1. What benefits can be gained from case studies? What dangers, if any, are ther

Question

1. What benefits can be gained from case studies? What dangers, if any, are there in using case studies? In what ways are they useful? Support your answers.

2. Provide some examples of model building in your area of business specialization (medical assistant). How well are these formed? Are they used effectively? Support your answers.

3. How would you compare/contrast case studies with ethnographic research? What lessons might we learn from the ethnographic research literature?

4. Name some research practices that are of questionable ethics. Explain why you think they are questionable. Be sure to focus on research ethics.

Please answer each question thoroughly

Explanation / Answer

ANSWER

CASE STUDY---

Advantages

Disadvantages

==================================================================================================================================

.Case Study vs Ethnography

================================================================================================================================================

QUESTIONABLE FORMS OF RESEARCH PRACTICE

Questionable research practice is defined by the Panel on Scientific Responsibility and the Conduct of Research (1992: 28), which states that the following conduct is problematic:

Failing to retain significant research data for a reasonable period;

%u2212 Maintaining inadequate research records, especially for results that are

%u2212 published or are relied on by others; Conferring or requesting authorship on the basis of a specialized service or

%u2212 contribution that is not significantly related to the research reported in the paper; Refusing to give peers reasonable access to unique research materials or data

%u2212 that support published papers; Using inappropriate statistical or other methods of measurement to enhance

%u2212 the significance of research findings; Misrepresenting speculations as fact or releasing preliminary research results,

%u2212 especially in the public media, without providing sufficient data to allow peers to judge the validity of the results or to reproduce the experiments. Resnik (2010) enlists more examples of questionable research practices. The scientists employing such practices are mostly guilty of the following conduct: Publishing the same paper in two different journals without telling the editors %u2212 in submitting the same paper to different journals without telling the editors; Not informing a collaborator of your intent to file a patent in order to make

%u2212 sure that you are the sole inventor; Including a colleague as an author on a paper in return for a favour even though

%u2212 the colleague did not make a serious contribution to the paper; Discussing with your colleagues confidential data from a paper that you are

%u2212 reviewing for a journal; Trimming outliers from a data set without discussing your reasons in paper;

%u2212 Using an inappropriate statistical technique in order to enhance the significance %u2212 of your research;

Bypassing the peer review process and announcing your results through a press

%u2212 conference without giving peers adequate information to review your work; Conducting a review of the literature that fails to acknowledge the contributions

%u2212 of other people in the field or relevant prior work; Stretching the truth on a grant application in order to convince reviewers that

%u2212 your project will make a significant contribution to the field; Stretching the truth on a job application or curriculum vitae;

%u2212 Giving the same research project to two graduate students in order to see who %u2212 can do it the fastest; Overworking, neglecting, or exploiting graduate or post-doctoral students;

%u2212 Failing to keep good research records in Failing to maintain research data for

%u2212 a reasonable period of time; Making derogatory comments and personal attacks in your review of author%u2019s

%u2212 submission; Promising a student a better grade for sexual favours; %u2212 Making significant deviations from the research protocol approved by your

%u2212 institution%u2019s Animal Care and Use Committee or Institutional Review Board for Human Subjects Research without telling the committee or the board; Not reporting an adverse event in a human research experiment;

%u2212 Wasting animals in research; %u2212 Exposing students and staff to biological risks in violation of your institution%u2019s %u2212 biosafety rules; Rejecting a manuscript for publication without even reading it;

%u2212 Sabotaging someone%u2019s work;

%u2212 Stealing supplies, books, or data;

%u2212 Rigging an experiment so you know how it will turn out;

%u2212 Making unauthorized copies of data, papers, or computer programs;

%u2212 Owning a substantial number of stock in a company that sponsors your research

%u2212 and not disclosing this financial interest; and Deliberately overestimating the clinical significance of a new drug in order to

%u2212 obtain economic benefits. De Vries et al. (2006: 48) present similar behaviour. However, they classify it into four categories: 1.Meaning of data Dropping observations or data points from analyses based on a gut feeling

%u2212 that they were inaccurate; Inadequate record keeping related to research projects;

%u2212 Cutting corners in a hurry to complete a project;

%u2212 2.Rules of science Ignoring minor details of materials-handling policies (biosafety, radioactive

%u2212 materials, etc.); Using funds from one project to get work done on another;

%u2212 3.Life with colleagues providing an overly positive or overly negative letter of %u2212 recommendation;

Related Questions

Navigate

• Browse (All)
• Browse 1
• Subjects

Integrity-first tutoring: explanations and feedback only — we do not complete graded work. Learn more.