II.2. Evidence from researcher interactions with human participants

Forum rules

We encourage contributors to the Discussion Board to publicly identify by registering and logging in prior to posting. However, if you prefer, you may post anonymously (i.e. without having your post be attributed to you) by posting without logging in. Anonymous posts will display only after a delay to allow for administrator review. Contributors agree to the QTD Terms of Use.

Instructions
To participate, you may either post a contribution to an existing discussion by selecting the thread for that topic (and then click on "Post Reply") or start a new thread by clicking on "New Topic" below.

For instructions on how to follow a discussion thread by email, click here.

Anastasia Shesterinina
Yale University
Posts: 17
Joined: Thu Apr 07, 2016 11:51 am

Introduction

PostMon Sep 05, 2016 8:32 pm

Transparency in human subjects research is one of the most sensitive questions raised by the QTD. Research process transparency and especially data access pose considerable demands for scholars and intersect in complex ways with other values, above all the ethics of research.

In the threads that follow, we invite a broad research community to deliberate about the costs and benefits, to scholars and to the profession, of transparency in human subjects research. We invite contributors to provide examples of concrete challenges and trade-offs from their own and/or other research.

Our focus is on transparency with respect to research produced through interactions with human participants, including interviews, surveys, and participant observation, all of which are widely employed by political scientists across a broad range of issue-areas and in many subfields of the discipline.

Post Reply


Return to “II.2. Evidence from researcher interactions with human participants”