Search across guide titles, topics, keywords, and content throughout the Researcher's Field Guide.
Showing 851–875 of 907 results
Researchers can design a perfectly voluntary invitation and still end up with pressured participants if a manager, teacher, clinician, community leader, or other gatekeeper presents participation as expected. Researchers need to manage not only what gatekeepers permit, but what they communicate and what they learn about individual participation.
Read Guide →Researchers can generally pay people for participating in research, but payment must be ethically justified, transparently disclosed, and reviewed where required. The key question is not simply whether participants are paid, but how the payment is structured and whether participation remains voluntary.
Read Guide →Researchers should not refuse payment merely because survey responses are inconvenient, unexpected, or subjectively judged to be poor. Objective, prospectively defined evidence that a participant did not meaningfully perform the required task may support rejection in some studies or platforms, but the criteria should be defensible and applied consistently.
Read Guide →Vulnerability does not automatically mean that someone should be excluded from research or cannot provide informed consent. The appropriate protections depend on what makes participants susceptible to harm or wrong and how the study can reduce that vulnerability without unfairly excluding them.
Read Guide →In research ethics, vulnerability is better understood as an increased likelihood of being wronged or harmed in a particular research context, not simply as membership in a named group. Identifying vulnerability means asking what makes a participant less able to protect their interests and how the research context contributes.
Read Guide →Research vulnerability is not necessarily a permanent characteristic of a person. It can emerge, disappear, or change when circumstances, relationships, research procedures, or risks change.
Read Guide →A participant may understand a study perfectly yet still feel unable to refuse someone who controls healthcare, employment, grades, or important services. Dependency becomes ethically important when that relationship changes the practical freedom to say no.
Read Guide →Research involving children often requires protections beyond those used for competent adults, including attention to parental permission, child assent, risk, and the child's developing autonomy. The exact requirements depend on the research, the child's capabilities, applicable law, and the governing ethical framework.
Read Guide →Excluding participants who may be vulnerable can reduce risk in some studies, but exclusion is not ethically neutral. When people are routinely left out, research may produce evidence that does not apply to them while denying them fair access to participation and its possible benefits.
Read Guide →Protection becomes unfair exclusion when researchers remove a population more broadly than the actual risk requires, particularly when reasonable safeguards could permit participation and the resulting evidence is intended to apply to the people being left out.
Read Guide →Recruiting people who are easy to access is not automatically unethical. The ethical problem arises when accessibility substitutes for a scientific justification, concentrates burdens unfairly, or exploits relationships that make refusal difficult.
Read Guide →Convenience sampling is usually discussed as a methodological limitation, but it can also raise ethical questions. The problem becomes ethical when convenience shapes who repeatedly bears research burdens, who is excluded, how power is used, or whether participants' contributions can produce trustworthy knowledge.
Read Guide →Research in a disadvantaged community is not automatically unethical when others may also benefit. The ethical concern becomes serious when the community is selected because of its disadvantage while the research has little relevance or realistic value for the people carrying its burdens.
Read Guide →Community research becomes extractive when researchers primarily take data, knowledge, labor, samples, or access while communities have little meaningful influence over the research or its resulting value. Extraction is a pattern of relationship, not simply the act of collecting data.
Read Guide →Excluding participants because translation, accessibility, age diversity, or accommodation requires additional work can create an ethical problem. Restrictions may sometimes be justified, but researchers should distinguish genuine scientific or safety requirements from barriers created mainly for administrative convenience.
Read Guide →Exclusion criteria are ethically justified when they have a defensible scientific, safety, methodological, or ethical purpose. Researchers should be able to explain why each important restriction is necessary rather than treating familiar or convenient exclusions as self-justifying.
Read Guide →A study can raise ethical concerns when its design systematically excludes people substantially affected by the research question. The problem is not simply lack of representativeness: exclusion can undermine justice, applicability, social value, and the justification for asking participants to contribute to the research.
Read Guide →Research risk is not limited to physical injury. Learn how to identify possible harms, distinguish their probability from their severity, and judge whether exposing participants to them can be ethically justified.
Read Guide →A research risk-benefit assessment is more than a list of risks beside a list of benefits. It examines each meaningful risk, minimizes avoidable exposure, evaluates credible benefits and knowledge value, and asks whether what remains is ethically justified.
Read Guide →Ethical research does not require eliminating every conceivable risk. It requires researchers to remove unnecessary risks, minimize necessary ones, and justify the residual risks participants are asked to accept.
Read Guide →Important knowledge can help justify research risk, but scientific value is not an unlimited license to expose participants to harm. The acceptable level depends on what creates the risk, who bears it, whether participants may benefit, and what ethical limits apply.
Read Guide →Privacy, confidentiality, anonymity, and data protection are related but not interchangeable. Understanding what each term protects helps researchers design studies, describe safeguards accurately, and avoid promising participants protections their research cannot actually provide.
Read Guide →Anonymous research and confidential research offer different protections. The crucial distinction is whether participant identities can be connected to their research information, not whether researchers intend to keep the information private.
Read Guide →Researchers can make strong commitments to protect participant information, but an absolute promise of complete confidentiality is usually difficult to justify. Legal requirements, authorised oversight, study procedures, and the possibility of accidental disclosure can create limits that participants should understand.
Read Guide →Audio, video, photographs, and similar research materials may identify participants even when names are removed. Learn how to manage them across the research lifecycle.
Read Guide →