众包研究平台上拒绝参与者的伦理理由和研究清单。

Q2 Social Sciences
Jon Agley, Casey Mumaw, Bethany Johnson
{"title":"众包研究平台上拒绝参与者的伦理理由和研究清单。","authors":"Jon Agley,&nbsp;Casey Mumaw,&nbsp;Bethany Johnson","doi":"10.1002/eahr.500217","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div>\n \n <p>Online participant recruitment (“crowdsourcing”) platforms are increasingly being used for research studies. While such platforms can rapidly provide access to large samples, there are concomitant concerns around data quality. Researchers have studied and demonstrated means to reduce the prevalence of low-quality data from crowdsourcing platforms, but approaches to doing so often involve rejecting work and/or denying payment to participants, which can pose ethical dilemmas. We write this essay as an associate professor and two institutional review board (IRB) directors to provide a perspective on the competing interests of participants/workers and researchers and to propose a checklist of steps that we believe may support workers' agency on the platform and lessen instances of unfair consequences to them while enabling researchers to definitively reject lower-quality work that might otherwise reduce the likelihood of their studies producing true results. We encourage further, explicit discussion of these issues among academics and among IRBs.</p>\n </div>","PeriodicalId":36829,"journal":{"name":"Ethics & human research","volume":"46 4","pages":"38-46"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-06-30","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1002/eahr.500217","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Rationale and Study Checklist for Ethical Rejection of Participants on Crowdsourcing Research Platforms\",\"authors\":\"Jon Agley,&nbsp;Casey Mumaw,&nbsp;Bethany Johnson\",\"doi\":\"10.1002/eahr.500217\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div>\\n \\n <p>Online participant recruitment (“crowdsourcing”) platforms are increasingly being used for research studies. While such platforms can rapidly provide access to large samples, there are concomitant concerns around data quality. Researchers have studied and demonstrated means to reduce the prevalence of low-quality data from crowdsourcing platforms, but approaches to doing so often involve rejecting work and/or denying payment to participants, which can pose ethical dilemmas. We write this essay as an associate professor and two institutional review board (IRB) directors to provide a perspective on the competing interests of participants/workers and researchers and to propose a checklist of steps that we believe may support workers' agency on the platform and lessen instances of unfair consequences to them while enabling researchers to definitively reject lower-quality work that might otherwise reduce the likelihood of their studies producing true results. We encourage further, explicit discussion of these issues among academics and among IRBs.</p>\\n </div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":36829,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Ethics & human research\",\"volume\":\"46 4\",\"pages\":\"38-46\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-06-30\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1002/eahr.500217\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Ethics & human research\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/eahr.500217\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"Social Sciences\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Ethics & human research","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/eahr.500217","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"Social Sciences","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

在线参与者招募("众包")平台越来越多地被用于研究。虽然此类平台可以快速提供大量样本,但同时也存在数据质量问题。研究人员已经研究并展示了减少众包平台低质量数据流行的方法,但这样做的方法往往涉及拒绝工作和/或拒绝向参与者支付报酬,这可能会带来伦理困境。我们以副教授和两位机构审查委员会(IRB)主任的身份撰写了这篇文章,从参与者/工作者和研究人员利益冲突的角度出发,提出了一份步骤清单,我们认为这些步骤可以支持工作者在平台上的代理权,减少对他们造成不公平后果的情况,同时使研究人员能够明确拒绝低质量的工作,否则可能会降低他们的研究产生真实结果的可能性。我们鼓励学术界和 IRB 进一步明确讨论这些问题。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Rationale and Study Checklist for Ethical Rejection of Participants on Crowdsourcing Research Platforms

Online participant recruitment (“crowdsourcing”) platforms are increasingly being used for research studies. While such platforms can rapidly provide access to large samples, there are concomitant concerns around data quality. Researchers have studied and demonstrated means to reduce the prevalence of low-quality data from crowdsourcing platforms, but approaches to doing so often involve rejecting work and/or denying payment to participants, which can pose ethical dilemmas. We write this essay as an associate professor and two institutional review board (IRB) directors to provide a perspective on the competing interests of participants/workers and researchers and to propose a checklist of steps that we believe may support workers' agency on the platform and lessen instances of unfair consequences to them while enabling researchers to definitively reject lower-quality work that might otherwise reduce the likelihood of their studies producing true results. We encourage further, explicit discussion of these issues among academics and among IRBs.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Ethics & human research
Ethics & human research Social Sciences-Health (social science)
CiteScore
2.90
自引率
0.00%
发文量
35
×
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:481959085
Book学术官方微信