They are not based on the scale of the work, nor on different underlying logic of
analysis. They are pointless. The chapter ends with some considerations of the
implications for the conduct of publicly-funded research, for the ethics of social
science, and for the preparation of new researchers.
Related questions
1. If the first principle of research ethics is not to harm research participants,
how would you summarise the second principle discussed in ths chapter?
2. Can all issues of research ethics be classified under these two principles, or
are there more?
3. Why do you think so many professional researchers think it is possible to
claim that researchers should ignore either evidence in the form of text or
evidence in the form of numbers?
4. Try to imagine a real-life situation that is important to you in which you had
to make an evidence-informed decision. What reason could you have for
ignoring relevant evidence simply because it was numeric (or textual)?
5. Look at some journals in your area of interest and consider how many papers
use techniques based on random sampling theory (such as significance tests,
standard errors, confidence intervals). How many of these actually had
random samples, and how many were using these techniques erroneously?
6. Look at some journals in your area of interest and consider how many papers
using purportedly ’qualitative’ methods make either explicit or implicit
comparative claims (over time, place or social group) without presenting any
data from a comparator group?
7. Examine the meaning and use of the term ’warrant’ in social science research.
How useful is it for your own work?
References
Berka, K. (1983). Measurement: its concepts, theories and problems, London: Reidel.
20