Don’t Just Widen One Lens;Instead Use Many

Abstract

This paper responds to the commentaries offered by Mulla and Hlavka, Conte, Cerulli, and Cromer and Newman. We reflect on their differing points of view, attempt clarifications, and then re-state our central concern in regard to research ethics in studies of violence against women. We think that IRB-oriented approaches suffer from too much rule adherence, too much focus on doing things the right way and too little attention to the larger ethical question of to how figure out the right things to do. We continue to raise concern about inept research as potentially damaging to a class of persons, not to the specific subjects of any particular study. Thus, we see not just a matter of poor design, mishandling of analyses, or even of clumsy inferences from the data in some research; these errors are correctible by better training and review. But these errors also have the potential for misleading the public and policy makers and thus suggest ethical dimensions to clumsy work. We conclude by proposing use of wide reflective equilibrium as a way of entering into deeper dialogue about the complex ethical issues surrounding this field of research. Hopefully, we can move beyond mere rule compliance to seriously considering the end effects of our science.