To save content items to your account,
please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies.
If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account.
Find out more about saving content to .
To save content items to your Kindle, first ensure no-reply@cambridge.org
is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings
on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part
of your Kindle email address below.
Find out more about saving to your Kindle.
Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations.
‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi.
‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.
This chapter begins with a discussion of the “replication crisis,” where studies are sometimes published without resources so that other researchers can replicate studies. Studies that have been retracted due to p-hacking, HARKing, or plainly falsifying data are presented. The importance of publishing data and detailing methods is discussed to improve readers’ confidence in studies and science. Students are guided through the major sections of a study proposal (introduction / literature review, planned methods, planned analysis, and discussion) and what steps are needed for each section. The American Psychological Association (APA) style is reviewed for formatting the proposal including the title page, paragraphs, citations, references, running headers, section headers, and statistical notation. The Institutional Review Board (IRB) is discussed along with common ethical considerations that are needed for a research study.
Before conducting an experiment with human subjects, researchers much consider a number of important ethical and regulatory constraints. This chapter reviews the leading ethical concerns that arise in the context of human subjects research in general and experimental research in particular. These ethical concerns have also set in motion regulations, such as The Common Rule, that researchers must follow before launching a study. The chapter concludes by discussing other professional norms, such as research transparency.
Publication bias and p-hacking are threats to the scientific credibility of experiments. If positive results are more likely to be published than null results conditional on the quality of the study design, then effect sizes in meta-analyses will be inflated and false positives will be more likely. Publication bias also has other corrosive effects as it creates incentives to engage in questionable research practices such as p-hacking. How can these issues be addressed such that the credibility of experiments is improved in political science? This chapter discusses seven specific solutions, which can be enforced by both formal institutions and informal norms.
Recommend this
Email your librarian or administrator to recommend adding this to your organisation's collection.