I'm interested in the phenomenon whereby researchers find it more acceptable to omit results from a report (error of omission), or fail to publish a null result, than to make up data (error of commission). Is there an accepted term for this?
That is to say, the difference is something we, in Western and Westernised society, are taught as being meaningful IMHO — one that matters a lot when understanding and ascribing blame (if any). I could be misunderstanding the issue here, but I think it's what you say Richard too?
-
-
I was thinking that an action that *can* be defended (but may have been the result of motivated reasoning) is more “acceptable” than one for which there is no defence, because of the uncertainty. I was naming the wrong thing
-
A sort of benefit of the doubt, I guess? But that’s still not naming the phenomenon, it is ascribing a cause.
-
I have seen research in the past on how people think it's different if you hit (cheat) a golf ball with your foot than if you pick it up, right? Ring any bells?
-
A trolley problem version of research misconduct?
End of conversation
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.