Ethics within the Study of International Relations - Literature review Example

Ethics within Ethics within the Study of International Relations of Ethics within 2 Ethics within the Study of International Relations At a global level, international relations are the tenuous raw materials that fashion history. The way in which friendly relations are maintained or conflict is handled will determine geographical lines, economic health, and the state of peace. As an researcher undertakes the study of international relations, it becomes necessary to choose a foundation for the way in which the research is conducted. In doing so, the boundaries of the research will then be subject to theoretical concepts that help to form the thesis. As the researcher designs the course of the study, the work will then be subject to a set of ethics that will frame the way in which the research is conducted. In doing this, some limitations will be found that may affect the outcome. However, having a set of ethics will reduce any chaos that might be produced with the methodology that can give a false set of results, thus voiding the study. When undertaking a study of international relations, a set of ethics that are both universally human and specifically applicable can create a study that has boundaries that respect the subject of the study, that will reduce any preconceived bias, and control the study toward usable conclusions. Realistically, international relations should be examined from the standpoint of a variety of disciplines and examined from many points of view. However, understanding the basics requires putting together a picture that has the basics of these areas of impact. According to Sutch and Elias (3) “IR (International Relations) is the background upon which the many dramas of the world politics are played out”. In other words, the foundational issues of international relationships set the stage for the actions and reactions of nations towards other nations. To understand the way in which ethical considerations have an impact, one must first understand the dynamics of cultural conflicts and differences that cause ethical boundaries to be shifting and Ethics within 3 unfocused. Therefore, in researching international relations, one is bound by the ethical constraints of ones own culture, combined with the constraints of the cultures for which the research is being undertaken. According to Hobden (3), the activity of researching international relations issues has had a great number of changes to the theories upon which it is approached . While the theory of Realism is the predominant theory that is the platform for such research, there has been a splintering of efforts within the discipline that has lead to a variety of alternative theories on which to base study. Issues of gender bias has lead to a feminist faction of theorists, as well as a revitalized Marxist faction that studies sociological historical factors that go into international relations and the political ramifications (Elman and Elman 12). Through the many avenues that now lead to research in international relations, historical study has become a strong contender on the way in which present day relations are given foundation. Understanding today’s political environment is enhanced by understanding the historical basis upon which those relationships have been formed. Lawson (4) contends that the postmodern principles upon which international research must be approached supports the notion that there is no set of universal truths. In approaching the research, an understanding of the foundation of a culture must be understood before an understanding of the intercultural relationships can be achieved. Lawson (3) attributes postmodern theory foundations to architectural theorists and quotes the theories of architect Charles Jencks for surmising that “In place of singular truths and founts of authority, a post modern intellectual stance requires recognition of a range of possible knowledges drawn from cultures and histories across the globe” Ethics within 4 Bradley Thayer has developed a way in which to seek answers to international relations research theories by utilizing Darwinian theory. He has taken the five core ideas developed by Darwin, evolution, common descent, gradualism, multiplication of species, and natural selection, and applied them toward the sociological factors of the relationships of cultures. He states that “the essence of the evolutionary argument is that most of the behavioral characteristics of a species evolve because they help it survive and reproduce” (Thayer: 30). Thayer contends that in the same way, the evolution of global relations evolve in response to the need to survive and to expand. The way in which one nation views another nation is determined upon the needs of each party and how those needs are congruent or in conflict. Weber (6) discusses the existence of myth function in IR theory. She states that “The myth function in IR theory is the transformation of what is particular, cultural, and ideological (like a story told in IR tradition) into what appears to be universal, natural, and purely empirical“. This is commonly noticeable in slogan type phrases such as “international anarchy is the permissive of war” and “there is an international society”. In other words, certain ideologies within the study of international relations is biased by slogans that suggest simplified universal truths that are actually complex conditions. According to Ghosh (22), the post Cold War world must center their concern in international relations research on interdependence, international and regional integration, human rights, globalization, development and terrorism. Because the world has become interconnected on an unprecedented level, the way in which nations relate to one another profoundly affects the overall health of the world. The health of a single nation has the ability to distinctly and profoundly affect the health of almost all nations, with few exceptions. Therefore, understanding Ethics within 5 the foundations of differing cultures is of epic importance. This leads to the importance of an ethical standard set for researching the issues that have global interest. The classic standard for bad ethics in creating a research study is most widely understood to be The Stanford Prison Experiment, conducted by Phillip G. Lombardo in 1971. The experiment divided participants into two groups, one set of guards and the other prison inmates. Participants found themselves coerced into continued participation, their health threatened, and their sense of well-being under assault (Maxfield 43). Along with the ethical considerations that came to light during this experiment, the researchers found that they themselves were becoming a part of the atmosphere and therefore interjecting themselves into the study. Because of this, the study was not found to have any conclusions that could be appropriately published for the aims that had been intended . However, the commentary that was found applicable was in the way in which the research could be used to prove the need for ethical behaviors for researchers (Lombardo 258). When a course of research has been undertaken, ethical behavior on the part of the researcher provides a framework for plausible and acceptable results. There have been many types of unethical research that produced results, however, historical remembrance tends to focus on the injustice of the act of researching far more than on the results of that research. Examples of this might be the terrible acts in the concentration camps of Nazi Germany, or the act of infecting the Tuskegee Airmen with disease (Gregory, 38). Therefore, it must be concluded that in order for the conclusions of a study to have social relevance, the act of researching must be conducted in a way that does not cloud the findings. When dealing with multi-cultural relationships that have importance on a global level, this has even more importance as the nature Ethics within 6 of how the culture and interrelationships of cultures is viewed has both historical and future impact on the world community. Another example of how poorly constructed studies can cause issues is more specifically and relevantly seen in the history of Project Camelot. This study was designed and sponsored by the U.S. Department of Defense with the intention of discovering the determinants of revolution within Latin American cultures and nations. The use of the study was intended to provide “research in the social and behavioral science fields in support of the Army’s mission” (Kimmel 17). The information would be used to help control the way in which revolution evolved in Latin American cultures. This became a wide controversial use of research and the study was ended prematurely with protests from the targeted nations, primarily Chile. While the study itself was not constructed unethically, the intention of it was tied to the benefit of a military force which offended the intended subjects of the work. As well, the study was now affecting international relations by its very existence. Therefore, not only must a research project be ethical in the way it is conducted, but it must be have ethical intentions for the use of its results in order for the findings to have more merit than a controversy that surrounds it. For the results of a study to be valid, it is important for the conflict of the interests of society in protecting dignity and privacy be observed so that the researcher can gain knowledge from what is observed (Kimmel 23). In addition, for a study to be valid, it must take into consideration historical and cultural values of the subject in order to understand the observed behaviors and put them into perspective. According to the American Medical Association, certain standards of ethics have been set down to provide boundaries for social research. Those boundaries are based upon the ten Ethics within 7 principles that were set down during the post World War II trials and referred to as the Nuremburg Code. According to the report created by the AMA, the most common section of that code refers to informed consent of the subject. A subject must understand the intent of the study and in what way the participation will have an effect on that subject. International IRB (institutional review board) standards vary and are dependant upon the nature of the study. The most common issues that are addressed are that of informed consent, confidentiality, impact on the individual and the community, minimal risk levels, benefits weighed against risks, and post research impact of the study. Along with these risks that must be faced and addressed in order to conduct an ethical form of research, it is imperative that the research be used in such a way that it does not become an unethical instrument. Kimmel (29) uses the example of labeling as an effect that might create an unethical outcome. When a circumstance is labeled, it can become locked into a stereotype which may not have actual perceptive truths attached, but will change the reactions based on the assumption of a truth (Penslar 46). According to the American model of scientific research, the conflict of the scientist is at odds with the needs of discovery. The Committee On Science, Engineering, and Public Policy (8) has stated that “The empirical link between scientific knowledge and the physical, biological, and social world constrains the influence of values in science.” In other words, what is observed must fall in line with what has been taken as truth. Observations must be tempered with the surrounding issues of what has brought the observed into view. Otherwise, the findings have not been validated with reality. One simple biological example of this is the formerly considered actions of mother alligators. It was once believed that mother alligators ate their young and had Ethics within 8 no feelings for their offspring. This notion was accepted because observations of the mother alligators with their young suggested that shortly after birth they were eating the hatchlings. However, this has proven out to not be the case. Alligators transport their young in the belly of their mouth from the nesting area to the water to provide safety (Ganeri 28). This simple observational mistake is an example of the mistakes that can be made when the entire picture of an activity is not represented clearly. Understanding the philosophy of ethics is central to the successful construction of a research project. A simple definition of ethics is the discovery of what is right against what is wrong. However, defining the terms right and wrong often become the subject of lengthy debate. There are some who would use the adage that “the ends justify the means” to excuse certain behavior in order to justify actions. Others would argue that nothing justifies the abuse of human rights. Most would agree with the latter. However, in the search for the discovery of truth, human rights considerations sometimes limit the way in which a researcher may proceed. As stated above, however, such a disregard then clouds the value of the results, thus invalidating the work. Understanding ethical philosophy requires, according to Pojman and Feiser (8), that four areas of intent be examined. These four areas are action, consequences, character, and motive. One subject that falls nicely into this examination is that of the taking of life. If one takes a gun and shoots a man , the ethics of that act is subject to the four criteria of examination. On first glance, the act appears to be unethical. If one ascribes shooting the gun, death of the man, villainous intent, and money to the four criteria, then the act is most often seen as unethical. However, if one ascribes shooting the gun, death of the man, enforcement of law, prevention of crime to the four criteria, then the ethical equation changes. However, the justification of an act Ethics within 9 of discovery has been determined as not enough to justify a heinous act. Therefore, in order to advance discovery, the research must be designed to have all four criteria met with positive assessment. Ethical considerations allow for research that will have viable results that can be accepted as appropriate and valid. When ethics are violated, the results do not have a foundation that can be respected and the results do not then have the weight to make lasting change. The limitations that ethical research provides does limit the way in which some discovery can be made. As well, many aspects of life that cannot be researched ethically is subject to conclusions drawn from surrounding behavior outside of research control. International relations is particularly subject to these limitations as events most often must occur before the research into causality can begin (Klotz and Lynch 45). Analysis of historical fact become the basis and core of a great many studies. Rothstein and Fox (3) define world politics as “a struggle for scarce values in a world of inequality and continuous and uneven change.” The world that the international researcher enters has a limited scope of ethics with even less usage of those constraints. However, the importance of understanding that world can improve the state of international relationships. Sprinz and Wolinsky-Nahmias (1) state that the studies of the subject attempt to bring an understanding of political relationships between countries, societies and organizations, with three main directions being environmental, globalization, and humanitarian issues. As the world struggles to define its historically unprecedented interconnectivity, the study of international relations and the impact of world politics must be conducted in a manner that reflects the ethical use of power. Ethics within 10 References American Medical Association. (2001). Report of the council on ethical and judicial affairs: Ethical considerations in International Research. Viewed 3 February 2010 at http://www.ama-assn.org/ama1/pub/upload/mm/369/ceja_2a01.pdf Booth, W. C., Colomb, G. G., & Williams, J. M. (2008). The craft of research. Chicago guides to writing, editing, and publishing. Chicago, University of Chicago Press. Committee On Science, Engineering, and Public Policy, (Washington, DC). (1995). On being a scientist responsible conduct in research. Washington, D.C., National Academy Pr. Elman, C., & Elman, M. F. (2003). Progress in international relations theory: appraising the field. Cambridge, Mass. [u.a.], MIT Press. Ganeri, A. (1992). Animal science. Science questions and answers. London, Evans Brothers. Gregory, I. (2003). Ethics in research. Continuum research methods series. London, Continuum. Hobden, S. (1998). International relations and historical sociology: breaking down boundaries. New York: Routledge. Kimmel, A. J. (1988). Ethics and values in applied social research. Applied social research methods series, v. 12. Newbury Park, Calif, Sage Publications. Klotz, A., & Lynch, C. (2007). Strategies for research in constructivist international relations. New York, Sharpe. http://www.loc.gov/catdir/toc/ecip072/2006032192.html. Lawson, S. (2003). A short introduction to international relations. Short introduction series. Cambridge, Polity Press ; Malden, MA : Blackwell. Maxfield, M. G. (2008). Basic research methods for criminal justice and criminology. Belmont, Wadsworth. Penslar, R. L. (1995). Research ethics: cases and materials. Bloomington, Indiana University Press. Pojman, L. P., & Fieser, J. (2007). Ethics: discovering right and wrong. Belmon, Calif, Wadsworth. Rothstein, R., and Fox, W. T. R.(1992). Evolution of theory in international relations. [S.l.], Univ Of South Carolina Pr. Ethics within 11 Schoenbaum, T. J. (2006). International relations: the path not taken : using international law to promote world peace and security. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press. Sprinz, D. F., & Wolinsky-Nahmias, Y. (2004). Models, numbers, and cases: methods for studying international relations. Ann Arbor, Mich, Univ. of Michigan Press. Sutch, P. and Elias, J. (2007) International relations: the basics. Abington: Routledge. Thayer, B. A. (2004). Darwin and international relations: on the evolutionary origins of war and ethnic conflict. Lexington, University Press of Kentucky. Weber, C. (2001). International relations theory: a critical introduction. New York: Routledge. Read More