Sampling through the lens of QRPs

IF 5.5
Research Methods in Applied Linguistics Pub Date : 2025-12-01 Epub Date: 2025-11-07 DOI:10.1016/j.rmal.2025.100280
Scott Sterling , Merja Kytö , Luke Plonsky , Kate Yaw , Tove Larsson
{"title":"Sampling through the lens of QRPs","authors":"Scott Sterling ,&nbsp;Merja Kytö ,&nbsp;Luke Plonsky ,&nbsp;Kate Yaw ,&nbsp;Tove Larsson","doi":"10.1016/j.rmal.2025.100280","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><div>From an ethical standpoint, it is important that we ensure that our sampling procedures allow us to make generalizations about the populations we wish to represent. In this commentary, we agree with the perspective offered by Kim and Chen (2025), though we would also suggest that we broaden their call to action into a larger consideration of the researcher decisions that scholars make when conducting research. We are particularly interested in the role played by what has been termed questionable research practices (QPRs), that is, actions that fall somewhere between typically agreed upon research actions on the one side and research misconduct on the other.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":101075,"journal":{"name":"Research Methods in Applied Linguistics","volume":"4 3","pages":"Article 100280"},"PeriodicalIF":5.5000,"publicationDate":"2025-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Research Methods in Applied Linguistics","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2772766125001016","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2025/11/7 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

From an ethical standpoint, it is important that we ensure that our sampling procedures allow us to make generalizations about the populations we wish to represent. In this commentary, we agree with the perspective offered by Kim and Chen (2025), though we would also suggest that we broaden their call to action into a larger consideration of the researcher decisions that scholars make when conducting research. We are particularly interested in the role played by what has been termed questionable research practices (QPRs), that is, actions that fall somewhere between typically agreed upon research actions on the one side and research misconduct on the other.
通过qrp的镜头进行采样
从道德的角度来看,重要的是我们要确保我们的抽样程序使我们能够对我们希望代表的人群作出概括。在这篇评论中,我们同意Kim和Chen(2025)提出的观点,尽管我们也建议我们将他们的行动呼吁扩大到更大程度上考虑学者在进行研究时所做的研究决定。我们对所谓的可疑研究实践(qpr)所扮演的角色特别感兴趣,即介于一方通常同意的研究行为和另一方的研究不端行为之间的行为。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
4.10
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信
小红书