Search across guide titles, topics, keywords, and content throughout the Researcher's Field Guide.
Showing 801–825 of 907 results
You do not have to classify an entire study as either exploratory or confirmatory before collecting data. What matters is whether particular claims and analyses were specified before researchers learned from the evidence used to evaluate them.
Read Guide →A useful deviation report tells readers what was preregistered, what actually happened, why the change occurred, and when the decision was made. The goal is to make differences easy to find and interpret rather than forcing readers to reconstruct them.
Read Guide →Recruitment problems do not automatically mean that a study has failed. Diagnose why recruitment is falling short before changing the strategy, because some solutions can alter the sample, introduce bias, or change the study itself.
Read Guide →Falling short of a planned sample size does not automatically make a study worthless, but it may substantially change what the data can establish. The appropriate response is to assess the consequences of the smaller sample rather than retroactively making the original target disappear.
Read Guide →A control or comparison group can fail to function as intended even when recruitment and data collection continue normally. The key is to determine what actually happened in each group, why it happened, and whether the intended comparison still supports the study's research question.
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 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 methodological change creates a new study, but some changes alter the research question, evidence, population, comparison, or inferential logic so substantially that treating the project as unchanged becomes misleading. The boundary is conceptual, not a fixed percentage of procedures changed.
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 →Ethical research requires more than approval, consent, or compliance with rules. It requires researchers to justify what they study, how they study it, whom they involve, and how they protect people throughout the research process.
Read Guide →Research ethics principles turn broad moral commitments into practical questions about consent, risk, benefit, fairness, privacy, and participant protection. Their application depends on the research context rather than a mechanical checklist.
Read Guide →Respect for persons, beneficence, nonmaleficence, and justice illuminate different ethical dimensions of research. Applying them well means considering them together rather than treating them as four independent boxes.
Read Guide →Scientifically rigorous research is not automatically ethical. Strong methods can contribute to ethical justification, but they cannot excuse unacceptable risks, coercion, unfair participant selection, privacy violations, or other ethical failures.
Read Guide →A study can appear ethically careful while still being methodologically weak, but the separation has limits. When poor design substantially undermines the knowledge that justifies participants' burdens or risks, the methodological problem can become an ethical one.
Read Guide →A study can be scientifically rigorous yet ethically unacceptable. Strong methodology establishes that research may answer its question, not that researchers are justified in using any means necessary to obtain the answer.
Read Guide →Research generally needs a defensible prospect of producing worthwhile knowledge to justify the burdens it creates, but value does not mean guaranteed benefit, novelty, positive findings, or immediate practical impact.
Read Guide →Different disciplines can apply research ethics differently because their methods, risks, data, participants, and professional traditions differ. Variation does not mean that anything a discipline accepts is automatically ethical.
Read Guide →Not every research question should be pursued through every available method. When risks, burdens, rights violations, weak scientific value, unfairness, or other ethical problems cannot be reduced to a defensible level, not conducting the proposed study may be the responsible decision.
Read Guide →An IRB or research ethics committee does more than inspect your consent form. It evaluates whether the study is ethically acceptable as a whole, including its design, risks, participant selection, consent process, privacy protections, and safeguards.
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 →Quality improvement, audit, and program evaluation do not automatically require research ethics approval, but their labels do not automatically exclude them either. Some projects also contain a research component and must be assessed accordingly.
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 →An ethics committee needs enough information to determine whether a proposed study is ethically acceptable, not simply a completed form. Learn what reviewers usually need to understand about the design, participants, risks, consent, data, and safeguards.
Read Guide →