Ethical research communities provide important guidance for those conducting communication research projects. However, researchers face serious ethical dilemmas when their memberships in multiple ethical communities create conflicting ethical obligations. The present study explores conflicting demands between competing ethical communities to provide a series of reflexive questions researchers can ask themselves as they negotiate the contradictory terrain of their ethical communities. To accomplish this task, the authors explore the ethical dilemmas faced by one researcher as she conducted research on sexual harassment.
Arendell, T. (1997). Reflections on the researcher-researched relationship: A woman interviewing men. Qualitative Sociology, 20, 341-368.
2.
Arnett, R. C. (1986). Communication and community: Implications of Martin Buber’s dialogue. Carbondale: Southern Illinois University Press.
3.
Arnett, R. C. (1997). Communication and community in an age of diversity. In J. M. Makau & R. C. Arnett (Eds.), Communication in an age of diversity (pp. 27-47). Urbana: University of Illinois Press.
4.
Arnett, R. C. (2002). Paulo Freire’s revolutionary pedagogy: From a story-centered to a narrative-centered communication ethic. Qualitative Inquiry, 8, 489-510.
5.
Babbie, E. (1989). The practice of social research. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.
6.
Berryman-Fink, C., & Riley, K. V. (1997). The role of gender and feminism in perceptions of sexual and sexually harassing communication. Women’s Studies in Communication, 20, 24-44.
7.
Bloche, M. (1998). Beyond consent. In D. Weisstub (Ed.), Research on human subjects: Ethics, law and social policy (pp. 44-55). Oxford, UK: Elsevier Science.
8.
Booth-Butterfield, M. (1989). Perceptions of harassing communication as a function of locus of control, work force participation, and gender. Communication Quarterly, 37, 262-275.
9.
Buzzanell, P. M. (2004). Revisiting sexual harassment in academe: Using feminist ethical and sensemaking approaches to analyze macro discourse and micropractices of sexual harassment. In P. M. Buzzanell, H. Sterk, & L. H. Turner (Eds.), Gender in applied contexts (pp. 25-46). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
10.
Charvet, J. (1995). The idea of an ethical community. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.
11.
Creswell, J. (2003). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
12.
Denzin, N. (1997). Interpretive ethnography: Ethnographic practices for the 21st century. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
13.
Dougherty, D. (1999). Dialogue through standpoint: Understanding women’s and men’s standpoints of sexual harassment. Management Communication Quarterly, 12, 436-468.
14.
Dougherty, D., & Krone, K. (2000). Overcoming the dichotomy: Cultivating standpoints in organizations through research. Women’s Studies in Communication, 23, 16-39.
15.
Edwards, R., & Mauthner, M. (2002). Ethics and feminist research: Theory and practice. In M. Mauthner, M. Birch, J. Jessop, & T. Miller (Eds.), Ethics in qualitative research (pp. 14-31). London: Sage.
16.
Frey, L., Botan, C., Friedman, P., & Kreps, G. (1991). Investigating communication: An introduction to research methods. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
17.
Garlick, R. (1994). Male and female responses to ambiguous instructor behaviors. Sex Roles: A Journal of Research, 30, 135-158.
18.
Gergen, K. J., & Gergen, M. M. (1991). Toward reflexive methodologies. In F. Steier (Ed.), Research and reflexivity (pp. 76-96). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
19.
Green, G., Barbour, R. S., Barnard, M., & Kitzinger, J. (1993). “Who wears the trousers?” Sexual harassment in research settings. Women’s Studies International Forum, 16, 627-637.
20.
Hallstein, L. (1999). A postmodern caring: Feminist standpoint theories, revisioned caring, and communication ethics. Western Journal of Communication, 63, 32-56.
21.
Hemphill, M. R., & Pfeiffer, A. L. (1986). Sexual spillover in the workplace: Testing the appropriateness of male-female interaction. Women’s Studies in Communication, 9, 52-56.
22.
Jaggar, A. (1994). Introduction: Living with contradictions. In A. Jaggar (Ed.), Living with contradictions in feminist social ethics (pp. 1-17). Boulder, CO: Westview.
23.
Kvale, S. (1996). Interviews: An introduction to qualitative research interviewing. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
24.
Lindlof, T., & Taylor, B. (2002). Qualitative communication research methods. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
25.
Little, M., Jordens, C., & Sayers, E. (2003). Health communication. Communication Abstracts, 26, 485.
26.
May, S., & Mumby, D. K. (Eds.). (2005). Engaging organizational communication theory and research: Multiple perspectives. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
27.
Mongeau, P. A., & Blalock, J. (1994). Student evaluations of instructor immediacy and sexually harassing behaviors: An experimental investigation. Journal of Applied Communication Research, 22, 256-272.
28.
Muto, J. (1993). “Who’s that in my bed?”: The strange bedfellows made by the politics of applied qualitative research. In S. Herndon & G. Kreps (Eds.), Qualitative research: Applications in organizational communication (pp. 19-28). Cresskill, NJ: Hampton Press.
29.
Neuman, W. (1997). Social research methods: Qualitative and quantitative approaches. Boston: Allyn & Bacon.
30.
National Institutes of Health. (1995, March 2). Guidelines for the conduct of research involving human subjects at the National Institutes of Health. Retrieved January 17, 2004, from http://ohsr.od.nih.gov/guidelines.php3
31.
Patton, M. Q. (1990). Qualitative evaluation and research methods (2nd ed.). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
32.
Rachels, J. (2003). The elements of moral philosophy (4th ed.). Boston: McGraw-Hill.
33.
Reinard, J. (1998). Introduction to communication research. Boston: McGraw-Hill.
34.
Reynolds, P. D. (1982). Ethics and social science research. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
35.
Rothman, J. (1998). Bringing ethics to human experimentation: The American experience. In D. Weisstub (Ed.), Research on human subjects: Ethics, law and social policy (pp. 35-43). Oxford, UK: Elsevier Science.
36.
Steier, F. (1991). Introduction: Research as self-reflexivity, self-reflexivity as social process. In F. Steier (Ed.), Research and reflexivity (pp. 1-11). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
37.
Steiner, L. (1997). A feminist schema for analysis of ethical dilemmas. In F. Casmiek (Ed.), Ethics in intercultural and international communication (pp. 59-88). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
38.
Thacker, R. A., & Gohmann, S. F. (1993). Male/female differences in perceptions and effects of hostile environment sexual harassment: Reasonable assumptions?Public Personnel Management, 22, 461-472.
39.
Vrinda, D. (2002). Why should a knower care?Hypatia: A Journal of Feminist Philosophy, 17, 34.
40.
Weisstub, D. (1998). Roles in clinical and research ethics. In D. Weisstub (Ed.), Research on human subjects: Ethics, law and social policy (pp. 56-72). Oxford, UK: Elsevier Science.
41.
Winfield, R. (2001). Autonomy and normativity. Aldershot, UK: Ashgate.
