...
首页> 外文期刊>Work, Employment and Society >A query on research methodology and ethics: defending Citizens Advice, its work and goals
【24h】

A query on research methodology and ethics: defending Citizens Advice, its work and goals

机译:对研究方法论和伦理学的质疑:捍卫公民意见,其工作和目标

获取原文
获取原文并翻译 | 示例
   

获取外文期刊封面封底 >>

       

摘要

This is a response to an article by Holgate et al., in which the authors argue that minority ethnic workers lack support and legal advice on employment problems; in particular they found the Citizens Advice Bureau network to be 'not very successful' and 'ineffectual'. This response raises concerns about research methodology, including the integrity with which existing literature was cited and the rigour with which new data were generated and interpreted. This author uses her insight into Citizens Advice work to contextualize - and contest - some of the interpretations made by Holgate and colleagues. From a research ethics perspective, this case highlights the disparity of power between the researchers and the researched - and reiterates the impact of previous research on future research endeavours. While Open Access is good for those outside academia, those within must become more astute about the myriad contexts within which their published work might be mis/interpreted.
机译:这是对Holgate等人的一篇文章的回应,在该文章中,作者认为少数民族工人缺乏关于就业问题的支持和法律咨询;特别是,他们发现公民咨询局的网络“不是很成功”且“没有效果”。这种回应引起了人们对研究方法的关注,包括引用现有文献的完整性以及生成和解释新数据的严格性。作者利用对“公民咨询”工作的见解,将霍尔盖特和同事的一些解释进行了情境化和竞争。从研究伦理的角度来看,本案例强调了研究人员与被研究人员之间的权力差异,并重申了先前研究对未来研究成果的影响。尽管开放获取对学术界以外的人有好处,但对于那些可能会误解/解释其发表的作品的多种情况,内部人必须变得更加精明。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
获取原文

客服邮箱:kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备:11010802029741号 ICP备案号:京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有
  • 客服微信

  • 服务号