1887
  1. Home
  2. e-Journals
  3. Journal of Second Language Studies
  4. Volume 8, Issue 2
  5. Article
Volume 8, Issue 2
  • ISSN 2542-3835
  • E-ISSN: 2542-3843
USD
Buy:$35.00 + Taxes

Abstract

Abstract

In quantitative applied linguistics research, the ethical grey zone between responsible conduct of research and blatant misconduct covers numerous researcher practices that may be more or less ethical depending on situational variables (e.g., context, researcher intent). Known as questionable research practices (QRPs), these actions coincide with the day-to-day decision points that occur throughout the research process. Building on Larsson et al.’s (2023) investigation of the prevalence and severity of 58 field-specific QRPs among researchers in the quantitative humanities, the current study presents a thematic analysis of the 2,261 qualitative comments left by 167 of these survey respondents. Five overarching themes were identified in these comments: Roughly half of the responses were justifications of QRP actions, while others highlighted the contextually-dependent nature of QRPs and pointed to potential ambiguity in the wording of these items. These findings offer implications for how we as a field discuss QRPs, as well as researcher training practices.

© John Benjamins Publishing Company
Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1075/jsls.00048.ste
2025-07-28
2026-02-06

  • From This Site

    /content/journals/10.1075/jsls.00048.ste
    dcterms_title,dcterms_subject,pub_keyword
    -contentType:Journal -contentType:Contributor -contentType:Concept -contentType:Institution
    10
    5
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. Agnoli, F., Wicherts, J. M., Veldkamp, C. L., Albiero, P., & Cubelli, R.
    (2017) Questionable research practices among Italian research psychologists. PloS ONE, 12(3), e0172792. 10.1371/journal.pone.0172792
     https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0172792 [Google Scholar]
  2. Al-Marzouki, S., Roberts, I., Marshall, T., & Evans, S.
    (2005) The effect of scientific misconduct on the results of clinical trials: A Delphi survey. Contemporary Clinical Trials, 26(3), 331–337. 10.1016/j.cct.2005.01.011
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cct.2005.01.011 [Google Scholar]
  3. Antes, A. L.
    (2014) A systematic approach to instruction in research ethics. Accountability in Research, 21(1), 50–67. 10.1080/08989621.2013.822269
     https://doi.org/10.1080/08989621.2013.822269 [Google Scholar]
  4. Antes, A. L., Murphy, S. T., Waples, E. P., Mumford, M. D., Brown, R. P., Connelly, S., & Devenport, L. D.
    (2009) A meta-analysis of ethics instruction effectiveness in the sciences. Ethics & Behavior, 19(5), 379–402. 10.1080/10508420903035380
     https://doi.org/10.1080/10508420903035380 [Google Scholar]
  5. Bottesini, J. G., Rhemtulla, M., & Vazire, S.
    (2022) What do participants think of our research practices? An examination of behavioural psychology participants’ preferences. Royal Society Open Science, 9(4), 200048. 10.1098/rsos.200048
     https://doi.org/10.1098/rsos.200048 [Google Scholar]
  6. Chin, J. M., Pickett, J. T., Vazire, S., & Holcombe, A. O.
    (2023) Questionable research practices and open science in quantitative criminology. Journal of Quantitative Criminology, 391, 21–51. 10.1007/s10940‑021‑09525‑6
     https://doi.org/10.1007/s10940-021-09525-6 [Google Scholar]
  7. Fiedler, K., & Schwarz, N.
    (2016) Questionable research practices revisited. Social Psychological and Personality Science, 7(1), 45–52. 10.1177/1948550615612150
     https://doi.org/10.1177/1948550615612150 [Google Scholar]
  8. Guillemin, M., & Gillam, L.
    (2004) Ethics, reflexivity, and “ethically important moments” in research. Qualitative Inquiry, 10(2), 261–280. 10.1177/1077800403262360
     https://doi.org/10.1177/1077800403262360 [Google Scholar]
  9. Haggerty, K. D.
    (2004) Ethics creep: Governing social science research in the name of ethics. Qualitative Sociology, 271, 391–414. 10.1023/B:QUAS.0000049239.15922.a3
     https://doi.org/10.1023/B:QUAS.0000049239.15922.a3 [Google Scholar]
  10. Hall, J., & Martin, B. R.
    (2019) Towards a taxonomy of research misconduct: The case of business school research. Research Policy, 481, 414–427. 10.1016/j.respol.2018.03.006
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2018.03.006 [Google Scholar]
  11. Indiana University Center for Postsecondary Research
    Indiana University Center for Postsecondary Research (2021) The Carnegie Classifications of Institutions of Higher Education, 2021 EditionBloomington, IN. Available athttps://carnegieclassifications.acenet.edu
  12. Isbell, D. R., Brown, D., Chen, M., Derrick, D. J., Ghanem, R., Arvizu, M. N. G., Schnur, E., Zhang, M., & Plonsky, L.
    (2022) Misconduct and questionable research practices: The ethics of quantitative data handling and reporting in applied linguistics. The Modern Language Journal, 106(1), 172–195. 10.1111/modl.12760
     https://doi.org/10.1111/modl.12760 [Google Scholar]
  13. John, L. K., Loewenstein, G., & Prelec, D.
    (2012) Measuring the prevalence of questionable research practices with incentives for truth telling. Psychological Science, 23(5), 524–532. 10.1177/0956797611430953
     https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797611430953 [Google Scholar]
  14. Jordan, S. R.
    (2013) Conceptual clarification and the task of improving research on academic ethics. Journal of Academic Ethics, 111, 243–256. 10.1007/s10805‑013‑9190‑y
     https://doi.org/10.1007/s10805-013-9190-y [Google Scholar]
  15. Kumar, M. N.
    (2008) A review of the types of scientific misconduct in biomedical research. Journal of Academic Ethics, 61, 211–228. 10.1007/s10805‑008‑9068‑6
     https://doi.org/10.1007/s10805-008-9068-6 [Google Scholar]
  16. Larsson, T., Plonsky, L., Sterling, S., Kytö, M., Yaw, K., & Wood, M.
    (2023) On the frequency, prevalence, and perceived severity of questionable research practices. Research Methods in Applied Linguistics, 2(3), 100064. 10.1016/j.rmal.2023.100064
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rmal.2023.100064 [Google Scholar]
  17. Liu, Y., & Qi, H.
    (2024) Examining longitudinal changes in citation practices: A corpus-based analysis of L2 academic writing. Journal of Second Language Studies, 7(2), 267–294. 10.1075/jsls.00032.liu
     https://doi.org/10.1075/jsls.00032.liu [Google Scholar]
  18. Makel, M. C., Hodges, J., Cook, B. G., & Plucker, J. A.
    (2021) Both questionable and open research practices are prevalent in education research. Educational Researcher, 50(8), 493–504. 10.3102/0013189X211001356
     https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X211001356 [Google Scholar]
  19. Msoroka, M. S., & Amundsen, D.
    (2018) One size fits not quite all: Universal research ethics with diversity. Research Ethics, 14(3), 1–17. 10.1177/1747016117739939
     https://doi.org/10.1177/1747016117739939 [Google Scholar]
  20. National Endowment for the Humanities
    National Endowment for the Humanities (2022) What are the humanities?January19https://www.neh.gov/about
  21. National Humanities Center
    National Humanities Center (2022) What are the humanities?January19Humanities in actionhttps://action.nationalhumanitiescenter.org/what-are-humanities
  22. Plonsky, L., Larsson, T., Sterling, S., Kytö, M., Yaw, K., & Wood, M.
    (2024) A taxonomy of questionable research practices in quantitative humanities. InDe Costa, P. I., Rabie-Ahmed, A., & Cinaglia, C. (Eds.), Ethical issues in applied linguistics scholarship (pp.10–27). John Benjamins.
     [Google Scholar]
  23. Plonsky, L., Brown, D., Chen, M., Ghanem, R., Arvizu, M. N. G., Isbell, D. R., & Zhang, M.
    (2024) “Significance sells”: Applied linguists’ views on questionable research practices. Research Methods in Applied Linguistics, 31(11), 100099. 10.1016/j.rmal.2024.100099
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rmal.2024.100099 [Google Scholar]
  24. Sato, M., Loewen, S., & Pastushenkov, D.
    (2022) ‘Who is my research for?’: Researcher perceptions of the research-practice relationship. Applied Linguistics, 43(4), 625–652. 10.1093/applin/amab079
     https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/amab079 [Google Scholar]
  25. Steneck, N. H.
    (2007) Introduction to the Responsible Conduct of Research: (638422011-001) [dataset]. American Psychological Association. 10.1037/e638422011‑001
     https://doi.org/10.1037/e638422011-001 [Google Scholar]
  26. Sterling, S., Plonsky, L., Larsson, T., Kytö, M., & Yaw, K.
    (2023) Introducing and illustrating the Delphi method for applied linguistics research. Research Methods in Applied Linguistics, 2(1), 100040. 10.1016/j.rmal.2022.100040
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rmal.2022.100040 [Google Scholar]
  27. Swift, J. K., Christopherson, C. D., Bird, M. O., Zöld, A., & Goode, J.
    (2022) Questionable research practices among faculty and students in APA-accredited clinical and counseling psychology doctoral programs. Training and Education in Professional Psychology, 16(3), 299–305. 10.1037/tep0000322
     https://doi.org/10.1037/tep0000322 [Google Scholar]
  28. Tauginienė, L., Gaižauskaitė, I., Razi, S., Glendinning, I., Sivasubramaniam, S., Marino, F., Cosentino, M., Anohina-Naumeca, A., & Kravjar, J.
    (2019) Enhancing the taxonomies relating to academic integrity and misconduct. Journal of Academic Ethics, 171, 345–361. 10.1007/s10805‑019‑09342‑4
     https://doi.org/10.1007/s10805-019-09342-4 [Google Scholar]
  29. Van den Hoonaard, W. C.
    (2011) The seduction of ethics: Transforming the social sciences. University of Toronto Press. 10.3138/9781442694521
     https://doi.org/10.3138/9781442694521 [Google Scholar]
  30. Wood, M., Larsson, T., Plonsky, L., Sterling, S., Kytö, M., & Yaw, K.
    (2024a) Addressing questionable research practices in applied linguistics: A practical guide. Applied Linguistics Press. https://www.appliedlinguisticspress.org/home/catalog/wood_etal_2024
     [Google Scholar]
  31. Wood, M., Sterling, S., Larsson, T., Plonsky, L., Kytö, M., & Yaw, K.
    (2024b) Researchers training researchers: Ethics training in quantitative applied linguistics. TESOL Quarterly, tesq.3323. 10.1002/tesq.3323
     https://doi.org/10.1002/tesq.3323 [Google Scholar]
  32. Yaw, K., Plonsky, L., Larsson, T., Sterling, S., & Kytö, M.
    (2023) Research ethics in applied linguistics. Language Teaching, 56(4), 478–494. 10.1017/S0261444823000010
     https://doi.org/10.1017/S0261444823000010 [Google Scholar]
  33. Zhang, G.
    (2024) Emerging engineering scholars’ stance in citations. Journal of Second Language Studies, 7(2), 347–380. 10.1075/jsls.00033.zha
     https://doi.org/10.1075/jsls.00033.zha [Google Scholar]
/content/journals/10.1075/jsls.00048.ste
Loading
Investigating researcher perceptions of Questionable Research Practices
Journal of Second Language Studies 8, 219 (2025); https://doi.org/10.1075/jsls.00048.ste
/content/journals/10.1075/jsls.00048.ste
/content/journals/10.1075/jsls.00048.ste
Loading

Data & Media loading...

  • Article Type: Research Article
Keyword(s): Applied Linguistics; Quantitative humanities research; Questionable Research Practices; Research ethics

Most Cited

This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was successful
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error