Review,62(3),279-300.
29. Onwuegbuzie, Anthony J.,Leech, Nancy L.(2007).Validity and Qualitative Research: An Oxymoron?.Quality and Quantity,41,233-249.
30. Pauwels, Eleonore(2007).Ethics for Researchers: Facilitating Resarch Excellence in FP7.European Commission.
31. Shohamy, Elana(ed.),Hornberger, Nancy H.(ed.)(2008).Encyclopedia of Language and Education.London:Springer.
32. Silverman, David(2000).Doing Qualitative Research: A Practical Handbook.London:Sage.
33. Small, Robin(2001).Codes Are Not Enough: What Philosophy Can Contribute to the Ethics of Educational Research.Journal of Philosophy of Education,35(3),387-406.
34. Smyth, Marie(ed.),Williamson, Emma(ed.)(2004).Researchers and Their 'Subjects': Ethics, Power, Knowledge and Consent.Bristol:The Policy Press, University of Bristol.
35. Whittemore, Robin,Chase, Susan K.,Mandle, Carol L.(2001).Pearls, Pith, and Provocation: Validity in Qualitative Research.Qualitative Health Research,11(4),522-537.
36. Wiles, Rose,Heath, Sue,Crow, Graham,Charles, Vikki(2005).NCRM Methods Review Papers, NCRM/001NCRM Methods Review Papers, NCRM/001,未出版
37. 林正介、陳祖裕(2010)。社會及行為科學研究相關之倫理議題。人文社會科學簡訊，12(1)，19-25。
38. 許禎元(2004)。社會科學信度與效度的檢定及其關聯性。醒吾學，27，1-23。
39. 蔡甫昌、林芝宇、張至寧(2008)。研究倫理的歷史、原則與準則。台灣醫學，12(1)，107-122。
40. 戴華、甘偵蓉、鄭育萍(2010)。人文社會科學與研究倫理審查：執行研究倫理治理架構計畫的考察與反思。人文社會科學簡訊，12(1)，10-18。