Social Science Research

Historical research has shown that, at its inception, research ethics was conceived as distinct from existing discourses of professional ethics. Subsequently, this distinction has been maintained and, as a result, the discourse of research ethics appears to be an external to and independent of the practices it normatively analyses and comments upon. This chapter challenges these founding preconceptions and considers if research ethics can be understood as a professional ethics. Therefore, this chapter examines the criteria sociological research identifies as constitutive of a profession, and while one might conclude that research is obviously not formally instantiated as a profession, some of the sociological criteria have significant relevance. In this light it is argued that we might rethink the notion of research ethics in terms of a professional ethics. To do so would be to more clearly embed ethical discourse in the practice(s) of research, something that is consistent with the current turn to integrity.

Literature forms an essential and integral part of social science research. Despite its undisputed academic value, there seems to be confusion about the differences between literature reviews and literature surveys and the purpose and contributions of each in research. As such, the application of these two research aspects often presents a major challenge for postgraduate students. By using a descriptive approach, the article aimed firstly, to outline the significance of literature in social science research; secondly, to illuminate the application of literature reviews and surveys in the research process; and thirdly, attempted to answer main questions posed by postgraduate students on the application of these two aspects in their studies. It was established that the application of reviews and surveys depends on various factors. These are: the nature of the study, the research problem and questions as well as the type of reviews undertaken. Furthermore, the difference in application concerns the depth of analysis required, as well as its usage in the sequencing of the research process.

Consultation is an important feature of research and, increasingly, researchers are required to work in partnership with stakeholders to increase the impact of their work. Our aim is to demonstrate what can be learned from the scholarship on, and practice of, member checking to facilitate productive knowledge exchange. Using dialogical analysis we explore three member check interactions from three different qualitative psychology projects focusing our analysis on difficult moments between researchers and participants conceptualised here as ‘sore spots’. We identify two major genres in these sequences: participant ambivalence and participant challenge. We then consider passages that allow us to explore a more theoretical understanding of these two genres in terms of the metaphor of portraits and mirrors. Overall, we outline how implicit epistemologies and theories of subjectivity (uncomplicated, blank, and complex) may be linked to the way in which stakeholders approach research. We also provide a map with regard to the theories within which member checks can be undertaken, associated research practices in terms of a range of researcher responses to stakeholder ambivalence and challenge, and implications of these moments for knowledge exchange for qualitative research but also for psychological science as a whole. We conclude that sore spots in knowledge exchange process can be productive opportunities of transformational validity.

Keywords: member check; knowledge exchange; research impact; dialogical analysis; participant validation

Implementation Plan for the proposed Unique Identifier System for the Australian Research Council and the Digital Transformation Agency (Australia), submitted for the unit 7027GIR Implementation and Service Delivery as part of Griffith University's Master of Public Administration (2017).

Science of research is a set of principles and methods for scientific investigation into technology of research, engineering of research and management of research to improve research and research decision making. This article looks at the fundamentals of Science of research and presents a set of scientific principles and methods though answering the questions such as What is research? How can do research? How can manage research? How can automate a research? How can engineer a research? And etc. This article also explores technology of research, engineering of research, system of research and management of research as a part of science of research. The approaches in science of research will benefit all aspects of science, engineering, technology, system and management.

The following is a reflective commentary on the place of Critical Indigenous Studies, with a focus on Kaupapa Māori Research, within Mormon Studies. Specifically, the piece explores the following questions: What does Kaupapa Māori Research look like when engaging in Mormon Studies? What positionality needs to be taken by Kaupapa Māori researchers and Critical Indigenous scholars when engaging in Mormon Studies? What are the main areas Critical Indigenous scholars and Kaupapa Māori scholars should engage when tackling issues around  Mormonism?  These  questions  are  important  in  light  of  thegrowing  importance  of  the  cultural renaissance in Te Ao Māori and the rise of Kaupapa Māori Research.