在线焦点小组中的参与者失实陈述:红旗和积极措施

Q2 Social Sciences Ethics & human research Pub Date : 2024-01-19 DOI:10.1002/eahr.500198
Lesley Andrew, Emily Gizzarelli, Mohamed Estai, Ruth Wallace
{"title":"在线焦点小组中的参与者失实陈述:红旗和积极措施","authors":"Lesley Andrew,&nbsp;Emily Gizzarelli,&nbsp;Mohamed Estai,&nbsp;Ruth Wallace","doi":"10.1002/eahr.500198","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div>\n \n <p>Covid-19 public health measures prompted a significant increase in online research. This approach has several benefits over face-to-face data-collection methods, including lower cost and wider geographical reach of participants. Yet when the online data-collection instrument is a survey, there are also well-documented drawbacks of participant misrepresentation and related data-authenticity issues. However, the scholarly literature has not looked at participant misrepresentation in online focus-group empirical research. This case study communicates a concerning situation that arose during our research project: dishonest participant behavior threatened the integrity and validity of our data collected through online focus-group sessions as well as e-surveys. We describe the study context, initial red flags alerting us to the issue, subsequent investigations, and implications for research ethics, funding, and data quality. We conclude with a discussion of potential steps to safeguard future online focus-group research against similar issues.</p>\n </div>","PeriodicalId":36829,"journal":{"name":"Ethics & human research","volume":"46 1","pages":"37-42"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-01-19","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Participant Misrepresentation in Online Focus Groups: Red Flags and Proactive Measures\",\"authors\":\"Lesley Andrew,&nbsp;Emily Gizzarelli,&nbsp;Mohamed Estai,&nbsp;Ruth Wallace\",\"doi\":\"10.1002/eahr.500198\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div>\\n \\n <p>Covid-19 public health measures prompted a significant increase in online research. This approach has several benefits over face-to-face data-collection methods, including lower cost and wider geographical reach of participants. Yet when the online data-collection instrument is a survey, there are also well-documented drawbacks of participant misrepresentation and related data-authenticity issues. However, the scholarly literature has not looked at participant misrepresentation in online focus-group empirical research. This case study communicates a concerning situation that arose during our research project: dishonest participant behavior threatened the integrity and validity of our data collected through online focus-group sessions as well as e-surveys. We describe the study context, initial red flags alerting us to the issue, subsequent investigations, and implications for research ethics, funding, and data quality. We conclude with a discussion of potential steps to safeguard future online focus-group research against similar issues.</p>\\n </div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":36829,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Ethics & human research\",\"volume\":\"46 1\",\"pages\":\"37-42\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-01-19\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Ethics & human research\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/eahr.500198\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"Social Sciences\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Ethics & human research","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/eahr.500198","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"Social Sciences","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

Covid-19 公共卫生措施促使在线研究大幅增加。与面对面的数据收集方法相比,这种方法有几个好处,包括成本更低,参与者的地域范围更广。然而,当在线数据收集工具是调查问卷时,也会出现参与者失实陈述和相关数据真实性问题等弊端,这些都是有据可查的。然而,学术文献还没有研究过在线焦点小组实证研究中的参与者失实陈述问题。本案例研究介绍了在我们的研究项目中出现的一种令人担忧的情况:参与者的不诚实行为威胁到了我们通过在线焦点小组会议和电子调查收集到的数据的完整性和有效性。我们描述了研究背景、最初提醒我们注意该问题的信号、随后的调查以及对研究伦理、资金和数据质量的影响。最后,我们讨论了防止未来在线焦点小组研究出现类似问题的潜在步骤。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Participant Misrepresentation in Online Focus Groups: Red Flags and Proactive Measures

Covid-19 public health measures prompted a significant increase in online research. This approach has several benefits over face-to-face data-collection methods, including lower cost and wider geographical reach of participants. Yet when the online data-collection instrument is a survey, there are also well-documented drawbacks of participant misrepresentation and related data-authenticity issues. However, the scholarly literature has not looked at participant misrepresentation in online focus-group empirical research. This case study communicates a concerning situation that arose during our research project: dishonest participant behavior threatened the integrity and validity of our data collected through online focus-group sessions as well as e-surveys. We describe the study context, initial red flags alerting us to the issue, subsequent investigations, and implications for research ethics, funding, and data quality. We conclude with a discussion of potential steps to safeguard future online focus-group research against similar issues.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Ethics & human research
Ethics & human research Social Sciences-Health (social science)
CiteScore
2.90
自引率
0.00%
发文量
35
期刊最新文献
Ten Questions for Ethics Committees Evaluating the Strength of Evidence in Support of Early Phase Trials. Perspectives of Information Access in the Informed Consent Process for Clinical Research Participation in Australia. Human Research Protections during Emergencies: An Integrative Review. Digital Twins in Translational Research and Health Care: An Anthropological Perspective. Issue Information
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1