Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Forschungs- und Wissenschaftsethik

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Forschungsmethoden und Evaluation in den Sozial- und Humanwissenschaften

  • 52k Accesses

Zusammenfassung

Dieses Kapitel vermittelt folgende Lernziele: Die zentralen ethischen Richtlinien zum Umgang mit Untersuchungspersonen in der human- und sozialwissenschaftlichen Forschung kennen. Die wichtigsten Regeln guter wissenschaftlicher Praxis erläutern können. Eigene Forschungsaktivitäten an Prinzipien der Forschungs- und Wissenschaftsethik ausrichten können. Vorliegende Studien hinsichtlich möglicher ethischer Probleme bewerten können. Wissen, wie man forschungs- bzw. wissenschaftsethische Fragen selbst zum Gegenstand empirischer Forschung machen kann.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 49.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Hardcover Book
USD 64.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Literatur

  • Akins, C. K., Panicker, S., & Cunningham, C. L. (Eds.). (2004). Laboratory animals in research and teaching: Ethics, care, and methods. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.

    Google Scholar 

  • Allen, C. (1997). Spies like us. When sociologists deceive their subjects. Lingua Franca, 7, 31–39.

    Google Scholar 

  • American Psychological Association. (2017). Ethical principles of psychologists and code of conduct. Including 2010 and 2016 amendments. Retrieved 2021, August 13, from https://www.apa.org/ethics/code/

  • American Psychological Association. (2020). Publication manual of the American Psychological Association (7th ed.). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.

    Google Scholar 

  • Banks, G. C., O’Boyle, E. H., Pollack, J. M., White, C. D., Batchelor, J. H., Whelpley, C. E. et al. (2016). Questions about questionable research practices in the field of management: A guest commentary. Journal of Management, 42, 5–20.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bates, T., Anić, A., Marušić, M., & Marušić, A. (2004). Authorship criteria and disclosure of contributions. Comparison of 3 general medical journals with different author contribution forms. JAMA, 292, 86–88.

    Google Scholar 

  • Baumeister, R. F., Bratslavsky, E., Muraven, M., & Tice, D. M. (1998). Ego depletion: Is the active self a limited resource? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 74, 1252–1265.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Bem, D. J. (2011). Feeling the future: Experimental evidence for anomalous retroactive influences on cognition and affect. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 100, 407–425.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Bishop, D. V. M. (2018). Fallibility in science: Responding to errors in the work of oneself and others. Advances in Methods and Practices in Psychological Science, 1, 432–438.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Blass, T. (1999). The Milgram paradigm after 35 years: Some things we now know about obedience to authority. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 29, 955–978.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Buchanan, T., & Williams, J. E. (2010). Ethical issues in psychological research on the internet. In S. D. Gosling, & J. A. Johnson (Eds.), Advanced methods for conducting online behavioral research (pp. 255–271). Washington, DC, US: American Psychological Association.

    Google Scholar 

  • Carpenter, S. (2012). Psychology’s bold initiative. Science, 335, 1558–1561.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Carter, E. C., & McCullough, M. E. (2014). Publication bias and the limited strength model of self-control: Has the evidence for ego depletion been overestimated? Frontiers in Psychology, 5, Art. 823. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2014.00823

  • Corti, L., Eynden, V. van den, Bishop, L., & Woollard, M. (2020). Managing and sharing research data: A guide to good practice (2nd ed.). London: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft. (1998). Sicherung guter wissenschaftlicher Praxis. Denkschrift. Abgerufen am 13. August 2021, unter https://www.dfg.de/foerderung/grundlagen_rahmenbedingungen/gwp/denkschrift/index.html

  • Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft. (2000). Task Force legt Abschlussbericht vor. Abgerufen am 13. August 2021, unter https://www.dfg.de/service/presse/pressemitteilungen/2000/pressemitteilung_nr_26/index.html

  • Deutsche Gesellschaft für Psychologie. (2004). Revision der auf die Forschung bezogenen ethischen Richtlinien. Abgerufen am 13. August 2021, unter https://www.dgps.de/fileadmin/user_upload/PDF/Berichte/ethikrl2004.pdf

  • Errami, M., Hicks, J. M., & Fisher, W. (2008). Déjà vu – A study of duplicate citations in Medline. Bioinformatics, 24, 243–249.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Fanelli, D. (2009). How many scientists fabricate and falsify research? A systematic review and meta-analysis of survey data. PLoS ONE, 4, e5738.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • Fiesler, C., & Proferes, N. (2018). „Participant“ perceptions of Twitter research ethics. Social Media + Society. https://doi.org/10.1177/2056305118763366

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fine, M. A., & Kurdek, L. A. (1993). Reflections on determining autorship credit and authorship order on faculty-student collaborations. American Psychologist, 48, 1141–1147.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Francis, G. (2012). Too good to be true: Publication bias in two prominent studies from experimental psychology. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 19, 151–156. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13423-012-0227-9

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Galak, J., LeBoeuf, R. A., Nelson, L. D., & Simmons, J. P. (2012). Correcting the past: Failures to replicate psi. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 103, 933–948. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0029709

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Galliher, J. F., Brekhus, W., & Keys, D. P. (2004). Laud Humphreys: Prophet of homosexuality and sociology. Madison: University of Wisconsin Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gerrits, R. G., Jansen, T., Mulyanto, J., Berg, M. J. van den, Klazinga, N. S., & Kringos, D. S. (2019). Occurrence and nature of questionable research practices in the reporting of messages and conclusions in international scientific Health Services Research publications: A structured assessment of publications authored by researchers in the Netherlands. BMJ Open, 9, e027903. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2018-027903

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • Goodstein, D. (2010). On fact and fraud: Cautionary tales from the front lines of science. New Jersey: Princeton University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Haney, C., Banks, W. C., & Zimbardo, P. G. (1973). A study of prisoners and guards in a simulated prison. Naval Research Review, 30, 4–17.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hochschulrektorenkonferenz. (1998). Zum Umgang mit wissenschaftlichem Fehlverhalten in den Hochschulen. Abgerufen am 13. August 2021, unter https://www.hrk.de/positionen/beschluss/detail/zum-umgang-mit-wissenschaftlichem-fehlverhalten-in-den-hochschulen/

  • Humphreys, L. (1970). Tea-room trade. Chicago: Aldine.

    Google Scholar 

  • Inzlicht, M., & Friese, M. (2019). The past, present, and future of ego depletion. Social Psychology, 50, 370–378.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ioannidis, J. P. A. (2005). Why most published research findings are false. PLOS Medicine, 2, e124. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pmed.0020124

  • Kaslow, F. W., Patterson, T., & Gottlieb, M. (2011). Ethical dilemmas in psychologists accessing internet data: Is it justified? Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, 42, 105–112.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lakeman, R., & FitzGerald, M. (2009). The ethics of suicide research: The views of ethics committee members. Crisis: The Journal of Crisis Intervention and Suicide Prevention, 30, 13–19.

    Google Scholar 

  • Langdrigde, D., & Hagger-Johnson, G. (2009). Introduction to research methods and data analysis in psychology (2nd ed.). München: Pearson.

    Google Scholar 

  • Le Texier, T. (2019). Debunking the Stanford Prison Experiment. American Psychologist, 74, 823–839. https://doi.org/10.1037/amp0000401

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • LeBel, E. P., Borsboom, D., Giner-Sorolla, R., Hasselman, F., Peters, K. R., Ratliff, K. A. et al. (2013). PsychDisclosure.org: Grassroots support for reforming reporting standards in psychology. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 8, 424–432.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lurquin, J. H., & Miyake, A (2017). Challenges to ego-depletion research go beyond the replication crisis: A need for tackling the conceptual crisis. Frontiers in Psychology, 8, 568. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2017.00568

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • Lurquin, J. H., Michaelson, L. E., Barker, J. E., Gustavson, D. E., Bastian, C. C. von, Carruth, N. P. et al. (2016). No evidence of the ego-depletion effect across task characteristics and individual differences: A pre-registered study. PLoS ONE, 11, e0147770. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0147770

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • McKee, H. A., & Porter, J. E. (2009). The ethics of internet research: A rhetorical, case-based process. (Digital formations). New York, NY: Lang.

    Google Scholar 

  • Milgram, S. (1963). Behavioral study of obedience. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 67, 371–378.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Milgram, S. (1974). Obedience to authority: An experimental view. New York: Harpercollins.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mitscherlich, A. & Mielke, F. (1949). Wissenschaft ohne Menschlichkeit – Medizinische und eugenische Irrwege unter Diktatur, Bürokratie und Krieg. Heidelberg: Schneider.

    Google Scholar 

  • Moreno, J. D. (2000). Undue risk: Secret state experiments on humans. London: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nosek, B. A., Banaji, M. R., & Greenwald, A. G. (2002). E-research: Ethics, security, design, and control in psychological research on the internet. Journal of Social Issues, 58, 161–176.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Open Science Collaboration. (2012). An open, large-scale, collaborative effort to estimate the reproducibility of psychological science. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 7, 657–660.

    Google Scholar 

  • Orton-Johnson, K. (2010). Ethics in online research; Evaluating the ESRC framework for research ethics categorisation of risk. Sociological Research Online, 15, Art. 13. Retrieved 2013, November 20, from https://www.socresonline.org.uk/15/4/13.html

  • Pashler, H., & Wagenmakers, E.-J. (2012). Editors’ introduction to the special section on replicability in psychological science: A crisis of confidence? Perspectives on Psychological Science 7, 528–530.

    Google Scholar 

  • Reuland, J. (2004). Menschenversuche in der Weimarer Republik. Norderstedt: Books on Demand.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ripley, E., Macrina, F., Markowitz, M., & Gennings, C. (2010). Who’s doing the math? Are we really compensating research participants? Journal of Empirical Research on Human Research Ethics, 5, 57–65.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • Sales, B. D., & Folkman, S. (2000). Ethics in research with human participants. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sattler, S. (2007). Plagiate in Hausarbeiten. Erklärungsmodelle mit Hilfe der Rational Choice Theorie. Mit einem Vorwort von Andreas Diekmann. Hamburg: Kovac.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sattler, S. (2008). Unterschätztes Phänomen. Über den Umfang von und den Umgang mit Plagiaten. Forschung & Lehre, 5, 298–299.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schimmack, U. (2012). The ironic effect of significant results on the credibility of multiple-study articles. Psychological Methods, 17, 551–566.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Schimmack, U. (2016). Replicability report no. 1: Is ego-depletion a replicable effect? Retrieved 2021, August 13, from https://replicationindex.com/2016/04/18/is-replicability-report-ego-depletionreplicability-report-of-165-ego-depletion-articles/

  • Schimmack, U. (2020). A meta-psychological perspective on the decade of replication failures in social psychology. Canadian Psychology/Psychologie canadienne, 61, 364–376.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schimmack, U., & Brunner, J. (2017). Z-curve. https://doi.org/10.31219/osf.io/wr93f

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Sherry, A., & Amidon, A. (2010). The ethics of sex research on the internet. In D. L. Streiner, & S. Sidani (Eds.), When research goes off the rails: Why it happens and what you can do about it (pp. 27–33). New York, NY: Guilford.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sijtsma, K. (2016). Playing with data – Or how to discourage questionable research practices and stimulate researchers to do things right. Psychometrika, 81, 1–15. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11336-015-9446-0

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Simonsohn, U., Nelson, L. D., & Simmons, J. P. (2014). P-curve: A key to the file-drawer. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 143, 534–547.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Tait, R. C., Chibnall, J. T., Iltis, A., Wall, A., & Deshields, T. L. (2011). Assessment of consent capability in psychiatric and medical studies. Journal of Empirical Research on Human Research Ethics, 6, 39–50.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • The GUSTO Investigators. (1993). An international randomized trail comparing four thrombolytic strategies for acute myocardial infarction. New England Journal of Medicine, 329, 673–682. Retrieved 2021, August 13, from https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJM199309023291001

  • Toth, A. A., Banks, G. C., Mellor, D., O’Boyle, E. H., Dickson, A., Davis, J. D. et al. (2021). Study preregistration: An evaluation of a method for transparent reporting. Journal of Business and Psychology, 36, 553–571. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10869-020-09695-3

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vadillo, M. A. (2019). Ego depletion may disappear by 2020. Social Psychology, 50, 281–291.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vermeulen, I., & Hartmann, T. (2015). Questionable research and publication practices in communication science. Communication Methods and Measures, 9, 189–192.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vohs, K. D., Baumeister, R. F., Schmeichel, B. J., Twenge, J. M., Nelson, N. M., & Tice, D. M. (2008). Making choices impairs subsequent self-control: A limited-resource account of decision making, self-regulation, and active initiative. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 94, 883–898.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Vohs, K. D., Schmeichel, B. J., Lohmann, S., Gronau, Q. F., Finley, A. J., Ainsworth, S. E. et al. (2021). A multisite preregistered paradigmatic test of the ego-depletion effect. Psychological Science, 32, 1566–1581. https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797621989733

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Wicherts J. M., Veldkamp C. L. S., Augusteijn H. E. M., Bakker M., Aert R. C. M. van, & Assen M. A. L. M. van. (2016). Degrees of freedom in planning, running, analyzing, and reporting psychological studies: A checklist to avoid \(p\)-hacking. Frontiers in Psychology, 7, Art. 1832.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • Wolff, W., Baumann, L., & Englert, C. (2018). Self-reports from behind the scenes: Questionable research practices and rates of replication in ego depletion research. PLoS ONE, 13, e0199554. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0199554

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • World Medical Association. (2008). Deklaration von Helsinki – Ethische Grundsätze für die medizinische Forschung am Menschen. Abgerufen am 13. August 2021, unter https://www.bundesaerztekammer.de/fileadmin/user_upload/downloads/pdf-Ordner/International/Deklaration_von_Helsinki_2013_20190905.pdf

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Technische Universität Ilmenau, Ilmenau, Deutschland

    Nicola Döring

Authors
  1. Nicola Döring
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Nicola Döring .

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2023 Der/die Autor(en), exklusiv lizenziert an Springer-Verlag GmbH, DE, ein Teil von Springer Nature

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Döring, N. (2023). Forschungs- und Wissenschaftsethik. In: Forschungsmethoden und Evaluation in den Sozial- und Humanwissenschaften. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-662-64762-2_4

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-662-64762-2_4

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-662-64761-5

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-662-64762-2

  • eBook Packages: Psychology (German Language)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation