11 hours ago, gfweb said:Even without cheating, a researcher can take an optimistic view of his findings...over interpret them...and draw wrong conclusions.
I completely agree. I think it is even more true when you are dealing with human research participants. 'Bad' data from just two or three less than ideal participants can dramatically impact the results of a study.
What is bad data or a bad participant? I think figuring that out is how some researchers end up sliding down a slippery slope. It is not at all unusual for a participant to basically give random responses to get through a study as quickly as possible - either from the outset or partway through because they got bored and/or annoyed (presumably). There is also the problem of compliance - especially when a participant is supposed to be following some procedure outside of the lab (e.g. following a particular diet plan). Ideally you set up criteria in advance for identifying these types of problems, but one can rarely cover all scenarios and sometimes a judgment call is necessary. Of course it starts to be more problematic when the data doesn't seem to make sense and it also runs contrary to the resesearcher's hypothesis.
With all that said, I believe in the vast majority of cases the researcher is totally certain that they haven't done anything wrong. Although there are certainly instances of intentional fraud, I think much of it is the result of a very slow shift in thinking as to what is or isn't OK - a shift that happens over years and years.
