Situating cogenerative dialogue in a cosmopolitan ethic

Forum Qualitative Sozialforschung

Volumn 7, Issue 2, 2006, Pages

  Emdin, Christopher ^a   Lehner, Ed ^b  

^a Microbiology Section   (United States)

^b NONE

Author keywords

Authenticity criteria; Belmont Report; Beneficence; Cogenerative dialogue; Cosmopolitanism; Ethics; Human subject research and prolonged engagement

Indexed keywords

EID: 33645549156     PISSN: 14385627     EISSN: 14385627     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: None     Document Type: Article

References (16)

1. Anderson, Paul (1998). Simple gifts: ethical issues in the conduct of person-based composition research. College Composition and Communication, 49, 63-89.
2. Appiah, Kwame Anthony (2006). Cosmopolitanism: Ethics in a world of strangers. New York: Norton.
3. Bhabha, Homi (1996). Unsatisfied: notes on vernacular cosmopolitanism. In Laura Garcia-Moreno & Peter C. Pfeiffer (Eds.), Text and nation: Cross-disciplinary essays on cultural and national identities (pp.191-207). Columbia, SC: Camden House.
4. Collins, Randall (2004). Interaction ritual chains. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
5. Grinnell, Frederick (2004). Subject vulnerability: The precautionary principle of human research. American Journal of Bioethics, 4, 72-74.
6. Guba, Egon & Lincoln, Yvonne (1989). Fourth generation evaluation. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
7. National Bioethics Advisory Commission (2001). Ethical and policy issues in research involving human participants. Rockville, MD: U.S. Government Printing.
8. National Commission for the Protection of Human Subjects of Biomedical and Behavioral Research. (1979). The Belmont report: Ethical principles and guidelines for the protection of human subject of biomedical and behavioral research. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.
9. Office for Protection from Research Risks (1991). Protection of human subjects, Title 45 Code of Federal Regulations Part 46.
10. President's Commission for the Student of Ethical Problems in Medicine and Biomedical and Behavioral Research (1982). Making health care decisions: The ethical and legal implications of informed consent in the patient-practitioners relationship, Vol. 1. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.
11. Pritchard, Ivor A. (2002) Travelers and trolls: Practitioner research and institutional review boards. Educational Researcher, 31(3), 3-13.
12. Roth, Wolff-Michael & Tobin, Ken (2004a). Cogenerative dialoguing and metaloguing: Reflexivity of processes and genres [35 paragraphs]. Forum Qualitative Sozialforschung/Forum: Qualitative Social Research [On-line Journal], 5(3), Art. 7. Available at: http://www.qualitative-research.net/fqs-texte/3-04/04-3-7-e.htm [Date of access: July 24, 2005].
13. Sewell, William H. (1992) A theory of structure: Duality, agency and transformation. American Journal of Sociology, 98, 1-29.
14. Stith, Ian, & Roth, Wolff-Michael (2006). Who gets to ask the questions: The ethics in/of cogenerative dialogue praxis [46 paragraphs]. Forum Qualitative Sozialforschung/Forum: Qualitative Social Research [On-line Journal], 7(2), Art. 38. Available at: http://www.qualitative-research.net/fqs-texte/2-06/06-2-38-e.htm [Date of access: March 10, 2006].
15. Tobin, Ken (2005) Learning to teach and learn in diverse and dynamic classrooms. Available at: http://www.web.gc.cuny.edu/urbaneducation/ tobin.htm [Date of access: March 1, 2006].
16. Varela, Francisco (1999). Ethical know-how: Action, wisdom and cognition. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.