Researching with Integrity

Macfarlane, Bruce

doi:10.4324/9780203886960

Cited by 34 publications

(41 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Before the main phase of the study, an initial pilot study was carried out in order to refine questions and ensure that students were comfortable with such in-depth interviews (Brabeck et al, 2009;Holstein et al, 1995;Macfarlane, 2006). The questions were informed by previous research into progression within the Open University and the wider sector (Jones, 2008;Trowler, 2010;Yorke, 1999).…”

Section: Groupmentioning

confidence: 99%

Who am I and what keeps me going? Profiling the distance learning student in higher education

Baxter

2012

IRRODL

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

<p>Student retention and progression has exercised the HE sector for some time now, and there has been much research into the reasons why students drop out of Higher Education courses. (Allen, 2006; Buglear, 2009;). More recently the Higher Education Academy Grants Programme Briefing (HEFCE, 2010) , outlined a number of areas that emergent project data revealed as being important to both the retention and progression of students, including areas outlined by a number of researchers as being essential to student success: expectations, support, feedback and involvement. But there has been less research, particularly within the distance learning sector, into factors that encourage students to stay (O'Brien, 2002). This small scale qualitative project using qualitative research methods and based in the Open University UK, builds upon an intensive institutional research project analyzing what type of interventions make a positive difference to student progression and success. The research revealed insights into factors linked to the expectations, identities and support of students which proved influential in terms of their resilience and motivation to remain on course.</p>

show abstract

Section: Groupmentioning

confidence: 99%

Who am I and what keeps me going? Profiling the distance learning student in higher education

Baxter

2012

IRRODL

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The four principles approach was intended to make the ethics review process clearer, even commensurate (Evans, 2000). It has also been claimed that principles-based reasoning (Beauchamp and Childress, 2009) is the model of ethical theorizing most widely used (e.g., Fox and Swazey, 1984;Macfarlane, 2009;Tranøy, 1990) and indeed that it has become the "lingua franca" of bioethics (Grouenhout, 2010). Rawbone (2000) noted that ethics committees are obliged "to ensure research is conducted to acceptable Downloaded by [Eindhoven Technical University] at 10:01 17 November 2014 ethical standards [a phrase apparently taken from paragraph 2.1 of GAfREC (Department of Health, 2001)] using, for example, the application of the four principles of biomedical ethics" (p. 16, emphasis added).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Medical Dominance within Research Ethics Committees

Humphreys

Thomas

Martin

2014

Accountability in Research

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Qualitative research is reported which explores the perceptions of members of the U.K.'s independent Phase I ethics committees (IECs) about key issues identified following a literature review. Audio-recorded interviews were conducted with ten expert and ten lay members from all IECs except the one to which the lead author was attached. Transcripts were thematically analyzed following a broadly hermeneutical approach. The findings-dealing with such matters as recruitment strategies and length of service; attitudes towards member categories, published ethics guidelines, and the adequacy of insurance; levels of training and views on achieving a recognised level of competence-have an intrinsic interest, but it is when the findings are considered collectively using Freidson's theory of professional dominance that they reveal the influence the medical profession can have in shaping ethics review.

show abstract

“…In practical terms, this means that the primary ethical obligation of the researcher is to pursue the production of value-relevant knowledge as effectively as possible, or at least up to some acceptable standard. Yet, curiously, this obligation is rarely given attention in discussions of research ethics (for exceptions, see Dockrell, 1990;MacFarlane, 2009;Reynolds, 1979). Instead, the primary focus is almost always on how the people being studied should be treated, for example in terms of respecting their rights; indeed, the scope of research ethics is frequently defined in these terms.…”

Section: Ethical Values As Integral To the Goal Of Researchmentioning

confidence: 98%