To Whose Benefit? At What Cost?

2020 ◽  
pp. 251-260
Author(s):  
Aaliyah A. Baker
Keyword(s):  
Mixed Methods Research ◽  
Early Career ◽  
Conceptual Approach ◽  
Complex Processes ◽  
Applied Social Science ◽  
Conducting Research ◽  
Human Participants ◽  
Science Methodology ◽  
Social Science Methodology ◽  
Research Recommendations

This chapter takes a conceptual approach to addressing issues of ethics in research with human participants. The author proposes preliminary questions at the onset of a research study that deal with the issue of addressing researcher responsibility. The chapter argues ethical considerations surround epistemology and impact when conducting mixed methods research. Moreover, defining the interaction between researchers and participants is crucial. The author challenges early career practitioners to ask the question ‘To whose benefit is the research?' but more importantly ‘At what cost when conducting research?' Recommendations for engaging in an applied social science methodology include understanding critical epistemological and philosophical perspectives and grappling with the potential impact and outcomes of research. This level of critical awareness enables research to display complex processes that address social, political, and moral ideals that resonate with and value human experience as knowledge.

scholarly journals Emotions and agency in prison research

2020 ◽  
Vol 13 (2) ◽  
pp. 205979912092634
Author(s):  
Joe Garrihy ◽  
Aoife Watters
Keyword(s):  
Data Collection ◽  
Mixed Methods Research ◽  
Early Career ◽  
Emotional Experiences ◽  
Research Methodologies ◽  
Doctoral Studies ◽  
Early Career Researchers ◽  
Conducting Research ◽  
Emotional Agents ◽  
The Impact

The emotionality of prison research has received much justified attention in recent years. However, this aspect of undertaking qualitative research is often not considered by early career researchers until they are confronted with the impact of both researching emotionally laden subjects and employing their emotional agency as the researcher. Emerging from this, the authors argue for the development of a methodology that conceives researchers as emotional agents. This methodology incorporates harnessing emotional experiences as a tool for data collection. In this way, researchers are encouraged and trained to shift from passive to active emotional agents. Thus, far from inhibiting the research, the inherent emotionality of conducting research enhances its rigour, integrity and validity. Emotionality is intrinsic to conducting research in the prison milieu. As such, it warrants constructive employment and integration into existing research methodologies. This article draws on the authors’ respective experiences conducting mixed methods research in prison settings. The authors’ research methodologies incorporated emotional reflexivity as a core constituent throughout their data collection, analysis and the writing of their doctoral studies. The argument will be illustrated by detailing experiences of emotional charge during the fieldwork. To reflect this, the authors advocate for the emergence of an integrative methodology. The development of such a methodology would be of value to prison researchers but particularly to novice and/or doctoral researchers. Furthermore, it would be similarly applicable to researchers throughout the field of criminal justice and beyond.

Barriers and facilitators to conducting research by early career psychiatrists: a literature review

2019 ◽  
Vol 2 (2) ◽  
pp. 135-154
Author(s):  
Katja Koelkebeck ◽  
Maja Pantovic Stefanovic ◽  
Dorota Frydecka ◽  
Claudia Palumbo ◽  
Olivier Andlauer ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Research Participation ◽  
Early Career ◽  
Cochrane Library ◽  
Inclusion Criteria ◽  
Research Career ◽  
Hand Search ◽  
Electronic Search ◽  
Conducting Research ◽  
The Cochrane Library ◽  
To Receive

AbstractObjectivesTo understand and identify factors that promote and prevent research participation among early career psychiatrists (ECPs), in order to understand what would encourage more ECPs to pursue a research career.MethodsWe conducted an electronic search of databases (PubMed and the Cochrane library) using the keywords ‘doctors’, ‘trainees’, ‘residents’, ‘physicians’ and ‘psychiatric trainees’ as well as ‘research’ (MeSH) and ‘publishing’ (MeSH). This search was complemented by a secondary hand search.ResultsWe identified 524 articles, of which 16 fulfilled inclusion criteria for this review. The main barriers included lack of dedicated time for research, lack of mentoring and lack of funding. The main facilitators were opportunities to receive mentorship and access to research funding.ConclusionsAction is needed to counteract the lack of ECPs interested in a career in research. Specific programs encouraging ECPs to pursue research careers and having access to mentors could help increase the current numbers of researching clinicians in the field.

Fast, Free, and Targeted

2016 ◽  
Vol 35 (4) ◽  
pp. 537-549 ◽  
Author(s):  
Itamar Shatz
Keyword(s):  
Early Career ◽  
Retention Rates ◽  
Online Research ◽  
Large Samples ◽  
Early Career Researchers ◽  
Potential Source ◽  
The Social ◽  
Current Article ◽  
Conducting Research ◽  
Untapped Resource

Recruiting participants is a necessary step in many studies. With the advent of online research techniques, scientists are looking for new places where participants can be recruited online, in order to overcome the limitations of current sources and avoid the issues associated with sample overuse. The social media website “Reddit” is a potential source for recruitment, as it allows for free and rapid data collection from large samples, while enabling researchers to target specific populations when needed. The ability to recruit for free is especially important because it enables students and early career researchers, for whom even low recruitment costs can be prohibitive, to benefit from the opportunity of conducting research that they otherwise would not be able to. The current article therefore aims to bring this prospective, untapped resource to the attention of the research community. The article discusses current online recruitment sources and their limitations, provides an overview of Reddit, validates its use for research purposes, examines participation data from previous studies which recruited through Reddit, highlights its advantages and limitations as a participant pool, and suggests guidelines that can improve recruitment and retention rates for scientists looking to use Reddit for their research.

scholarly journals Social science methodology: A unified framework

Acta Politica ◽  
2012 ◽  
Vol 47 (4) ◽  
pp. 472-474
Author(s):  
Adrie Dassen ◽  
Kostas Gemenis
Keyword(s):  
Social Science ◽  
Unified Framework ◽  
Science Methodology ◽  
Social Science Methodology

scholarly journals Damaging the Case for Improving Social Science Methodology through Misrepresentation: Re-Asserting Confidence in Hypothesis Testing as a Valid Scientific Process

2016 ◽  
Vol 21 (2) ◽  
pp. 136-147 ◽  
Author(s):  
James Nicholson ◽  
Sean Mccusker
Keyword(s):  
Social Science ◽  
Hypothesis Testing ◽  
Sociological Research ◽  
Significance Tests ◽  
Hypothesis Tests ◽  
Strong Statement ◽  
Per Se ◽  
Science Methodology ◽  
Social Science Methodology ◽  
Reasonable Model

This paper is a response to Gorard's article, ‘Damaging real lives through obstinacy: re-emphasising why significance testing is wrong’ in Sociological Research Online 21(1). For many years Gorard has criticised the way hypothesis tests are used in social science, but recently he has gone much further and argued that the logical basis for hypothesis testing is flawed: that hypothesis testing does not work, even when used properly. We have sympathy with the view that hypothesis testing is often carried out in social science contexts when it should not be, and that outcomes are often described in inappropriate terms, but this does not mean the theory of hypothesis testing, or its use, is flawed per se. There needs to be evidence to support such a contention. Gorard claims that: ‘Anyone knowing the problems, as described over one hundred years, who continues to teach, use or publish significance tests is acting unethically, and knowingly risking the damage that ensues.’ This is a very strong statement which impugns the integrity, not just the competence, of a large number of highly respected academics. We argue that the evidence he puts forward in this paper does not stand up to scrutiny: that the paper misrepresents what hypothesis tests claim to do, and uses a sample size which is far too small to discriminate properly a 10% difference in means in a simulation he constructs. He then claims that this simulates emotive contexts in which a 10% difference would be important to detect, implicitly misrepresenting the simulation as a reasonable model of those contexts.

scholarly journals Editors’ Note

2017 ◽  
Vol 23 (1) ◽  
pp. 285-285
Keyword(s):  
Social Science ◽  
Hypothesis Testing ◽  
Significance Testing ◽  
Sociological Research ◽  
Scientific Process ◽  
Science Methodology ◽  
Social Science Methodology

In 2016 and 2017, Sociological Research Online published the following article and two subsequent responses: Gorard S (2016) Damaging Real Lives Through Obstinacy: Re-emphasising Why Significance Testing is Wrong. Sociological Research Online 21(1): 1–14. DOI: 10.5153/sro.3857 Nicholson J and McCusker S (2016) Damaging the Case for Improving Social Science Methodology Through Misrepresentation: Re-asserting Confidence in Hypothesis Testing as a Valid Scientific Process. Sociological Research Online 21(2): 1–12. DOI: 10.5153/sro.3985 Gorard (2017) Significance Testing is Still Wrong, and Damages Real Lives: A Brief Reply to Spreckelsen and Van Der Horst, and Nicholson and McCusker. Sociological Research Online 22(2): 1–7. DOI: 10.5153/sro.4281 An erratum has been published in the journal to clarify some corrections that had inadvertently been missed ahead of publication of the first article: Erratum to Gorard (2016) Damaging Real lives Through Obstinacy: Re-emphasising Why Significance Testing is Wrong. Sociological Research Online 21(1): 1–14. DOI: 10.1177/1360780417731066 Readers are advised to read the responses to the original article, particularly paragraph 4.7 in Nicholson and McCusker (2016) and paragraphs 3.1 and 3.2 in Gorard (2017) in light of the recently published Erratum. The journal apologises for any inconvenience or misunderstanding this may have caused.

scholarly journals Highlighting the potential of peer-led workshops in training early career researchers for conducting research with Indigenous communities

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Gwyneth A. MacMillan ◽  
Marianne Falardeau ◽  
Catherine Girard ◽  
Sophie Dufour-Beauséjour ◽  
Justine Lacombe-Bergeron ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Collaborative Research ◽  
Cultural Awareness ◽  
Ways Of Knowing ◽  
Indigenous Communities ◽  
Early Career ◽  
Early Career Researchers ◽  
Indigenous Representation ◽  
Indigenous Ways Of Knowing ◽  
Conducting Research ◽  
Community Collaborative

For decades, Indigenous voices have called for research practices that are more collaborative and inclusive. At the same time, researchers are becoming aware of the importance of community-collaborative research. However, in Canada, many researchers receive little formal training on how to collaboratively conduct research with Indigenous communities. This is particularly problematic for early-career researchers (ECRs) whose fieldwork often involves interacting with communities. To address this lack of training, two peer-led workshops for Canadian ECRs were organized in 2016 and 2017 with the following objectives: (a) to cultivate awareness about Indigenous cultures, histories and languages; (b) to promote sharing of Indigenous and non-Indigenous ways of knowing; and (c) to foster approaches and explore tools for conducting community collaborative research. Here we present these peer-led Intercultural Indigenous Workshops and discuss workshop outcomes according to five themes: scope and interdisciplinarity, Indigenous representation, workshop environment, skillful moderation and workshop outcomes. We show that peer-led workshops are an effective way for ECRs to cultivate cultural awareness, learn about diverse ways of knowing, and share collaborative research tools and approaches. Developing this skill set is important for ECRs aiming to conduct community-collaborative research, however broader efforts are needed to shift toward more inclusive research paradigms in Canada.

scholarly journals Historical Disparities and Gendered Citation Patterns

2018 ◽  
Vol 26 (3) ◽  
pp. 338-344 ◽  
Author(s):  
David A. M. Peterson
Keyword(s):  
Social Science ◽  
Political Science ◽  
Recent Work ◽  
Citation Data ◽  
Science Methodology ◽  
Social Science Methodology ◽  
Over Time

In this comment on Dion, Sumner, and Mitchell’s article “Gendered Citation Patterns across Political Science and Social Science Methodology Fields,” I explore the role of changes in the disparities of citations to work written by women over time. Breaking down their citation data by era, I find that some of the patterns in citations are the result of the legacy of disparity in the field. Citations to more recent work come closer to matching the distribution of the gender of authors of published work. Although the need for more equitable practices of citation remains, the overall patterns are not quite as bad as Dion, Sumner, and Mitchell conclude.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document