Decisions, Decisions, Decisions: An Ethnographic Study of Researcher Discretion in Practice

This paper is a study of the decisions that researchers take during the execution of a research plan: their researcher discretion. Flexible research methods are generally seen as undesirable, and many methodologists urge to eliminate these so-called 'researcher degrees of freedom' from the research practice. However, what this looks like in practice is unclear. Based on twelve months of ethnographic fieldwork in two end-of-life research groups in which we observed research practice, conducted interviews, and collected documents, we explore when researchers are required to make decisions, and what these decisions entail.An abductive analysis of this data showed that researchers are constantly required to further interpret research plans, indicating that there is no clear division between planning and plan execution. This discretion emerges either when a research protocol is underdetermined or overdetermined, in which case they need to operationalise or adapt the plans respectively. In addition, we found that many of these instances of researcher discretion are exercised implicitly. Within the research groups it was occasionally not clear which topic merited an active decision, or which action could retroactively be categorised as one.Our ethnographic study of research practice suggests that researcher discretion is an integral and inevitable aspect of research practice, as many elements of a research protocol will either need to be further operationalised or adapted during its execution. Moreover, it may be difficult for researchers to identify their own discretion, limiting their effectivity in transparency.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
Science and Engineering Ethics
Published
2024-11-29
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11948-024-00481-5
Citations
6
Primary Topic
Ethics in Clinical Research
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
3.26

Funders

Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

Decisions, Decisions, Decisions: An Ethnographic Study of Researcher Discretion in Practice

M. Nienke Slagboom, Ria Reis, Jenny Theodora van der Steen, L.M. Bouter et al.
6 citations
Science and Engineering Ethics
Ethics in Clinical Research
3.26
article

Decisions, Decisions, Decisions: An Ethnographic Study of Researcher Discretion in Practice

M. Nienke Slagboom, Ria Reis, Jenny Theodora van der Steen, L.M. Bouter, Tom van Drimmelen
article en
6 citations

Abstract

This paper is a study of the decisions that researchers take during the execution of a research plan: their researcher discretion. Flexible research methods are generally seen as undesirable, and many methodologists urge to eliminate these so-called 'researcher degrees of freedom' from the research practice. However, what this looks like in practice is unclear. Based on twelve months of ethnographic fieldwork in two end-of-life research groups in which we observed research practice, conducted interviews, and collected documents, we explore when researchers are required to make decisions, and what these decisions entail.An abductive analysis of this data showed that researchers are constantly required to further interpret research plans, indicating that there is no clear division between planning and plan execution. This discretion emerges either when a research protocol is underdetermined or overdetermined, in which case they need to operationalise or adapt the plans respectively. In addition, we found that many of these instances of researcher discretion are exercised implicitly. Within the research groups it was occasionally not clear which topic merited an active decision, or which action could retroactively be categorised as one.Our ethnographic study of research practice suggests that researcher discretion is an integral and inevitable aspect of research practice, as many elements of a research protocol will either need to be further operationalised or adapted during its execution. Moreover, it may be difficult for researchers to identify their own discretion, limiting their effectivity in transparency.

Science and Engineering EthicsVol. 30(6)
Leiden University (NL), Radboud University Nijmegen (NL), University of Cape Town (ZA), Leiden University Medical Center (NL), Radboud University Medical Center (NL), Amsterdam Institute for Global Health and Development (NL), Amsterdam University Medical Centers (NL), Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam (NL)
HORIZON EUROPE European Research Council
Peace, Justice and strong institutions
Openalex Percentile: Top 7%
Ethics in Clinical Research
3.26
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.