Research ethics

1. RESEARCH ETHICS
WEEK 2

2. PLAGIARISM

3. PARAPHRASING
Below is a passage taken from Raymond S. Nickerson's "How We Know-and
Sometimes Misjudge-What Others Know: Imputing One's Own Knowledge to
Others." Psychological Bulletin 125.6 (1999): p737.
“In order to communicate effectively with other people, one must have a
reasonably accurate idea of what they do and do not know that is pertinent to
the communication. Treating people as though they have knowledge that they
do not have can result in miscommunication and perhaps embarrassment. On
the other hand, a fundamental rule of conversation, at least according to a
Gricean view, is that one generally does not convey to others information that
one can assume they already have”.
http://www.lib.usm.edu/legacy/plag/paraphrasing.php

4. EXAMPLE
Here is an example of what would be considered plagiarism of this passage:
For effective communication, it is necessary to have a fairly accurate idea of what our listerners
know or do not know that is pertinent to the communication. If we assume that people know
something they do not, then miscommunication and perhaps embarrassment may result
(Nickerson, 1999).
The writer in this example has used too many of Nickerson's original words and phrases such as "effective
communication," "accurate idea," "know or do not know," "pertinent," "miscommunication," and
"embarrassment." Also note that the passage doesn't have an opening tag to indicate where use of the
Nickerson's material begins. A citation at the end of a paragraph is not sufficent to indicate what is being
credited to Nickerson
http://www.lib.usm.edu/legacy/plag/paraphrasing.php

5. EXAMPLE ACCORDING TO APA
• Nickerson (1999) suggests that effective communication depends
on a generally accurate knowledge of what the audience knows. If
a speaker assumes too much knowledge about the subject, the
audience will either misunderstand or be bewildered; however,
assuming too little knowledge among those in the audience may
cause them to feel patronized (p.737)
http://www.lib.usm.edu/legacy/plag/paraphrasing.php

6. FURTHER INFORMATION
• https://owl.english.purdue.edu/owl/resource/672/1/

7. RESEARCH ETHICS SHOULD HAPPEN
1. Construction of the theoretical framework and literatura review
2. Objectives : will there be gainers or losers? Harmful situations? How to avoid them?
3. Explaining the procedurest;
1. reasons to choose participants (sampling)
2. Instruments piloting and design
3. Analysis (methods used to analyze, truth in the origin of the data, avoid omitting data)
4. Results and credibility
5. Publication

8. QUESTIONS
• Make a list of participants
• Do they know about the research?
• How will you contact the participants?
• Will you record participants?
• Is your informed consent active or passive?
• How would you guaranty confidenciality, privacy and anonimity?
• Check the informed consent (checklist)

9. INFORMED CONSENT: DOES IT INCLUDE ALL THESE
ASPECTS? IF NOT WHAT ELSE DOES IT INCLUDE?
• The purpose of the research, expected duration and procedures.
• Participants' rights to decline to participate and to withdraw from the research once it has started, as
well as the anticipated consequences of doing so.
• Reasonably foreseeable factors that may influence their willingness to participate, such as potential
risks, discomfort or adverse effects.
• Any prospective research benefits.
• Limits of confidentiality, such as data coding, disposal, sharing and archiving, and when confidentiality
must be broken.
• Incentives for participation.
• Who participants can contact with questions.

10. ASSIGNMENT
• FINISH THE INFORMED CONSENT AND YOU WILL TAKE THEM TO THE SCHOOL
OR INSTITUTION ONLY WHEN YOU HAVE DESIGN THE DATA COLLECTION
TOOLS.
• READ: Educational Research. Fundantamentals for the consumer.