Random sampling.
Theoretical studies.
Reference | Country | Date | Aim (s) | Methodology | Main Findings |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
[ ] | United States | 2011 | Define the concept of a networked label and include guidelines to ensure that electronic communication takes place in an appropriate and polite manner. | Theoretical article | Different guidelines are set out to encourage written communication via e-mail. Some of them are: to use grammar and punctuation correctly, to avoid excessive use of abbreviations and acronyms, to use emoticons only, not to use the “high priority” option, to use a signature with personal contact information, to use spaces to avoid long messages, to avoid always using capital letters, to enter correctly and include a well-defined subject, to avoid sending sensitive information by e-mail, to avoid writing during other interactions. |
[ ] | United States | 1997 | Attempt to collect and develop standard label guidelines in the context of a global Internet. | Literature review | The term netiquette has been described for e-mails and Internet use. A collection of authors is made on patterns of behavior on the Internet, specific suggestions, rules of network etiquette for advertising, control of undesirable network etiquette, the influence of Internet services, employees, and governments. |
[ ] | United Kingdom | 1995 | Identify, present and digest some of the main patterns of netiquette | Literature review | The article presents different guidelines contained in different publications based on a total of 20: focus on objective, short and concise messages, edit your quotes, write grammatically correct, consider expressive typography, sign your messages, think where you want to go, mistakes can last forever, know the acronyms, don’t talk to a computer, don’t write in capital letters, try another kind of humor, think before you write, respect intellectual rights, be polite to newcomers, solve the necessary in private, be an ethical user, don’t damage the network, be proud of what you post, there is no rule 20. |
[ ] | United States | 2004 | Present guidelines to alleviate problems in communication through email or phone calls. | Theoretical article | It presents 15 guidelines for personal writing of emails (always include a subject in the message, do not use capital letters, use appropriate language, use emoticons,...) and 11 guidelines for sending emails in distribution lists or groups (publish only what is relevant to the group, ask questions or comments without losing the focus of discussion, give feedback when you can, ask permission before sending large proposals to the organizer or moderator). |
[ ] | United States/Canada | 2002 | Presenting some guidelines for e-mail etiquette. | Theoretical article | Different issues are presented in relation to e-mail: characteristics (backup, password protection, network and control systems, the threat of viruses, legal implications), risks (visual importance, avoid too much content, include emoticons, be careful with abbreviations), other risks (do not send negative information without notice, indicate response or delivery deadlines, use CC or Bcc) and practices to follow (be brief and concise, include a suitable subject, include a signature at the end, consider quoting a message or writing a new one, don’t send mass mailings, separate your personal mail from the professional one, keep your distribution lists updated, don’t open a mail if you don’t trust the source, don’t forget to say hello and goodbye. |
[ ] | United States | 2018 | To provide the tools to avoid problems in electronic communication through email. | Theoretical article | It provides different guidelines regarding network behavior (basic rules such as using a professional email in a professional context, including subject, being concise, responding quickly, or forwarding emails only with permission). Also what not to do (offensive language, using capital letters, or avoiding emoticons in professional contexts), the negative impact (virtual empathy). It includes netiquette guidelines for an online learning environment, case studies, “the golden rules of netiquette” and the importance of positive communication. |
[ ] | United States | 2011 | Provide a total of 50 rules for network etiquette for e-mail. Intended for employees in medical practice. | Theoretical article | It turns out to be a compilation of different guidelines, what to do and what not to do, regarding e-mail in the professional medical context. Some examples are: be concise, avoid long sentences, use templates, use a contact signature, protect the privacy of others, turn off the automatic reply, respect confidentiality, do not abuse the “high priority” option, do not write everything in capital letters, do not remember messages, do not ask for too much, do not use abbreviations, do not expect privacy when using a work email, etc. |
[ ] | United States | 2000 | Guidelines for the use of appropriate distribution lists by nurses in their professional context | Theoretical article | Different ethical and practical issues for the use of distribution lists in the context of nursing are presented. Respect the ethical code (maintain privacy, provide information and sources for ethical decisions, incorporate legislative framework), avoid unethical messages (ask questions), consider Internet privacy, practical suggestions (do not leave your email account open and go away, sign your message, do not incorporate advertising, do not publish institutional messages without permission, do not write disrespectful or insensitive messages). |
[ ] | United Kingdom | 2002 | Expose the importance of confidentiality among librarians and users in the face of the attraction of new technologies. | Theoretical article | Taking as a reference to a study by Loughborough University, which exposed the confidence of users and the poor preparation of librarians, a series of ethical reflections are raised. The development of specific users in libraries, individuality and privacy, access to the Internet and the individual, punishment, harassment, handling information, and making good policies. |
Conceptualization, P.L.-O., A.-J.M.-G., and M.M.-M.; methodology, M.M.-M. and P.L.-O.; software, A.-J.M.-G. and P.L.-O.; validation, A.-J.M.-G.; formal analysis, R.S.-C.; investigation, M.M.-M., A.-J.M.-G., R.S.-C., and P.L.-O.; data curation, A.-J.M.-G., M.M.-M., and R.S.-C.; writing—original draft preparation, M.M.-M., A.-J.M.-G., R.S.-C., and P.L.-O.; writing—review and editing, M.M.-M., A.-J.M.-G., R.S.-C., and P.L.-O.; visualization R.S.-C.; supervision, M.M.-M. and P.L.-O. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.
This research received no external funding.
The authors declare no conflict of interest.
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Run a free plagiarism check in 10 minutes, generate accurate citations for free.
Methodology
Published on October 18, 2021 by Pritha Bhandari . Revised on May 9, 2024.
Ethical considerations in research are a set of principles that guide your research designs and practices. Scientists and researchers must always adhere to a certain code of conduct when collecting data from people.
The goals of human research often include understanding real-life phenomena, studying effective treatments, investigating behaviors, and improving lives in other ways. What you decide to research and how you conduct that research involve key ethical considerations.
These considerations work to
Why do research ethics matter, getting ethical approval for your study, types of ethical issues, voluntary participation, informed consent, confidentiality, potential for harm, results communication, examples of ethical failures, other interesting articles, frequently asked questions about research ethics.
Research ethics matter for scientific integrity, human rights and dignity, and collaboration between science and society. These principles make sure that participation in studies is voluntary, informed, and safe for research subjects.
You’ll balance pursuing important research objectives with using ethical research methods and procedures. It’s always necessary to prevent permanent or excessive harm to participants, whether inadvertent or not.
Defying research ethics will also lower the credibility of your research because it’s hard for others to trust your data if your methods are morally questionable.
Even if a research idea is valuable to society, it doesn’t justify violating the human rights or dignity of your study participants.
Professional editors proofread and edit your paper by focusing on:
See an example
Before you start any study involving data collection with people, you’ll submit your research proposal to an institutional review board (IRB) .
An IRB is a committee that checks whether your research aims and research design are ethically acceptable and follow your institution’s code of conduct. They check that your research materials and procedures are up to code.
If successful, you’ll receive IRB approval, and you can begin collecting data according to the approved procedures. If you want to make any changes to your procedures or materials, you’ll need to submit a modification application to the IRB for approval.
If unsuccessful, you may be asked to re-submit with modifications or your research proposal may receive a rejection. To get IRB approval, it’s important to explicitly note how you’ll tackle each of the ethical issues that may arise in your study.
There are several ethical issues you should always pay attention to in your research design, and these issues can overlap with each other.
You’ll usually outline ways you’ll deal with each issue in your research proposal if you plan to collect data from participants.
Voluntary participation | Your participants are free to opt in or out of the study at any point in time. |
---|---|
Informed consent | Participants know the purpose, benefits, risks, and funding behind the study before they agree or decline to join. |
Anonymity | You don’t know the identities of the participants. Personally identifiable data is not collected. |
Confidentiality | You know who the participants are but you keep that information hidden from everyone else. You anonymize personally identifiable data so that it can’t be linked to other data by anyone else. |
Potential for harm | Physical, social, psychological and all other types of harm are kept to an absolute minimum. |
Results communication | You ensure your work is free of or research misconduct, and you accurately represent your results. |
Voluntary participation means that all research subjects are free to choose to participate without any pressure or coercion.
All participants are able to withdraw from, or leave, the study at any point without feeling an obligation to continue. Your participants don’t need to provide a reason for leaving the study.
It’s important to make it clear to participants that there are no negative consequences or repercussions to their refusal to participate. After all, they’re taking the time to help you in the research process , so you should respect their decisions without trying to change their minds.
Voluntary participation is an ethical principle protected by international law and many scientific codes of conduct.
Take special care to ensure there’s no pressure on participants when you’re working with vulnerable groups of people who may find it hard to stop the study even when they want to.
Informed consent refers to a situation in which all potential participants receive and understand all the information they need to decide whether they want to participate. This includes information about the study’s benefits, risks, funding, and institutional approval.
You make sure to provide all potential participants with all the relevant information about
Usually, you’ll provide participants with a text for them to read and ask them if they have any questions. If they agree to participate, they can sign or initial the consent form. Note that this may not be sufficient for informed consent when you work with particularly vulnerable groups of people.
If you’re collecting data from people with low literacy, make sure to verbally explain the consent form to them before they agree to participate.
For participants with very limited English proficiency, you should always translate the study materials or work with an interpreter so they have all the information in their first language.
In research with children, you’ll often need informed permission for their participation from their parents or guardians. Although children cannot give informed consent, it’s best to also ask for their assent (agreement) to participate, depending on their age and maturity level.
Anonymity means that you don’t know who the participants are and you can’t link any individual participant to their data.
You can only guarantee anonymity by not collecting any personally identifying information—for example, names, phone numbers, email addresses, IP addresses, physical characteristics, photos, and videos.
In many cases, it may be impossible to truly anonymize data collection . For example, data collected in person or by phone cannot be considered fully anonymous because some personal identifiers (demographic information or phone numbers) are impossible to hide.
You’ll also need to collect some identifying information if you give your participants the option to withdraw their data at a later stage.
Data pseudonymization is an alternative method where you replace identifying information about participants with pseudonymous, or fake, identifiers. The data can still be linked to participants but it’s harder to do so because you separate personal information from the study data.
Confidentiality means that you know who the participants are, but you remove all identifying information from your report.
All participants have a right to privacy, so you should protect their personal data for as long as you store or use it. Even when you can’t collect data anonymously, you should secure confidentiality whenever you can.
Some research designs aren’t conducive to confidentiality, but it’s important to make all attempts and inform participants of the risks involved.
As a researcher, you have to consider all possible sources of harm to participants. Harm can come in many different forms.
It’s best to consider every possible source of harm in your study as well as concrete ways to mitigate them. Involve your supervisor to discuss steps for harm reduction.
Make sure to disclose all possible risks of harm to participants before the study to get informed consent. If there is a risk of harm, prepare to provide participants with resources or counseling or medical services if needed.
Some of these questions may bring up negative emotions, so you inform participants about the sensitive nature of the survey and assure them that their responses will be confidential.
The way you communicate your research results can sometimes involve ethical issues. Good science communication is honest, reliable, and credible. It’s best to make your results as transparent as possible.
Take steps to actively avoid plagiarism and research misconduct wherever possible.
Plagiarism means submitting others’ works as your own. Although it can be unintentional, copying someone else’s work without proper credit amounts to stealing. It’s an ethical problem in research communication because you may benefit by harming other researchers.
Self-plagiarism is when you republish or re-submit parts of your own papers or reports without properly citing your original work.
This is problematic because you may benefit from presenting your ideas as new and original even though they’ve already been published elsewhere in the past. You may also be infringing on your previous publisher’s copyright, violating an ethical code, or wasting time and resources by doing so.
In extreme cases of self-plagiarism, entire datasets or papers are sometimes duplicated. These are major ethical violations because they can skew research findings if taken as original data.
You notice that two published studies have similar characteristics even though they are from different years. Their sample sizes, locations, treatments, and results are highly similar, and the studies share one author in common.
Research misconduct means making up or falsifying data, manipulating data analyses, or misrepresenting results in research reports. It’s a form of academic fraud.
These actions are committed intentionally and can have serious consequences; research misconduct is not a simple mistake or a point of disagreement about data analyses.
Research misconduct is a serious ethical issue because it can undermine academic integrity and institutional credibility. It leads to a waste of funding and resources that could have been used for alternative research.
Later investigations revealed that they fabricated and manipulated their data to show a nonexistent link between vaccines and autism. Wakefield also neglected to disclose important conflicts of interest, and his medical license was taken away.
This fraudulent work sparked vaccine hesitancy among parents and caregivers. The rate of MMR vaccinations in children fell sharply, and measles outbreaks became more common due to a lack of herd immunity.
Research scandals with ethical failures are littered throughout history, but some took place not that long ago.
Some scientists in positions of power have historically mistreated or even abused research participants to investigate research problems at any cost. These participants were prisoners, under their care, or otherwise trusted them to treat them with dignity.
To demonstrate the importance of research ethics, we’ll briefly review two research studies that violated human rights in modern history.
These experiments were inhumane and resulted in trauma, permanent disabilities, or death in many cases.
After some Nazi doctors were put on trial for their crimes, the Nuremberg Code of research ethics for human experimentation was developed in 1947 to establish a new standard for human experimentation in medical research.
In reality, the actual goal was to study the effects of the disease when left untreated, and the researchers never informed participants about their diagnoses or the research aims.
Although participants experienced severe health problems, including blindness and other complications, the researchers only pretended to provide medical care.
When treatment became possible in 1943, 11 years after the study began, none of the participants were offered it, despite their health conditions and high risk of death.
Ethical failures like these resulted in severe harm to participants, wasted resources, and lower trust in science and scientists. This is why all research institutions have strict ethical guidelines for performing research.
If you want to know more about statistics , methodology , or research bias , make sure to check out some of our other articles with explanations and examples.
Research bias
Ethical considerations in research are a set of principles that guide your research designs and practices. These principles include voluntary participation, informed consent, anonymity, confidentiality, potential for harm, and results communication.
Scientists and researchers must always adhere to a certain code of conduct when collecting data from others .
These considerations protect the rights of research participants, enhance research validity , and maintain scientific integrity.
Research ethics matter for scientific integrity, human rights and dignity, and collaboration between science and society. These principles make sure that participation in studies is voluntary, informed, and safe.
Anonymity means you don’t know who the participants are, while confidentiality means you know who they are but remove identifying information from your research report. Both are important ethical considerations .
You can only guarantee anonymity by not collecting any personally identifying information—for example, names, phone numbers, email addresses, IP addresses, physical characteristics, photos, or videos.
You can keep data confidential by using aggregate information in your research report, so that you only refer to groups of participants rather than individuals.
These actions are committed intentionally and can have serious consequences; research misconduct is not a simple mistake or a point of disagreement but a serious ethical failure.
If you want to cite this source, you can copy and paste the citation or click the “Cite this Scribbr article” button to automatically add the citation to our free Citation Generator.
Bhandari, P. (2024, May 09). Ethical Considerations in Research | Types & Examples. Scribbr. Retrieved July 26, 2024, from https://www.scribbr.com/methodology/research-ethics/
Other students also liked, data collection | definition, methods & examples, what is self-plagiarism | definition & how to avoid it, how to avoid plagiarism | tips on citing sources, "i thought ai proofreading was useless but..".
I've been using Scribbr for years now and I know it's a service that won't disappoint. It does a good job spotting mistakes”
You are accessing a machine-readable page. In order to be human-readable, please install an RSS reader.
All articles published by MDPI are made immediately available worldwide under an open access license. No special permission is required to reuse all or part of the article published by MDPI, including figures and tables. For articles published under an open access Creative Common CC BY license, any part of the article may be reused without permission provided that the original article is clearly cited. For more information, please refer to https://www.mdpi.com/openaccess .
Feature papers represent the most advanced research with significant potential for high impact in the field. A Feature Paper should be a substantial original Article that involves several techniques or approaches, provides an outlook for future research directions and describes possible research applications.
Feature papers are submitted upon individual invitation or recommendation by the scientific editors and must receive positive feedback from the reviewers.
Editor’s Choice articles are based on recommendations by the scientific editors of MDPI journals from around the world. Editors select a small number of articles recently published in the journal that they believe will be particularly interesting to readers, or important in the respective research area. The aim is to provide a snapshot of some of the most exciting work published in the various research areas of the journal.
Original Submission Date Received: .
Find support for a specific problem in the support section of our website.
Please let us know what you think of our products and services.
Visit our dedicated information section to learn more about MDPI.
Mapping the terrain of open innovation in consumer research: insights and directions from bibliometrics.
2. literature review, 3. materials and methods, 3.1. data processing, 3.2. data analysis, 4.1. content analysis, 4.1.1. decades of knowledge transfer, 4.1.2. analysis of the primary sources of publications and citations, 4.1.3. journal analysis, 4.1.4. author analysis, 4.1.5. most-relevant-keyword analysis, 4.2. descriptive analysis of the bibliographic data, 4.2.1. co-occurrence, 4.2.2. descriptive co-citation, 4.2.3. authorship connection, 5. discussion, 5.1. current trends in open innovation research: focus on consumer behavior, 5.2. an exploration and analysis of co-occurring terms, 5.3. the future of exploring complex relationships: oi and consumer behavior, 5.3.1. emerging trends and gaps in open innovation research, 5.3.2. identifying future research directions in open innovation: insights and examples, 6. conclusions, author contributions, institutional review board statement, informed consent statement, data availability statement, conflicts of interest.
Click here to enlarge figure
Year | TP | TC | TC/TP | Year | TP | TC | TC/TP |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
2005 | 1 | 495 | 495.00 | 2015 | 12 | 449 | 37.44 |
2006 | 0 | 0 | 0.00 | 2016 | 10 | 221 | 22.10 |
2007 | 1 | 0 | 0.00 | 2017 | 12 | 461 | 53.42 |
2008 | 4 | 460 | 115.00 | 2018 | 14 | 530 | 37.86 |
2009 | 7 | 727 | 103.86 | 2019 | 10 | 185 | 18.50 |
2010 | 2 | 106 | 53.00 | 2020 | 12 | 289 | 21.58 |
2011 | 5 | 223 | 44.60 | 2021 | 28 | 303 | 10.82 |
2012 | 4 | 160 | 40.00 | 2022 | 22 | 141 | 6.41 |
2013 | 9 | 175 | 19.44 | 2023 | 19 | 43 | 2.26 |
2014 | 9 | 389 | 43.22 | 2024 | 3 | 0 | 0.00 |
Source Title | TP(R) | TP (%) | TC(R) | TC/TP | Q |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Journal of Open Innovation: Technology, Market, and Complexity | 31(1) | 16.85% | 384(3) | 12.39 | 1 (97th) |
Sustainability (Switzerland) | 10(2) | 5.43% | 194(4) | 19.40 | 1 (87th) |
British Food Journal | 7(3) | 3.80% | 122(7) | 17.43 | 2 (74th) |
Journal of Cleaner Production | 4(4) | 2.17% | 182(5) | 45.50 | 1 (99th) |
Technological Forecasting and Social Change | 4(5) | 2.17% | 175(6) | 43.75 | 1 (98th) |
IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management | 3(6) | 1.63% | 22(9) | 7.33 | 1 (84th) |
International Journal of Knowledge Management | 3(7) | 1.63% | 18(10) | 6.00 | 2 (63th) |
International Journal of Technology Marketing | 3(8) | 1.63% | 53(8) | 17.67 | 4 (26th) |
Journal of Product Innovation Management | 3(9) | 1.63% | 563(2) | 187.67 | 1 (96th) |
Research Policy | 3(10) | 1.63% | 760(1) | 253.33 | 1 (98th) |
R | CF | Authors | TP | Title | Journal | Y |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
1 | 492 | Christensen, J.F., Olesen, M.H., Kjær, J.S. | 1 | The industrial dynamics of Open Innovation - Evidence from the transformation of consumer electronics [ ] | Research Policy, | 2005 |
2 | 467 | Füller, J., Mühlbacher, H., Matzler, Jawecki, G. | 3 * | Consumer empowerment through internet-based co-creation [ ] | Journal of Management Information Systems | 2009 |
3 | 440 | Füller, J., Matzler, K., Hoppe, M. | 1 | Brand community members as a source of innovation [ ] | Journal of Product Innovation Management | 2008 |
4 | 260 | Nambisan, S., Siegel, D., Kenney, M. | 1 | On open innovation, platforms, and entrepreneurship [ ] | Strategic Entrepreneurship Journal | 2018 |
5 | 217 | Kohler, T., Matzler, K., Füller, J. * | 1 | Avatar-based innovation: Using virtual worlds for real-world innovation [ ] | Technovation, | 2009 |
6 | 199 | Stanko M.A.; Henard D.H. | 1 | Toward a better understanding of crowdfunding, openness, and the consequences for innovation [ ] | Research Policy | 2017 |
7 | 117 | Wilden R.; Akaka M.A.; Karpen I.O.; Hohberger J. | 1 | The Evolution and Prospects of Service-Dominant Logic: An Investigation of Past, Present, and Future Research [ ] | Journal of Service Research | 2017 |
8 | 111 | Kohler T. | 1 | Crowdsourcing-based business models: How to create and capture value [ ] | California Management Review | 2015 |
9 | 107 | Kohler T.; Fueller J.; Stieger D.; Matzler K. | 1 | Avatar-based innovation: Consequences of the virtual co-creation experience [ ] | Computers in Human Behavior | 2011 |
10 | 106 | Wolfert J.; Verdouw C.N.; Verloop C.M.; Beulens A.J.M. | 1 | Organizing information integration in agri-food-A method based on a service-oriented architecture and living lab approach [ ] | Computers and Electronics in Agriculture | 2010 |
R | Country | TLS | D | C | R | Country | TLS | D | C |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
1 | United Kingdom | 23 | 24 | 558 | 16 | Thailand | 5 | 6 | 89 |
2 | United States | 21 | 32 | 1495 | 17 | Australia | 4 | 4 | 141 |
3 | Italy | 13 | 16 | 330 | 18 | Israel | 4 | 3 | 88 |
4 | France | 11 | 9 | 118 | 19 | Netherlands | 4 | 5 | 169 |
5 | Russian Federation | 9 | 9 | 57 | 20 | Republic of Korea | 4 | 7 | 134 |
6 | Germany | 8 | 19 | 707 | 21 | Sweden | 3 | 3 | 52 |
7 | Indonesia | 7 | 7 | 97 | 22 | Switzerland | 3 | 3 | 101 |
8 | Spain | 7 | 14 | 242 | 23 | China | 2 | 12 | 183 |
9 | Austria | 6 | 8 | 1437 | 24 | Hungary | 2 | 3 | 23 |
10 | Canada | 6 | 5 | 203 | 25 | Mexico | 2 | 3 | 23 |
11 | Denmark | 6 | 4 | 641 | 26 | Portugal | 2 | 3 | 3 |
12 | India | 6 | 3 | 28 | 27 | Romania | 2 | 3 | 30 |
13 | Philippines | 6 | 3 | 49 | 28 | Ukraine | 2 | 3 | 16 |
14 | Poland | 5 | 7 | 39 | 29 | Brazil | 1 | 3 | 24 |
15 | Taiwan | 5 | 5 | 25 | 30 | Finland | 1 | 5 | 192 |
OI and Cons | Scope of Research | Questioning Idea |
---|---|---|
Effective Consumer Engagement Strategies | ||
Cultural and Contextual Factors | ||
Integration of Offline and Online Channels | ||
Ethical Considerations and Consumer Privacy | ||
Consumer Co-Creation Platforms | ||
Empowering Marginalized and Underrepresented Consumers | ||
Consumer Learning and Knowledge Transfer | ||
Consumer Insights and Analytics | ||
Personalization and Customization | ||
Community Engagement and Brand Advocacy | ||
Lack of Leadership Support and Alignment | ||
Trust and Relationship Building |
The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content. |
Siriwong, C.; Pongsakornrungsilp, S.; Pongsakornrungsilp, P.; Kumar, V. Mapping the Terrain of Open Innovation in Consumer Research: Insights and Directions from Bibliometrics. Sustainability 2024 , 16 , 6283. https://doi.org/10.3390/su16156283
Siriwong C, Pongsakornrungsilp S, Pongsakornrungsilp P, Kumar V. Mapping the Terrain of Open Innovation in Consumer Research: Insights and Directions from Bibliometrics. Sustainability . 2024; 16(15):6283. https://doi.org/10.3390/su16156283
Siriwong, Chukiat, Siwarit Pongsakornrungsilp, Pimlapas Pongsakornrungsilp, and Vikas Kumar. 2024. "Mapping the Terrain of Open Innovation in Consumer Research: Insights and Directions from Bibliometrics" Sustainability 16, no. 15: 6283. https://doi.org/10.3390/su16156283
Article access statistics, further information, mdpi initiatives, follow mdpi.
Subscribe to receive issue release notifications and newsletters from MDPI journals
Two professors from Oakland University William Beaumont School of Medicine have each achieved the faculty rank of Dean’s Distinguished Professor.
The Oakland University Board of Trustees approved the title changes recommended by Oakland University President Ora Hirsch Pescovitz, M.D., at its regular meeting on June 28, 2024.
Nelia Afonso, M.D., professor, and Jason Wasserman, Ph.D., professor — both from OUWB’s Department of Foundational Medical Studies — each received the title.
“This prestigious recognition is not merely a personal achievement but a testament to the collaborative efforts of our academic community,” said Afonso.
Wasserman shared similar thoughts.
“The thing that means the most to me is that it was the result of a nomination of at least 10 of my colleagues,” he said. “It’s a really nice honor.”
The rank of Dean’s Distinguished Professor was established in 2021 upon approval from the OU Provost and the OU Assistant Vice President of Academic Human Resources. It’s a permanent, honorific title that acknowledges contributions of employed, full-time, tenured faculty at the rank of professor.
According to the recommendations from Pescovitz, the designation “shall be afforded to awardees who have superior teaching skills that encompass the breadth and depth of their discipline, a distinguished record of public service, and scholarly, creative, and artistic achievements.”
‘Truly been a privilege’
Sarah Lerchenfeldt, Pharm.D., associate professor and interim co-chair, Department of Foundational Medical Studies, nominated Afonso.
In her nomination, Lerchenfeldt said Afonso “exemplifies the criteria” for the title.
“Since joining OUWB as a founding faculty member, she has demonstrated unparalleled dedication to medical education, significantly enhancing both the academic and practical aspects of these fields,” wrote Lerchenfeldt.
The nomination noted Afonso’s scholarly excellence, particularly in the domains of education, clinical skills, women’s health, and vaccine hesitancy. Lerchenfeldt said that Afonso was principal investigator for the Merck Investigator Studies program project called “Promoting Vaccine Confidence in Medical and Dental Students.” The project secured about $179,000 in funding.
The nomination also pointed to Afonso’s efforts to develop and refine the curriculum for OUWB’s Art and Practice of Medicine (APM) course, previous awards she received, commitment to service, and leadership roles with organizations like the Southeast Michigan Center for Medical Education.
“Dr. Afonso’s tenure at OUWB has been marked by a commitment to advancing medical education, research, and community health,” wrote Lerchenfeldt. “Her work not only reflects the values and mission of our institution, but also sets a benchmark for academic and professional excellence.”
Afonso said it has “truly been a privilege” to receive the title.
“I have been fortunate to be part of this medical school since its inception and I am grateful for the numerous opportunities provided that have fostered my growth as a physician, educator, and researcher,” she said. “I appreciate the dedication and commitment of our faculty and staff, whose support has been instrumental in implementing various curricular innovations.”
‘Invaluable member of OUWB faculty’
Wasserman , who joined OUWB in 2013, was nominated by a group of 10 other faculty from the Department of Foundational Medical Studies.
They called him a “prolific and influential scholar” on several topics: homelessness, clinical bioethics, and Holocaust medicine.
“His scholarship and research range from core bioethics topics, such as autonomy and informed consent, to empirical research and qualitative inquiry into homelessness and medical ethics,” they wrote, and noted that he has published three books, 12 book chapters and supplements, 64 peer-reviewed journal articles, 22 editor-reviewed articles, and seven invited articles.
“Dr. Wasserman’s extensively cited research has contributed to important debates surrounding ethics in medical education, care for homeless individuals, pediatric ethical concerns, euthanasia, the rights of patients without decision-making capacity, and immunization policy,” wrote the nominators.
They also noted Wasserman’s roles in shaping the Medical Humanities and Clinical Bioethics (MHCB) curriculum, replacing traditional essay assignments with extemporaneous self-reflection videos, development of interactive iBooks, serving as a mentor to more than 50 OUWB students for their Embark projects, and developing a national training course in bioethics for the Arnold P. Gold Foundation.
The nominators also mentioned Wasserman’s history of service. In 2020, he was appointed as one of only two Provost Fellows for Faculty Diversity at Oakland University. In 2022, he was honored with the OU Founder’s Day Award for Faculty Excellence in Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion. He also chaired the admissions committee for five years, served as director of student professionalism for nine years, co-founded Street Medicine Oakland , launched the Center for Moral Values in Health Medicine, and more.
And he has plans to do even more, including launching a new student-led journal on ethics, humanities, and social justice, and a health care ethics debate tournament that will be open to all OU students.
“One of the reasons I came to OUWB was because it was a new school and there was a lot of opportunity to be entrepreneurial,” he said. “I didn’t want to go to some well-established place where the expectation is you teach your courses, you write papers, and otherwise just let things run.”
For more information, contact Andrew Dietderich, senior marketing specialist, OUWB, at [email protected] .
To request an interview, visit the OUWB Communications & Marketing webpage .
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License .
Sergio Martínez-Beltrán
Jasmine Garsd
Vice President Kamala Harris, center, along with Department of Homeland Security Secretary, Alejandro Mayorkas, Rep. Veronica Escobar, a Democrat from Texas, and Sen. Dick Durbin, a Democrat from Illinois, tour a U.S. Customs and Border Protection facility in El Paso, Texas, U.S., in June 2021. Bloomberg/via Getty Images hide caption
As Vice President Kamala Harris works to secure the presidential nomination of the Democratic Party next month, her role on immigration policy is now in the spotlight.
Minutes after the President Joe Biden announced he was dropping out of the race and was endorsing Harris, Republicans started attacking her record on immigration and border policy.
“Joe Biden has now endorsed and fully supports his ‘Borders Czar’ Kamala Harris to be the Democrat candidate for president,” Gov. Greg Abbott, R-Texas, posted on X . “I think I will need to triple the border wall, razor wire barriers and National Guard on the border.”
Conservatives have often referred to Harris as the Biden administration’s "Border Czar," incorrectly claiming she was tasked with repairing the border.
“Kamala had one job,” said Nikki Haley earlier this month at the Republican National Convention. “One job. And that was to fix the border. Now imagine her in charge of the entire country.”
In reality, that was not Harris’ job.
She was tasked by Biden in 2021 to examine the root causes of migration from Central America, including poverty, violence, and corruption. At that time, unauthorized migration came primarily from Mexico and Central America.
She was never tapped to head immigration policy, which is the responsibility of Homeland Security Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas, who oversees all agencies in charge of the enforcement of immigration laws.
Three years later, this role could be Harris’ Achilles' heel. Her role in pushing for Biden’s immigration proposals have disenchanted Democrats and immigrant rights groups.
“I do think there is an opportunity here for Vice President Harris to have a more hopeful message around immigration than even the Biden administration has had in the past,” said Adriel Orozco, a senior policy counsel with the American Immigration Council.
Biden’s policy proposals have included severely restricting most asylum claims at the border and expediting the removal of unauthorized migrants, something immigrant rights groups have opposed.
Suyapa Portillo, a professor of Chicano/a-Latino/a Transnational Studies at Pitzer College, says Harris should try to separate herself from the Biden administration’s “slow move towards immigration reform,” and from the message of deterrence that “represents that conservatism from the Biden administration and the Democratic Party — the old guard.”
Vice President Kamala Harris speaks from the South Lawn of the White House in Washington on Monday during an event with NCAA college athletes. This was her first public appearance since President Joe Biden endorsed her to be the next presidential nominee of the Democratic Party. Susan Walsh/AP hide caption
If Harris secures the presidential nomination, she will be facing a very different immigration landscape than back in 2021, when she was tasked with addressing its root causes.
Last year, unauthorized crossings at the U.S.-Mexico border hit an all-time high. In December 2023, the number of encounters reached nearly 250,000, according to U.S. Customs and Border Protection.
For the last four months, the number of migrants trying to cross illegally has dramatically dropped. That’s due in part due to Mexico’s enforcement, and Biden’s policies, which include severely restricting most asylum claims at the border .
But migration has diversified in the last few years. There is an unprecedented crisis of global displacement. When Harris was elected in 2020, 90% of immigration hailed from Mexico and Central America, according to an analysis by the Migration Policy Institute .
In 2023, only 49 percent of the encounters were with migrants from those four countries.
Today, immigrants arriving at the US Mexico border are fleeing from the crisis in Venezuela, the war in Ukraine and cartel violence in Ecuador, just to name a few.
Harris’ record on immigration has been marred by policy blunders.
Her first international trip as vice president made clear her approach on immigration: addressing root causes to stop illegal migration.
In the summer of 2021, she traveled to Guatemala to meet with then-President Alejandro Giammattei. In a speech, she said that the Biden administration was committed to helping Guatemalans find “hope at home.”
But she also warned prospective migrants.
“I want to be clear to folks in this region who are thinking about making that dangerous trek to the United States-Mexico border,” Harris said. “Do not come. Do not come.”
Those three words: Do not come, were seen by many as a blunder . Latino advocates criticized the statement as paternalistic and tone-deaf, given the violent crises rattling the region.
For many immigrant advocates, that statement continues to haunt Harris’ candidacy.
“She needs to separate from Biden,” Portillo says. “She needs to speak to TPS holders and DACA holders for a plan for legalization, and a border plan that does not include throwing children in jail.”
But Harris has maintained that deterrence is essential: last year she announced $950 million in pledges from private companies to support Central American communities.
Judith Browne Dianis, the executive director of the D.C.-based civil rights organization Advancement Project, says Harris will now have to explain how she would tackle immigration if she were elected president.
“Is it a humanitarian response, or is there a criminalization response?” Dianis says. “We don’t need more criminalization. We don’t need a border wall. We need to get to the root causes. We need to make sure that people are taken care of.”
In early June 2021, Harris came under fire for not visiting the border. In an interview with NBC News , she was asked about Republican critiques.
“And I haven’t been to Europe,” Harris fired back. “I mean, I don’t understand the point that you are making.”
Her response was criticized by conservatives as disconnected and flippant towards border communities and agencies which have felt overwhelmed by the influx of migrants in recent years.
Harris’ first trip to the border came later that month, to El Paso, Texas. At a press conference there, she stated that migration “cannot be reduced to a political issue. We’re talking about children, we’re talking about families, we are talking about suffering.”
Earlier this year, Harris backed a Biden-endorsed bipartisan bill on border enforcement.
The measure would have added immigration detention beds, increased the number of U.S. Customs and Border Protection personnel and asylum officers, and funded technology to detect fentanyl smuggling at the Southern border. It passed in the Senate but failed to move forward after former President Donald Trump urged House Republicans to kill it.
But for many immigration advocates, Harris is their candidate.
Kerri Talbot, the executive director of the national advocacy organization Immigration Hub, called Harris a “strong defender and champion of American families, including their immigrant family members” in a statement Sunday.
“We have no doubt that she can step up to the challenge, counter Trump and JD Vance’s rhetoric and dark vision for democracy, and protect the progress we’ve made while delivering transformative change for our immigration system,” Talbot said.
But Harris involvement with immigration goes way beyond her vice presidency, and her actions show a shift in policies.
When she was the district attorney in San Francisco, she backed a city policy that turned over to federal immigration authorities migrant juveniles suspected of committing a felony. In 2019, Harris’ campaign told CNN “this policy could have been applied more fairly.”
But as California’s attorney general, she had a different stance. In a 2015 interview with CBS Los Angeles, Harris said, “Unfortunately, I know what crime looks like. I know what a criminal looks like who's committing a crime. An undocumented immigrant is not a criminal.”
Harris became U.S. senator from California in 2017.
She was part of a Senate hearing on the Trump administration’s highly controversial separation policy, in which undocumented migrant children were separated from their parents at the U.S.-Mexico border, as a form of immigration deterrence. She questioned Trump officials, and said separating families can cause “irreparable harm.”
In 2019, she and several other Democratic senators reintroduced the Reunite Every Unaccompanied Newborn Infant, Toddler and Other Children Expeditiously (REUNITE) Act , “to expedite the reunification of separated immigrant families and promote humane alternatives for asylum-seeking immigrant families.”
When she ran for president in 2019, Harris unveiled an immigration plan that called for a path to citizenship for recipients of Deferred Action on Childhood Arrivals program, best known as DACA.
That’s similar to what the Biden-Harris campaign promised when they run in 2020. However, none of that has happened during the administration.
IMAGES
VIDEO
COMMENTS
This document introduces Internet Research Ethics (IRE) 3.0. We begin with a review of the AoIR ethical approaches and guidelines that we now designate as IRE 1.0 (Ess and the AoIR ethics working committee, 2002) and IRE 2.0 (Buchanan, 2011, p. 102; Markham & Buchanan, 2012; Ess, 2017). While driven by on-going changes and developments in the
The ethics, and ethical governance, of online research have been much debated, and a number of professional organizations have promulgated guidelines for researchers considering conduct-ing their research online. This chapter offers an overview of the current position, suggesting relevant considerations in respect of different kinds of project ...
Online research has created new challenges for ethics committees and institutions as well as for researchers: as Ackland (2013: 43) succinctly puts it, 'Ethical guidelines for use of digital trace data are still a moving target.'New digital online spaces force researchers to rethink established ethical principles of informed consent, privacy and anonymity.
Over the last ten years an upsurge in internet-based research (IBR) has led to increased interest in IBR and research ethics (from herein referred to as IBRE). This review paper considers a range of issues relevant to IBR, including public and private spaces; risks to participants and IBR and informed consent. Finally, we
The commonly accepted definition of Internet research ethics (IRE) has been used by Buchanan and Ess (2008, 2009), Buchanan (2011), and Ess & Association of Internet Researchers (AoIR) (2002): IRE is defined as the analysis of ethical issues and application of research ethics principles as they pertain to research conducted on and in the Internet.
The internet, either as a tool or as an area of research, adds moral worries to an already complicated research ethical backdrop. Agencies, professional associations and philosophers have formulated research ethical norms designed to help scientists to arrive at responsible solutions to the problems. Yet, many criticize this reliance on norms. Somewhat more precisely, many claim that research ...
Introduction. Internet research ethics (IRE) is rooted in both communication technologies and research ethics traditions that precede the rise of the Internet per se. The historical and cultural conditions surrounding the rise of computer-mediated communication (CMC) and what became the Internet are initially US-centric.
Korina Giaxoglou, Reflections on internet research ethics from language-focused research on web-based mourning: revisiting the private/public distinction as a language ideology of differentiation, Applied Linguistics Review, 10.1515/applirev-2016-1037, 8, 2-3, (229-250), (2017).
consolidated the Association of Internet Researchers (AoIR) Ethics Working Committee's recommendations into a comprehensive document. In 2015, we revisited the subject with Internet Research: Ethical Concerns, which took a practical approach to internet research ethics by reviewing the work of other researchers in the field.
Internet Research Ethics: Past, Present, and Future. ... Search for more papers by this author. Elizabeth A. Buchanan, Elizabeth A. Buchanan. Center for Information Policy Research, School of Information Studies, University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee, USA. Search for more papers by this author.
As Internet research grows in popularity, attention to the ethics of studying online content is crucial to ensuring ethical diligence and appropriateness. Over recent years, ethical guidelines and recommendations have emerged to advise researchers and institutional review boards on best practices.
Recruitment in or through Internet locales or tools, for example social media, push technologies. A critical distinction in the definition of Internet research ethics is that between the Internet as a research tool versus a research venue. The distinction between tool and venue plays out across disciplinary and methodological orientations.
Search for more papers by this author. Charles Ess, Charles Ess. PhD Distinguished Research Professor Professor of Philosophy. Drury University, USA. ... Introduction to Internet Research Ethics: Background and Major Issues in the Literature. IRE: A Brief History. Methodologies and Ethics. Conclusions. References.
conduct internet research. Key Issues and Complexities of Internet Research Ethics The TCPS2 is developed specifically for research involving human subjects (CIHR et al., 2010a). This is a particularly pertinent point for researchers who may attempt to adapt the TCPS2 to the online setting. In subsequent sections of this paper, the wide-
Use of the internet in research has created many challenges, not just for those conducting and reviewing the studies, but also for editors publishing this work. Two key issues raised by internet-based research are ethics approval and informed consent. While some guidance exists regarding the ethics and consent of internet-based research, and ...
This paper examines the need for. standards to resolve ethical conflicts related to quali tative, on-line research. Practitioners working in the area of qualitative research gauged the breadth and. depth of this need. Those practitioners identified. several key ethical issues associated with qualitative.
archers working with or collecting data from the internet and social media. Inevitably, it is a broad framework for thinking through ethical. issues rather than a narrow prescription of what is expected in every case. As such, it is subject to dialogue, discussion and change as new modes of socia. media data come into play and/or legal and ...
Background The internet is an increasingly popular tool in family and child research that is argued to pose new ethical challenges, yet few studies have systematically assessed the ethical issues of engaging parents and children in research online. This scoping review aims to identify and integrate evidence on the ethical issues reported when recruiting, retaining and tracing families and ...
Research ethics, of course, goes beyond procedural ethics (Giraud et al., 2019; Markham, 2018; Ravn et al., this issue), and the second set of papers in this special issue focuses on the more "every-day" ethics of research practice, reporting on researchers' reflections and fine-grained analyses of different contexts of practice. As ...
Internet research ethics involves the research ethics of social science, humanities, ... An introduction, by Charles Ess, to papers that emerged from a panel presentation organized for a conference held at Lancaster University on December 14- December 16, 2001, building on the efforts of the Ethics Working Committee of the Association of ...
These results show that this is a poorly defined line of research, both in theory and in practice. ... it is clear that these years have seen the birth of a new question that goes beyond ethics: how to behave on the Internet [20,28 ... Lloyd B.A. E-mail etiquette (netiquette); Proceedings of the Conference Record of Annual Pulp and Paper ...
Internet research ethics (IRE) attempts to clarify and resolve ethical dilemmas encountered by researchers who use the → Internet as a medium for their research - for example, doing online surveys - and/or focus on the various forms of interactions observable online, such as virtual communities, social networks like MySpace, web pages, instant messaging, and other forms of computer ...
Research ethics are a set of principles that guide your research designs and practices in both quantitative and qualitative research. In this article, you will learn about the types and examples of ethical considerations in research, such as informed consent, confidentiality, and avoiding plagiarism. You will also find out how to apply ethical principles to your own research projects with ...
Mapping the Landscape of Open Innovation in Consumer Research: Insights and Directions from Bibliometrics examines how publications in the fields of consumer behavior research (Cons) and open innovation (OI) have developed over time. Terms that frequently appear together are explored to elucidate potential future research directions and thematic areas that influence academic writing ...
"His scholarship and research range from core bioethics topics, such as autonomy and informed consent, to empirical research and qualitative inquiry into homelessness and medical ethics," they wrote, and noted that he has published three books, 12 book chapters and supplements, 64 peer-reviewed journal articles, 22 editor-reviewed articles ...
Ethics; Harris' struggles with immigration policy expose vulnerabilities Vice President Harris was tasked to address the roots of mass migration to the U.S. Some of her actions have sparked ...