failed dissertation ethics

• How it works

Failed Dissertation, Coursework, Report, or Exam – What to Do?

Published by Alvin Nicolas at August 13th, 2021 , Revised On August 22, 2023

Each year several hundreds of university students end up failing their dissertation, coursework, exam, or assignment. Receipt of a failing mark can be the most devastating experience for students in the UK.

Failing a dissertation, essay, or assignment can have a devastating effect on your life – from being shocked by hearing the news of their failure to the mental sufferings that follow.

Have you recently failed your  dissertation ,  assignment , exam or  coursework ? If yes, then be calm because you are not alone. There are several ways of tackling such a situation. This article presents several options for students who have failed an exam, dissertation, or assignment.

So, please sit back and relax because it’s not the world’s end.

Possible Reasons for Failure

Often students do not get enough help from their tutors  to pass an exam, dissertation or coursework, which results in a situation where they start to wait for things to resolve on their own until their problems become too large.

Fortunately, failing mark is not the end of the world, and students can change their circumstances.

There could be numerous reasons as to why you may have failed your dissertation, exam,  essay , or  report . Some students cannot keep up with course reading during the semester, while others do not have a sufficient understanding of their subject-related theories and knowledge due to various reasons.

The inability to understand key concepts, missing lectures regularly, and lack of understanding of course content are some of the most common reasons for a failing mark.

A sensible thing to do would be to  have your paper edited and proofread by an expert to eliminate any grammatical, structural, and spelling errors.

Does your Dissertation Have the Following?

• Great Research/Sources
• Perfect Language
• Accurate Sources

If not, we can help. Our panel of experts makes sure to keep the 3 pillars of Dissertation strong.

Avoiding Failure Before you Even Begin

If you want to avoid failure before it happens, you must take some pre-emptive actions before your problems become too large.

Achieving a graduate or postgraduate qualification is not a walk in the park. Therefore, it is vitally important for students to make sure that they meet their challenges head-on to prevent them from turning into potential failures.

Here are some tips for you to avoid failure before you even start.

• If you know that you are struggling with your  dissertation ,  coursework , or  assignment , then take out the time to discuss your problems with your academic supervisor. An academic supervisor or mentor is a member of the faculty assigned to you at your degree course.

Meet with them regularly and let them know of any problems you are facing so they can help you address them promptly.

• Meet the challenges head-on. Don’t wait for your problems to become too large. A small issue can turn into a major crisis if you keep on ignoring it for too long. For example, if you are struggling to  collect primary data for your dissertation , it will be appropriate to consult with your mentor to avoid falling behind on deadlines.

Most universities understand that students may face unforeseen challenges now and then due to their finances, family problems, personal limitations, and prolonged sickness. Therefore, it is possible to minimise the damage by filing for extenuating circumstances.

• By completing and submitting the extenuating circumstances form, you will be formally notifying your university that you are lagging on your dissertation or coursework. And do not forget to attach a formal plan to let them know how you will make sure to meet your new deadline so you can be granted an extension to your coursework, exam, or dissertation deadline.

Get an expert academic to help you with your dissertation, assignment, coursework, or essay so they can do the hard work for you. At ResearchProspect , we have masters and PhD qualified writers in all academic subjects. Whether it’s an essay, coursework, exam, dissertation, or assignment, you need help with. Our writers will exceed your expectations.

All you have to do is complete our online order form to place your order , and we will send the completed paper to your email address on or before the specified deadline. You are welcome to  view our professional samples , take a look at  our service portfolio  and learn more  about our company  before placing your order.

Opportunities for Reassessment

Even if you end up receiving a failing mark, you will have several options to choose from to clean the mess. However, before making any decisions, you must determine whether you have failed the entire module, just an element of a module or the dissertation.

Failing Dissertation

if you have forgotten your dissertation because you will be allowed to resubmit it by the deadline agreed upon by yourself and the university.

However, the marks awarded for a resubmitted dissertation are usually caped to a minimum passing mark as a penalty for your failure in the first place.

A complete dissertation failure in UK universities will only occur if you cannot achieve the minimum passing mark even on your second attempt.

To improve your situation, you should regularly meet with your supervisor and avoid overlooking mandatory draft submissions.

Failing Module

You will be required to either re-sit an exam or re-submit the coursework (in some cases) if you have failed an entire module.

Each module that you take the exam for usually has a unique set of module guidelines associated with it. How you will be reassessed is taken by the board of examiners and the lecturers only after considering these guidelines.

Again, the maximum obtainable mark is usually capped to a bare pass level if you are re-siting an exam or resubmitting coursework.

Failing an Element of Module

If you only failed one piece of an exam or coursework and managed to achieve high marks for other modules, you may not need to resubmit that element.

The bottom line is that if your average coursework mark is above the bare minimum passing mark, you will pass that module even if you failed one piece of it.

For example, receive a failing mark of 35 in one essay coursework that counts for 25% of the overall module mark but pass the remaining 75% module assessment (which can be in the form of an exam or coursework). You can still give the entire module.

However, depending on your university’s regulations, you may have the opportunity to resubmit the failed coursework to improve your overall course grade.

Want to know what essay structure and style will work best for your assignment?

Problem fixed! We can write any type of essay in any referencing style. We ensure every essay written is beyond your expectations.

Plagiarism – A Serious Offence

All UK universities have strict rules and penalties against students who are caught plagiarising. If you receive a failing mark due to  plagiarism , you may not be able to resubmit your dissertation/coursework or re-sit an exam.

So make sure to cite others’ ideas and  avoid copying work from other academic sources  to prevent your case from being sent to the University Ethics Board, which usually has the power to take a range of measures against you. In most cases, you will not be able to appeal the decision being taken if you are found guilty of plagiarising. So, refrain from it.

To help bring the point home, you can check out the comments and guidelines made by Reading, UK , regarding plagiarism.

Interesting watch: Check out a student’s account of how and why their dissertation went badly (UK institution).

Also read:   Consequences of Plagiarism 

How to Appeal Against a Failing Mark?

If you believe that you have been disadvantaged in some way or your university did not consider your financial or family problems while awarding you a failing mark. You may have the grounds to appeal against the mark awarded to you.

All UK universities have their own set of rules for lodging student academic appeals. Generally, this is a very lengthy procedure. Make sure that you provide documentary evidence along with the appropriate forms to justify your appeal.

The university exam board will review your case, and you will be allowed to resubmit your work or  resit the exam  if your application is successful.

Detailed information on appealing procedures is usually available on the university’s website and provided to students before starting their degree.

While no student ever wants to fail an exam, coursework, assignment or dissertation, the unthinkable sometimes can happen. But it would help if you did not get discouraged by the disastrous situation because most universities offer another chance to students who have genuine reasons.

How ResearchProspect Can Help

ResearchProspect is a UK-registered firm to provides academic support to students around the world. We specialise in completing design projects,  literature reviews ,  essays ,  reports ,  coursework ,  exam notes ,  statistical analysis , primary and empirical research,  dissertations , case studies,  academic posters , and much more. Getting help from our expert academics is quick and simple. All you have to do is complete our online order form and get your paper delivered to your email address well before your due deadline.

Winning Dissertation Presentations

Don’t let all the paranoia get to you. If you don’t want your dissertation to fail, make sure to take steps to prevent that thing from happening.

Alternatively, checking out some real-life instances of students defending their dissertational research might help, too:

Three Minute Thesis (3MT) 2011 Winner – Matthew Thompson

2014 Three Minute Thesis winning presentation by Emily Johnston

Oxford University’s graduate’s advice for an award-nominated, A-graded dissertation

Furthermore, you can also check out real-life students’ advice about writing a winning dissertation, advice they wish someone had given them.

Further still, if you want to take every last measure, you could also check out what institutions in the UK, such as Birmingham University, require in your dissertation .

Frequently Asked Questions

What does it mean if you fail your dissertation.

Failing a dissertation means not meeting required standards. It may lead to retaking or resubmitting. Understand feedback, identify weaknesses, and seek support to improve and succeed next time.

You May Also Like

Table of contents is an essential part of dissertation paper. Here is all you need to know about how to create the best table of contents for dissertation.

Anyone who supports you in your research should be acknowledged in dissertation acknowledgments. Learn more on how to write dissertation acknowledgements.

When writing your dissertation, an abstract serves as a deal maker or breaker. It can either motivate your readers to continue reading or discourage them.

USEFUL LINKS

LEARNING RESOURCES

COMPANY DETAILS

• How It Works

Have a language expert improve your writing

Run a free plagiarism check in 10 minutes, generate accurate citations for free.

• Knowledge Base

Methodology

• Ethical Considerations in Research | Types & Examples

Ethical Considerations in Research | Types & Examples

Published on October 18, 2021 by Pritha Bhandari . Revised on June 22, 2023.

Ethical considerations in research are a set of principles that guide your research designs and practices. Scientists and researchers must always adhere to a certain code of conduct when collecting data from people.

The goals of human research often include understanding real-life phenomena, studying effective treatments, investigating behaviors, and improving lives in other ways. What you decide to research and how you conduct that research involve key ethical considerations.

These considerations work to

• protect the rights of research participants
• enhance research validity
• maintain scientific or academic integrity

Table of contents

Why do research ethics matter, getting ethical approval for your study, types of ethical issues, voluntary participation, informed consent, confidentiality, potential for harm, results communication, examples of ethical failures, other interesting articles, frequently asked questions about research ethics.

Research ethics matter for scientific integrity, human rights and dignity, and collaboration between science and society. These principles make sure that participation in studies is voluntary, informed, and safe for research subjects.

You’ll balance pursuing important research objectives with using ethical research methods and procedures. It’s always necessary to prevent permanent or excessive harm to participants, whether inadvertent or not.

Defying research ethics will also lower the credibility of your research because it’s hard for others to trust your data if your methods are morally questionable.

Even if a research idea is valuable to society, it doesn’t justify violating the human rights or dignity of your study participants.

Here's why students love Scribbr's proofreading services

Discover proofreading & editing

Before you start any study involving data collection with people, you’ll submit your research proposal to an institutional review board (IRB) .

An IRB is a committee that checks whether your research aims and research design are ethically acceptable and follow your institution’s code of conduct. They check that your research materials and procedures are up to code.

If successful, you’ll receive IRB approval, and you can begin collecting data according to the approved procedures. If you want to make any changes to your procedures or materials, you’ll need to submit a modification application to the IRB for approval.

If unsuccessful, you may be asked to re-submit with modifications or your research proposal may receive a rejection. To get IRB approval, it’s important to explicitly note how you’ll tackle each of the ethical issues that may arise in your study.

There are several ethical issues you should always pay attention to in your research design, and these issues can overlap with each other.

You’ll usually outline ways you’ll deal with each issue in your research proposal if you plan to collect data from participants.

Voluntary participation means that all research subjects are free to choose to participate without any pressure or coercion.

All participants are able to withdraw from, or leave, the study at any point without feeling an obligation to continue. Your participants don’t need to provide a reason for leaving the study.

It’s important to make it clear to participants that there are no negative consequences or repercussions to their refusal to participate. After all, they’re taking the time to help you in the research process , so you should respect their decisions without trying to change their minds.

Voluntary participation is an ethical principle protected by international law and many scientific codes of conduct.

Take special care to ensure there’s no pressure on participants when you’re working with vulnerable groups of people who may find it hard to stop the study even when they want to.

Receive feedback on language, structure, and formatting

Professional editors proofread and edit your paper by focusing on:

• Academic style
• Vague sentences
• Style consistency

See an example

Informed consent refers to a situation in which all potential participants receive and understand all the information they need to decide whether they want to participate. This includes information about the study’s benefits, risks, funding, and institutional approval.

You make sure to provide all potential participants with all the relevant information about

• what the study is about
• the risks and benefits of taking part
• how long the study will take
• your supervisor’s contact information and the institution’s approval number

Usually, you’ll provide participants with a text for them to read and ask them if they have any questions. If they agree to participate, they can sign or initial the consent form. Note that this may not be sufficient for informed consent when you work with particularly vulnerable groups of people.

If you’re collecting data from people with low literacy, make sure to verbally explain the consent form to them before they agree to participate.

For participants with very limited English proficiency, you should always translate the study materials or work with an interpreter so they have all the information in their first language.

In research with children, you’ll often need informed permission for their participation from their parents or guardians. Although children cannot give informed consent, it’s best to also ask for their assent (agreement) to participate, depending on their age and maturity level.

Anonymity means that you don’t know who the participants are and you can’t link any individual participant to their data.

You can only guarantee anonymity by not collecting any personally identifying information—for example, names, phone numbers, email addresses, IP addresses, physical characteristics, photos, and videos.

In many cases, it may be impossible to truly anonymize data collection . For example, data collected in person or by phone cannot be considered fully anonymous because some personal identifiers (demographic information or phone numbers) are impossible to hide.

You’ll also need to collect some identifying information if you give your participants the option to withdraw their data at a later stage.

Data pseudonymization is an alternative method where you replace identifying information about participants with pseudonymous, or fake, identifiers. The data can still be linked to participants but it’s harder to do so because you separate personal information from the study data.

Confidentiality means that you know who the participants are, but you remove all identifying information from your report.

All participants have a right to privacy, so you should protect their personal data for as long as you store or use it. Even when you can’t collect data anonymously, you should secure confidentiality whenever you can.

Some research designs aren’t conducive to confidentiality, but it’s important to make all attempts and inform participants of the risks involved.

As a researcher, you have to consider all possible sources of harm to participants. Harm can come in many different forms.

• Psychological harm: Sensitive questions or tasks may trigger negative emotions such as shame or anxiety.
• Social harm: Participation can involve social risks, public embarrassment, or stigma.
• Physical harm: Pain or injury can result from the study procedures.
• Legal harm: Reporting sensitive data could lead to legal risks or a breach of privacy.

It’s best to consider every possible source of harm in your study as well as concrete ways to mitigate them. Involve your supervisor to discuss steps for harm reduction.

Make sure to disclose all possible risks of harm to participants before the study to get informed consent. If there is a risk of harm, prepare to provide participants with resources or counseling or medical services if needed.

Some of these questions may bring up negative emotions, so you inform participants about the sensitive nature of the survey and assure them that their responses will be confidential.

The way you communicate your research results can sometimes involve ethical issues. Good science communication is honest, reliable, and credible. It’s best to make your results as transparent as possible.

Take steps to actively avoid plagiarism and research misconduct wherever possible.

Plagiarism means submitting others’ works as your own. Although it can be unintentional, copying someone else’s work without proper credit amounts to stealing. It’s an ethical problem in research communication because you may benefit by harming other researchers.

Self-plagiarism is when you republish or re-submit parts of your own papers or reports without properly citing your original work.

This is problematic because you may benefit from presenting your ideas as new and original even though they’ve already been published elsewhere in the past. You may also be infringing on your previous publisher’s copyright, violating an ethical code, or wasting time and resources by doing so.

In extreme cases of self-plagiarism, entire datasets or papers are sometimes duplicated. These are major ethical violations because they can skew research findings if taken as original data.

You notice that two published studies have similar characteristics even though they are from different years. Their sample sizes, locations, treatments, and results are highly similar, and the studies share one author in common.

Research misconduct

Research misconduct means making up or falsifying data, manipulating data analyses, or misrepresenting results in research reports. It’s a form of academic fraud.

These actions are committed intentionally and can have serious consequences; research misconduct is not a simple mistake or a point of disagreement about data analyses.

Research misconduct is a serious ethical issue because it can undermine academic integrity and institutional credibility. It leads to a waste of funding and resources that could have been used for alternative research.

Later investigations revealed that they fabricated and manipulated their data to show a nonexistent link between vaccines and autism. Wakefield also neglected to disclose important conflicts of interest, and his medical license was taken away.

This fraudulent work sparked vaccine hesitancy among parents and caregivers. The rate of MMR vaccinations in children fell sharply, and measles outbreaks became more common due to a lack of herd immunity.

Research scandals with ethical failures are littered throughout history, but some took place not that long ago.

Some scientists in positions of power have historically mistreated or even abused research participants to investigate research problems at any cost. These participants were prisoners, under their care, or otherwise trusted them to treat them with dignity.

To demonstrate the importance of research ethics, we’ll briefly review two research studies that violated human rights in modern history.

These experiments were inhumane and resulted in trauma, permanent disabilities, or death in many cases.

After some Nazi doctors were put on trial for their crimes, the Nuremberg Code of research ethics for human experimentation was developed in 1947 to establish a new standard for human experimentation in medical research.

In reality, the actual goal was to study the effects of the disease when left untreated, and the researchers never informed participants about their diagnoses or the research aims.

Although participants experienced severe health problems, including blindness and other complications, the researchers only pretended to provide medical care.

When treatment became possible in 1943, 11 years after the study began, none of the participants were offered it, despite their health conditions and high risk of death.

Ethical failures like these resulted in severe harm to participants, wasted resources, and lower trust in science and scientists. This is why all research institutions have strict ethical guidelines for performing research.

If you want to know more about statistics , methodology , or research bias , make sure to check out some of our other articles with explanations and examples.

• Normal distribution
• Measures of central tendency
• Chi square tests
• Confidence interval
• Quartiles & Quantiles
• Cluster sampling
• Stratified sampling
• Thematic analysis
• Cohort study
• Peer review
• Ethnography

Research bias

• Implicit bias
• Cognitive bias
• Conformity bias
• Hawthorne effect
• Availability heuristic
• Attrition bias
• Social desirability bias

Ethical considerations in research are a set of principles that guide your research designs and practices. These principles include voluntary participation, informed consent, anonymity, confidentiality, potential for harm, and results communication.

Scientists and researchers must always adhere to a certain code of conduct when collecting data from others .

These considerations protect the rights of research participants, enhance research validity , and maintain scientific integrity.

Research ethics matter for scientific integrity, human rights and dignity, and collaboration between science and society. These principles make sure that participation in studies is voluntary, informed, and safe.

Anonymity means you don’t know who the participants are, while confidentiality means you know who they are but remove identifying information from your research report. Both are important ethical considerations .

You can only guarantee anonymity by not collecting any personally identifying information—for example, names, phone numbers, email addresses, IP addresses, physical characteristics, photos, or videos.

You can keep data confidential by using aggregate information in your research report, so that you only refer to groups of participants rather than individuals.

These actions are committed intentionally and can have serious consequences; research misconduct is not a simple mistake or a point of disagreement but a serious ethical failure.

Cite this Scribbr article

If you want to cite this source, you can copy and paste the citation or click the “Cite this Scribbr article” button to automatically add the citation to our free Citation Generator.

Bhandari, P. (2023, June 22). Ethical Considerations in Research | Types & Examples. Scribbr. Retrieved April 10, 2024, from https://www.scribbr.com/methodology/research-ethics/

Is this article helpful?

Pritha Bhandari

Other students also liked, data collection | definition, methods & examples, what is self-plagiarism | definition & how to avoid it, how to avoid plagiarism | tips on citing sources, what is your plagiarism score.

• Link to facebook
• Link to linkedin
• Link to twitter
• Link to youtube
• Writing Tips

A Guide to Logistical/Ethical Considerations in Thesis/Dissertation Writing

4-minute read

• 14th May 2023

Why include a section on logistical/ethical considerations in your thesis/dissertation?

Ethical and logistical considerations are the guidelines that marshal your research practices and activities. With so many necessary steps to planning your dissertation , it may be tempting to dash off your logistical and ethical considerations section. However, don’t make that mistake! Including a thorough section on logistical and ethical considerations in your thesis shows that you have carefully considered your research plan, from the ethical implications of your research findings to the impact of performing the study itself.

And above all else, not providing well-thought-out ethical and logistical considerations in your research plan could derail your entire dissertation and have other grave consequences . But not to worry! Here, we offer a step-by-step guide to writing your logistical and ethical considerations section so that you can tick another essential item off your thesis checklist .

Steps for creating a logistical/ethical considerations section

• Clarify your ethical and logistical principles.

Your ethical and logistical principles will depend on many factors, such as research topic, fieldwork, and the possibility of direct interaction with vulnerable populations.

However, several overarching research principles are always helpful to remember. For example, the Belmont Report lists three often invoked principles: respect for persons, beneficence (i.e., maximize potential benefits to research subjects and minimize potential harm), and justice (i.e., people should be treated fairly). However, many other principles exist (and we offer a few other frequently cited principles below that might apply to your research).

If you haven’t done so already, discuss the ramifications of your dissertation work from an ethical standpoint with your adviser, who may bring up concerns that you’ve overlooked. You should also check with your organization’s Institutional Review Board (IRB) to confirm that there are no policies you need to be aware of.

• Evaluate each step of your research plan, as well as its potential risks and implications, and plan how you will ensure the ethical treatment of all persons involved.

Now that you have clarified your ethical and logistical principles, go through each stage of your research plan and consider the ethical impact of each step. Come up with a systematic plan to make sure that you’re protecting the ethical standards you’ve laid out for each one of the people affected by your research.

• Record your practices thoroughly and carefully during your research.

During the course of your study, keep detailed records of how you made sure the practices that address the ethical and logistical considerations were completed.

For example, if you should be obtaining verbal consent before conducting an interview, maintain a system to record that the consent was received.

Or, if it’s necessary to keep your digital data secure, be sure to make a note of the hardware and software you use. Plenty of online templates can help you keep these details organized.

• Write the ethical and logistical considerations section.

If you’ve kept detailed records, writing up your ethical and logistical considerations should be a straightforward process. It’s more common these days to see a section devoted to research ethics in dissertation structures .

Once again, check with your adviser to make sure you follow the proper protocol when you add your section on ethical and logistical considerations to your dissertation.

Find this useful?

Subscribe to our newsletter and get writing tips from our editors straight to your inbox.

Potential ethical and logistical considerations

This is not a comprehensive list, but here are a few more common ethical and logistical considerations that may apply to your research work:

●  Informed consent : Participants should be able to voluntarily join the study and know what the study is about and what the implications of the work are.

●  Anonymity, confidentiality, and data protection : Participants should have a reasonable expectation that their confidential data will remain private.

●  Nondiscrimination : You should avoid discrimination on the basis of sex, race, ethnicity, or any other factor.

●  Social responsibility : Research should contribute to the common good.

Following the four steps outlined in this post will help you write an ethical and logistical considerations section in your dissertation:

1. Define your principles

2. Evaluate the risks and implications of each stage of your research

3. Record your practices carefully

4. Write up your considerations in the appropriate format for the dissertation.

Although ethical considerations vary from study to study, our guide should get you through another step in writing your thesis! Remember to include enough time for editing and proofreading your dissertation , and if you’re interested in some help from us, you can try a sample of our services for free . Good luck writing your dissertation!

Share this article:

Post A New Comment

Got content that needs a quick turnaround? Let us polish your work. Explore our editorial business services.

3-minute read

What Is a Content Editor?

Are you interested in learning more about the role of a content editor and the...

The Benefits of Using an Online Proofreading Service

Proofreading is important to ensure your writing is clear and concise for your readers. Whether...

2-minute read

6 Online AI Presentation Maker Tools

Creating presentations can be time-consuming and frustrating. Trying to construct a visually appealing and informative...

What Is Market Research?

No matter your industry, conducting market research helps you keep up to date with shifting...

8 Press Release Distribution Services for Your Business

In a world where you need to stand out, press releases are key to being...

How to Get a Patent

In the United States, the US Patent and Trademarks Office issues patents. In the United...

Make sure your writing is the best it can be with our expert English proofreading and editing.

Ethical Considerations in Dissertation Writing: Best Practices

Writing a dissertation is a significant milestone in an academic journey. It's a testament to your research skills, critical thinking, and ability to contribute to your field of study. However, amidst the rigorous research and writing process, it's crucial not to overlook the ethical considerations that underpin academic work. Upholding ethical principles in dissertation writing is not just a formality; it's a fundamental aspect of maintaining the integrity and credibility of your research. In this article, we'll explore some best practices for ensuring ethical conduct in your dissertation writing.

Research Ethics and Compliance:

Ethical considerations are the foundation of sound research practices. Ensuring that your dissertation adheres to ethical principles and guidelines is not just a formality; it's a fundamental aspect of maintaining the integrity and credibility of your research.

Understanding Research Ethics:

Research ethics encompass a set of principles and values that guide researchers in conducting their studies ethically and responsibly. These principles are particularly critical when your research involves human subjects, animals, or sensitive data. The following are key aspects of research ethics that every dissertation writer should be aware of:

1. Informed Consent:  When your research involves human participants, obtaining informed consent is paramount. Informed consent means that participants are fully aware of the nature of the study, their involvement, potential risks, and their rights. It is essential to provide participants with clear and understandable information and allow them to voluntarily consent or decline participation.

2. Protecting Privacy:  Respect for participants' privacy is another crucial ethical consideration. Ensure that you take measures to protect the confidentiality of individuals involved in your research. Anonymize data by removing any identifying information or use pseudonyms to safeguard participants' identities.

3. Honesty and Transparency:  Transparency and honesty are fundamental to research ethics. Be honest about your research objectives, methodologies, and sources of data. Report your findings truthfully, even if they do not align with your initial hypotheses. Avoid any form of data manipulation or selective reporting that could compromise the integrity of your research.

4. Data Management:  Implement robust data management practices from the start of your research. Keep comprehensive records of data collection, analysis, and storage. Ensure that your data is securely stored and properly backed up. Ethical data management helps ensure the accuracy and reproducibility of your findings.

5. Ethical Review Boards:  Many institutions require that research involving human subjects undergo ethical review by an Institutional Review Board (IRB) or ethics committee. These boards assess research proposals to ensure that they comply with ethical standards and safeguard the well-being and rights of research participants. If your dissertation involves human subjects, it's essential to seek IRB approval.

6. Animal Research Ethics:  For research involving animals, adherence to ethical guidelines is crucial. Ensure that your research complies with the "Three Rs" principles: Replacement (using alternatives to animals), Reduction (minimizing the number of animals used), and Refinement (enhancing animal welfare and minimizing harm). Institutional Animal Care and Use Committees (IACUCs) oversee ethical considerations in animal research.

7. Conflicts of Interest:  Declare any potential conflicts of interest that could compromise the objectivity of your research. Conflicts of interest might include financial interests, personal relationships, or any factors that could influence your work's integrity. Transparency is vital in maintaining ethical research practices.

Receive Free Grammar and Publishing Tips via Email

Transparency and honesty.

Transparency and honesty are foundational ethical principles that must guide every aspect of your dissertation research and writing process. These principles ensure that your work is credible, reliable, and contributes to the advancement of knowledge with integrity.

Clear Research Objectives:  Begin by articulating your research objectives with clarity and precision. Your dissertation's introduction should provide a transparent overview of the goals and intentions of your study. Clearly state the questions you seek to answer and the hypotheses you aim to test. By doing so, you set the stage for an honest and focused investigation.

Open Methodology:  Transparency extends to your research methodology. Describe your research methods in detail, outlining how data will be collected, analyzed, and interpreted. Readers should be able to understand the steps you've taken to arrive at your conclusions. Be open about any limitations or constraints that might affect the validity of your research.

Honest Reporting of Findings:  Honesty is especially critical when it comes to reporting your research findings. Regardless of whether your results align with your initial hypotheses, it's essential to present them accurately. Avoid the temptation to selectively report data or manipulate results to fit preconceived notions. Dishonest reporting erodes the trustworthiness of your work.

Ethical Consideration of Data:  Ethical treatment of data is an integral aspect of transparency. Ensure that your data collection and analysis processes are free from bias or manipulation. Handle data with care, maintaining its integrity throughout the research process. If you encounter unexpected results or data that challenges your initial assumptions, address these findings honestly.

Citing Sources and Avoiding Plagiarism:  Citing sources properly is a non-negotiable aspect of transparency and honesty. Whenever you use someone else's work, ideas, or words, provide appropriate citations and references. Plagiarism, whether intentional or unintentional, is a breach of academic integrity and can have serious consequences. Use citation styles recommended by your institution or field.

Acknowledging Limitations:  Every research project has limitations, and it's essential to acknowledge them openly. Whether limitations relate to sample size, data availability, or methodological constraints, recognizing these factors demonstrates transparency. Discuss how these limitations may have influenced your results and interpretations.

Reproducibility and Replicability:  In the spirit of transparency, aim to make your research reproducible and replicable. Clearly document your research processes, including data collection instruments and analysis procedures. Share your data and methodology whenever possible, allowing others to verify and build upon your work.

Ethical Dilemmas and Challenges:  In some cases, you may encounter ethical dilemmas during your research. It's vital to address these challenges honestly and seek guidance from ethical review boards or mentors when necessary. Being transparent about how you navigated ethical complexities showcases your commitment to ethical research conduct.

Transparency and honesty are non-negotiable ethical principles in dissertation writing. They underpin the credibility of your research and demonstrate your commitment to responsible scholarship. By consistently upholding these principles, you contribute to the integrity of academic research and ensure that your dissertation is a trustworthy source of knowledge in your field.

Proper Citation and Avoiding Plagiarism

Proper citation and the avoidance of plagiarism are not just matters of academic etiquette; they are ethical imperatives that uphold the integrity of your dissertation. In the world of research and academia, giving credit where it's due is paramount.

Understanding Plagiarism:  Plagiarism involves using someone else's work, ideas, or words without proper attribution. It is considered a severe breach of academic integrity and can have far-reaching consequences, including academic penalties and damage to your reputation. To avoid plagiarism, follow these essential guidelines:

1. Cite Sources Accurately:

Whenever you incorporate information, ideas, or text from a source, whether it's a book, journal article, website, or any other medium, cite it appropriately. Different academic disciplines use specific citation styles (e.g., APA, MLA, Chicago), so be sure to follow the style recommended by your institution or field.

2. Quoting and Paraphrasing:  When using direct quotes from a source, enclose the text in quotation marks and provide a citation to the source. For paraphrased content (putting someone else's ideas into your own words), you must still acknowledge the original source with a citation. Paraphrasing does not make the information your own; it's essential to credit the original author.

3. Common Knowledge vs. Specific Information:  Not all information requires citation. Common knowledge, which includes widely accepted facts and information that is widely known and undisputed, does not need to be cited. However, if you are in doubt about whether something qualifies as common knowledge, it's better to provide a citation.

4. Self-Plagiarism:  Beware of self-plagiarism, which occurs when you reuse your previously published work without proper citation. While it's acceptable to build on your previous research, you must clearly indicate that you are referencing your earlier work and provide appropriate citations.

5. Citation Management Tools:  Consider using citation management tools like EndNote, Zotero, or Mendeley to help you organize your sources, create citations, and maintain proper records of your references. These tools can significantly streamline the citation process and reduce the risk of errors.

6. Plagiarism Detection Software:  Many institutions use plagiarism detection software to scan academic papers for potential plagiarism. Before submitting your dissertation, consider running it through such software to identify and rectify any unintentional instances of plagiarism.

7. Ethical Paraphrasing:  When paraphrasing, ensure that you are not merely rearranging words or sentence structure but genuinely reinterpreting the content in your own words. Ethical paraphrasing respects the original author's ideas while presenting them from your perspective.

8. Academic Integrity Workshops:  Some universities offer academic integrity workshops or courses that can help you better understand plagiarism and proper citation practices. Taking advantage of these resources can enhance your awareness and skills in this area.

Proper citation and avoiding plagiarism are not just technical aspects of dissertation writing but critical ethical considerations. By consistently citing sources accurately and respecting the intellectual property of others, you not only uphold academic integrity but also contribute to the trustworthiness of your research and the broader academic community.

Informed Consent and Privacy

When conducting research that involves human participants, whether through surveys, interviews, or experiments, it is essential to prioritize informed consent and safeguard the privacy of individuals. These ethical considerations are not only a moral obligation but also a legal and academic requirement in many cases.

Informed Consent:

Informed consent is the cornerstone of ethical research involving human subjects. It refers to the process of ensuring that participants fully understand the nature of the study, their role in it, potential risks, benefits, and their rights before they agree to participate. Here are key principles to keep in mind:

Clear Communication: Provide clear and comprehensive information about your research. This includes the purpose of the study, what participants will be asked to do, how their data will be used, and any potential risks or discomforts involved.

Voluntary Participation: Participation should be entirely voluntary. Participants should not feel coerced, pressured, or obligated to take part in your research. They should be free to decline or withdraw at any time without consequences.

Informed Decision-Making: Ensure that participants have the capacity to make an informed decision. This means they must have the cognitive ability to understand the information provided. If your study involves vulnerable populations, such as children or individuals with cognitive impairments, additional safeguards may be required.

Documentation: Always obtain written informed consent from participants, unless a waiver has been approved by an ethics review board. This written record should include all relevant information about the study and should be signed and dated by the participant.

Privacy Protection:

Respecting the privacy of research participants is another critical ethical consideration. Protecting their personal information and data is not just an ethical obligation but also a legal requirement in many jurisdictions. Here's how you can uphold privacy:

Anonymity and Confidentiality: When collecting data, take measures to ensure that participants' identities remain anonymous or confidential. Use participant codes or pseudonyms instead of real names, and store sensitive data securely.

Data Security: Implement robust data security practices to safeguard participant data. This includes encrypting electronic data, using secure storage methods, and restricting access to authorized personnel only.

Data Sharing: If you plan to share or publish your research data, do so in a way that protects participants' privacy. Avoid disclosing any information that could potentially identify individuals.

Ethical Review Boards: In many cases, research involving human subjects must undergo ethical review by an Institutional Review Board (IRB) or ethics committee. These bodies assess the ethical aspects of your research, including informed consent and privacy protections.

Data Retention: Develop clear data retention and disposal policies. Determine how long you will retain participant data and when it will be securely deleted or destroyed.

Participant Debriefing: After the study is completed, provide participants with a debriefing that explains the purpose and outcomes of the research. This ensures that participants leave the study with a clear understanding of their contribution.

Data Management and Retention

Effective data management and retention practices are essential for maintaining the integrity and credibility of your research. Properly handling and preserving research data not only ensures the accuracy and reliability of your findings but also aligns with ethical and legal requirements.

Data Management Principles:

Organized Data Collection: Start with organized data collection. Design clear data collection protocols, including data entry forms, surveys, or experimental procedures. Ensure that data are collected consistently and accurately.

Secure Data Storage: Store your research data securely. Whether your data is in digital or physical form, protect it from unauthorized access, loss, or damage. Use encryption for digital files and implement physical security measures for hard copies.

Data Backups: Regularly back up your data to prevent loss due to technical failures or unforeseen events. Maintain multiple copies of your data, both on-site and off-site, to safeguard against data loss.

Version Control: If you make changes to your data during the research process, use version control to track modifications. This ensures transparency and allows you to revert to previous versions if needed.

Metadata Documentation: Document metadata – information about your data – comprehensively. Metadata should include details about data sources, variables, data collection dates, and any data transformations or cleaning processes.

Data Cleaning and Validation: Perform thorough data cleaning and validation to identify and correct errors or inconsistencies in your dataset. Transparently document any data cleaning steps you take.

Data Ownership and Access: Clarify data ownership and access rights from the beginning of your research. If you are working with collaborators or collecting data from external sources, establish agreements regarding data ownership and sharing.

Data Retention Practices:

Retention Policies: Develop clear data retention policies that outline how long you will retain research data after the completion of your project. These policies should consider legal requirements, funding agency guidelines, and the value of the data.

Anonymization and De-identification: If you plan to share your research data with others, consider anonymizing or de-identifying the data to protect participants' privacy. Remove any identifying information that could link data to specific individuals.

Secure Archiving: For long-term data retention, consider using secure data archiving services or repositories that comply with data preservation standards. These repositories can ensure the long-term accessibility and integrity of your data.

Data Destruction: If you no longer require your research data or have exceeded the designated retention period, follow proper data destruction procedures. Shred physical documents, securely delete digital files, and ensure that no residual copies exist.

Documentation of Retention and Destruction: Maintain detailed records of data retention and destruction activities. This documentation serves as evidence that you have followed appropriate data management and retention practices.

Compliance with Regulations: Be aware of any legal or regulatory requirements related to data retention in your field or jurisdiction. Compliance with these regulations is crucial to avoid legal complications.

Ethical Considerations: Uphold ethical considerations when retaining or disposing of data. Ensure that data containing sensitive or personally identifiable information are treated with utmost care and respect for privacy.

Effective data management and retention practices not only protect your research but also facilitate data sharing and transparency within the academic community. By adhering to these principles, you contribute to the responsible conduct of research and enhance the credibility of your work.

In conclusion, ethical considerations are the bedrock of rigorous and credible dissertation writing. By following these best practices, you not only demonstrate your commitment to ethical research but also contribute to the advancement of knowledge with integrity and responsibility. Your dissertation should not only be a testament to your academic prowess but also a reflection of your ethical values as a scholar.

Connect With Us

Dissertation Editing and Proofreading Services Discount (New for 2018)

May 3, 2017.

For March through May 2018 ONLY, our professional dissertation editing se...

Thesis Editing and Proofreading Services Discount (New for 2018)

For March through May 2018 ONLY, our thesis editing service is discounted...

Neurology includes Falcon Scientific Editing in Professional Editing Help List

March 14, 2017.

Neurology Journal now includes Falcon Scientific Editing in its Professio...

Useful Links

Academic Editing | Thesis Editing | Editing Certificate | Resources

Log in using your username and password

• Search More Search for this keyword Advanced search
• Latest content
• Current issue
• JME Commentaries
• BMJ Journals More You are viewing from: Google Indexer

You are here

• Volume 36, Issue 7
• Research ethics in dissertations: ethical issues and complexity of reasoning
• Article Text
• Article info
• Citation Tools
• Rapid Responses
• Article metrics

• S Kjellström 1 ,
• S N Ross 2 , 3 ,
• B Fridlund 4
• 1 Institute of Gerontology, School of Health Sciences, Jönköping University, Jönköping, Sweden
• 2 Antioch University Midwest, Yellow Springs, Ohio, USA
• 3 ARINA, Inc., Cincinnati, Ohio, USA
• 4 Department of Nursing, School of Health Sciences, Jönköping University, Jönköping, Sweden
• Correspondence to Sofia Kjellström, Institute of Gerontology, School of Health Sciences, Jönköping University, PO Box 1026, SE-551 11 Jönköping, Sweden; sofia.kjellstrom{at}hhj.hj.se

Background Conducting ethically sound research is a fundamental principle of scientific inquiry. Recent research has indicated that ethical concerns are insufficiently dealt with in dissertations.

Purpose To examine which research ethical topics were addressed and how these were presented in terms of complexity of reasoning in Swedish nurses' dissertations.

Methods Analyses of ethical content and complexity of ethical reasoning were performed on 64 Swedish nurses' PhD dissertations dated 2007.

Results A total of seven ethical topics were identified: ethical approval (94% of the dissertations), information and informed consent (86%), confidentiality (67%), ethical aspects of methods (61%), use of ethical principles and regulations (39%), rationale for the study (20%) and fair participant selection (14%). Four of those of topics were most frequently addressed: the majority of dissertations (72%) included 3–5 issues. While many ethical concerns, by their nature, involve systematic concepts or metasystematic principles, ethical reasoning scored predominantly at lesser levels of complexity: abstract (6% of the dissertations), formal (84%) and systematic (10%).

Conclusions Research ethics are inadequately covered in most dissertations by nurses in Sweden. Important ethical concerns are missing, and the complexity of reasoning on ethical principles, motives and implications is insufficient. This is partly due to traditions and norms that discount ethical concerns but is probably also a reflection of the ability of PhD students and supervisors to handle complexity in general. It is suggested that the importance of ethical considerations should be emphasised in graduate and post-graduate studies and that individuals with capacity to deal with systematic and metasystematic concepts are recruited to senior research positions.

• Research ethics
• human development
• dissertation
• graduate education
• applied and professional ethics
• scientific research

https://doi.org/10.1136/jme.2009.034561

Statistics from Altmetric.com

Request permissions.

If you wish to reuse any or all of this article please use the link below which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink service. You will be able to get a quick price and instant permission to reuse the content in many different ways.

Research has a potential to encroach on people's lives, autonomy and integrity. To prevent or mitigate the potential for such effects, the research community has created ethics codes and regulations, institutionalised ethics review boards and formalised ethics requirements in scientific journals. 1–3 However, how do we know whether the formalisations of research ethics actually result in researchers' ability to operationalise ethics in the ways intended? One way is to analyse how they write about research ethics.

Including a well-written section about research ethics in a dissertation is important for several reasons. Compared to protocols written for research ethics committees, this section allows a comparison of the expected and actual research ethics as reflected in the entire research process. Scientific journals increasingly require that ethical considerations are elucidated, but most journals severely limit space for elaboration. 4 Since studies have questioned the ethical skills of doctoral students, dissertations provide a forum for students to expound on ethics and enable an assessment of acquired proficiencies. One purpose of graduate school is to train doctoral students in skills necessary for future research careers, including more critical thinking and more complex reasoning. The quality and depth of the research ethics section is essential to examine whether a researcher has acquired necessary skills to reflect and report on ethics.

Despite an increasing interest in research ethics, surprisingly little is known about the quality of research ethics in dissertations, particularly in nursing research. Research on written materials focuses primarily on research review boards 5–9 and journals—for example, ethics guidelines 10 and research ethics in articles. 4 Research on Turkish nursing dissertations showed deficiencies in informing participants and protecting privacy. 11 A study on Swedish nurses' dissertations from 1987 to 2007 showed that an increase in occurrence and proportions of reported ethical considerationsand that the texts were short, had few references and covered a narrow range of topics. 12 We found no other studies that address the design of the research ethics section and how different topics were combined.

The study's purpose was to examine which research ethical topics were addressed and how these were presented in terms of complexity of reasoning in Swedish nurses' dissertations approved in 2007. The research questions were: Which research ethics issues are reported? How is the research ethics section organized around different ethical issues? How is the information coordinated in terms of the complexity of reasoning that structures the text? What is the relationship between ethical issues and complexity of reasoning in the text?

Design and methodological approaches

The study used a mixed-methods approach to address the four research questions. 13 We performed a qualitative content analysis and a quantitative analysis of the hierarchical complexity of ethics-related content. The quantification method was the Hierarchical Complexity Scoring System (HCSS) (Commons, et al , unpublished manual), which derives from the Model of Hierarchical Complexity, a mathematics-based, formal general theory applicable to all actions in which information is organised. 14 15 All reasoning involves organising information. The theory and validated scoring method enable reliable measures of discrete stages of reasoning complexity. 16–20 In accord with Swedish law, ethical approval was not obtained for this study, 21 but ethical principles were used and issues were addressed in ongoing reflective processes.

Data collection

The sample consisted of 64 dissertations from Swedish universities in 2007 (Appendix 1). The primary inclusion criteria were that the dissertation was written by a nurse and that it was a PhD dissertation (4 years of full-time studies). Suitable dissertations were identified from the Swedish Society of Nursing's list of self-reported dissertations (n=65) followed by a systematic comparative analysis with the Swedish National Library (n=1). One of the self-reported dissertations discussed no research ethics and one was by an unsuccessful doctoral candidate: they were not included in the sample. Dissertation languages were English (n=48), Swedish (n=15) and Norwegian (n=1). Dissertations were retrieved via full-text online access or as books from the university library.

Data analysis

The dissertations were examined to identify research ethics sections, often under the subheadings “Ethical considerations” or “Ethical approval”. The texts were analysed for the topics addressed and how they were reported. An unstructured matrix of research ethics issues was created and grounded in the data. The coded texts were further analysed for subcategories through an inductive process. Descriptions of meanings of quantitative and qualitative character, that is manifest and latent content analysis, were sought. The analysis was performed by SK with BF—with extensive experience in qualitative methods.

In hierarchical complexity scoring, such content is “seen through” to examine its underlying structure. The method measures the levels of abstraction and how information is coordinated. Each section and subsection of a research ethics discussion was assessed on stage of hierarchical complexity. The overall discussion was scored based on the highest stage of performance the text demonstrated. The correlation of content and its complexity indicated which topics were addressed at different stages of complexity. Scoring was performed independently by SK and SR, then discussed to reach consensus. Both authors scored the English texts, and SK scored the ones in Scandinavian languages and discussed with SR. SR is an expert HCSS stage-and-transition scorer while SK is a qualified HCSS scorer of stages 8 through 11. See table 1 for stage complexity information. 22

• View inline

Common range of stages of performance in adult tasks' hierarchical complexity

Research ethics issues in dissertations

Dissertations contained one to seven research ethics topics: approval of research ethics board (94%); information process and informed consent (86%); confidentiality (67%); ethical aspects of methods (61%); use of ethical principles and regulations (39%), rationale for the study (20%) and fair participant selection method (14%; table 2 ). All but three of the dissertations involved direct interaction with study participants; three were register-based studies.

Design of research ethics sections in Swedish nurses' dissertations

Ethics approval

The ethics approval category included descriptions of whether the dissertation has been vetted by an ethics review board. Almost all dissertations included a discussion of ethics approval (n=60), and a majority stated they had been approved by a research ethics review board (n=55). A quality and transparency concern was that several sections included no name of the ethics board and/or registration number (n=13). A minority related the issue of ethics approval to ethical codes, the Helsinki declaration or current national research ethics laws (n=14) by either stating that studies were performed in accordance with ethics regulations (n=8) or by arguing against the need for an ethics approval due to national laws (n=6).

Information and informed consent

We broadened the traditional informed consent category to accommodate information-giving processes discussed but not always expressed in terms of informed consent. Most dissertations discussed information-giving and informed consent (n=56). A third of these explicitly mentioned the concept of informed consent (n=19). A substantial amount of space was typically used to detail the informing phase of research, including the information's form (written and/or verbal) (n=41) and type. The most often-given information was freedom to withdraw from the study (n=33) and a declaration of voluntariness (n=30). Other information included confidentiality (n=22), withdrawals' non-interference with further treatment (n=7), the right to not answer questions (n=4), aim of the study (n=2), risks and benefits (n=2) and feedback of results (n=1). Those responsible for providing information as well as those receiving the information were described. Some informed consent discussions included an ethical rationale for the information process by referring to principles, codes or laws (n=16).

Confidentiality

Items coded in the confidentiality category reported that information was accessible to only authorised persons. Confidentiality procedures were succinctly reported (n=43). Besides describing confidentiality as something that participants were guaranteed and informed about, some researchers identified how confidentiality had been handled: data were safely stored protecting participant's identity (n=12); data were analysed and reported without identifying participants (n=19) and participants in focus group interviews were counselled in ways to promote freedom of expression and confidentiality (n=2).

Ethical aspect of the methods

The category for ethical aspect of the methods included the research ethics issues in collecting data, except for questions regarding informing participants. Ethical aspects of study methods were comprised of descriptions of interviews and questionnaires (n=37). Explanations of why interviews were ethically problematic were done by referring to principles or risks of harm (n=17). The negative aspects stated (n=24) were physical and psychological with an emphasis on emotional. Strategies to impede negative consequences were depicted (n=20): adopt a sensitive attitude, adapt to the physical and mental status of the interviewee, reduce questions, provide time to reflect on the interview and arrange for a contact person. Sometimes, statements about how the participants seemed to enjoy the interview experience were included (n=14). A few sections described problems that appeared during the research interview (n=14)—for example, interviewees who cried or did not answer all questions. The most comprehensive sections covered all these issues, but the most common strategy was to mention the potential laboriousness of the interview yet argue that participants benefited from practical solutions that were provided in the interview situation or by claiming that research participants appreciated the opportunity to tell their stories. The reported ethical problems with questionnaires were primarily the tedium of answering questions and how researchers adjusted the number of requests for completion out of respect and concern for participants' possible fatigue.

Use of ethical principles and regulations

Discussions that included the usage of principles and ethical regulations like laws and research ethics codes were coded to the category of ethical principles and regulations. This category was analytically different from others because it revealed how ethics were applied in the research sections. Explicit report of laws, ethics codes and principles occurred in fewer than half of the dissertations (n=25). Principles were employed but performed in qualitatively different ways (n=17). The simplest form was to state that the study had been performed in accordance with a research ethics declaration, code or rules outlined in a research ethics book. The most elaborate ones integrated the principles and described how they were used as compasses for research procedures (n=8).

Rationale for the study

To provide an ethical rationale for the study means to justify why the study is important in a wider perspective. Thirteen dissertations featured an ethical rationale for the study, and when included, it was framed in terms of risks and benefits. The need for new and valuable knowledge that could potentially improve conditions for other people weighed heavier than the extra demand and little direct gain that the research subjects gained from participating. Some reported that the value of pursuing the research outweighed the disadvantages but entailed the necessity of protecting the autonomy of the research participants.

Fair participant selection

Fair selection of participants signifies reflections on a justified choice of participants. The reason to include vulnerable groups and groups that previously has been excluded from research was sometimes given (n=9). A few sections justified the choice of participants (n=8). The importance of including important and vulnerable groups so their voices would be heard was the main reason reported.

Design of the research ethics section

The topics of the research ethics sections are outlined in table 2 . Most frequent was to report four ethics issues (n=16), followed by three (n=14) or five issues (n= 14). The majority (72%) included 3–5 issues. Four sections stated one topic and only one dissertation section reported seven issues. The most common composition of a section about research ethics discussed five topics: the approval from a research review board, information and informed consent, ethical aspects of the methods, confidentiality and principles.

Complexity of reasoning

The analysed texts demonstrated three stages of performance as measured by hierarchical complexity: abstract (n=4), formal (n=54) and systematic (n=6).

Abstract stage text performances consisted of declarative statements ( table 3 ). Unsupported categorical assertions were made and justified by invoking another assertion. Generalisations were created by quantifying people and events. Often-used quantifications in the sample were “all participants” and “all studies”. Research ethics sections included mainly generalisations about actions that had been performed.

Representative examples of reasoning in research ethics at three stages of complexity

Reasoning at the formal stage of performance used empirical or logical evidence ( table 3 ). Assertions were supported by explicit logic or evidence to justify the assertion—for example, by providing a logical explanation—for example, using such terms as because, in order to, since, if, then, therefore. Descriptions of hypothetical or alternative options in the future were sometimes included. The logic was linear. Such linear logic took the form of if–then constructions or chains of logic. Some used principles as logical reasons for actions.

Systematic stage performances were characterised by the ability to coordinate at least two logical relations into a system ( table 3 ); in other words, they demonstrated reasoning about complex causation and ability to understand a system of logical relationships. For example, one researcher described procedures for finding the “right people” by invoking a multivariate system that required the coordination of multiple variables. Systemic stage performances were characterised by more fluid reasoning than the linear, logical performances.

Comparing content and complexity

Few dissertations demonstrated abstract reasoning and systematic reasoning, four and six, respectively, but showed interesting patterns. The texts with abstract stage reasoning reported either one or two topics. All four mentioned approval; information and methodological issues were raised by only two. Texts with systematic reasoning introduced three to five ethical issues. Half of them discussed principles (as compared to merely citing a principle as the reason for an action), and the other three reported the rationale for the study, indicating that the topic and study could perhaps be viewed in a wider context. Among the majority of texts demonstrating formal reasoning, the topics varied from one to seven, meaning at least formal reasoning was needed to explain all conceivable aspects. Formal reasoning is required to report such tasks as fair selection of participants, rationale for the study and principles, ethics codes and laws.

Our study demonstrates that research ethics are insufficiently reported and inadequately described in many nursing dissertations. Few ethical topics are considered, and they are not discussed in a thorough way. While most note official approval and describe informed consent issues, other issues like the rationale for the study and how the participants were selected are infrequently reported. The level of complexity of reasoning was inadequate in most dissertations. The majority of the dissertations used formal reasoning, although by their nature, the ethical issues introduced in them require more complex reasoning to be satisfactorily addressed.

A methodological strength of our study is its inclusion of a large number of dissertations, which are likely representative of dissertations by Swedish nurses. A major advantage of our method is that the analytical approach permits assessments and comparisons of the coverage of ethical issues and the complexity of reasoning.

A methodological shortcoming is that the analysis was primarily focused on the section denoted “Ethical considerations/approval”, thus some ethics topics and reasoning might have passed undetected if they were treated in other parts of the dissertation. The analysis is thus limited to what the authors define as belonging to ethics sections. Our analysis identified the most complex stage of reasoning as a criterion for analysis because ethical considerations are complex matters. A more extensive analysis could have also analysed the entire low to high range of reasoning demonstrated in each ethics section. An implication of the language analyses is that we do not know which and how the ethical issues were applied in reality. Some issues could have been omitted from the dissertation text even though the issue was dealt with in practice and vice versa. The consistency between writing about ethics and ethical behaviour in the field—for example, in contact with research subjects and patients, should be investigated in future studies.

The first main finding is the incompleteness of the elaboration of topics and details in several dissertations, which is consistent with several studies in the domain of research ethics. A previous study showed a high level of errors in research ethics committee letters; that is, procedural violations, missing information, slip-ups and discrepancies. 8 Earlier research on Swedish nurses' dissertations demonstrate the questionable quality due to short length, few references and a narrow range of topics. 12

In our study, few topics were addressed. Emanuel et al argued for seven requirements to be considered and met in the conduct of ethical research: scientific value, validity, fair subject selection, favourable risk–benefit ratio, independent review, informed consent and respect for potential and enrolled subjects. 23 Applied to our findings, some requirements may be treated in other parts of a dissertation, but several dissertations leave out topics that are necessary for judging their ethical quality.

Informing potential participants and pursuing informed consent was reported in almost 90% of the dissertations' ethics sections. This frequency is higher than that reported in a study of Turkish nurses' dissertations where subjects were not informed about the study (72.7%) and the researchers had not obtained permission from the subjects (73.6%). 11

The second main finding is the insufficient level of complexity of reasoning, with which research ethics are handled. Findings from a discourse analysis of research ethics committee letters showed that there was “the lack of formal reasoning” (p 258) and ethical arguments—for example, informed consent are described as procedural norms rather than an ethics principle possible to dispute. 9 This is consistent with our findings, because a significant number invoked research ethics principles to justify procedures taken, rather than to use principles to support ethical arguments for and against certain procedures. However, our findings also showed that the great majority used at least some formal reasoning, as measured by hierarchical complexity.

Unfortunately, formal reasoning is necessary but not sufficient for adequacy in ethical matters. The analysis showed that formal reasoning and systematic reasoning were needed to elaborate on topics, and the comparison of complexity reasoning and content indicated that higher levels of reasoning involved more elaborated use of ethics principles. Very few used systematic reasoning, and none used metasystematic, which would be preferable because several of the research ethics concepts are metasystematic stage principles. For example, informed consent is a metasystematic stage concept because it coordinates the system of informing a research subject and the system of obtaining consent from the person. 24 This means that metasystematic reasoning is needed for a full understanding and use of these concepts.

What are possible explanations for the low levels of reasoning on research ethics? One possibility is that ethical issues are dealt with at a sufficiently high level of complexity in practice, whereas the text of the dissertation merely reflects a research tradition that discounts the importance of performing and explaining ethical reasoning. Disciplinary norms for terse writing styles are presumably promoted by supervisors and department guidelines. For example, nurses' dissertations in social science use more references to methods, ethics and philosophy of science than dissertation in the medical science tradition. 23 In addition, poor writing may occur because researchers mimic previous dissertations or regard ethical considerations as bureaucratic hurdles rather than moral requirements to protect participants. The supervisor role is an important factor since they sometimes acknowledge a considerable lack of knowledge about research ethics. 25 Another conceivable explanation is that the level of ethical reasoning corresponds rather accurately to the level of complexity the doctoral students and their supervisors use to handle complex issues in general. In other words, they are arguing on ethical issues at their highest complexity level. In that case, the scientists' (PhD students' and supervisors') ability to discuss at more complex levels must be improved for ethical issues to be sufficiently managed in the future. All these possibilities suggest further research is needed to account for our findings, since ethics have long been an important part of nurses' education and occupation.

There are several implications of insufficient ethical reasoning. Integrity of the research subjects and patients are at risk, and patients, if they participate, may be informed without understanding the implications. From the perspective of the readers of the scientific literature, it is impossible to assess how and why the authors dealt with various ethical issues. A crucial implication is the consequences of selection of research questions, methods and participants/sample. Scientists performing at abstract or formal stages are less likely to integrate relevant ethical aspects into their research aims than scientists at higher complexity levels. This is because such integration, by its nature, is multivariate at minimum. They will differ quite dramatically in the way they understand principles as principles, “risks” and “benefits”, rationale of the investigation, etc. Researchers with systemic or metasystematic stage reasoning are able to ask more complex questions, juggle ethics, research questions, and methods and design more complex research projects. 26

Our conclusion is that if the established praxis to include discussion of research ethics in Swedish nurses' dissertations is going to be valuable, and if its purpose is to indicate that the research complied with expected ethics, then the reporting must exhibit a certain quality, comprehensiveness and sufficiently significant treatment of ethics. Our study illustrates that factors that improve the quality include: appropriately thorough consideration of several ethical issues while avoiding minutiae; use of ethical principles in appropriate contexts to justify choices and reasons to support actions taken and use of at least formal and systematic reasoning. In addition, we would like to see more reflection and a critical stance to what has been done in the dissertation work.

In order to accomplish the intent of reporting research ethics, several improvements are needed. The most straightforward solution is to enhance the research ethics teaching in graduate education. Students must learn how to perform ethically sound research from the first steps of planning and performing to writing up the results and their potential and ability to report and reflect on ethical aspects of the research process must be enhanced. A more profound resolution is to emphasise metasystematic thinking in post-graduate studies and recruit senior researcher and post-graduate students who already have developed a systematic or metasystematic way of reasoning. This longer-term solution will also constitute the foundation for further development of complexity in handling ethics issues in the future.

Acknowledgments

We would like to thank professor Per Sjölander for valuable comments on the discussion.

• Emanuel EJ ,
• Wendler D ,
• Dixon-Woods M ,
• Ashcroft RE
• Finlay KA ,
• Fernandez CV
• Angell EL ,
• Jackson CJ ,
• Ashcroft RE ,
• Dixon-Woods M
• O'Reilly M ,
• Rowan-Legg A ,
• Ulusoy MF ,
• Kjellström S ,
• Creswell JW
• Commons ML ,
• Smith JEV ,
• Goodheart EA ,
• Dawson TL ,
• Swedish law
• Rodriguez JA ,
• Szirony TA ,
• Richards FA

Supplementary materials

Web only appendix.

Files in this Data Supplement:

• web only appendix

Competing interests None.

Provenance and peer review Not commissioned; externally peer reviewed.

Read the full text or download the PDF:

Other content recommended for you.

• 3D bioprint me: a socioethical view of bioprinting human organs and tissues Niki Vermeulen et al., Journal of Medical Ethics, 2017
• Towards a European code of medical ethics. Ethical and legal issues Sara Patuzzo et al., Journal of Medical Ethics, 2016
• Strengthening ethics committees for health-related research in sub-Saharan Africa: a scoping review protocol Val Thurtle et al., BMJ Open, 2021
• Ethical navigation of biobanking establishment in Ukraine: learning from the experience of developing countries Oksana N Sulaieva et al., Journal of Medical Ethics, 2023
• A comparative analysis of biomedical research ethics regulation systems in Europe and Latin America with regard to the protection of human subjects Eugenia Lamas et al., Journal of Medical Ethics, 2010
• Understanding ethics guidelines using an internet-based expert system G Shankar et al., Journal of Medical Ethics, 2008
• The experiences of ethics committee members: contradictions between individuals and committees L Elliott et al., Journal of Medical Ethics, 2008
• Beyond regulatory approaches to ethics: making space for ethical preparedness in healthcare research Kate Lyle et al., Journal of Medical Ethics, 2022
• Proportional ethical review and the identification of ethical issues D Hunter, Journal of Medical Ethics, 2007
• How not to argue against mandatory ethics review David Hunter, Journal of Medical Ethics, 2012

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

• View all journals
• Explore content
• About the journal
• Publish with us
• Sign up for alerts
• CAREER FEATURE
• 21 August 2023

Failed PhD: how scientists have bounced back from doctoral setbacks

• Carrie Arnold 0

Carrie Arnold is a science writer based near Richmond, Virginia.

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Distraught and panicking, Jess McLaughlin logged into their Twitter account last October and wrote a desperate, late-night tweet .

Access options

Access Nature and 54 other Nature Portfolio journals

Get Nature+, our best-value online-access subscription

24,99 € / 30 days

cancel any time

Subscribe to this journal

Receive 51 print issues and online access

185,98 € per year

only 3,65 € per issue

Rent or buy this article

Prices vary by article type

Prices may be subject to local taxes which are calculated during checkout

Nature 620 , 911-912 (2023)

doi: https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-023-02603-8

Related Articles

• Scientific community

How I harnessed media engagement to supercharge my research career

Career Column 09 APR 24

Ready or not, AI is coming to science education — and students have opinions

Career Feature 08 APR 24

How we landed job interviews for professorships straight out of our PhD programmes

Career Column 08 APR 24

After the genocide: what scientists are learning from Rwanda

News Feature 05 APR 24

How can we make PhD training fit for the modern world? Broaden its philosophical foundations

Correspondence 02 APR 24

Brazil’s postgraduate funding model is about rectifying past inequalities

Correspondence 09 APR 24

Declining postdoc numbers threaten the future of US life science

Group Leader at Católica Biomedical Research Centre and Assistant or Associate Professor at Católica

Group Leader + Assistant/Associate Professor, tenure-track position in Biological and Biomedical Sciences, Data Science, Engineering, related fields.

Portugal (PT)

Católica Biomedical Research Centre

Faculty Positions at SUSTech Department of Biomedical Engineering

We seek outstanding applicants for full-time tenure-track/tenured faculty positions. Positions are available for both junior and senior-level.

Shenzhen, Guangdong, China

Southern University of Science and Technology (Biomedical Engineering)

Locum Associate or Senior Editor, Nature Cancer

To help us to build on the success of Nature Cancer we are seeking a motivated scientist with a strong background in any area of cancer research.

Berlin, Heidelberg or London - Hybrid working model

Springer Nature Ltd

Postdoctoral Research Fellows at Suzhou Institute of Systems Medicine (ISM)

ISM, based on this program, is implementing the reserve talent strategy with postdoctoral researchers.

Suzhou, Jiangsu, China

Suzhou Institute of Systems Medicine (ISM)

The Associate or Senior Editor will contribute to shaping the future of Nature Cancer journal.

Sign up for the Nature Briefing newsletter — what matters in science, free to your inbox daily.

Quick links

• Explore articles by subject
• Guide to authors
• Editorial policies

• Cookies & Privacy
• GETTING STARTED
• Introduction
• FUNDAMENTALS
• Acknowledgements
• Research questions & hypotheses
• Concepts, constructs & variables
• Research limitations
• Getting started
• Sampling Strategy
• Research Quality
• Research Ethics
• Data Analysis

Research ethics

When completing an undergraduate or master's level dissertation, there are a number of ethical requirements that must be taken into account. Some of these are formal requirements, such as the submission of an Ethics Proposal and/or the use of an Ethics Consent Form . However, at the undergraduate and master?s level, it is more likely that these ethical requirements simply have to be built into the way that you design and conduct your dissertation research. It is also important to understand what these ethical requirements are in order to write the Research Ethics section of your Research Strategy chapter (usually Chapter Three: Research Strategy ), as well as ensure that issues of research ethics are properly taken into account and do not slow you down.

When considering the research ethics in your dissertation, you need to think about: (a) the five basic ethical principles you need to take into account; and (b) how research ethics are influenced by your chosen research strategy . In addition, we set out some of the components that you will need to consider when writing an Ethics Consent Form .

• Principles of research ethics
• Research strategy and research ethics
• Ethics consent form

What to Do if You Fail Your Essay, Assignment, Exam or Dissertation

One of the most difficult experiences for students in the UK is the receipt of a failing mark (usually anything marked 39 or below is a fail). It is important to understand that there are many reasons why this can happen to students, and there are usually several options to change the failing mark. Whether you fail an exam , coursework or even the dissertation itself, you have options available so it’s not necessarily the end of the world!

Common Reasons for Failure

Students fail elements of their degree for a number of reasons. The most common issues are not attending lectures, not keeping up with course reading, confusion or lack of understanding of course content, and personal problems that distract students.

How to Avoid Failure Before it Happens

With all of the problems noted above, students can usually avoid failing simply by taking pre-emptive action before the problem spirals out of control. There are several steps to take to ensure that small issues don’t become potential failures.

• Talk to your Academic Tutor. This is a member of the faculty assigned to you at the beginning of your degree programme, who you meet with regularly to discuss your progress. You can contact this person at any time and they can advise you on how to address any challenges you are facing.
• Don’t wait until problems become large. It is always best to be aware that a small issue can quickly become a crisis if you neglect to address it. For example, if you are struggling to understand the course material one week, you will be unlikely to follow along as the course progresses. It is far better to consult with your lecturer early to avoid falling seriously behind later.
• File for ‘Extenuating Circumstances’. Most UK universities understand that students will sometimes face unavoidable difficulties due to prolonged sickness, family problems or financial issues. If you experience one of these problems you can file an ‘Extenuating Circumstances’ form, which formally notifies the university about your problem. Your Academic Tutor will sign this form and together you will construct a plan to catch up on any missed coursework or exams, and you will possibly be granted extensions to normal coursework deadlines.

Re-Assessment Opportunities

If the worst happens and you do receive a failing mark, you have several options. First, you need to understand whether you have failed an element of a module, the entire module, or the dissertation.

Failed Module Element

If you’ve failed one piece of coursework or an exam, it may not be necessary to re-submit that element. If your marks for other module elements are high enough that your averaged course mark is 40 or above, you will pass the module overall regardless of the one failure. In other words, if you receive a mark of 35 on an essay that counts for 40% of your module mark, you can still pass the module if you receive an average mark of 45 on the remaining 60% of the module assessment. However, you may wish to re-submit anyway, in order to achieve a higher overall degree average. The opportunities to allow this vary among Universities, so check the regulations at your own institution.

Failed Module

If you fail an entire module you are usually required to re-sit the assessments, either by re-submitting the coursework or, in some cases, by resitting an exam. The form of the assessment will be decided according to the existing module guidelines, university regulations, and the decisions of the lecturer and board of examiners. The resulting mark is usually capped at a bare pass level, which is typically in the 40-50 range.

Failed Dissertation

If you fail a dissertation, you will usually be given an opportunity to re-submit it by an agreed-upon date. As with a module failure, the marks awarded for a re-submitted dissertation will usually be capped at a bare pass level. It is worth noting that a complete failure of a dissertation is rare at UK universities, and typically occurs only if a student has neglected to meet with their supervisor at regular intervals, or neglected to submit drafts in advance of the final submission.

A Note on Plagiarism

Although university regulations usually allow a student to re-sit exams and assessments, as described above, there are special procedures in place in cases of failure due to plagiarism. If a student is found to have copied work from another source or used the ideas of others without citing their sources appropriately, they may receive a failing mark. In serious cases the matter can be referred to a University Ethics Board, that will have the authority to take a range of measures against the student. In many cases, students found guilty of plagiarising will not be provided with an opportunity to improve their marks, though they could potentially appeal the decision. In short, don’t do it!

Appeal Procedures

In addition to re-submitting assessment elements, you may have grounds appeal the marks awarded to you. This can happen if your university has neglected to take your Extenuating Circumstances into account, or if you were unfairly disadvantaged in any way. Each university has its own procedures for student academic appeals, and in general, it requires a somewhat lengthy process. You must be certain to file the appropriate forms before the deadlines, and fully document the reasons you feel justified in appealing your marks. Your case will be considered by a university exam board, and if you are successful you will be offered options for re-sitting or re-submitting work without restrictions on the potential marks you can earn. Full details of your university’s appeal procedures will be given to you at the start of your degree programme.

While every student hopes to avoid failing or even coming close to failing, sometimes the unthinkable does happen and a failing mark results. These situations can seem terribly disheartening for students, but it is important to remember that universities do offer second chances for genuinely honest and hard-working students!

You may also like

Library Guides

Dissertations 4: methodology: ethics.

• Introduction & Philosophy
• Methodology

Research Ethics

In the research context, ethics can be defined as "the standards of behaviour that guide your conduct in relation to the rights of those who become the subject of your work, or are affected by it" (Saunders, Lewis and Thornhill 2015, p239).  

The University itself is guided by the fundamental principle that research involving humans and /or animals and/or the environment should involve no more than minimal risk of harm to physical and psychological wellbeing.  

Thus, ethics relates to many aspects of your research, including the conduct towards: 

The participants  of your primary research (experiments, interviews etc). You will need to explain that participation is voluntary, and they have the right to withdraw at any time. You will need the participants' informed consent. You will need to avoid harming the participants, physically as well as mentally. You will need to respect the participants’ privacy and offer the right to anonymity. You will need to manage their personal data confidentially, also according to legislation such as the Data Protection Act 2018. You will need to be truthful and accurate when using the information provided by the participants.  

The authors you have used as secondary sources. You will need to acknowledge their work and avoid plagiarism by doing the proper citing and referencing. 

The readers of your research. You will need to exercise the utmost integrity, honesty, accuracy and objectivity in the writing of your work.   

The researcher . You will need to ensure that the research will be safe for you to undertake. 

Your research may entail some risk, but risk has to be analysed and minimised through risk  assessment. Depending on the type of your research, your research proposal may need to  be approved by an Ethics Committee, which will assess your research proposal in light of the  elements mentioned above. Again, you are advised to use a research methods book for further guidance.  

Research Ethics Online Course

Introduction to Research Ethics: Working with People  

Find out how to conduct ethical research when working with people by studying this online course for university students. Course developed by the University of Leeds. 

• << Previous: Methods
• Next: Methodology >>
• Last Updated: Sep 14, 2022 12:58 PM
• URL: https://libguides.westminster.ac.uk/methodology-for-dissertations

CONNECT WITH US

Dissertation Services

• Dissertation Writing Service
• Dissertation Assistance Service
• Dissertation Consulting Service
• Buy Dissertation
• Dissertation Abstract Writing Services
• Dissertation Formatting Service
• Buy Dissertation Methodology
• Dissertation Case Study Service
• Pay For Dissertation
• Dissertation Chapter Writing Services
• Dissertation Conclusion Services
• Dissertation Data Analysis Services
• Dissertation Discussion Writing Services
• Dissertation Introduction Writing Service
• Dissertation Outline Service
• Online Dissertation Help
• Write My Dissertation
• Do My Dissertation
• Help With Thesis Writing Service
• Dissertation Writing England
• Dissertation Writing Service London
• Dissertation Writing Northern Ireland
• Dissertation Writing Scotland
• Dissertation Writing Wales
• Personal Statement Writing Service

Dissertation Subjects

• Marketing Dissertation
• Digital Marketing Dissertation
• Law Dissertation Help
• Economics Dissertation
• Accounting Dissertation
• Business Management Dissertation
• Nursing Dissertation
• Psychology Dissertation
• Social Media Marketing Dissertation
• English Literature Dissertation Help
• Finance Dissertation
• History Dissertation
• HRM Dissertation
• IT Dissertation
• Linguistics Dissertation Help
• Supply Chain Management Dissertation Help
• Health And Social Care Dissertation

Dissertation Levels

• Buy Master Dissertation
• MBA Dissertation Writing Service
• Buy PhD Dissertation
• Masters Dissertation Proposal Help
• MBA Dissertation Proposal Help
• PhD Data Collection Services
• PhD Dissertation Proposal Help
• PhD Qualitative Data Analysis Services
• Master Thesis Help
• PhD Thesis Writing Help
• PhD Dissertation Editing
• Finance Dissertation Editing
• Digital Marketing Dissertation Editing
• Accounting Dissertation Editing
• Sociology Dissertation Editing
• English Literature Dissertation Editing
• Economics Dissertation Editing
• Linguistics Dissertation Editing
• Business Management Dissertation Editing
• Psychology Dissertation Editing
• Marketing Dissertation Editing
• Academic Poster Designing Services
• Dissertation PowerPoint Presentation Service
• Dissertation Presentation Writing Services
• Literature Review Writing Service
• Primary Data Collection Service
• Qualitative Data Dissertation Services
• Research Data Collection Service
• Secondary Data Collection Help
• DISSERTATION SERVICES
• DISSERTATION SUBJECTS
• DISSERTATION LEVELS
• Buy MBA Dissertation
• PhD Dissertation Editing Services

Hire a Writer

Get an expert writer for your academic paper

Check Samples

Take a look at samples for quality assurance

Dissertation Topics

Free customised dissertation topics for your assistance

• What Happens If You Fail…
• Accounting Dissertation Topics (8)
• Banking & Finance Dissertation Topics (10)
• Business Management Dissertation Topics (35)
• Economic Dissertation Topics (1)
• Education Dissertation Topics (12)
• Engineering Dissertation Topics (9)
• English Literature Dissertation Topics (3)
• HRM Dissertation Topics (3)
• Law Dissertation Topics (13)
• Marketing Dissertation Topics (9)
• Medical Dissertation Topics (7)
• Nursing Dissertation Topics (10)
• Other Topics (10)
• Supply Chain Dissertation Topics (2)
• Biomedical Science (1)
• Business Management Research Topics (1)
• Computer Science Research Topics (1)
• Criminology Research Topics (1)
• Economics Research Topics (1)
• Google Scholar Research Topics (1)
• HR Research Topics (1)
• Law Research Topics (1)
• Management Research Topics (1)
• Marketing Research Topics (1)
• MBA Research Topics (1)
• Medical Research Topics (1)
• How To (22)

Get a native to improve your language & writing

Enjoy quality dissertation help on any topic

Qualitative & Quantitative data analysis

What Happens If You Fail Your Dissertation?

If you are on the brink of failure over your final year research, then don’t worry, you are not alone. It is no doubt that every year, several students go through a failing dissertation which is a traumatizing experience for anyone, thinking what will happen if you fail your dissertation?

Opportunity or Exhaustive?

It is a fact that the degree will not be awarded with a failed dissertation, no matter which academic program a student is enrolled in. The nightmares of ‘what happens if I fail my dissertation’ are completely fair.

When it comes to Ph.D., the dissertation failure rate is about 40% to 50% which increases the thoughts of what happens if you fail dissertation. Some don’t even make it to their final defense and are rejected over their proposal presentation. And gets in the list of fail dissertation UK professors manage.

With a figure like this of Ph.D. students who are comparatively professionals at what they do, think about the failed undergraduate dissertation rates that students might go through every year. In fact, before submission they are surrounded with one question; how bad does a dissertation have to be to fail? and try to conquer it.

The question arises, are facing such results an opportunity or exhaustive? That depends upon the student and how they perceive it. Many get motivated by their failures while others do breakdown and cry thinking I ‘failed my dissertation’. To have a say, it should be taken no less than an opportunity to improve a failing dissertation.

How “Dissertation Proposal” Can Help You!

Our top dissertation writing experts are waiting 24/7 to assist you with your university project, from critical literature reviews to a complete masters dissertation.

So What’s Next?

“What happens if I fail my dissertation?” or “what happens if you don’t submit your dissertation” is a common question. Students with this unfortunate situation will be given another opportunity to re-submit their dissertation within a given deadline.

Strictly keeping in mind, the marks will be kept to a minimum passing line during the resubmission, which is an academic probatory method practiced for certain reasons. Anyhow, it is somewhat a good news, better than wondering wondering ‘what happens if you fail your undergraduate dissertation?’ A passing grade would even work.

I Failed My Dissertation on Second Attempt

If the second attempt turns out to be unsuccessful, then you can re-submit your dissertation the next semester of your university. Doesn’t need to brag ‘I failed my dissertation’

Can you resit a dissertation again after the second attempt? That depends upon the regulation that the university has set forth. However, such situations are rare and are less likely to occur but might be possible to some extent when you failed undergraduate dissertation.

How to Avoid Possible Dissertation Failure?

Before starting your  dissertation writing  and possibly avoid the chance of saying: “I failed my dissertation”, it is necessary to keep certain practices in check.

Keep communication with your supervisors regular

The dissertation supervisor is the key to achieving a passing grade. Every help should be taken from the supervisors as they have the academic insider of all the do’s and don’t. Even ask what happens if you fail dissertation UK standard has rejected. This is a student’s guide to achieve perfection, let alone just passing.

Look for immediate help from other sources

Look for immediate help to overcome minor research issues. Avoid delaying as it might become last-minute trouble to fix a failed dissertation (what every student thinks). Yet again, it is not wise to disturb your supervisor over and over again so don’t be shy to seek help from your friends, or anyone professional, if you think you are on the edge to fail dissertation this year.

Have a maintained flow

Can you fail a dissertation? Failure is possible when it comes to not proposing a proper presentation. This may be caused due to not having a strong enough literature review, research methods, variables, or the research statement itself. Furthermore, there has to be a connection from one chapter to another. Without a connection, the judging panel might find it difficult to understand which can lead to rejection and failing a dissertation might become your fate.

The submission of hard copy needs to be structured properly with relevant and up-to-date citations used within the plagiarism percentage criteria. In this case, ‘can you resit a dissertation’ thoughts becomes void.

This is a glimpse of how bad does a dissertation have to be to fail, where following these guidelines are just the basics for passing on the borderline and resist ‘what happens if you fail a  dissertation’ thoughts.

Keeping in Mind!

These are the basic understanding as to what happens if you fail your dissertation on any academic level. But keep in mind, you can always appeal to your university for re-checking any unfair corrections that might have occurred in your failed masters dissertation or so. Universities around the world do facilitate such procedures where you can provide strong evidence to avoid such failure.

Consult Our Writers to Discuss Your Needs

View different varieties of dissertation topics and samples on multiple subjects for every educational level

Some of the common questions asked by students regarding this matter are:

You will need to submit a new application in the next semester for your dissertation and repeat the research credit hours all over again from scratch.

That varies from university to university and the regulations they might have set forth. However, it is required to complete the full credit hours of the final dissertation again.

Not much compared to the dissertation failure rate of Ph.D. students . The key is to follow all the advice of your supervisor as they usually carry most of the dissertation mark weightage.

To understand the procedure and to know what happens if you fail your dissertation on the first attempt, you will generally be given another opportunity to resubmit your dissertation on another given deadline.

To some extent, yes. It possible; judging by the dissertation failure rate which exists. However, there could be numerous reasons for failing your dissertation. This possibility exists and many students tend to go through the horror thoughts of ‘what if I fail my dissertation’ and it is completely fair to fear.

• Election 2024
• Entertainment
• Newsletters
• Photography
• Personal Finance
• AP Investigations
• AP Buyline Personal Finance
• Press Releases
• Israel-Hamas War
• Russia-Ukraine War
• Global elections
• Asia Pacific
• Latin America
• Middle East
• Election Results
• Delegate Tracker
• AP & Elections
• March Madness
• AP Top 25 Poll
• Movie reviews
• Book reviews
• Personal finance
• Financial Markets
• Business Highlights
• Financial wellness
• Artificial Intelligence
• Social Media

Norway’s health minister accused of plagiarism in latest ethics scandal to rock the government

FILE - Minister of Health and Care Ingvild Kjerkol sits in the parliamentary chamber in Oslo, Wednesday Jan. 17, 2024. The center-right opposition in Norway on Thursday called for the resignation of Norway’s Health Minister Ingvild Kjerkol after an academic plagiarism probe ruled that she cheated in her thesis from 2021. It was the latest case of unethical behavior in Prime Minister Jonas Gahr Store’s center-left government which took office in October 2021. (Ole Berg-Rusten/NTB via AP, File)

• Copy Link copied

COPENHAGEN, Denmark (AP) — An academic probe said Thursday that Norway’s Health Minister Ingvild Kjerkol plagiarized parts of her masters’ degree thesis three years ago, the second such case this year in the Norwegian government and the latest allegation of unethical behavior to rock the center-left government.

The investigation by Nord University in Bodoe, northern Norway, found Kjerkol’s 2021 thesis contained “far more serious errors than sloppiness,” Norwegian broadcaster NRK reported. The broadcaster said the probe’s conclusion was to deprive Kjerkol of her master’s degree in health management.

The 48-year-old Kjerkol did not comment Thursday. But she has previously rejected the allegations, saying she and a co-author did not copy to parts of another student’s thesis from 2015.

Kjerkol has been in office since October 2021 when Prime Minister Jonas Gahr Støre presented a coalition government of his own Labor party and the junior Center Party.

The conclusion of Thursday’s probe immediately prompted the opposition to urge Gahr Støre to say whether he has trust in Kjerkol.

Jan Tore Sanner, a senior member of Norway’s main opposition party, Hoeyre, told Norwegian news agency NTB, that the prime minister must address “the matter of confidence” in Kjerkol.” Sylvi Listhaug, the leader of the anti-immigrant Progress Party, also called on Gahr Støre to “assess whether he has confidence in her.”

Kjerkol is the second government member to be entangled in academic plagiarism allegations this year. In January, Sandra Borch stepped down as minister for research and higher education after a student discovered that parts of Borch’s master’s thesis, including spelling mistakes, were copied without attribution from a different author.

Gahr Støre’s coalition has seen the departure of several ministers in recent months over other wrongdoings. In September, it was revealed that the husband of then Foreign Minister Anniken Huitfeldt had been trading in stocks for years behind her back and that could potentially enrich her.

The ruling social democratic Labor party was defeated in September in local elections by the Hoeyre for the first time since 1924. The party, which for decades was Norway’s largest party in local elections, came in second in the Sept. 11 elections for local councils in Norway’s 356 municipalities and 11 counties .

Norway's health minister accused of plagiarism in latest ethics scandal to rock the government

COPENHAGEN, Denmark — An academic probe said Thursday that Norway’s Health Minister Ingvild Kjerkol plagiarized parts of her masters’ degree thesis three years ago, the second such case this year in the Norwegian government and the latest allegation of unethical behavior to rock the center-left government.

The investigation by Nord University in Bodoe, northern Norway, found Kjerkol’s 2021 thesis contained “far more serious errors than sloppiness,” Norwegian broadcaster NRK reported. The broadcaster said the probe’s conclusion was to deprive Kjerkol of her master’s degree in health management.

The 48-year-old Kjerkol did not comment Thursday. But she has previously rejected the allegations, saying she and a co-author did not copy to parts of another student’s thesis from 2015.

Kjerkol has been in office since October 2021 when Prime Minister Jonas Gahr Støre presented a coalition government of his own Labor party and the junior Center Party.

The conclusion of Thursday’s probe immediately prompted the opposition to urge Gahr Støre to say whether he has trust in Kjerkol.

Jan Tore Sanner, a senior member of Norway’s main opposition party, Hoeyre, told Norwegian news agency NTB, that the prime minister must address “the matter of confidence” in Kjerkol.” Sylvi Listhaug, the leader of the anti-immigrant Progress Party, also called on Gahr Støre to “assess whether he has confidence in her.”

Kjerkol is the second government member to be entangled in academic plagiarism allegations this year. In January, Sandra Borch stepped down as minister for research and higher education after a student discovered that parts of Borch’s master’s thesis, including spelling mistakes, were copied without attribution from a different author.

Gahr Støre’s coalition has seen the departure of several ministers in recent months over other wrongdoings. In September, it was revealed that the husband of then Foreign Minister Anniken Huitfeldt had been trading in stocks for years behind her back and that could potentially enrich her.

The ruling social democratic Labor party was defeated in September in local elections by the Hoeyre for the first time since 1924. The party, which for decades was Norway’s largest party in local elections, came in second in the Sept. 11 elections for local councils in Norway’s 356 municipalities and 11 counties .

Stanford Humanities Today

Arcade: a digital salon.

Dale Jamieson | Why Conservation is Failing—And What We Have Failed to Learn From Climate Change

Dale Jamieson, Professor Emeritus of Environmental Studies at NYU

Conservation is failing. Even optimistic papers on conservation talk about surviving dark times before emerging into a different, better future. Despite occasional victories, the patchwork of laws, regulations, and court decisions that can be thought of as the “conservation regime” in the United States is an incoherent mess. The international regime suffers similar and also different infirmities, and each country will has its own particular story. In this talk, Jamieson will focus on the lack of clarity about conservation goals, and the dysfunctional logic of the conservation regime. He will go on to explore analogies with the climate change regime, and suggest that we are repeating many of the same mistakes. While there are no simple ways solutions, he suggests some ways of thinking about a more positive future.  

This Workshop is sponsored by the Stanford Humanities Center and made possible by support from an anonymous donor, former Fellows, the Mellon Foundation, the National Endowment for the Humanities, and the McCoy Family Center for Ethics in Society.

Stanford Humanities Center 424 Santa Teresa Street

Related Events

Craig callender | northern white rhinos: a case study of (almost) every philosophical/ethical issue in conservation today.

Naomi Oreskes | How Market Fundamentalism Has Blocked Climate Action

Federica Bocchi | Non-Epistemic Considerations and Performance Metrics in Biodiversity Conservation

Facing the Anthropocene: Interdisciplinary

Elliott Sober | Gene Editing and the War Against Malaria

Discovering Humanities Research at Stanford

Stanford Humanities Center

Advancing Research in the Humanities

Humanities Research for a Digital Future

The Humanities in the World

• Annual Reports
• Humanitrees
• Humanities Center Fellows
• Advisory Council
• Director's Alumni Cabinet
• Honorary Fellows
• Hume Honors Fellows
• International Visitors
• Workshop Coordinators
• Why Humanities Matter
• Fellowships for External Faculty
• Fellowships for Stanford Faculty
• Mellon Fellowship of Scholars in the Humanities
• Dissertation Fellowships FAQs
• Career Launch Fellowships
• Fellowships for Stanford Undergraduates
• International Visitors Program
• FAQ Mellon Fellowship
• Faculty Fellowships FAQ
• Events Archive
• Public Lectures
• Checklist for Event Coordinators
• Facilities Guidelines
• co-sponsorship from the Stanford Humanities Center
• Call for Proposals
• Manuscript Workshops
• Past Workshops
• Research Workshops

Outside roles by NBC's Conde, others reveal a journalism ethics issue: being paid to sit on boards

Most news organizations hold its journalists to strict ethical standards to avoid conflicts of interest either real or perceived

NEW YORK -- As NBC News Group chairman, Cesar Conde is already busy overseeing the network's broadcast and digital news operations, along with CNBC, MSNBC, Telemundo and NBC-owned local affiliates.

Yet the executive also has a second paid job. And a third — as a member of Walmart and PepsiCo's corporate boards. The arrangement has raised some ethical concerns, and reveals a potential blind spot for a news business usually very serious about conflicts — real or perceived.

CNN's new chief executive, Mark Thompson, chairs Ancestry.com's board. And although Amazon founder Jeff Bezos, owner of The Washington Post, is not a journalist, the newspaper reminds readers who he is when writing about Amazon. Former President Donald Trump has eagerly pointed out Bezos' dual roles.

A former NBC News executive, Bill Wheatley, recently questioned the propriety of Conde's outside corporate roles at a time when the news division's leadership is already under fire for the hiring and quick dismissal — following a staff revolt — of former Republican National Committee head Ronna McDaniel as a contributor.

“It seemed to me that this was an additional instance of NBC management not understanding the rules by which news leaders are supposed to play,” said Wheatley, who retired in 2005 as NBC News' executive vice president and has done work as a news consultant since.

Conde was on the Walmart and PepsiCo boards before he took over as NBC News Group chairman in 2020. The NBC News chief earned $275,018 from Walmart in 2022 and $320,000 from PepsiCo, in a combination of cash and stock, according to Salary.com.

NBC wouldn't comment to The Associated Press on the matter.

There's no evidence that Conde has been involved with any NBC stories involving the two corporations. NBC pointed to a 2021 Wall Street Journal article where the network said he would recuse himself from any reporting on the companies.

Generally, journalists work hard to avoid any situation where a conflict could be alleged, even if the conflict itself does not come to pass: Did reporters, for example, write positive stories on a corporation that a boss is involved with, or ignore bad news because it might anger a superior? Perception can be as important as an actual conflict; some journalists go so far as to not even vote in an election that their outlet is covering.

This holds true within NBC as well. Among other rules: The business network CNBC that Conde oversees forbids its journalists — and their spouses — from owning stock for these reasons.

Recusal is a good step, Wheatley says, but it doesn't cure the conflict.

“In an ideal world, I think news executives should avoid situations like this,” said Jane Kirtley, a professor of media ethics and law at the University of Minnesota. If the situation can't be avoided, it's important to disclose it and make clear the companies will face reporting that takes place “without fear or favor,” she said.

Kelly McBride, senior vice president and ethics expert at the Poynter Institute, the pre-eminent journalism think tank, agrees that the situation isn't ideal. At the same time, she says, “we don't want executives or anybody in journalism to be a blank slate.”

Leaders in journalism have traditionally worked their way up the ranks but that's not always the route anymore. Conde succeeded in corporate, not news, roles at Univision and Telemundo before getting his current job. CNN's Thompson was a top executive at the BBC and The New York Times. At the latter, his biggest achievement was more in business than journalism, shepherding a successful digital transformation.

CNN would not discuss whether Thompson is paid for his Ancestry.com job. Representatives for the company, a private one not obligated to disclose salaries, did not respond to a message. The Glassdoor jobs website estimated directors at Ancestry are paid in a similar six-figure range as the Walmart and PepsiCo jobs.

Thompson has recused himself from any news involving Ancestry or other genealogical companies, network spokeswoman Emily Kuhn said.

ABC this spring appointed Debra O'Connell, a longtime executive at the network and its corporate owner, the Walt Disney Co., to a position that oversees ABC News. O'Connell's background is in sales and marketing. She has unpaid positions on boards involving National Geographic and the A & E Networks, both companies affiliated with Disney.

It's hard to make assumptions about how journalists will deal with knowing the boss has interest in a particular company.

It's human nature to want to avoid problems, although McBride notes that some contrarian journalists who want to prove their independence would dive right in. For example, The Washington Post in 2021 analyzed government data for a story on the dangers faced by Amazon warehouse workers.

Because NBC wouldn't address questions about Conde, it's not clear whether anyone at NBC Universal signed off on him continuing with his paid board positions.

The New York Times and Wall Street Journal are two news companies with conduct codes that specifically talk about such roles. The Times says staff members “may not join boards of trustees, advisory committees or similar groups except those serving journalistic organizations or otherwise promoting journalism education.” The Journal says its employees “may not serve as directors, officers, advisors, investors, consultants or partners of any company or venture devoted to profit-making.”

Other situations are murkier. ABC, CBS and Fox News said its news leaders don't serve on paid outside corporate boards, but couldn't or wouldn't point to policies that forbid the practice.

The AP employee handbook says that “we avoid addressing, or accepting fees or expense from, governmental bodies; trade, lobbying or special interest groups; businesses or labor groups; or any group that would pose a conflict of interest.” Neither AP President Daisy Veerasingham nor Julie Pace, AP's executive editor and senior vice president, sits on any outside boards, a spokeswoman said.

It would make sense for news organizations to make clear policies about service on outside boards, and outline procedures if it is allowed, Poynter's McBride said. “I don't think it was much of an issue in the past,” she said. “The nature of news companies has gotten much more complicated that it's likely to become an issue in the future.”

News organizations are also left to decide for themselves how to alert readers or viewers of potential conflicts. The Post generally makes clear its owner's ties to Amazon when writing about the company; a September 2023 story about workplace safety included this disclaimer: “Amazon founder Jeff Bezos owns the Washington Post."

The Post knows it is being watched. Trump has called the newspaper the “Amazon Washington Post” on social media and wrote on Twitter in 2018 that “The Washington Post is nothing more than an expensive ... lobbyist for Amazon.”

On NBC"s “Nightly News” last July, reporter Jacob Burns reported a story about how Walmart was using artificial intelligence to help stock its shelves and change the jobs of some of its employees. Burns quoted a company spokesman saying that AI wouldn't result in job losses, and a business school professor who expressed some skepticism about that.

While Conde's NBC corporate profile mentions his association with Walmart, it was not included as part of Burns' story or in a handful of digital pieces that have run about the company.

David Bauder writes about media for The Associated Press. Follow him at http://twitter.com/dbauder.

Top Stories

OJ Simpson, former football star acquitted of murder, dies at 76

• 42 minutes ago

Mom gives celestial name to baby born during total solar eclipse

• Apr 9, 12:21 PM

GOP nominee for NC governor failed to file federal income taxes for 5 years

• Apr 11, 5:05 AM

Husband of former Chiefs cheerleader who died after stillbirth speaks out on his loss

• Apr 11, 4:00 AM

Biden administration to close 'gun show loophole'

• Apr 11, 6:32 AM

ABC News Live

24/7 coverage of breaking news and live events