Sieber And Tolich Chapter 2 Summary

786 Words4 Pages

In Chapter 2, Sieber and Tolich (2012) shed the light on how ethics should be managed during the research process, in particular, the chapter touches upon such important ethical elements as vulnerability, potential risks, and benefits of a research. In my critical response, I would particularly discuss the issue of potential risks and benefits in research raised by the authors, and reflect on my personal experience.
As Sieber and Tolich (2012) define, “risk is a probabilistic statement about a possible harm that may occur” (p. 20), and it consists of two elements which are: the degree of harm, and the degree of its probability to happen (p. 20). When evaluating the potential risks, it is important to bear in mind the fact that both these elements …show more content…

Furthermore, as Sieber and Tolich (2012) warn, in case there are any potential risks assumed, the researcher should think of the benefits the research can bring to the field (p. 22), and they define these benefits as “desirable outcomes for subjects and the community” (p. 23). Therefore, to some extent, the researcher has to compensate for the potential risks by ensuring that the research results will somehow contribute to the subject, or will ameliorate the current situation in the community or the context, and these benefits …show more content…

In this case it is necessary to have an experienced and knowledgeable person who is somewhat familiar with the research topic, research site and potential participants, so as to provide an unbiased and clear vision on the ethics. Therefore, the researcher could approach the supervisor for a help, as it was in my case, or, any other researcher who has studied the same topic, and who is familiar with the potential risks from his or her own experience. Drawing on my experience, the potential risk of my study was related to the possibility of changing the way of thinking among the participants regarding the topic I was inquiring them about. This cannot be considered as a tangible risk, but nevertheless, is influential and significant, and my supervisor strongly recommended to include this type of risk. Therefore, according to the magnitude of harm scale by Rid et. al. (in Sieber & Tolich, 2012, p. 21), now I understand, that I could relate my potential risks to a small level, as in case it happened, according to the duration period defined by Rid et al.,

Open Document