Search across guide titles, topics, keywords, and content throughout the Researcher's Field Guide.
Showing 801–825 of 860 results
Preregistration can make important research decisions more transparent and encourage advance planning, but it cannot turn weak methods into strong ones. A preregistered study still needs to be evaluated on its design, measurement, sampling, analysis, execution, and interpretation.
Read Guide →You can sometimes change a research design after data collection has started, but the timing, reason, consequences, and documentation of the change matter. The key is to adapt transparently without quietly redefining the study around what the emerging data appear to show.
Read Guide →The people you can recruit are not always the people you originally intended to study. Before broadening eligibility or changing recruitment settings, determine whether the accessible population can still provide evidence relevant to the original research question.
Read Guide →A measure that performs poorly after data collection begins can threaten the link between your data and the construct you intended to study. Before modifying or replacing it, determine what is actually failing and what any change would mean for data already collected.
Read Guide →A method can be implemented perfectly and still be wrong for the question it is supposed to answer. When that mismatch becomes apparent, reassess what evidence the question requires before deciding whether to adapt the method, narrow the question, or redesign the study.
Read Guide →Not every change to a research sample creates a different study. The critical issue is whether the revised sample still provides evidence about essentially the same population and research question, or whether the change alters what the study is actually about.
Read Guide →Not every tiny departure from a research plan deserves equal space in a publication, but deviations that affect interpretation, participant protections, planned analyses, or confidence in the findings generally should be visible. The goal is to let readers understand the study that was actually conducted.
Read Guide →Every real study operates under constraints, so some methodological compromise is unavoidable. The critical question is whether the remaining design can still support the claims you intend to make after those compromises are considered together.
Read Guide →Researchers must follow applicable law, but legal compliance and ethical justification are not the same judgment. Ethical research may require researchers to consider responsibilities that legal rules do not fully resolve.
Read Guide →Whether you need ethics approval depends on what your study involves and the rules that apply to your institution and jurisdiction. If people, identifiable private information, human biological materials, or certain research interventions are involved, check with the appropriate ethics body before starting.
Read Guide →Researchers can assess whether their study appears to fit an exemption, but the authority to make the formal determination depends on the applicable ethics system. In many institutions, that decision belongs to the REC, IRB office, or another designated authority.
Read Guide →Researchers should assess the ethical and regulatory status of their studies, but that does not necessarily authorize them to declare that formal review is unnecessary. The appropriate decision-making process depends on the rules governing the research.
Read Guide →Research using genuinely public data may be exempt from review or fall outside some human-participant research frameworks. Public accessibility, however, does not automatically resolve every ethical question about privacy, identifiability, sensitivity, or reporting.
Read Guide →Being a student does not automatically exempt a project from ethics review. A thesis, dissertation, capstone, or coursework project may require approval depending on what the student does, who participates, the risks involved, and institutional rules.
Read Guide →Deciding later to publish classroom findings does not automatically mean the original activity required ethics approval, but neither can publication retroactively fix research that should have received prior review. The key question is what the activity was when the data were collected.
Read Guide →Ethics approval is fundamentally prospective because it is intended to protect participants before research occurs. A later committee review may assess what happened or authorize future activities, but it generally cannot recreate the prior approval that was missing.
Read Guide →Discovering after data collection that ethics approval was required calls for a transparent institutional response, not an improvised fix. Document what happened, protect the data and participants, and seek formal guidance before further research use.
Read Guide →Data collected without required ethics approval are not automatically legitimate research data simply because they already exist. Whether they can be retained, analyzed, or published depends on institutional determinations, participant protections, applicable rules, and journal policy.
Read Guide →A strong research ethics application lets reviewers understand what will actually happen to participants from recruitment to study completion. Learn how to describe your study clearly, consistently, and with enough detail for meaningful ethical review.
Read Guide →You may need organizational permission when recruitment depends on an organization's controlled premises, records, communication channels, staff, or other resources. Membership alone, however, does not automatically give the organization authority over an individual's decision to participate.
Read Guide →A research gatekeeper controls or facilitates access to a setting, organization, community, resource, or potential participants. Their authority should extend only as far as the legitimate authority they already hold and should not normally replace an individual's own consent to participate.
Read Guide →An organization or community representative may legitimately authorize access or organizational participation, but that permission does not ordinarily replace the informed consent of individual research participants. Each decision concerns a different kind of authority.
Read Guide →Participant information should be as clear and accessible as possible without removing information people need to make an informed decision. Plain language means making complex ideas understandable, not pretending the complexity does not exist.
Read Guide →Consent to participate usually anticipates that researchers will analyze and disseminate study findings, but it does not automatically authorize every form of publication, particularly when material could identify an individual participant.
Read Guide →Consent to participate does not automatically give researchers unrestricted permission to share participant-level data. Whether data can be shared depends on what participants agreed to, identifiability, the proposed recipients and uses, and the ethical, legal, and regulatory framework governing the data.
Read Guide →