Search across guide titles, topics, keywords, and content throughout the Researcher's Field Guide.
Showing 926–950 of 1,568 results
Covert observation does not automatically involve active deception because researchers may observe without making any false statement to participants. It can still raise substantial ethical questions about consent, privacy, identifiability, researcher participation, risk, and debriefing.
Read Guide →Researchers can sometimes observe people without obtaining individual consent, but the ethical acceptability depends on privacy expectations, risk, identifiability, research design, and applicable ethics requirements.
Read Guide →The ethical boundary between public and private behavior is not determined solely by where an observation occurs. Researchers must consider reasonable expectations of privacy, context, identifiability, sensitivity, and how observations will be recorded and reported.
Read Guide →Researchers may sometimes use publicly available online information without obtaining individual consent, but online accessibility does not settle the ethical question. Context, user expectations, sensitivity, identifiability, scale, quotation, and the method of collection all matter.
Read Guide →Internet users are not automatically research participants simply because researchers analyze something they created online, nor does calling them data sources eliminate ethical responsibilities. Their status depends on the research design and the framework governing the study.
Read Guide →Paraphrasing online posts can reduce the chance that published research leads readers back to the original author, but it is not always methodologically appropriate. Researchers must balance protection from identification against preserving the evidence their analysis actually requires.
Read Guide →Research involving online communities raises ethical questions about privacy, consent, researcher presence, community norms, group harms, quotations, access, and reporting. A community is more than a convenient collection of posts.
Read Guide →Researchers should generally be transparent about their research role when interacting with online communities, but disclosure is not identical across every observational design. Public unobtrusive observation and justified covert research require different ethical reasoning.
Read Guide →Closed and private online communities generally create stronger expectations of privacy than unrestricted public spaces. Researchers should examine how access was obtained, what members expect, whether consent is required, and how collection or publication could expose individuals or the community.
Read Guide →Being accepted into a private online group does not automatically authorize a researcher to study its members. Membership, gatekeeper permission, participant consent, and ethics approval answer different questions.
Read Guide →Deleting a post after researchers collect it does not automatically erase an existing research copy, but deletion changes the ethical context. Researchers should reassess necessity, sensitivity, identifiability, quotation, user intent, and commitments made in the research protocol.
Read Guide →The ability to scrape publicly accessible information does not settle whether doing so is ethically appropriate. Automated collection can change scale, persistence, identifiability, system burden, and the consequences of combining public data.
Read Guide →Broad consent allows participants to authorize certain future secondary uses of their data or biospecimens without consenting separately to every future study. It can be broad, but it is not ethically equivalent to unlimited permission.
Read Guide →Archived research data may be scientifically valuable long after the original study ends, but depositing data in an archive does not erase researchers' ethical responsibilities. Secondary users need to understand the data's provenance, authorization, restrictions, privacy risks, and governance before reuse.
Read Guide →Researchers can sometimes use existing administrative, clinical, educational, or government records without obtaining individual consent, but there is no general research exemption simply because records already exist. The applicable pathway depends on identifiability, purpose, legal authority, ethics requirements, privacy protections, and the rules governing the records.
Read Guide →Participants should generally be informed about foreseeable incidental findings and given meaningful choices about receiving qualifying information when the research can support those choices. The options, however, should be defined clearly rather than reduced to an unexplained “tell me everything” checkbox.
Read Guide →A participant's threatening statement does not automatically create the same legal duty everywhere. Researchers should assess immediate safety through the study's approved procedure, involve qualified professionals, and determine the applicable confidentiality and duty-to-protect rules for their jurisdiction and professional roles.
Read Guide →Discovering possible illegal activity does not automatically require researchers to report it. Researchers should protect confidentiality, determine whether a specific legal or safety obligation applies, and follow the approved protocol rather than becoming investigators or informants by default.
Read Guide →International research may require ethics review in more than one country when responsibility for participants, research sites, institutions, or sponsorship crosses national boundaries. The required pathway depends on the research and the applicable oversight systems.
Read Guide →When countries impose different research ethics requirements, researchers should identify what each requirement governs rather than simply choosing the easier rule. Differences should be reconciled with the responsible ethics bodies while preserving appropriate participant protections.
Read Guide →A host country’s permission does not automatically free researchers from the ethical requirements of their home institution. International research should respect local authority without using weaker standards to avoid protections that would apply at home.
Read Guide →Some research affects communities as well as individual participants, making community permission or consultation ethically important. Community approval, however, usually serves a different purpose from individual informed consent and should not be confused with it.
Read Guide →Communities are rarely single voices. Ethical research should identify relevant subgroups, disagreements, power differences, and overlapping interests rather than treating a leader’s view or majority position as what “the community” thinks.
Read Guide →Respectful community engagement begins early enough for community perspectives to influence the research itself. It requires more than informing leaders about a finished protocol or obtaining permission immediately before recruitment.
Read Guide →Community engagement becomes tokenistic when people are visibly included but have little meaningful opportunity to influence decisions relevant to their participation. Attendance, consultation, or representation alone does not establish genuine engagement.
Read Guide →