Readings about Research(ing)
40 Making Research Ethical
Jennifer Clary-Lemon; Derek Mueller; and Kate L. Pantelides
In “Making Research Ethical,” Jennifer Clary-Lemon, Derek Mueller, and Kate Pantelides describe ethical research practices for both primary and secondary research. They consider what makes a source reliable, subjectivities authors bring to their research projects, and strategies to effectively evaluate authors and texts. The chapter also draws attention to ethical citation practices and closes with ways to approach research with people.
Read Jennifer Clary-Lemon, Derek Mueller, and Kate L. Pantelides’s “Making Research Ethical.”
Key Words from this chapter in Try This: Research Methods for Writers
, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
Author Bios from Try This: Research Methods for Writers
Jennifer Clary-Lemon is Associate Professor of English at the University of Waterloo. She is the author of Planting the Anthropocene: Rhetorics of Natureculture, Cross Border Networks in Writing Studies (with Mueller, Williams, and Phelps), and co-editor of Decolonial Conversations in Posthuman and New Material Rhetorics (with Grant) and Relations, Locations, Positions: Composition Theory for Writing Teachers (with Vandenberg and Hum). Her research interests include rhetorics of the environment, theories of affect, writing and location, material rhetorics, critical discourse studies, and research methodologies. Her work has been published in Rhetoric Review, Discourse and Society, The American Review of Canadian Studies, Composition Forum, Oral History Forum d’histoire orale, enculturation, and College Composition and Communication.
Derek N. Mueller is Professor of Rhetoric and Writing and Director of the University Writing Program at Virginia Tech. His teaching and research attends to the interplay among writing, rhetorics, and technologies. Mueller regularly teaches courses in visual rhetorics, writing pedagogy, first-year writing, and digital media. He continues to be motivated professionally and intellectually by questions concerning digital writing platforms, networked writing practices, theories of composing, and discipliniographies or field narratives related to writing studies/rhetoric and composition. Along with Andrea Williams, Louise Wetherbee Phelps, and Jen Clary-Lemon, he is co-author of Cross-Border Networks in Writing Studies (Inkshed/Parlor, 2017). His 2018 monograph, Network Sense: Methods for Visualizing a Discipline (in the WAC Clearinghouse #writing series) argues for thin and distant approaches to discerning disciplinary patterns. His other work has been published in College Composition and Communication, Kairos, Enculturation, Present Tense, Computers and Composition, Composition Forum, and JAC.
Kate Lisbeth Pantelides is Associate Professor of English and Director of General Education English at Middle Tennessee State University. Kate’s research examines workplace documents to better understand how to improve written and professional processes, particularly as they relate to equity and inclusion. In the context of teaching, Kate applies this approach to iterative methods of teaching writing to students and teachers, which informs her recent co-authored project, A Theory of Public Higher Education (with Blum, Fernandez, Imad, Korstange, and Laird). Her work has been recognized in The Best of Independent Rhetoric and Composition Journals and circulates in venues such as College Composition and Communication, Composition Studies, Computers and Composition, Inside Higher Ed, Journal of Technical and Professional Writing, and Review of Communication.
the assumption that there is one clear answer to a
a group of people who share a common concern, a set of problems, or an interest in a topic and who come together to fulfill both individual and group goals
an understanding of research that considers the interactions between researchers, research subjects, and their environments
existing in the mind; belonging to the thinking subject rather than to the object of thought
refers to the reputation or believability of a speaker/rhetor; ethical appeals tap into the values or ideologies that the audience holds (audience values) or appeals that lean on the reputation or believability of the speaker/author (authorial credibility)
the finding out or selection of topics to be treated, or arguments to be used; often referred to as the brainstorming or prewriting stage of the writing process, though invention takes place across the writing process
how the compositions we develop reach the audience; in classical Greco-Roman rhetorical tradition, it was primarily concerned with speakers who in real-time stood before reasonably attentive audiences to speak persuasively about matters of civic concern; in modern tradition it is associated with genre, medium, circulation, and ecologies
a phase in research where you will be attentive to keywords in the text you’ve selected
the phase in research where you will trace
intersections between sources
the phase of research where you will consider how writers are connected to each other
the phase of research where you will consider the broader rhetorical
context in which an article is written
the ways in which genres are circulated (or not); can be a measure of a genre’s success with an audience
research that has been considered and shared by
a community of experts
the relationship between texts, especially literary ones; a concept that describes how
other people’s language is seamlessly embedded in our own
a group that has been formally designated to review and monitor biomedical research involving human subjects. In accordance with FDA regulations, an IRB has the authority to approve, require modifications in (to secure approval), or disapprove research. This group review serves an important role in the protection of the rights and welfare of human research subjects. (Food and Drug Administration)
Valid informed consent for research must include three major elements: (1) disclosure of information, (2) competency of the patient (or surrogate) to make a decision, and (3) voluntary nature of the decision.
treatment in accordance with the rules or standards for right conduct or practice, especially the standards of a profession
nearness in space, time, or relationship
whether the research is charitable,
equitable, and fair to
participants by taking
into full account the
possible consequences for the researcher
and the participants.
your plan for research
the particular way you will describe your research to participants
a document signed by persons of interest to confirm that they agree with an activity that will happen