Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Forschungs- und Wissenschaftsethik

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

Part of the book series: Springer-Lehrbuch ((SLB))

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

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

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(9), 30–39.

    Google Scholar 

  • APA (American Psychological Association). (2009). Publication Manual of the American Psychological Association (6th ed.). Washington, DC: APA.

    Google Scholar 

  • APA (2010). Ethical principles of psychologists and code of conduct. 2010 Amendments. Retrieved November 20, 2013, from http://www.apa.org/ethics/code/

  • 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(1), 86–88.

    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(5), 955–978.

    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 (S. 255-271). Washington, DC, US: American Psychological Association.

    Google Scholar 

  • Carpenter, S. (2012). Psychology’s bold initiative. Science, 335, 1558–1560.

    Google Scholar 

  • DFG (Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft). (1998). Sicherung guter wissenschaftlicher Praxis. Denkschrift. Abgerufen unter http://www.dfg.de/download/pdf/dfg_im_profil/reden_stellungnahmen/download/empfehlung_wiss_praxis_0198.pdf

  • DFG (2000). Task Force legt Abschlussbericht vor. Abgerufen 20. November, 2013, unter http://www.dfg.de/service/presse/pressemitteilungen/2000/pressemitteilung_nr_26/index.html

  • DGPs (Deutsche Gesellschaft für Psychologie). (2004). Revision der auf die Forschung bezogenen ethischen Richtlinien. Abgerufen 20. November, 2013, unter http://www.dgps.de/fileadmin/documents/ethikrl2004.pdf

  • Errami, M., Hicks, J. M., & Fisher, W. (2008). „Déjà vu – a study of duplicate citations in Medline“. Bioinformatics, 24(2), 243–249.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fanelli, D. (2009). How many scientists fabricate and falsify research? A systematic review and meta-analysis of survey data. PLoS ONE, 4(5).

    Google Scholar 

  • Fine, M. A. & Kurdek, L. A. (1993). Reflections on determining autorship credit and authorship order on faculty-student collaborations. American Psychologist, 48(11), 1141–1147.

    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 

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

    Google Scholar 

  • Haney, C., Banks, W. C., & Zimbardo, P. G. (1973). Study of prisoners and guards in a simulated prison. Naval Research Reviews, 9, 1–17.

    Google Scholar 

  • HRK (1998). Zum Umgang mit wissenschaftlichem Fehlverhalten in den Hochschulen. Abgerufen November 20, 2013, unter Forschungsethik http://www.hrk.de/de/beschluesse/109_422.php.

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

    Google Scholar 

  • Kaslow, F. W., Patterson, T., & Gottlieb, M. (2011). Ethical dilemmas in psychologists accessing internet data: Is it justified? Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, 42(2), 105–112.

    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(1), 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 

  • 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(4), 424–432.

    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(4), 371–378.

    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(1), 161–176.

    Google Scholar 

  • Open Science Collaboration. (2012). An open, large-scale, collaborative effort to estimate the reproducibility of psychological science. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 7(6), 657–660.

    Google Scholar 

  • Orton-Johnson, K. (2010). Ethics in Online Research; Evaluating the ESRC Framework for Research Ethics Categorisation of Risk. 15(4), 13. Retrieved November 20, 2013, from http://www.socresonline.org.uk/15/4/13.html

    Google Scholar 

  • 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(6), 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(3), 57–65.

    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 Umgang mit Plagiaten. Forschung und Lehre, 222–223.

    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 

  • 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(1), 39–50.

    Google Scholar 

  • The GUSTO Investigators (1993). An international randomized trail comparing four thrombolytic strategies for acute myocardial infarction. The New England Journal of Medicine. Retrieved November 20, 2013, from http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJM199309023291001

  • Weltärztebund (WMA). (2008). Deklaration von Helsinki – Ethische Grundsätze für die medizinische Forschung am Menschen. Abgerufen 25. November, 2013, unter http://www.bundesaerztekammer.de/downloads/deklHelsinki2008.pdf.

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Institut für Medien und Kommunikationswissenschaft, Technische Universität Ilmenau, Ehrenbergstraße 29, 98693, Ilmenau, Thüringen, Deutschland

    Nicola Döring

  2. (1943─2007), Berlin, Berlin, Deutschland

    Jürgen Bortz

Authors
  1. Nicola Döring
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Jürgen Bortz
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2016 Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Döring, N., Bortz, J. (2016). Forschungs- und Wissenschaftsethik. In: Forschungsmethoden und Evaluation in den Sozial- und Humanwissenschaften. Springer-Lehrbuch. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-41089-5_4

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-41089-5_4

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-642-41088-8

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-642-41089-5

  • eBook Packages: Psychology (German Language)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation