published_or_final_version / Journalism and Media Studies Centre / Master / Master of Journalism

published_or_final_version / abstract / toc / Philosophy / Master / Master of Philosophy

published_or_final_version / abstract / toc / Education / Master / Master of Science in Information Technology in Education

No description available.

No description available.

This study explored the ways in which different stakeholders, namely researchers, community members and representatives define and understand ethically problematic scenarios with respect to research. The intention was to understand the tensions within ethical decision-making as a result of competing conceptions of the self, namely, autonomous and relational conceptions of the self. A hypothetical case scenario, mirroring real life experiences, was used to elicit participants’ understandings of ethical dilemmas. Thematic analysis was employed in the analysis of interview data. Results show that all stakeholders understand ethical dilemmas with reference to benefit sharing, communal and individual ownership of knowledge, and different ways of knowing and validating knowledge. Tensions were noted throughout these understandings, especially in relation to individualistic and communal concepts of the self. It is recommended that indigenous epistemologies should be acknowledged as vital components in research into the experiences of local communities in particular. Research should be considered as a joint process whereby research participants and communities engage on an equal basis with researchers. / Thesis (M.Soc.Sc.)-University of KwaZulu-Natal, Pietermaritzburg, 2009.

In the history of public health vaccines have proven to be among the most effective disease prevention tools. It is clear that in the fight against HIV that new and powerful preventive technology such as a vaccine is badly needed. Ethically, however the processes of developing a vaccine against HIV have been distinctly different from that of any previous pharmaceutical products. HIV vaccine trials can be ethically complex for a number of reasons. In 2004 the HIV I AIDS Vaccine Ethics Group undertook a research initiative that aimed to collect data from various South African stake holders of HIV vaccine trials to ascertain what they perceived as the ethical challenges related to HIV vaccine trials. A quantitative content analysis on the data from 31 semistructured interviews revealed that the ethical issue listed spontaneously by most of the respondents was that of informed consent. Further probing and discussion on informed consent identified a number of sub issues which the respondents thought would pose important challenges to HIV vaccine trials in the South African context. This study undertook to do a more in-depth qualitative analysis of the data to ascertain whether the challenges and concerns the stakeholders have are consistent with or different to those already identified in the literature and ethical guidelines on informed consent in medical research. What variables may be impacting on the position stakeholders take was also of interest. Results indicated that many concerns relating to the substantive and procedural elements of informed consent were consistent with those debated in the literature. These issues related to first person consent, the voluntariness of participants' consent, practicing cultural sensitivity, dealing with language issues, promoting and assessing understanding of material disclosed, issues around the vulnerability of .. participants, children and adolescents' capacity to consent and the role of the media. More specific to the South African context, stakeholders were concerned about the legal framework under which the trials take place, the general lack of education and training about HIV vaccine trials, a lack of communication and coordination between stakeholder groups, and the historical influences of apartheid on black South African participants' capacity to consent. The main variables that appeared to impact on the position stakeholders took related to the role the stakeholders play within the trials, the philosophical position underpinning their ethical viewpoints, stakeholders' understanding of vulnerability and capacity to consent, and how they view the universality or relativity of ethical issues. / Thesis (M.A.)-University of KwaZulu-Natal, Pietermaritzburg, 2008.

The central problem addressed in this thesis has two parts. First, how can an educator respect the developing autonomy of a student's rational capacities while nurturing'the development of particular moral sensibilities and a particular moral perspective? Second, if a moral educator challenges a group of students to consider an alternative moral position, how can she or he be justified in presenting the new perspective as superior to the old one? My argument, in summary, is that an ideal of strong objectivity, as it is conceived by Sandra Harding in the context of feminist standpoint theory, works as a set of standards against which to evaluate the adequacy of one's moral perspective, and it offers a valuable means for comparing this perspective to others. Strong objectivity is an ideal which employs a set of standards including respect, reflexivity, and critical evaluation of social situations to challenge inquirers to maximise their objectivity. They do this through recognising and testing not only the content of their knowledge claims but also the purpose these claims play in the development of research programs, A commitment to strong objectivity entails attempting to understand the partiality of one's own perspective and recognising how that partiality distorts one's perception. The process of learning from others' perspectives is central to revising and enriching one's own perspective, and this revision and enrichment is an . ongoing responsibility for any teacher. Through the application of strong objectivity to moral theory building, a moral educator can be justified in believing that her or his own moral perspective is the most adequate one available. If a moral educator understands Harding's conception of strong objectivity, and embraces it as an ideal, the result will be a more justly equitable learning environment and a more complete understanding of the moral perspective which is being developed within the classroom. These are fundamental to the legitimacy of the work of a moral educator.

In this study I tackle the problem of justifying criminal punishment. Although I take heed of a traditional line of theorizing which says that punishment is an expressive and communicative endeavour, my theory breaks away from traditional approaches. This break is motivated by a recognition that theorists working in the traditional framework have failed to resolve the tension between retributivist and consequentialist reasons for punishment. I argue that punishment is justified as a type of communication from those affected by the crime to distinct and varied audiences. My naturalistic theory is structured around two fundamental themes, naturalism and pluralism about aims. The naturalism consists in the fact that the theory takes an empirically informed descriptive approach to the problem of justifying punishment. This foundation provides the resources for developing a balanced view of the moral agent which takes into account not only cognitive but also emotional capacities. This broader, deeper view of agency permits, indeed calls for, an analysis of the moral psychologies of those involved in the social practice. That analysis leads to the explanation that punishment is a type of communication of, among other things, strong but justified moral sentiments. Further development of this view suggests that punishment's various messages are intended for a variety of audiences - not just the wrongdoer but also the victim and community. That explication supports my other fundamental theme, pluralism about aims. The social institution of punishment is a complex one involving stakeholders who have differing motives and needs. Consequently, we should reject strategies which claim that punishment's justification can be reduced to one reason such as, for example, that the criminal deserves it. I argue that punishment's justification is multifaceted and complex. The arguments I put forward to justify punishment also bring to light aspects of the existing social institution that need reform. In general, they point to the need to design penal measures that promote communication among wrongdoer, victim and community. But I also call for a specific reform. I argue that the victim, whose concerns have traditionally been disregarded, should also be given a voice within the social institution.

How are we to combat terrosrism? Is terrorism ever morally justified? When is it rational to become a terrorist? What is so terrorizing about terrorism? The answers to these important questions depend on the most fundamental one: what is terrorism? In this thesis I utilize a practice analysis to discover how we in the West think about war. From that analysis, a definition of terrorism, captured in military categories, is offered. This definition is then used to discover what makes terrorism so terrifying for us. Finally, the definition of terrorism argued for in this thesis is tested for its applicability to further analysis by using the definition to analyze the current Israeli-Palestinian conflict, the Pentagon and World Trade Center attacks on events of September 11th, and nuclear deterrence. / vi, 86 leaves ; 29 cm.