Traversing ethical imperatives: Learning from stories from the field

In this chapter we integrate the lessons that are shared across this handbook through the rich, storied examples of ethics in critical research. We outline central themes to the handbook that cut across all of the sections. The notions of vulnerability and harm are pertinent in critical research not only as a duty to protect participants, but also as signifiers that are mobilised and can constrain what is achieved in critical research. The stories told in this handbook contribute to ongoing learning about ethics in critical research by drawing on ethically important moments in the unfolding research processes. We ask whether ethical critical research requires relational models of reciprocity between researchers and participants/co-researchers and appreciation of situated ethics in the bureaucratic review processes

Psychological Wellbeing of Patients with Rheumatoid Arthritis

The results of the study reported here were used as the basis for an educational programme for nurses and subsequently in patient education programmes developed by the authors in collaboration with colleagues and service users

Collaborating in Life Science Research Groups: The Question of Authorship

This qualitative study explores how life science postdocs’ perceptions of contemporary academic career rationales influence how they relate to collaboration within research groups. One consequential dimension of these perceptions is the high value assigned to publications. For career progress, postdocs consider producing publications and especially first author publications essential. This strong focus on publications is influential for how postdocs prefer to organize the socio-epistemic processes of their research work. To ensure first authorship, avoid authorship conflicts and keep the number of co-authors low, they articulate a preference for working mainly individually. Existing collaborations and support relationships are frequently assessed in terms of whether they will have to share or lose authorship. Hence, while formally, the life sciences have become more collaborative, postdocs report that in their day-today practices, they try to avoid collaboration. By drawing attention to this tension, the author aims to contribute to a growing debate about incentive systems in academic science and their unexpected negative side effects