志愿者参与悖论:自我选择与目标抽样之间的伦理矛盾

Takaaki Hiratsuka
{"title":"志愿者参与悖论:自我选择与目标抽样之间的伦理矛盾","authors":"Takaaki Hiratsuka","doi":"10.1016/j.rmal.2025.100206","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><div>The voluntary nature of research participation is a cornerstone of ethical practices in studies involving human participants. However, when individuals voluntarily respond to participant calls or are selected through convenient methods, they often share traits like proximity or willingness—possibly leading to data skewed by similar attitudes. Conversely, methods aimed at diversity and inclusion, such as snowballing or maximum variation sampling, might inadvertently compromise the voluntary nature of participation. This tension, which I term the <em>volunteer participation paradox</em>, presents researchers with a methodological dilemma. That is, when participation is entirely voluntary, research may face limitations due to potentially unbalanced data. In contrast, when researchers employ targeted sampling strategies to gather broad-ranging data, the authenticity of voluntary participation may be influenced by factors such as social obligation or researcher relationships. This article explores manifestations of this methodological tension and puts forward guidance for navigating the complex ethical terrain in research methodology.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":101075,"journal":{"name":"Research Methods in Applied Linguistics","volume":"4 2","pages":"Article 100206"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2025-04-08","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"The volunteer participation paradox: Ethical tensions between self-selection and targeted sampling\",\"authors\":\"Takaaki Hiratsuka\",\"doi\":\"10.1016/j.rmal.2025.100206\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div><div>The voluntary nature of research participation is a cornerstone of ethical practices in studies involving human participants. However, when individuals voluntarily respond to participant calls or are selected through convenient methods, they often share traits like proximity or willingness—possibly leading to data skewed by similar attitudes. Conversely, methods aimed at diversity and inclusion, such as snowballing or maximum variation sampling, might inadvertently compromise the voluntary nature of participation. This tension, which I term the <em>volunteer participation paradox</em>, presents researchers with a methodological dilemma. That is, when participation is entirely voluntary, research may face limitations due to potentially unbalanced data. In contrast, when researchers employ targeted sampling strategies to gather broad-ranging data, the authenticity of voluntary participation may be influenced by factors such as social obligation or researcher relationships. This article explores manifestations of this methodological tension and puts forward guidance for navigating the complex ethical terrain in research methodology.</div></div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":101075,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Research Methods in Applied Linguistics\",\"volume\":\"4 2\",\"pages\":\"Article 100206\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-04-08\",\"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/S2772766125000278\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Research Methods in Applied Linguistics","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2772766125000278","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

研究参与的自愿性质是涉及人类参与者的研究的伦理实践的基石。然而,当个人自愿回应参与者的电话或通过方便的方法被选中时,他们通常具有相似的特征,如接近或愿意-可能导致数据被类似的态度所扭曲。相反,旨在多样性和包容性的方法,如滚雪球或最大变化抽样,可能会无意中损害参与的自愿性质。这种矛盾,我称之为志愿者参与悖论,给研究者带来了方法论上的困境。也就是说,当参与完全是自愿的时候,研究可能由于潜在的不平衡数据而面临限制。相反,当研究人员采用有针对性的抽样策略来收集广泛的数据时,自愿参与的真实性可能会受到社会义务或研究人员关系等因素的影响。本文探讨了这种方法论张力的表现形式,并对研究方法论中复杂的伦理地形提出了指引。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
The volunteer participation paradox: Ethical tensions between self-selection and targeted sampling
The voluntary nature of research participation is a cornerstone of ethical practices in studies involving human participants. However, when individuals voluntarily respond to participant calls or are selected through convenient methods, they often share traits like proximity or willingness—possibly leading to data skewed by similar attitudes. Conversely, methods aimed at diversity and inclusion, such as snowballing or maximum variation sampling, might inadvertently compromise the voluntary nature of participation. This tension, which I term the volunteer participation paradox, presents researchers with a methodological dilemma. That is, when participation is entirely voluntary, research may face limitations due to potentially unbalanced data. In contrast, when researchers employ targeted sampling strategies to gather broad-ranging data, the authenticity of voluntary participation may be influenced by factors such as social obligation or researcher relationships. This article explores manifestations of this methodological tension and puts forward guidance for navigating the complex ethical terrain in research methodology.
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
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:481959085
Book学术官方微信