Beware dichotomies and grand abstractions: Attending to particularity and practice in empirical bioethics

American Journal of Bioethics

Volumn 9, Issue 6-7, 2009, Pages 76-77

  Carter, Stacy M ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF SYDNEY   (Australia)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; BIOETHICS; EMPIRICAL RESEARCH; ETHICAL THEORY; ETHICS; HUMAN;

BIOETHICAL ISSUES; BIOETHICS; EMPIRICAL RESEARCH; ETHICAL ANALYSIS; ETHICAL THEORY; HUMANS;

EID: 70449706151     PISSN: 15265161     EISSN: 15360075     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1080/15265160902874346     Document Type: Article

References (7)

1. Charmaz, K. 2006. Constructing Grounded Theory: A Practical Guide Through Qualitative Analysis. London, UK: Sage Publications.
2. Entwistle, V. A., Carter, S. M., Trevena, L., et al. 2008. Communicating about screening. British Medical Journal 337(7673): 789-791.
3. Eriksen, T. H., and Nielsen, F. S. 2001. A History of Anthropology. London, UK: Pluto Press.
4. Kon, A. 2009. The role of empirical research in bioethics. American Journal of Bioethics 9(6-7): 59-65.
5. Lamiell, J. T. 1998. 'Nomothetic' and 'idiographic': contrasting Windelband's understanding with contemporary usage. Theory & Psychology 8(1): 23-38.
6. Mason, J. 2002. Qualitative Researching, 2nd ed. London, UK: Sage Publications.
7. Reeves, S., Albert, M., Kuper, A., and Hodges, B. D. 2008. Qualitative research-Why use theories in qualitative research? British Medical Journal 337(7670): 631-634.