RESEARCH METHOD COHEN ok

CONCLUSION 75
conduct a study in which personal research
objectives influence the nature, contents and
conduct of the research.
The researcher has obligations to the sponsor, but
not to doctor or compromise the research.
Responsibilities to the research
community
The researcher has responsibilities to the research
community, for example not to jeopardize the
reputation of the research community (e.g. the
university) or spoil the opportunities for further
research. Thus, a novice researcher working for
ahigherdegreemayapproachaschooldirectly,
using a clumsy approach, with inadequate data collection
instruments and a poor research design, and
then proceed to publicize the results as though they
are valid and reliable. This researcher does not deserve
the degree; at the very least he or she should
have sought and gained advice from the supervisor,
modified the research as necessary, gained approval
for the research, made suitably sensitive overtures
to the school, and agreed rights of disclosure. Not
to do so puts the researcher’s institution at risk
of being denied further access, of damaging the
reputation of the institution, and, if word spreads,
of being publicly vilified and denied the opportunity
for further research to be conducted. In this
case the novice researcher has behaved unethically
(see http://www.routledge.com/textbooks/
9780415368780 – Chapter 2, file 2.6. ppt).
Further, what responsibility to the research
community does the researcher have If a negative
research report is released will schools retrench,
preventing future research in schools from being
undertaken Negative research data, such as
reported evidence on deliberate grade inflation by
schools in order to preserve reputation (Morrison
and Tang 2002), may not endear researchers to
schools.
The researcher has a responsibility to colleagues
to
protect their safety (e.g. in conducting sensitive
research or research in dangerous locations)
protect their well-being
protect their reputation
enable further research to be conducted
expect them to behave ethically
ensure that they adhere to correct and agreed
procedures
protect the anonymity and confidentiality of
sponsors if so agreed.
The researcher is a member of a research
community, and this brings ethical responsibilities.
Conclusion
In this chapter we have attempted to acquaint
readers with some of the ethical difficulties they
are likely to experience in the conduct of such
research. It is not possible to identify all potential
ethical questions or adjudicate on what is correct
researcher behaviour. 3 It is hoped that these
pages will have induced in readers a certain
disposition that will enable them to approach their
own projects with a greater awareness and fuller
understanding of the ethical dilemmas and moral
issues lurking in the interstices of the research
process. However inexperienced in these matters
researchers are, they bring to social research a sense
of rightness (Huizinga 1949) on which they can
construct a set of rational principles appropriate
to their own circumstances and based on personal,
professional, and societal values (we stress the
word ‘rational’ since reason is a prime ingredient
of ethical thinking and it is the combination of
reason and a sense of rightness that researchers
must keep faith with if they are to bring a rich
ethical quality to their work).
Although no code of practice can anticipate or
resolve all problems, there is a six-fold advantage
in fashioning a personal code of ethical practice.
First, such a code establishes one as a member of
the wider scientific community having a shared
interest in its values and concerns. Second, a code
of ethical practice makes researchers aware of
their obligations to their subjects and also to those
problem areas where there is a general consensus
about what is acceptable and what is not. In this
sense it has a clarificatory value. Third, when one’s
Chapter 2