IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/sae/socres/v10y2005i3p80-89.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Research Ethics and the Governance of Research Projects: The Potential of Internet Home Pages

Author

Listed:
  • Martyn Denscombe

Abstract

This paper explores the potential of research project Home Pages in relation to the growing need for good governance of research projects. In particular, the paper considers the benefits such web pages might have in terms of research ethics and argues that research project Home Page s can provide a very straightforward, practical means of addressing a number of ethical issues related to both on-line and off-line research. Limitations to the use of research project Home Page s are also discussed and conclusions are drawn about the value of establishing appropriately designed research project Home Page s as an integral component of social research protocols.

Suggested Citation

  • Martyn Denscombe, 2005. "Research Ethics and the Governance of Research Projects: The Potential of Internet Home Pages," Sociological Research Online, , vol. 10(3), pages 80-89, November.
    • Handle: RePEc:sae:socres:v:10:y:2005:i:3:p:80-89
    DOI: 10.5153/sro.1087
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.5153/sro.1087
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.5153/sro.1087?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Andrew Dillon & Barbara A. Gushrowski, 2000. "Genres and the WEB: Is the personal home page the first uniquely digital genre?," Journal of the American Society for Information Science, Association for Information Science & Technology, vol. 51(2), pages 202-205.
    2. Michael Birnbaum, 2000. "Psychological experiments on the internet," Framed Field Experiments 00125, The Field Experiments Website.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Zev J. Eigen, 2012. "When and Why Individuals Obey Contracts: Experimental Evidence of Consent, Compliance, Promise, and Performance," The Journal of Legal Studies, University of Chicago Press, vol. 41(1), pages 67-93.
    2. R. Luce & A. Marley, 2005. "Ranked Additive Utility Representations of Gambles: Old and New Axiomatizations," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 30(1), pages 21-62, January.
    3. Vivianne H. M. Visschers & Ree M. Meertens & Wim F. Passchier & Nanne K. DeVries, 2007. "How Does the General Public Evaluate Risk Information? The Impact of Associations with Other Risks," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 27(3), pages 715-727, June.
    4. Claire I. Tsai & Min Zhao & Dilip Soman, 2022. "Salient knowledge that others are also evaluating reduces judgment extremity," Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, Springer, vol. 50(2), pages 366-387, March.
    5. Whitehead, Lisa Claire, 2007. "Methodological and ethical issues in Internet-mediated research in the field of health: An integrated review of the literature," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 65(4), pages 782-791, August.
    6. Sebastian Neumann-Böhme & Stefan A. Lipman & Werner B. F. Brouwer & Arthur E. Attema, 2021. "Trust me; I know what I am doing investigating the effect of choice list elicitation and domain-relevant training on preference reversals in decision making for others," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 22(5), pages 679-697, July.
    7. Birnbaum, Michael H., 2004. "Tests of rank-dependent utility and cumulative prospect theory in gambles represented by natural frequencies: Effects of format, event framing, and branch splitting," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 95(1), pages 40-65, September.
    8. Gurmankin Levy, Andrea & Hershey, John C., 2006. "Distorting the probability of treatment success to justify treatment decisions," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 101(1), pages 52-58, September.
    9. Andrea D. Gurmankin & Jonathan Baron & Katrina Armstrong, 2004. "Intended Message Versus Message Received in Hypothetical Physician Risk Communications: Exploring the Gap," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 24(5), pages 1337-1347, October.
    10. Sonsino, Doron & Sirota, Julia, 2003. "Strategic pattern recognition--experimental evidence," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 44(2), pages 390-411, August.
    11. Buchanan, Erin Michelle & Foreman, Riley E. & Huber, Becca Nicole & Pavlacic, Jeffrey Michael & Swadley, Rachel N. & Schulenberg, Stefan E., 2017. "Does the Delivery Matter? Examining Randomization at the Item Level," OSF Preprints p93df, Center for Open Science.
    12. Lennart Björneborn & Peter Ingwersen, 2001. "Perspective of webometrics," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 50(1), pages 65-82, January.
    13. Choi, Hojoon & Reid, Leonard N., 2016. "Congruity effects and moderating influences in nutrient-claimed food advertising," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 69(9), pages 3430-3438.
    14. Jean-Marc Bourgeon & José De Sousa & Alexis Noir-Luhalwe, 2022. "Social Distancing and Risk Taking: Evidence from a Team Game Show," CESifo Working Paper Series 10063, CESifo.
    15. Qing Liu & Yihui (Elina) Tang, 2015. "Construction of Heterogeneous Conjoint Choice Designs: A New Approach," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 34(3), pages 346-366, May.
    16. Antonio A. Arechar & Simon Gächter & Lucas Molleman, 2018. "Conducting interactive experiments online," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 21(1), pages 99-131, March.
    17. Kennon Sheldon & Tan Hoon, 2007. "The multiple determination of well-being: Independent effects of positive traits, needs, goals, selves, social supports, and cultural contexts," Journal of Happiness Studies, Springer, vol. 8(4), pages 565-592, December.
    18. Dmitri Vinogradov & Yousef Makhlouf, 2021. "Signaling probabilities in ambiguity: who reacts to vague news?," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 90(3), pages 371-404, May.
    19. Fabo, B., 2017. "Towards an understanding of job matching using web data," Other publications TiSEM b8b877f2-ae6a-495f-b6cc-9, Tilburg University, School of Economics and Management.
    20. Charness, Gary & haruvy, Ernan & Sonsino, Doron, 2001. "Social Distance and Reciprocity: The Internet vs. the Laboratory," University of California at Santa Barbara, Economics Working Paper Series qt46r1282v, Department of Economics, UC Santa Barbara.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:sae:socres:v:10:y:2005:i:3:p:80-89. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: SAGE Publications (email available below). General contact details of provider: .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.