Book contents
- Empirical BioethicsTheoretical and Practical Perspectives
- Cambridge Bioethics and Law
- Empirical Bioethics
- Copyright page
- Contents
- Contributors
- Preface
- Acknowledgements
- Part I Theoretical Perspectives
- Part II Practical Perspectives
- 8 Practical Perspectives: An Introduction
- 9 Moral Improvement through Interactive Research: A Practice Example of Dialogical Empirical Bioethics
- 10 Reflective Equilibrium as a Normative Empirical Model: The Case of Ashley X
- 11 Theory and Practice of Democratic Deliberation in Bioethics Research
- 12 Feminist Empirical Bioethics
- 13 Lessons from Experience: Establishing and Running Interdisciplinary Mixed-Method Bioethics Research
- 14 Publishing Research in Empirical Bioethics: Quality, Disciplines and Expertise
- Index
- Books in the series
- References
9 - Moral Improvement through Interactive Research: A Practice Example of Dialogical Empirical Bioethics
from Part II - Practical Perspectives
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 23 February 2017
Book contents
- Empirical BioethicsTheoretical and Practical Perspectives
- Cambridge Bioethics and Law
- Empirical Bioethics
- Copyright page
- Contents
- Contributors
- Preface
- Acknowledgements
- Part I Theoretical Perspectives
- Part II Practical Perspectives
- 8 Practical Perspectives: An Introduction
- 9 Moral Improvement through Interactive Research: A Practice Example of Dialogical Empirical Bioethics
- 10 Reflective Equilibrium as a Normative Empirical Model: The Case of Ashley X
- 11 Theory and Practice of Democratic Deliberation in Bioethics Research
- 12 Feminist Empirical Bioethics
- 13 Lessons from Experience: Establishing and Running Interdisciplinary Mixed-Method Bioethics Research
- 14 Publishing Research in Empirical Bioethics: Quality, Disciplines and Expertise
- Index
- Books in the series
- References
- Type
- Chapter
- Information
- Empirical BioethicsTheoretical and Practical Perspectives, pp. 139 - 158Publisher: Cambridge University PressPrint publication year: 2016
References
Abma, T.A., Molewijk, B., Widdershoven, G.A.M. 2009a. Good Care in Ongoing Dialogues. Responsive Evaluation and Moral Deliberation. Health Care Analysis. 17(3):217–235.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Abma, T., Voskes, Y., Landeweer, E., Emmaneel, R., Scholten, M., Kuijpers, E., Richartz, B., Bijnens, L., Herrmann, G., Widdershoven, G. 2009b. Lerende netwerken. Uitdagingen en oplossingen voor dwangreductie in de praktijk [Learning networks. Challenges and solutions for the reduction of coercion in practice]. Maandblad Geestelijke volksgezondheid. (64)6:571–582.Google Scholar
Beauchamp, T. 2000. Reply to Strong Principlism and Casuistry. Journal of Medical Philosophy. 25(3):342–347.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Dunn, M., Sheehan, M., Hope, T., Parker, M. 2012. Towards Methodological Innovation in Empirical Ethics in Research. Cambridge Quarterly of Healthcare Ethics. 21(4):466–480.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Frith, L. 2012. Symbiotic Empirical Ethics: A Practical Methodology. Bioethics. 26(4):198–206.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Greene, J. 2001. Dialogue in Evaluation: A Relational Perspective. Evaluation. 7(2):181–203.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Guba, E.G., Lincoln, Y.S. 1989. Fourth Generation Evaluation. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
Landeweer, E.G.M., Abma, T., Widdershoven, G., 2011. Moral Margins Concerning the Use of Coercion in Psychiatry. Nursing Ethics. 18(3):304–316.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Molewijk, B., Frith, L. 2009. Empirical Ethics: Who Is the Don Quixote? Bioethics. 23(4):ii–iv.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Molewijk, B., Stiggelbout, A., Otten, W., Dupuis, H., Kievit, J. 2004. Empirical Data and Moral Theory. A Plea for Integrated Empirical Ethics. Medicine Health Care Philosophy. 7(1):55–69.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Molewijk, B., Widdershoven, G. 2012. Don’t Solve the Issues! A Plea for ambiguity within Empirical Ethics. Cambridge Quarterly of Healthcare Ethics. 21(4):448–456.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Reason, P., Bradbury, H. 2001. Handbook of Action Research: Participative Inquiry and Practice. London: Sage.Google Scholar
Salloch, S., Schildmann, J., Vollmann, J. 2012. Empirical Research in Medical Ethics: How Conceptual Accounts on Normative-Empirical Collaboration May Improve Research Practice. BMC Medical Ethics. 13(5).CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Schwandt, T.A. 2001. A Postscript on Thinking about Dialogue. Evaluation, 7(2):264–276.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Solbakk, J.H. 2012. Guest editorial. Embedded Ethics or Fictitious Facts? Cambridge Quarterly of Healthcare Ethics. 21(4):419–425.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Voskes, Y., Kemper, M., Landeweer, E.G.M., Widdershoven, G.A.M. 2013. Preventing Seclusion in Psychiatry: A Care Ethics Perspective on the First Five Minutes at Admission. Nursing Ethics. Online First, DOI 10.1177/0969733013493217.Google Scholar
Widdershoven, G. 2001. Dialogue in Evaluation: A Hermeneutic Perspective. Evaluation. 7(2):253–263.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Widdershoven, G., Abma, T., Molewijk, B. 2009a. Empirical Ethics as a Dialogical Practice. Bioethics. 23:236–248.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Widdershoven, G., Molewijk, B., Abma, B. 2009b. Improving Care and Ethics: A Plea for Interactive Empirical Ethics. American Journal of Bioethics. 9(6–7):99–101.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
- 11
- Cited by