Pub Date : 2024-03-06DOI: 10.1177/17470161241232816
C. Moe, Lisbeth Uhrenfeldt, I. Kymre
The increasing need for innovative research driven by rapid global changes gives doctoral supervisors of early-stage researchers a significant role in facilitating the ethical conduct of qualitative research. In the context of European Commission funding, the demands of research ethics and integrity place a tremendous responsibility on the supervisors of early-stage researchers involved in cross-national projects. This document study seeks to illuminate the role of the supervisors in facilitating research ethics in these projects. Specifically, we describe and discuss the supervisor role associated with five approaches to doctoral supervision of qualitative research, namely those described as ‘Functional’, ‘Enculturation’, ‘Critical thinking’, ‘Emancipation’ and ‘Developing a quality relationship’. The main challenges for supervisors of cross-national research projects are the cultural and linguistic mobilisation of ethical principles in qualitative research processes and the management of the future use of open data. The results from this study have implications for planning and conducting cross-national studies within research involving human participants. These results can guide supervisors in the codification and mobilisation of ethical qualitative research in practice.
{"title":"Facilitating research ethics in qualitative research through doctoral supervision in the context of European Commission funding","authors":"C. Moe, Lisbeth Uhrenfeldt, I. Kymre","doi":"10.1177/17470161241232816","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/17470161241232816","url":null,"abstract":"The increasing need for innovative research driven by rapid global changes gives doctoral supervisors of early-stage researchers a significant role in facilitating the ethical conduct of qualitative research. In the context of European Commission funding, the demands of research ethics and integrity place a tremendous responsibility on the supervisors of early-stage researchers involved in cross-national projects. This document study seeks to illuminate the role of the supervisors in facilitating research ethics in these projects. Specifically, we describe and discuss the supervisor role associated with five approaches to doctoral supervision of qualitative research, namely those described as ‘Functional’, ‘Enculturation’, ‘Critical thinking’, ‘Emancipation’ and ‘Developing a quality relationship’. The main challenges for supervisors of cross-national research projects are the cultural and linguistic mobilisation of ethical principles in qualitative research processes and the management of the future use of open data. The results from this study have implications for planning and conducting cross-national studies within research involving human participants. These results can guide supervisors in the codification and mobilisation of ethical qualitative research in practice.","PeriodicalId":38096,"journal":{"name":"Research Ethics","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.7,"publicationDate":"2024-03-06","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"140261222","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2024-02-18DOI: 10.1177/17470161241229207
Carly Seedall, L. Tambornino
This scoping review maps research ethics and integrity challenges and best practices encountered by research actors in the DACH countries (Germany, Austria, and Switzerland), including researchers, funders, publishers, research ethics committees, and policymakers, during the COVID-19 pandemic. The COVID-19 pandemic brought research and, in turn, research ethics and integrity, into public focus. This review identified challenges related to changing research environments, diversity in research, publication and dissemination trends, scientific literacy and trust in science, recruitment, research redundancy and study termination, placebo and human challenge studies, data management, and informed consent. These challenges are linked to two crucial factors: first, actors in the DACH research ecosystem lacked a sound knowledge base to assess the risks and benefits of research during the COVID-19 pandemic. Second, researchers in the DACH region faced pressure from policymakers, funders, and the public to generate relevant, timely, and consistent findings to mitigate the impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic. In addition, this review highlights best practices to mitigate the effects of future crises on research ethics and integrity, including enhanced cooperation among actors, continuous ethics assessments, and support for public scientific literacy.
{"title":"Research ethics and integrity in the DACH region during the COVID-19 pandemic: balancing risks and benefits under pressure","authors":"Carly Seedall, L. Tambornino","doi":"10.1177/17470161241229207","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/17470161241229207","url":null,"abstract":"This scoping review maps research ethics and integrity challenges and best practices encountered by research actors in the DACH countries (Germany, Austria, and Switzerland), including researchers, funders, publishers, research ethics committees, and policymakers, during the COVID-19 pandemic. The COVID-19 pandemic brought research and, in turn, research ethics and integrity, into public focus. This review identified challenges related to changing research environments, diversity in research, publication and dissemination trends, scientific literacy and trust in science, recruitment, research redundancy and study termination, placebo and human challenge studies, data management, and informed consent. These challenges are linked to two crucial factors: first, actors in the DACH research ecosystem lacked a sound knowledge base to assess the risks and benefits of research during the COVID-19 pandemic. Second, researchers in the DACH region faced pressure from policymakers, funders, and the public to generate relevant, timely, and consistent findings to mitigate the impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic. In addition, this review highlights best practices to mitigate the effects of future crises on research ethics and integrity, including enhanced cooperation among actors, continuous ethics assessments, and support for public scientific literacy.","PeriodicalId":38096,"journal":{"name":"Research Ethics","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.7,"publicationDate":"2024-02-18","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"139959545","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2024-01-19DOI: 10.1177/17470161231224060
Sapfo Lignou, Mark Sheehan, Ilina Singh
Many research institutions and funders have recently stated their commitment to actively support and promote ‘Equality, Diversity and Inclusion’ (EDI) in various aspects of health research including Patient and Public Involvement (PPI). However, translating this commitment into specific research projects presents significant challenges that existing approaches, practical guidelines and initiatives have not adequately addressed. In this paper, we explore how the lack of clear justifications for the EDI commitment in existing guidelines inadvertently complicates the work of those involved with PPI and we stress the need for conceptual clarity for any EDI effort to yield meaningful results. Our focus centres on the first principle of the EDI discourse, ‘equality’, particularly in the form of ‘equality of opportunity’ as outlined in current guidance provided by the National Institute of Health Research in the United Kingdom. We examine challenges related to justifying and implementing a general, unspecified commitment to equality of opportunity and explain that this reflects a lack of consensus regarding the moral value of PPI in research – a profound problem that remains unaddressed. We then discuss how the presence of several opposing moral perspectives on PPI, makes determining the most appropriate way of addressing barriers to involvement complex and controversial, raising ethical implications for the work of health researchers, PPI specialists and coordinators. Finally we make suggestions on how future research can enrich the concept of ‘equality of opportunity’ in PPI and improve practice. While our primary focus is on the NIHR, a strong advocate of PPI in research, this analysis will point to normative and ethical considerations that may be relevant to other research institutions and funding organisations aiming to promote equality of opportunity in their public and patient involvement strategies.
许多研究机构和资助者最近都承诺在健康研究的各个方面积极支持和促进 "平等、多样性和包容性"（EDI），包括 "患者和公众参与"（PPI）。然而，将这一承诺转化为具体的研究项目却面临着巨大的挑战，而现有的方法、实用指南和倡议尚未充分解决这些问题。在本文中，我们将探讨现有指南中缺乏对患者和公众参与承诺的明确说明，是如何在无意中使参与患者和公众参与的工作复杂化的，并强调任何患者和公众参与工作要想取得有意义的成果，都需要有清晰的概念。我们的重点是电子数据交换论述的第一项原则 "平等"，特别是英国国家健康研究所（National Institute of Health Research）现行指南中概述的 "机会平等"。我们探讨了与证明和实施机会均等的一般性、不明确的承诺有关的挑战，并解释说这反映了人们对研究中公众参与的道德价值缺乏共识--这是一个仍未解决的深刻问题。然后，我们讨论了关于公众宣传的几种对立的道德观点是如何使确定解决参与障碍的最合适方法变得复杂和有争议的，从而对健康研究人员、公众宣传专家和协调人员的工作产生了道德影响。最后，我们就未来研究如何丰富公众宣传中的 "机会均等 "概念并改进实践提出了建议。虽然我们主要关注的是在研究中大力倡导公众参与的英国国家卫生研究院，但本分析将指出规范和伦理方面的考虑因素，这些考虑因素可能与其他旨在在其公众和患者参与战略中促进机会均等的研究机构和资助组织相关。
{"title":"‘A commitment to Equality, Diversity and Inclusion’: a conceptual framework for equality of opportunity in Patient and Public Involvement in research","authors":"Sapfo Lignou, Mark Sheehan, Ilina Singh","doi":"10.1177/17470161231224060","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/17470161231224060","url":null,"abstract":"Many research institutions and funders have recently stated their commitment to actively support and promote ‘Equality, Diversity and Inclusion’ (EDI) in various aspects of health research including Patient and Public Involvement (PPI). However, translating this commitment into specific research projects presents significant challenges that existing approaches, practical guidelines and initiatives have not adequately addressed. In this paper, we explore how the lack of clear justifications for the EDI commitment in existing guidelines inadvertently complicates the work of those involved with PPI and we stress the need for conceptual clarity for any EDI effort to yield meaningful results. Our focus centres on the first principle of the EDI discourse, ‘equality’, particularly in the form of ‘equality of opportunity’ as outlined in current guidance provided by the National Institute of Health Research in the United Kingdom. We examine challenges related to justifying and implementing a general, unspecified commitment to equality of opportunity and explain that this reflects a lack of consensus regarding the moral value of PPI in research – a profound problem that remains unaddressed. We then discuss how the presence of several opposing moral perspectives on PPI, makes determining the most appropriate way of addressing barriers to involvement complex and controversial, raising ethical implications for the work of health researchers, PPI specialists and coordinators. Finally we make suggestions on how future research can enrich the concept of ‘equality of opportunity’ in PPI and improve practice. While our primary focus is on the NIHR, a strong advocate of PPI in research, this analysis will point to normative and ethical considerations that may be relevant to other research institutions and funding organisations aiming to promote equality of opportunity in their public and patient involvement strategies.","PeriodicalId":38096,"journal":{"name":"Research Ethics","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.7,"publicationDate":"2024-01-19","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"139525739","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2024-01-04DOI: 10.1177/17470161231221258
B. Tang
Scientific research is supposed to acquire or generate knowledge, but such a purpose would be severely undermined by instances of research misconduct (RM) and questionable research practices (QRP). RM and QRP are often framed in terms of moral transgressions by individuals (bad apples) whose aberrant acts could be made conducive by shortcomings in regulatory measures of organizations or institutions (bad barrels). This notion presupposes, to an extent, that the erring parties know exactly what they are doing is wrong and morally culpable, but had nonetheless proceeded to commit wrongful acts. However, a confession of intent to deceived is often not readily admitted by perpetrators of RM. I posit that beyond the simplistic notion of conscious moral transgression, deficits in epistemic virtues and/or the prevalence of epistemic vices have important roles to play in initiating and driving RM/QRP. For the individual perpetrator, deficits in epistemic virtues could lead to or amplify errors in one’s desperate attempt to be accomplished or to excel, and pushes one across the ethical line or down the slippery slope of misconduct. Likewise, a lack of epistemic virtue within perpetrators’ institution or organization could make it conducive for deceitful acts and suppress indications and warning signs for the former. Furthermore, epistemic vices exhibited by reviewers, editors and journals could also promote RM/QRP. In this view, epistemic failings, rather than widespread moral deficiencies of individuals within the research ecosystem, may underlie the prevalence of RM/QRP.
{"title":"Deficient epistemic virtues and prevalence of epistemic vices as precursors to transgressions in research misconduct","authors":"B. Tang","doi":"10.1177/17470161231221258","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/17470161231221258","url":null,"abstract":"Scientific research is supposed to acquire or generate knowledge, but such a purpose would be severely undermined by instances of research misconduct (RM) and questionable research practices (QRP). RM and QRP are often framed in terms of moral transgressions by individuals (bad apples) whose aberrant acts could be made conducive by shortcomings in regulatory measures of organizations or institutions (bad barrels). This notion presupposes, to an extent, that the erring parties know exactly what they are doing is wrong and morally culpable, but had nonetheless proceeded to commit wrongful acts. However, a confession of intent to deceived is often not readily admitted by perpetrators of RM. I posit that beyond the simplistic notion of conscious moral transgression, deficits in epistemic virtues and/or the prevalence of epistemic vices have important roles to play in initiating and driving RM/QRP. For the individual perpetrator, deficits in epistemic virtues could lead to or amplify errors in one’s desperate attempt to be accomplished or to excel, and pushes one across the ethical line or down the slippery slope of misconduct. Likewise, a lack of epistemic virtue within perpetrators’ institution or organization could make it conducive for deceitful acts and suppress indications and warning signs for the former. Furthermore, epistemic vices exhibited by reviewers, editors and journals could also promote RM/QRP. In this view, epistemic failings, rather than widespread moral deficiencies of individuals within the research ecosystem, may underlie the prevalence of RM/QRP.","PeriodicalId":38096,"journal":{"name":"Research Ethics","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.7,"publicationDate":"2024-01-04","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"139387379","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2024-01-03DOI: 10.1177/17470161231223594
Charles Weijer
The COVID-19 pandemic touched off an unprecedented search for vaccines and treatments. Without question, the development of vaccines to prevent COVID-19 was an enormous scientific accomplishment. Further, the RECOVERY and Solidarity trials identified effective treatments for COVID-19. But all was not success. The urgent need for COVID-19 prevention and treatment fueled an embrace of risks—to research participants and to the reliability of the science itself—as allegedly necessary costs to speed scientific progress. Scientists and (even) ethicists supported overturning longstanding norms protecting healthy volunteers in human challenge trials to speed vaccine development, but these trials led to no vaccines. Physicians, with the approval of research ethics committees, designed hundreds of unblinded, single-center clinical trials at high risk of bias to speed the identification of new treatments. But these clinical trials led to no treatments. The lesson for future pandemics is that the acceptance of greater risks to participants or science does not reliably lead to progress. We are better served by science that upholds the highest ethical and methodological standards.
{"title":"COVID-19 human challenge trials and randomized controlled trials: lessons for the next pandemic","authors":"Charles Weijer","doi":"10.1177/17470161231223594","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/17470161231223594","url":null,"abstract":"The COVID-19 pandemic touched off an unprecedented search for vaccines and treatments. Without question, the development of vaccines to prevent COVID-19 was an enormous scientific accomplishment. Further, the RECOVERY and Solidarity trials identified effective treatments for COVID-19. But all was not success. The urgent need for COVID-19 prevention and treatment fueled an embrace of risks—to research participants and to the reliability of the science itself—as allegedly necessary costs to speed scientific progress. Scientists and (even) ethicists supported overturning longstanding norms protecting healthy volunteers in human challenge trials to speed vaccine development, but these trials led to no vaccines. Physicians, with the approval of research ethics committees, designed hundreds of unblinded, single-center clinical trials at high risk of bias to speed the identification of new treatments. But these clinical trials led to no treatments. The lesson for future pandemics is that the acceptance of greater risks to participants or science does not reliably lead to progress. We are better served by science that upholds the highest ethical and methodological standards.","PeriodicalId":38096,"journal":{"name":"Research Ethics","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.7,"publicationDate":"2024-01-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"139387473","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2023-12-15DOI: 10.1177/17470161231218173
Jiale Xie, Denise Stockley, Amber Hastings Truelove, Susan Marlin, Rachel Zand, Jennifer Payne, Miranda Miller, Eleftherios K. Soleas
Despite advancements in human research ethics and the growing significance of Research Ethics Board (REB) members, educational opportunities specifically tailored to their needs remain lacking in many countries. In response to this gap, our research aims to understand the demographics, needs, and preferences for educational opportunities of REB members in Canada. We conducted a survey that found REB demographics to be diverse and have different perceptions of their roles on topics such as the evaluation of the scientific merit of studies and responsibilities to stakeholders. We found that REB members in general prefer online tutorials and webinars for their education. Educators interested in facilitating the development of future training programs should consider the needs and preferences of REB members outlined in this publication.
{"title":"Needs and preferences of REB members in the development of a new TCPS 2 training program in Canada","authors":"Jiale Xie, Denise Stockley, Amber Hastings Truelove, Susan Marlin, Rachel Zand, Jennifer Payne, Miranda Miller, Eleftherios K. Soleas","doi":"10.1177/17470161231218173","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/17470161231218173","url":null,"abstract":"Despite advancements in human research ethics and the growing significance of Research Ethics Board (REB) members, educational opportunities specifically tailored to their needs remain lacking in many countries. In response to this gap, our research aims to understand the demographics, needs, and preferences for educational opportunities of REB members in Canada. We conducted a survey that found REB demographics to be diverse and have different perceptions of their roles on topics such as the evaluation of the scientific merit of studies and responsibilities to stakeholders. We found that REB members in general prefer online tutorials and webinars for their education. Educators interested in facilitating the development of future training programs should consider the needs and preferences of REB members outlined in this publication.","PeriodicalId":38096,"journal":{"name":"Research Ethics","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.7,"publicationDate":"2023-12-15","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"138996688","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2023-12-13DOI: 10.1177/17470161231214636
A. Elgamri, Zeinab Mohammed, Karima El-Rhazi, M. Shahrouri, Mamoun Ahram, Al-Mubarak Al-Abbas, Henry Silverman
Arab researchers encounter formidable obstacles when conducting and publishing their scientific work. We conducted semi-structured interviews with 17 Arab researchers from various Arab Middle East countries to gain a comprehensive understanding of the difficulties they face in research and publication. We analyzed the transcripts using reflexive thematic analysis. Our findings revealed several key challenges. First, Arab researchers struggle to conduct high-quality research due to limited resources, inadequate funding, and a lack of a supportive research infrastructure. Furthermore, a shortage of teamwork and mentoring diminishes research productivity. Perverse promotion policies, heavy teaching loads, and low salaries force many researchers to seek external income sources, leaving them with insufficient time for research. Regarding publishing in high-impact journals, Arab researchers confront challenges existing of insufficient scientific writing skills, underrepresentation on editorial boards, and unconscious biases against researchers from economically challenged areas. Finally, achieving research integrity is closely tied to lack of access to essential resources. To address these issues, our participants proposed targeted interventions at the institutional and external levels. For example, universities can implement mentoring programs, offer workshops on scientific writing and publishing, and foster a supportive institutional culture for research. Addressing the underrepresentation of Arabic researchers on editorial boards is crucial for equity in global scientific publishing. In conclusion, acknowledging and addressing these challenges will empower Arab researchers, elevate research quality, and promote equitable global scientific collaboration. Our findings provide guidance for universities, governments, and international donors seeking to enhance research and publication practices in the Arab Middle East.
{"title":"Challenges facing Arab researchers in conducting and publishing scientific research: a qualitative interview study","authors":"A. Elgamri, Zeinab Mohammed, Karima El-Rhazi, M. Shahrouri, Mamoun Ahram, Al-Mubarak Al-Abbas, Henry Silverman","doi":"10.1177/17470161231214636","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/17470161231214636","url":null,"abstract":"Arab researchers encounter formidable obstacles when conducting and publishing their scientific work. We conducted semi-structured interviews with 17 Arab researchers from various Arab Middle East countries to gain a comprehensive understanding of the difficulties they face in research and publication. We analyzed the transcripts using reflexive thematic analysis. Our findings revealed several key challenges. First, Arab researchers struggle to conduct high-quality research due to limited resources, inadequate funding, and a lack of a supportive research infrastructure. Furthermore, a shortage of teamwork and mentoring diminishes research productivity. Perverse promotion policies, heavy teaching loads, and low salaries force many researchers to seek external income sources, leaving them with insufficient time for research. Regarding publishing in high-impact journals, Arab researchers confront challenges existing of insufficient scientific writing skills, underrepresentation on editorial boards, and unconscious biases against researchers from economically challenged areas. Finally, achieving research integrity is closely tied to lack of access to essential resources. To address these issues, our participants proposed targeted interventions at the institutional and external levels. For example, universities can implement mentoring programs, offer workshops on scientific writing and publishing, and foster a supportive institutional culture for research. Addressing the underrepresentation of Arabic researchers on editorial boards is crucial for equity in global scientific publishing. In conclusion, acknowledging and addressing these challenges will empower Arab researchers, elevate research quality, and promote equitable global scientific collaboration. Our findings provide guidance for universities, governments, and international donors seeking to enhance research and publication practices in the Arab Middle East.","PeriodicalId":38096,"journal":{"name":"Research Ethics","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.7,"publicationDate":"2023-12-13","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"139005400","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Since its onset, scholars have characterized social media as a valuable source for data collection since it presents several benefits (e.g. exploring research questions with hard-to-reach populations). Nonetheless, methods of online data collection are riddled with ethical and methodological challenges that researchers must consider if they want to adopt good practices when collecting and analyzing online data. Drawing from our primary research project, where we collected passive online data on Reddit, we explore and detail the steps that researchers must consider before collecting online data: (1) planning online data collection; (2) ethical considerations; and (3) data collection. We also discuss two atypical questions that researchers should also consider: (1) how to handle deleted user-generated content; and (2) how to quote user-generated content. Moving on from the dichotomous discussion between what is public and private data, we present recommendations for good practices when collecting and analyzing qualitative online data.
{"title":"Passive data collection on Reddit: a practical approach","authors":"Tiago Rocha-Silva, Conceição Nogueira, Liliana Rodrigues","doi":"10.1177/17470161231210542","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/17470161231210542","url":null,"abstract":"Since its onset, scholars have characterized social media as a valuable source for data collection since it presents several benefits (e.g. exploring research questions with hard-to-reach populations). Nonetheless, methods of online data collection are riddled with ethical and methodological challenges that researchers must consider if they want to adopt good practices when collecting and analyzing online data. Drawing from our primary research project, where we collected passive online data on Reddit, we explore and detail the steps that researchers must consider before collecting online data: (1) planning online data collection; (2) ethical considerations; and (3) data collection. We also discuss two atypical questions that researchers should also consider: (1) how to handle deleted user-generated content; and (2) how to quote user-generated content. Moving on from the dichotomous discussion between what is public and private data, we present recommendations for good practices when collecting and analyzing qualitative online data.","PeriodicalId":38096,"journal":{"name":"Research Ethics","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.7,"publicationDate":"2023-11-28","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"139225196","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
The purpose of this study was to map the distribution of publications on plagiarism among higher educational institutions in sub-Saharan Africa (SSA). Studies reviewed were based on 171 plagiarism related publications within a decade (2012–2022). Findings revealed that most plagiarism related articles were published in 2016. Additionally, a majority of the studies (53) were from Nigeria and Ghana (23). Most of the articles focused on students’ and faculty’s awareness of plagiarism, and institutional prevention of plagiarism, but were rather marginal on challenges involved in preventing plagiarism, as well as effects of plagiarism. Dominant forms of plagiarism were self-plagiarism, branded plagiarism and commission plagiarism. However, major causes of plagiarism comprised easy access to digital information and resources; poor supervision of students; pressure on academics to publish for promotion; and insufficient skills development regarding ethical academic writing. Additionally, plagiarism preventive software and policies on plagiarism were the main ways of preventing plagiarism. Finally, in fighting plagiarism, higher educational institutions in SSA encountered challenges such as lack of well-trained academic experts to detect and report plagiarism cases; reluctance on the part of technical administrative staff to investigate works for traces of plagiarism; and low plagiarism detection skills from project supervisors. Based on the findings, recommendations are made to stakeholders for future research, policy and practice.
{"title":"Plagiarism in Higher Education (PLAGiHE) within Sub-Saharan Africa: A systematic review of a decade (2012–2022) literature","authors":"Dickson Okoree Mireku, Prosper Dzifa Dzamesi, Brandford Bervell","doi":"10.1177/17470161231189646","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/17470161231189646","url":null,"abstract":"The purpose of this study was to map the distribution of publications on plagiarism among higher educational institutions in sub-Saharan Africa (SSA). Studies reviewed were based on 171 plagiarism related publications within a decade (2012–2022). Findings revealed that most plagiarism related articles were published in 2016. Additionally, a majority of the studies (53) were from Nigeria and Ghana (23). Most of the articles focused on students’ and faculty’s awareness of plagiarism, and institutional prevention of plagiarism, but were rather marginal on challenges involved in preventing plagiarism, as well as effects of plagiarism. Dominant forms of plagiarism were self-plagiarism, branded plagiarism and commission plagiarism. However, major causes of plagiarism comprised easy access to digital information and resources; poor supervision of students; pressure on academics to publish for promotion; and insufficient skills development regarding ethical academic writing. Additionally, plagiarism preventive software and policies on plagiarism were the main ways of preventing plagiarism. Finally, in fighting plagiarism, higher educational institutions in SSA encountered challenges such as lack of well-trained academic experts to detect and report plagiarism cases; reluctance on the part of technical administrative staff to investigate works for traces of plagiarism; and low plagiarism detection skills from project supervisors. Based on the findings, recommendations are made to stakeholders for future research, policy and practice.","PeriodicalId":38096,"journal":{"name":"Research Ethics","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.7,"publicationDate":"2023-08-21","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"76173787","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2023-08-15DOI: 10.1177/17470161231191247
T. Mtande, C. Lombard, G. Nair, S. Rennie
Although the use of the cluster randomized trial (CRT) design to evaluate vaccines, public health interventions or health systems is increasing, the ethical issues posed by the design are not adequately addressed, especially in low- and middle-income country settings (LMICs). To help reveal ethical challenges, qualitative interviews were conducted with key stakeholders experienced in designing and conducting two selected CRTs in Malawi. The 18 interviewed stakeholders included investigators, clinicians, nurses, data management personnel and community workers who were invited to share their experiences related to implementation of CRTs. Data analysis revealed five major themes with ethical implications: (1) The moral obligation for health care providers to participate in health research and its compensation; (2) Suboptimal care services compromising the integrity of CRT; (3) Ensuring scientific validity and withholding care service; (4) Obtaining valid consent and permission for waiver of consent; and (5) Inadequate risk assessment for trial participation. Understanding key ethical issues posed by CRTs in Malawi could improve ethical review and research oversight of this particular study design.
{"title":"Stakeholders’ experiences of ethical challenges in cluster randomized trials in a limited resource setting: a qualitative analysis","authors":"T. Mtande, C. Lombard, G. Nair, S. Rennie","doi":"10.1177/17470161231191247","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/17470161231191247","url":null,"abstract":"Although the use of the cluster randomized trial (CRT) design to evaluate vaccines, public health interventions or health systems is increasing, the ethical issues posed by the design are not adequately addressed, especially in low- and middle-income country settings (LMICs). To help reveal ethical challenges, qualitative interviews were conducted with key stakeholders experienced in designing and conducting two selected CRTs in Malawi. The 18 interviewed stakeholders included investigators, clinicians, nurses, data management personnel and community workers who were invited to share their experiences related to implementation of CRTs. Data analysis revealed five major themes with ethical implications: (1) The moral obligation for health care providers to participate in health research and its compensation; (2) Suboptimal care services compromising the integrity of CRT; (3) Ensuring scientific validity and withholding care service; (4) Obtaining valid consent and permission for waiver of consent; and (5) Inadequate risk assessment for trial participation. Understanding key ethical issues posed by CRTs in Malawi could improve ethical review and research oversight of this particular study design.","PeriodicalId":38096,"journal":{"name":"Research Ethics","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.7,"publicationDate":"2023-08-15","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"82220035","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
京公网安备 11010802042870号
京ICP备2023020795号-1
扫码关注我们
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：