CMNS2600 Chap.2 Research Design and Human Ethics
Research Design and Human Ethics
Research design is the alignment among assumptions, a question, methods, evidence, analysis and a bounded claim. This chapter uses the ontology-to-method chain to show why a technique cannot be chosen in isolation. It also treats ethics as a continuing relationship rather than a form completed before data collection.
Consent, contextual privacy, withdrawal, data minimisation, secure handling and fair representation shape what can be asked, collected and published. Reflexivity makes the researcher's position and design choices visible instead of presenting findings as neutral discovery.
Alignment is tested at every transition: participants must encounter the phenomenon, procedures must produce relevant evidence and analysis must justify the conclusion. Ethical choices are equally structural because changing recruitment, quotation or storage can change what the study knows. A clear limitation describes that effect specifically instead of offering a generic apology about imperfect research.
What this chapter covers
- 01
Research concerns and assumptions about audience power
- 02
Ontology, epistemology, methodology, sources and methods
- 03
Research questions as design anchors
- 04
Custom-built instruments and analytic workflows
- 05
Practical constraints on access, time and recruitment
- 06
Reflexivity and the limits of a single paradigm
- 07
Informed consent as understandable voluntary choice
- 08
Contextual privacy, de-identification and residual risk
Worked example · free
Align a study of safety alerts
- +1Define interpretation as meaning, contemplated action and travel context.
- +1Recruit commuters who receive the alerts.
- +1Pair interviews with short situated diaries.
- +1Explain consent, minimisation and withdrawal.
- +1Limit the claim to this group and setting.
Key terms
- Ontology
- Assumptions about what exists and what kind of reality the study addresses.
- Epistemology
- Assumptions about what can count as knowledge and how it can be known.
- Methodology
- The overall strategy connecting a research question to the production and analysis of evidence.
- Reflexivity
- Critical attention to how the researcher's position and design choices shape what becomes knowable.
- Informed Consent
- Voluntary agreement based on understandable information about purpose, procedure, use, risk and withdrawal.
- Contextual Privacy
- Privacy expectations arising from a social setting even where information is technically accessible.
Research Design and Human Ethics FAQ
Why does ontology matter in a practical project?
Ontology clarifies what kind of object the project assumes it is studying. If audience meaning is treated as socially situated, a design needs evidence of interpretation and context. If behaviour is treated as measurable action, observation or trace data may matter more. The assumption guides the evidence that can answer the question.
Is a public social-media post free to use?
Technical visibility does not settle research ethics. Consider the poster's contextual expectations, vulnerability, the sensitivity of the topic and whether verbatim text makes them searchable. Depending on risk, the study may need consent, paraphrase, data minimisation or a redesigned source strategy.
What does reflexivity add to an assignment?
Reflexivity shows how access, categories, recruitment and the researcher's position shape the findings. It does not turn the project into autobiography. A useful reflexive statement names a design choice, explains what it made visible and states which perspective or evidence remains limited.
Assessment move
Draw the design chain from assumptions to question, method, data and claim. Take an assignment idea and write one sentence at each stage. If adjacent sentences do not connect, repair the design before collecting more material. Run a second line beneath the chain for ethics: recruitment, consent, risk, storage, analysis and reporting. Practise explaining why public access is not equivalent to ethical permission.
In prose, avoid listing principles without consequences; state what each principle changes in the study. End the design section with a precise limitation rather than a generic statement that all research has limits. Rehearse design decisions by writing paired alternatives. If the question asks how participants interpret a message, compare interviews with a survey and explain what each would make visible.
If it asks how frequently a response occurs, compare a probability sample with recruitment through one online group. This forces the method justification to refer to the question rather than to convenience. Make an ethics ledger beside the design. For every data item, record why it is necessary, what harm could follow, who can access it, when it will be removed and how a participant could withdraw.
Include quotations and screenshots, because identifiability often survives removal of a name. Then revisit the proposed publication: a secure collection process can still create risk through searchable wording or excessive contextual detail. Practise limitation writing with direction.
Do not merely say that the sample is small; explain that recruitment through highly involved members may overstate commitment and underrepresent quiet participation. Do not say that researcher bias is possible; name which categories or relationships your position may make easier to notice. End with a one-minute oral defence in which every answer follows the form choice, reason, evidence produced and remaining limit.
If one element is missing, the alignment needs another pass.
