This article concerns the ways in which authors from various fields conceptualise the ethical issues arising in the conduct of research. We reviewed critically and systematically the literature concerning the ethics of conducting research in order to engage in a reflection about the vocabulary and conceptual categories used in the publications reviewed. To understand better how the ethical issues involved in conducting research are conceptualised in the publications reviewed, we 1) established an inventory of the conceptualisations reviewed, and 2) we critically assessed them. We found that the publications reviewed mostly showed examples of descriptive ethics, in that most authors describe ethical issues without reflecting much on them, which could be explained both by 1) a lack of ethical education in research contexts, and 2) by the fact that we do not know what researchers know (or do not) about ethical issues. Additionally, the definitions identified in the publications are scarce and at times imprecise, but this seems more to point out the ethical vocabulary’s difficulties in certain contexts. Further, very few authors offer proper conceptualisations of the ethical issues arising in conducting research. When dealing with vast arrays of ethical issues to conceptualise, perhaps one ought to remember that some typologies already exist that could guide further reflection and help understand other realities for which the current ethical vocabulary may be lacking. We believe that combining the reviewed typologies, both with other well-developed typologies and critical reflection, could help support better ethical practice in conducting research.

本文涉及来自各个领域的作者将研究过程中出现的伦理问题概念化的方式。我们认真而系统地审查了有关进行研究的伦理学的文献，以期对所审查出版物中使用的词汇和概念类别进行反思。为了更好地理解所审查的出版物中如何对进行研究的伦理问题进行概念化，我们1）建立了所审查概念化的清单，并且2）我们对其进行了严格评估。我们发现，所审阅的出版物大多显示了描述性伦理的例子，因为大多数作者在描述伦理问题时并没有对其进行太多反映，这可以通过以下两种方式来解释：1）研究环境中缺乏伦理教育，2）由于我们不了解研究人员对道德问题的了解（或不了解）。此外，出版物中确定的定义很少，有时甚至不准确，但这似乎更多地指出了某些情况下道德词汇的困难。此外，很少有作者对进行研究时出现的伦理问题提供适当的概念。在处理大量伦理问题以进行概念化时，也许应该记住，有些类型已经存在，可以指导进一步的思考并帮助理解当前道德词汇可能缺少的其他现实。我们认为，将经过审查的类型学与其他完善的类型学和批判性反思相结合，可以有助于在开展研究时支持更好的道德规范。