Literatursammlung | FeKoM -Forschungsethik in der Kommunikations- und Medienwissenschaft

Respekt

Wenn Sie die einzelnen Literatureinträge auswählen, bekommen Sie eine Zusammenfassung und weitere Informationen.

ALLEA, A. E. A. (2017). The European Code of Conduct for Research Integrity. Berlin-Brandenburg Academy of Sciences and Humanities. https://ec.europa.eu/info/funding-tenders/opportunities/docs/2021-2027/horizon/guidance/european-code-of-conduct-for-research-integrity_horizon_en.pdf

Dingwall, R., Iphofen, R., Lewis, J., Oates, J., & Emmerich, N. (2017). Towards Common Principles for Social Science Research Ethics: A Discussion Document for the Academy of Social Sciences. In R. I. FAcSS (Ed.), Advances in Research Ethics and Integrity (Vol. 1, pp. 111–123). Emerald Publishing Limited. https://doi.org/10.1108/S2398-601820170000001010

Fiesler, C., & Proferes, N. (2018). “Participant” Perceptions of Twitter Research Ethics. Social Media + Society, 4(1), 205630511876336. https://doi.org/10.1177/2056305118763366

Good, A. (2020). Disability Research Ethics. In R. Iphofen (Ed.), Handbook of Research Ethics and Scientific Integrity (p. pp 1-19). Springer Nature Switzerland AG. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-76040-7_30-1

Gorup, M. (2017). The Respect Project in the Rear-View Mirror: Past, Present and Future of International Professional and Ethics Guidelines for Social Science Research. In R. Iphofen (Ed.), Finding Common Ground: Consensus in Research Ethics Across the Social Sciences (Vol. 1, pp. 157–176). Emerald Publishing Limited. https://doi.org/10.1108/S2398-601820170000001013

Heise, N. (2015). Big Data – small problems? Ethische Dimensionen der Forschung mit Online-Kommunikationsspuren. In Digitale Methoden in der Kommunikationswissenschaft (p. pp 39-58). ifpuk - Institute for Media and Communication Studies at FU Berlin. http://www.ssoar.info/ssoar/handle/document/44045

Hunter, R. (2017). Research as a Social Practice: A Response to ‘Responsible to Whom? Obligations to Participants and Society in Social Science Research’ by Matt Sleat. In R. Iphofen (Ed.), Finding Common Ground: Consensus in Research Ethics Across the Social Sciences (Vol. 1, pp. 47–54). Emerald Publishing Limited. https://doi.org/10.1108/S2398-601820170000001005

Macdonald, S. (2017). Embedded Ethics and Research Integrity: A Response to ‘The Quest for Generic Ethics Principles in Social Science Research’ by David Carpenter. In R. Iphofen (Ed.), Finding Common Ground: Consensus in Research Ethics Across the Social Sciences (Vol. 1, pp. 29–35). Emerald Publishing Limited. https://doi.org/10.1108/S2398-601820170000001003

Resnik, D. B. (1998). The Ethics of Science: An Introduction. Taylor & Francis Group.

U.S. Department of Homeland Security Science and Technologyand Technology Directorate, Cyber Security Division Directorate, Bailey, M., Burstein, A., Claffy, K., Clayman, S., Dittrich, D., Heidemann, J., Kenneally, E., Maughan, D., McNeill, J., Neumann, P., Scheper, C., Tien, L., Papadopoulos, C., Visscher, W., & Westby, J. (2012). The Menlo Report: Ethical Principles Guiding Information and Communication Technology Research. https://www.dhs.gov/publication/st-menlo-report

Zeni, J. (2009). Ethics and the ‘Personal’ in Action Research. In B. Somekh & S. E. Noffke (Eds.), The SAGE handbook of educational action research (pp. 254–265). Sage.