Academic Whistle‐Blowing

Hansson, Oskar

doi:10.1111/theo.12202

Cited by 1 publication

(1 citation statement)

References 13 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Venues for discussing suspected cases of research misconduct are few, yet candid discussions of suspected violations of research norms contribute to a culture where whistleblowing is encouraged. Disclosing evidence of research misconduct can be perilous, yet such actions are essential to promoting a culture of research integrity (Hansson, 2019a). In the present-day context, 'the most common outcome for those who commit fraud is: a long career' (Oransky 2020: 142).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

The use of confidentiality and anonymity protections as a cover for fraudulent fieldwork data

Dougherty

2021

Research Ethics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Qualitative fieldwork research on sensitive topics sometimes requires that interviewees be granted confidentiality and anonymity. When qualitative researchers later publish their findings, they must ensure that any statements obtained during fieldwork interviews cannot be traced back to the interviewees. Given these protections to interviewees, the integrity of the published findings cannot usually be verified or replicated by third parties, and the scholarly community must trust the word of qualitative researchers when they publish their results. This trust is fundamentally abused, however, when researchers publish articles reporting qualitative fieldwork data that they never collected. Using only publicly available information, I argue that a 2017 article in an Elsevier foreign policy and international relations journal presents anonymised fieldwork interviews that could not have occurred as described. As an exercise in post-publication peer review (PPPR), this paper examines the evidence that calls into question the reliability of the putative fieldwork quotations. I show further that the 2017 article is not a unique case. The anonymity and confidentiality protections common in some areas of research create an ethical problem: the protections necessary for obtaining research data can be used as a cover to hide substandard research practices as well as research misconduct.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

The use of confidentiality and anonymity protections as a cover for fraudulent fieldwork data

Dougherty

2021

Research Ethics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Academic Whistle‐Blowing

Cited by 1 publication

References 13 publications

The use of confidentiality and anonymity protections as a cover for fraudulent fieldwork data

The use of confidentiality and anonymity protections as a cover for fraudulent fieldwork data

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About