Value–act relationships are less secure than is commonly supposed and this insecurity is leveraged to address two questions. First, can nurses refuse professional value claims (e.g., claims regarding care and compassion)? Second, even when value claims are accepted, might values be held provisionally and tentatively? These questions may seem absurd. Nurses deliver care and nursing is, we are told, a profession the members of which hold and share values. However, focusing attention on the problematic nature of professional value claims qua (...) claims permits a more conciliatory and realistic stance to be taken towards nurses holding alternative values and value interpretations. This could prove beneficial. (shrink)

Challenges of applying universal ethics principles in research practice are widely discussed among educational researchers. Scholars have suggested different approaches to improve research practices, including acknowledging cultural relativism and practicing situated ethics. This article argues that more meaningful research processes and outcomes may be achieved by responding to three similar, yet potentially different “sets” of ethical principles: a) institutions’ (universal) research ethics; b) participants’ ethics and; c) researchers’ personal ethics. We discuss and present our exploration of these three aspects through (...) an approach which enables more flexibility for education researchers in practice. Responsive Ethics embraces the interplay of these three aspects. We suggest that the “research ethics space” generated from response to and negotiation among these three aspects has potential for more meaningful and transparent education research outcomes. By establishing a comfortable middle ground between sometimes extreme positions of the ethical principles of the participants, researcher, and the institution (universal research ethics), Responsive Ethics contributes to discussions on improving ethical research practices in education contexts. (shrink)