Principles of research ethics

There are a number of ethical principles that should be taken into account when
performing undergraduate and master's level dissertation research. At the core, these
ethical principles stress the need to (a) do good (known as beneficence) and(b) do no
harm (known as non-malfeasance). In practice, these ethical principles mean that as a
researcher, you need to:(a) obtain informed consent from potential research
participants; (b) minimise the risk of harm to participants; (c) protect
their anonymity and confidentiality; (d) avoid using deceptive practices; and (e) give
participants the right to withdraw from your research.

PRINCIPLE ONE
Minimising the risk of harm
Dissertation research should not harm participants. Where there is the possibility that
participants could be harmed or put in a position of discomfort, there must be strong
justifications for this. Such scenarios will also require (a) additional planning to illustrate
how participant harm (or discomfort) will be reduced, (b) informed consent,
and (c) detailed debriefing.
There are a number of types of harm that participants can be subjected to. These
include:

Physical harm to participants.

Psychological distress and discomfort.

Social disadvantage.

Harm to participants? financial status.

An invasion of participants? privacy and anonymity.

Typically, it is not harm that we need to think about since a researcher does not
intentionally go out to cause harm. Rather, it is the risk of harm that you should try to
minimise. In order to minimising the risk of harm you should think about:

Obtaining informed consent from participants.

Protecting the anonymity and confidentiality of participants.

Avoiding deceptive practices when designing your research.

Providing participants with the right to withdraw from your research at any time.

We discuss each of these ethical principles in the sections that follow, explaining (a) what
they mean and (b) instances where they should (and should not) be followed.

PRINCIPLE TWO
Obtaining informed consent
One of the foundations of research ethics is the idea of informed consent. Simply
put, informed consent means that participants should understand that (a) they are
taking part in research and (b) what the research requires of them. Such information
may include the purpose of the research, the methods being used, the possible
outcomes of the research, as well as associated demands, discomforts, inconveniences
and risks that the participants may face. Whilst is it not possible to know exactly what
information a potential participant would (or would not) want to know, you should aim
not to leave out any material information; that is, information that you feel would
influence whether consent would (or would not) be granted.
Another component of informed consent is the principle that participants should
be volunteers, taking part without having been coerced and deceived. Where informed
consent cannot be obtained from participants, you must explain why this is the case. You
should also be aware that there are instances informed consent is not necessarily needed
or needs to be relaxed. These include
certain educational, organisational and naturalistic research settings. We discuss these in
more detail under the section: Avoiding deceptive practices.

PRINCIPLE THREE
Protecting anonymity and confidentiality
Protecting the anonymity and confidentiality of research participants is another practical
component of research ethics. After all, participants will typically only be willing
to volunteer information, especially information of a private or sensitive nature, if the
researcher agrees to hold such information in confidence. Whilst it is possible that
research participants may be hurt in some way if the data collection methods used are
somehow insensitive, there is perhaps a greater danger that harm can be caused once
data has been collected. This occurs when data is not treated confidentially, whether in
terms of the storage of data, its analysis, or during the publication process (i.e., when

submitting your dissertation to be marked). However, this does not mean that all data
collected from research participants needs to be kept confidential or anonymous. It may
be possible to disclose the identity and views of individuals at various stages of the
research process (from data collection through to publication of your dissertation).
Nonetheless, permissions should be sought before such confidential information is
disclosed.
An alternative is to remove identifiers (e.g., vernacular terms, names, geographical cues,
etc.) or provide proxies when writing up. However, such a stripping
of identifiable information may not always be possible to anticipate at the outset of your
dissertation when thinking about issues of research ethics. This is not only a
consideration for dissertations following aqualitative research design, but also
a quantitative research design [for more information, see the article: Research strategy
and research ethics].
For example:
Imagine that your dissertation used a quantitative research design and a survey as your
main research method. In the process of analysing your data, it is possible that when
examining relationships between variables (i.e., questions in your survey), a person's
identity and responses could be inferred. For instance, imagine that you were comparing
responses amongst employees within an organisation based on specific age groups.
There may only be a small group (or just one employee) within a particular age group
(e.g., over 70 years old), which could enable others to identify the responses of this
individual (or small group of employees).
Therefore, you need to consider ways of overcoming such problems, such
as: (a) aggregating data in tables and (b) setting rules that ensure a minimum number
of units are present before data/information can be presented.
A further alternative is to seek permission for access to data and analysis to be restricted
to the published material, perhaps only allowing it to be viewed by those individuals
marking your work. If the work is later published, adjustments would then need to be
made to protect the confidentiality of participants.
There are also a wide range of potential legal protections that may affect what research
you can and cannot perform, how you must treated the data of research participants,
and so forth. In other words, you don?t simply have a duty to protect the data you
collect from participants; you may also have (in some cases) a legal responsibility to do

so. Since this varies from country-to-country, you should ask your dissertation
supervisor or Ethics Committee for advice (or a legal professional).

PRINCIPLE FOUR
Avoiding deceptive practices
At first sight, deceptive practices fly in the face of informed consent. After all, how can
participants know (a) that they are taking part in research and (b) what the research
requires of them if they are being deceived? This is part of what makes the use of
deceptive practices controversial. For this reason, in most circumstances, dissertation
research should avoid any kinds of deceptive practices. However, this is not always the
case.
Deception is sometimes a necessary component of covert research, which can be
justified in some cases. Covert researchreflects research where (a) the identity of the
observer and/or (b) the purpose of the research is not known to participants. Cases
where you may choose to engage in covert research may include instances where:

It is not feasible to let everyone in a particular research setting know what you
are doing.

Overt observation or knowledge of the purpose of the research may alter the
particular phenomenon that is being studied.

Let's take each of these in turn:

It is not feasible to let everyone in a particular research setting know what you are doing
By feasibility, we are not talking about the cost of doing research. Instead, we mean that
it is not practically possible to let everyone in a particular research setting know what
you are doing. This is most likely to be the case where research involves observation,
rather than direct contact with participants, especially in a public or online setting. There
are a number of obvious instances where this may be the case:

Observing what users are doing in an Internet chat room.

Observing individuals going about their business (e.g., shopping, going to work,
etc.).

Clearly, in these cases, where individuals are coming and going, it may simply be
impossible to let everyone known what you are doing. You
may not be intentionally trying to engage in deceptive practices, but clearly participants
are not giving you their informed consent.
Overt observation or knowledge of the purpose of the research may alter the particular
phenomenon that is being studied
Where observations or a participants? knowledge of the true purpose of the research
have the potential to alter the particular phenomenon that you are interested in, this is a
major concern in terms of the quality of your findings.
Therefore, when you think about whether to engage in covert research and
possibly deceptive practices, you should think about the extent to which this could be
beneficial in your dissertation, not research in general; that is, everything from
theresearch paradigm that guides your dissertation through to the data analysis
techniques you choose affect issues of research ethics in your dissertation [see the
article: Research strategy and research ethics].
Imagine some of the following scenarios where covert research may be considered
justifiable:

Scenario A
You are conducting a piece of research looking at prejudice. Whilst participants
are given a questionnaire to complete that measures their prejudice, it is not
obvious from the questions that this is the case. Furthermore, participants are not
told that the research is about prejudice because it is felt that this
could alter their responses. After all, few people would be happy if other people
thought they were prejudice. As a result, if participants knew that this is the
purpose of the study, they may well provide responses that they think will make
them appear less prejudice.

Scenario B
You are interested in understanding the organisational culture in a single firm.
You feel that observation would be an appropriate research method in such
a naturalistic setting. However, you feel that if employees knew that you were
monitoring them, they may behave in a different way. Therefore, you may have

received permission to go undercoveror provide a story to explain why you are

there, which is not the truth.
Whilst such covert research and deceptive practices, especially where used intentionally,
can be viewed as controversial, it can be argued that they have a place in research.

PRINCIPLE FIVE
Providing the right to withdraw
With the exception of those instances of covert observation where is not feasible to let
everyone that is being observed know what you are doing, research participants should
always have the right to withdraw from the research process. Furthermore, participants
should have the right to withdraw at any stage in the research process. When a
participant chooses to withdraw from the research process, they should not
be pressured or coerced in any way to try and stop them from withdrawing.
If your supervisor and/or Ethics Committee expect you to complete an Ethics Consent
Form, it is likely that you will have to let participants know that they have the right to
withdraw at any time [see the article: Ethics consent form].

Laerd dissertation. n date . no author. http://dissertation.laerd.com/researchstrategy-and-research-ethics.php

Key ethics principles
Whatever your planned source of funding for the research, there are some fundamental
ethical questions that you should ask of your research before you start the proposal.
Here, we have linked these questions to the six key principles set out in the
ESRC Framework for Research Ethics:
1. Research should be designed, reviewed and undertaken to ensure integrity
and quality.
Is the research study worth doing? Can you ensure the integrity and quality of the
research?
2. Research staff and subjects must be informed fully about the purpose,
methods and intended possible uses of the research, what their participation in
the research entails and what risks, if any, are involved. Some variation is
allowed in very specific and exceptional research contexts for which detailed
guidance is provided in the policy guidelines.
Can you ensure that any potential participants will be fully informed of the purpose,
methods and intended possible uses of the research? If not, are you sure you can
convince an ethics committee that your project is justifiable?

3. The confidentiality of information supplied by research subjects and the

anonymity of respondents must be respected.
Is it possible to maintain participant confidentiality and anonymity within the study?
4. Research participants must participate in a voluntary way, free from any
coercion.
Can you guarantee that your participants involvement in the research is truly voluntary?
5. Harm to research participants must be avoided.
Can the research guarantee the absence of harm to the research participants?
Remember that in social science research, harm is taken to mean more than just
physical harm, and can refer to emotional harm and risk of upset, as well as to
reputational damage.
6. The independence of research must be clear, and any conflicts of interest or
partiality must be explicit.
Will the research design enable the researchers to remain independent throughout the
process? Are there any conflicts of interest?

The research ethics guidebook: a resource for social scientists. ESRC ECONOMIC
AND SOCIAL RESEARCOUNCIL RESEARCHER DEVELOPMENT INITAITIVE LEADING
EDUASTION AND SOCIAL RESEARCH INSTITUTE OF EDUCATION UNIVERSITY OF
LONDON. http://www.ethicsguidebook.ac.uk/key-ethics-principles-15

Guiding Principles for Ethical

Research
Pursuing Potential Research Participants Protections

When people are invited to participate in research, there is a strong belief that it should
be their choice based on their understanding of what the study is about, and what the
risks and benefits of the study are, said Dr. Christine Grady, chief of the NIH Clinical
Center Department of Bioethics, to Clinical Center Radio in a newly released podcast.
Clinical research advances the understanding of science and promotes human health.
However, it is important to remember the individuals who volunteer to participate in
research. There are precautions researchers can take in the planning, implementation
and follow-up of studies to protect these participants in research. Ethical guidelines are
established for clinical research to protect patient volunteers and to preserve the integrity
of the science.
NIH Clinical Center researchers published seven main principles to guide the conduct of
ethical research:

Social and clinical value

Scientific validity

Fair subject selection

Favorable risk-benefit ratio

Independent review

Informed consent

Respect for potential and enrolled subjects

Social and clinical value

Every research study is designed to answer a specific question. The answer should be
important enough to justify asking people to accept some risk or inconvenience for others.
In other words, answers to the research question should contribute to scientific
understanding of health or improve our ways of preventing, treating, or caring for people
with a given disease to justify exposing participants to the risk and burden of research.

Scientific validity
A study should be designed in a way that will get an understandable answer to the
important research question. This includes considering whether the question asked is
answerable, whether the research methods are valid and feasible, and whether the study
is designed with accepted principles, clear methods, and reliable practices. Invalid
research is unethical because it is a waste of resources and exposes people to risk for no
purpose

Fair subject selection

The primary basis for recruiting participants should be the scientific goals of the study
not vulnerability, privilege, or other unrelated factors. Participants who accept the risks of
research should be in a position to enjoy its benefits. Specific groups of participants (for
example, women or children) should not be excluded from the research opportunities
without a good scientific reason or a particular susceptibility to risk.

Favorable risk-benefit ratio

Uncertainty about the degree of risks and benefits associated with a clinical research
study is inherent. Research risks may be trivial or serious, transient or long-term. Risks can
be physical, psychological, economic, or social. Everything should be done to minimize the
risks and inconvenience to research participants to maximize the potential benefits, and
to determine that the potential benefits are proportionate to, or outweigh, the risks.

Independent review
To minimize potential conflicts of interest and make sure a study is ethically acceptable
before it starts, an independent review panel should review the proposal and ask
important questions, including: Are those conducting the trial sufficiently free of bias? Is
the study doing all it can to protect research participants? Has the trial been ethically
designed and is the riskbenefit ratio favorable? The panel also monitors a study while it is
ongoing.

Informed consent
Potential participants should make their own decision about whether they want to
participate or continue participating in research. This is done through a process of
informed consent in which individuals (1) are accurately informed of the purpose,
methods, risks, benefits, and alternatives to the research, (2) understand this information
and how it relates to their own clinical situation or interests, and (3) make a voluntary
decision about whether to participate.

Respect for potential and enrolled participants

Individuals should be treated with respect from the time they are approached for possible
participation even if they refuse enrollment in a study throughout their participation
and after their participation ends. This includes:

respecting their privacy and keeping their private information confidential

respecting their right to change their mind, to decide that the research does not
match their interests, and to withdraw without a penalty

informing them of new information that might emerge in the course of research,
which might change their assessment of the risks and benefits of participating

monitoring their welfare and, if they experience adverse reactions, unexpected

effects, or changes in clinical status, ensuring appropriate treatment and, when
necessary, removal from the study

informing them about what was learned from the research

http://www.nih.gov/health-information/nih-clinical-research-trials-you/guidingprinciples-ethical-research. Nationlal institutue of health:turning discovery into

health

The atrocities committed by Nazi physicians on Jewish prisoners during World War
II prompted an international tribunal, convened in the city of Nuremberg, Germany
between 1945-1946, to elaborate 10 principles, called the Nuremberg Code, by
which research involving human subjects should be governed. Publication of
the Nuremburg Code in 1947 ushered in the modern era of research ethics, which
mandated balancing the advancement of science with the rights and welfare of
humans who serve as research subjects.
Since Nuremburg, a multitude of regulations and policy statements have been
developed by domestic and international bodies. These regulatory guidance
documents, including the World Medical Association Declaration of Helskinki
(World Medical Association); the Belmont Report and the Federal Regulations at45
CFR 46 and 21 CFR 50 share a common purpose: to protect the autonomy,
safety, privacy, and welfare of human research subjects. Within institutions
where clinical research is conducted, responsibility for the interpretation and
application of these ethical principles and regulations rests with committees
comprised of scientist and non-scientists, called Institutional Review Boards for
the Protection of Human Subjects (IRBs).
General ethical principles applied to research with human subjects.
The Belmont Report, which provides the ethical foundation for research
regulations and guides IRB deliberations, was generated by a federally
commissioned group of scientists, physicians, ethicists, and philosophers and
published in 1979. The three primary ethical principles cited in Belmont are:
autonomy, beneficence, and justice.
Autonomy refers to the right of an individual to determine what activities
they will or will not participate in. Implicitly, full autonomy requires that an
individual be able to understand what they are being asked to do, make a
reasoned judgment about the effect participation will have on them, and
make a choice to participate free from coercive influence. The cornerstone
of protecting autonomy is the informed consent process, whereby an
investigator provides a potential research participant with full disclosure
about the nature of the study, the risks, benefits and alternatives, and an

extended opportunity to ask questions before deciding whether or not to

participate. Populations presumed to have diminished autonomy, by virtue
of impaired cognition (for example, children, cognitively-impaired elderly,
or mentally ill subjects) or of circumstance (for example prisoners or
seriously ill people) are considered to be vulnerable populations. In some of
these cases (children and prisoners) special safeguards to protect their
autonomy are required by regulation.
Beneficence refers to the obligation on the part of the investigator to
maximize benefits for the individual participant and/or society, while
minimizing risk of harm to the individual. Maximizing potential benefits is
predicated on sound experimental design, thus research proposals must
undergo rigorous scientific review before proceeding to the IRB for ethical
review. An honest enumeration of reasonably anticipated risks must be
followed by a thorough risk/benefit calculation.
Justice demands equitable selection of participants, i.e., avoiding participant
populations that may be unfairly coerced into participating, such as
prisoners and institutionalized children. The principle of justice requires that
those who undertake the burdens of research must be likely to benefit from
the research, and is a principle often violated by the export of clinical trials
to underdeveloped countries.
Designing ethical research studies.
The primary concern of the investigator should be the safety of the research
participant. Protecting subject safety requires the investigator to use all
available information to identify potential risks to the subject, to establish
means of minimizing those risks, and to continually monitor the ongoing
research for adverse events experienced by subjects. The investigator must
be prepared to stop the study if serious unanticipated risks are manifest.
The scientific investigator must obtain informed consent from each research
participant. This should be obtained in writing (although oral consents are
sometimes acceptable) after the participant has had the opportunity to
carefully consider the risks and benefits and to ask any pertinent questions.
Informed consent should be seen as an ongoing process, not a single event
or a mere formality. There are regulations and guidance documents that
govern exceptions to the requirement to obtain informed consent, for
example in cases of emergency or if the subject is unconscious and thereby
unable to give consent.
The investigator must protect the subjects privacy and confidentiality.
Researchers must have mechanisms in place to prevent the disclosure of, or

unauthorized access to, data that can be linked to a subjects individual

identity.
The investigator must consider how adverse events will be handled. In
particular, it must be established a priori who will provide care for a
participant injured in a study and who will pay for that care.
The investigator must strive for clinical equipoise. A true null hypothesis
should exist at the onset regarding the outcome of the trial, that is, if a new
intervention is being tested against the currently accepted treatment, the
investigator should be genuinely uncertain which approach is superior.
Components of ethically valid informed consent for research.
Given the appreciation that informed consent is at the crux of human subjects
protection, it is not surprising that the regulations reflect extensively upon the
necessary elements of the consent document itself as well as on the informed
consent process. For an informed consent to be ethically valid, the following
components must be present:
Disclosure: The informed consent document must make clear that the study
is a research study, and not clinical therapy. The potential participant must
be informed as fully as possible of the nature and purpose of the research,
the procedures to be used, the expected benefits to the participant and/or
society, the potential of reasonably foreseeable risks, stresses, and
discomforts, and alternatives to participating in the research. There should
also be a statement that describes procedures in place to ensure the
confidentiality of data and anonymity of the participant. The informed
consent document must also disclose what compensation and medical
treatment are available in the case of a research-related injury. The
document should make it clear whom to contact with questions about the
research study, research subjects' rights, and in case of injury.
Understanding: The participant must understand what has been explained
and must be given the opportunity to ask questions and have them answered
by someone fully conversant in the study particulars. The informed consent
document must be written in lay language, avoiding any technical jargon.
The potential participant must be able to read and/or understand the
language in which the consent form is written. Consent forms for
multinational research must be translated into the respective language for
each participating country and back-translated to verify accuracy.
Voluntariness: The participant's consent to participate in the research must
be voluntary, free of any coercion or inflated promise of benefits from
participation. Care should be taken that the consent form is administered by

someone who does not hold authority over the participant. Ideally, the
potential participant is given the opportunity to discuss their participation in
the study with family, trusted friends, or their physician before reaching a
decision.
Competence: The participant must be competent to give consent. If the
participant is not competent due to mental status, disease, or emergency, a
designated surrogate may provide consent if it is in the participant's best
interest to participate. In certain emergency cases, consent may be waived
due to the lack of competence of the participant and absence of an
appropriate surrogate. In the event that there is a question about competence,
mental status exams may be administered.
Consent: The potential human subject must authorize his/her participation
in the research study, preferably in writing. If there is no need to collect
personally identifiable information, and a signature on the consent form
would be the only thing linking the subject to the study, an oral or implicit
consent may be more appropriate. Children who cannot read or write should
still signal their willingness to participate by an affirmative act (for example,
nodding their head). Consent by minors is referred to as assent.
Exculpatory language: No informed consent may contain any exculpatory
language by which the participant waives any legal rights or releases the
investigator or sponsor from liability for negligence.
Regulatory requirement to administer informed consent.
According to the regulations at 45 CFR 46.116: "no investigator may involve a
human being as a subject in research covered by this policy unless the investigator
has obtained the legally effective informed consent of the subject or the subject's
legally authorized representative."
IRB review of research: full-board, expedited, and exempt reviews.
Full board: Clinical trials that expose subjects to more than minimal risk
must be reviewed by the IRB at a convened meeting of the full Board.
Minimal risk is defined as those risks and discomforts to which a person is
commonly exposed in the ordinary course of daily life, including routine
visits to physicians. It is important to remember that loss of privacy, i.e
unauthorized disclosure of personal information, is considered to be a risk of
research. As technology and social media strip away more and more of our
privacy, ethicists debate what constitutes a reasonable expectation of privacy
(for more information, please see Haigh & Jones, 2005).

 Expedited: Studies that qualify for expedited review are those that present
no more than minimal risk to subjects, and involve only procedures
commonly done in clinical settings, such as taking hair, saliva, excreta or
small amounts of blood. A study that qualifies for expedited review is held
to the same ethical standards of autonomy, beneficence and justice that are
used in full board review, but the approval process may take less time.
Exempt: Some research with humans can be designated as exempt from
IRB review. Research that is part of a routine educational experience, or in
which participants will be anonymous or effectively de-identified falls into
this category and may be granted a certificate of exemption. The proposal
must still be reviewed by a member of the IRB to assign exempt status, but
the application process may be considerably shorter.
Contact the University IRB if you have questions about the category under which
your study falls.
Is deception of subjects allowed when doing research?
As a general rule, deception is not acceptable when doing research with humans.
Using deception jeopardizes the integrity of the informed consent process and
could harm participants, as well as eroding trust between the public and
researchers. In some instances deception is necessary to conduct the research: for
example, a study of how the decision-making practices of physicians affect their
practice of medicine might be presented as a study of "communication behaviors.
The IRB will carefully review any proposal that suggests using deception or
misrepresentation. They will require an in-depth justification of why deception is
necessary for the study and the steps that will be taken to safeguard participants,
including a plan to debrief subjects at the end of the research.
A form of deception of subjects can occur if the terms of the informed consent are
violated by the investigator or other scientists. For example, if a subject consents to
have their blood sample evaluated for markers of diabetes and the investigator or
other scientists use the blood sample for purposes unrelated to diabetes research,
the subject has effectively been deceived about the nature of their research
participation and they have been denied autonomous agency over their own
actions. The recent court case involving the University of Arizona v. the Havasupai
tribe illustrates the ethical pitfalls and legal consequences of biological sample
sharing without explicit prior consent (Drabiak-Syed, 2010).
Lizbeth A. Adams, PhD, CIP (2013) with contributions by Timothy Callahan, PhD
(1998). https://depts.washington.edu/bioethx/topics/resrch.html

GUIDING ETHICAL PRINCIPLES UNDERPINNING RESEARCH Such

principles are designed to guide researchers in the planning and conduct of
research and are based on a number of central and important ethical principles
which reflect the common standards, values and aspirations of the research
community. Such factors will be taken into account in all ethical reviews whether
this is carried out internally or externally. 4.1 Autonomy: This describes
acknowlegement of the right of the individual to determine their own course of
action in accordance with their own wishes and plans. Respect for individuals is
expressed by recognising that their autonomy and right to selfdetermination
underpin their ability to make judgements and decisions for themselves. Autonomy
therefore underlies the need for informed consent. 4.2 Free and Informed Consent:
Informed consent comprises three major elements - information, voluntariness and
comprehension. When providing information researchers must ensure that
participants are given sufficient detail about the nature of the research and the
procedures involved; this should highlight the objectives of the study, potential
risks and benefits and any alternative treatments must be made clear. An
Introduction to Ethics Issues and Principles in Research Involving Human
Participants 4 of 10 The concept of voluntariness has important implications.
Consent must be freely given and may be withdrawn at any time. Undue influence
may take the form of inducement, deprivation or the exercise of control, or
authority over prospective participants. This is particularly important in research
involving vulnerable people, and is absent if consent is secured by the order of
authorities or as a result of coercion or manipulation. Voluntary participation
implies that participants make an informed choice while informed consent assumes
that the information given is accurate. In practical terms, within an ethics review
process, this translates into scrutiny of the process, rights, duties and requirements
for free and informed consent by the research participant. 4.3 Veracity:
Truthfulness is also central to obtaining informed consent since, without this,
participants cannot exert their right to informed consent, justice or fairness (see
below). 4.4 Respect for Vulnerable Persons: Vulnerable individuals, such as the
old, the young, the sick or the mentally impaired, are entitled, on grounds of
human dignity, caring, and fairness, to special protection against abuse,
discrimination, deception or exploitation. Ethical obligations to vulnerable
individuals in the conduct of research will often necessitate special procedures to
protect their interests; these must be demonstrated where appropriate. 4.5 Privacy
and Confidentiality: Each individual is entitled to privacy and confidentiality both
on ethical grounds and in terms of the protection of their personal and sensitive
data under the Data Protection Act (1998). Each person therefore has the freedom
to decide the time, extent and circumstances under which they will withhold or
share information. Standards of privacy and confidentiality protect the access,
control and dissemination of personal information; such standards also help to
protect mental or psychological integrity. All proposals must demonstrate that these
principles will be upheld and the procedure to be followed in data storage and
retention. Further details are available in the Code of Conduct: Practice for
Research Involving Human Participants (CCCU, 2006), and Data Protection in

Research (CCCU 2006). 4.6 Justice and Inclusiveness: In this context, justice
connotes fairness and equity for all participants in research. In procedural terms,
justice requires that ethics review processes involve methods that are fair and
transparent, that established standards and procedures for reviewing research
protocols are in place, and that the process be effectively independent. Justice also
concerns the distribution of benefits and burdens of research. On the one hand,
distributive justice is directed towards ensuring that no segment of the population
is unfairly burdened with the harms of research and, on the other, towards ensuring
that no individual or group is neglected or discriminated against. The principle of
justice thus imposes particular obligations toward individuals who are vulnerable
and unable to protect their own interests in order to ensure that they are not
exploited for the advancement of knowledge. 4.7 Harms and Benefits: The
analysis, balance and distribution of harms and benefits are central to research
ethics. Modern research ethics requires a favourable harms-benefit balance so that
the foreseeable harms should not outweigh anticipated benefits. Harmsbenefits
analysis thus affects the welfare and rights of research participants, the informed
assumption of harms and benefits, and the ethical justifications for competing
research approaches. It is acknowledged however, that, because research involves
advancing the frontiers of knowledge, its undertaking often involves uncertainty
about the magnitude and/or kind An Introduction to Ethics Issues and Principles in
Research Involving Human Participants 5 of 10 of benefits or harms associated
with individual research projects. This imposes particular ethical obligations on
researchers to ensure the scientific validity, design and conduct of their research. a.
Minimising Harm (Non-malificence): This reflects the duty to avoid, prevent or
minimise harm to others. In practice it means that research participants must not be
subjected to any unnecessary risks of harm; their participation in research must be
essential to achieving scientifically and socially important aims that cannot be
achieved without the participation of human participants. The principle of
minimising harm also requires that the research involve the smallest number of
human participants and the smallest number of tests on these participants that will
ensure scientifically valid data. b. Maximising Benefit (Beneficence): The
principle of beneficence imposes a duty to benefit others and, in research, a duty to
maximise net benefits. Care must be taken to ensure that the intention of research
is to generate new knowledge that will produce benefits for participants
themselves, for other individuals or for society as a whole, or for the advancement
of knowledge.

General Principles
This section consists of General Principles. General Principles, as opposed to Ethical Standards, are aspirational
in nature. Their intent is to guide and inspire psychologists toward the very highest ethical ideals of the
profession. General Principles, in contrast to Ethical Standards, do not represent obligations and should not form
the basis for imposing sanctions. Relying upon General Principles for either of these reasons distorts both their
meaning and purpose.
Principle A: Beneficence and Nonmaleficence
Psychologists strive to benefit those with whom they work and take care to do no harm. In their professional

actions, psychologists seek to safeguard the welfare and rights of those with whom they interact professionally
and other affected persons and the welfare of animal subjects of research. When conflicts occur among
psychologists' obligations or concerns, they attempt to resolve these conflicts in a responsible fashion that avoids
or minimizes harm. Because psychologists' scientific and professional judgments and actions may affect the lives
of others, they are alert to and guard against personal, financial, social, organizational or political factors that
might lead to misuse of their influence. Psychologists strive to be aware of the possible effect of their own
physical and mental health on their ability to help those with whom they work.
Principle B: Fidelity and Responsibility
Psychologists establish relationships of trust with those with whom they work. They are aware of their
professional and scientific responsibilities to society and to the specific communities in which they work.
Psychologists uphold professional standards of conduct, clarify their professional roles and obligations, accept
appropriate responsibility for their behavior and seek to manage conflicts of interest that could lead to exploitation
or harm. Psychologists consult with, refer to, or cooperate with other professionals and institutions to the extent
needed to serve the best interests of those with whom they work. They are concerned about the ethical
compliance of their colleagues' scientific and professional conduct. Psychologists strive to contribute a portion of
their professional time for little or no compensation or personal advantage.
Principle C: Integrity
Psychologists seek to promote accuracy, honesty and truthfulness in the science, teaching and practice of
psychology. In these activities psychologists do not steal, cheat or engage in fraud, subterfuge or intentional
misrepresentation of fact. Psychologists strive to keep their promises and to avoid unwise or unclear
commitments. In situations in which deception may be ethically justifiable to maximize benefits and minimize
harm, psychologists have a serious obligation to consider the need for, the possible consequences of, and their
responsibility to correct any resulting mistrust or other harmful effects that arise from the use of such techniques.
Principle D: Justice
Psychologists recognize that fairness and justice entitle all persons to access to and benefit from the
contributions of psychology and to equal quality in the processes, procedures and services being conducted by
psychologists. Psychologists exercise reasonable judgment and take precautions to ensure that their potential
biases, the boundaries of their competence and the limitations of their expertise do not lead to or condone unjust
practices.
Principle E: Respect for People's Rights and Dignity
Psychologists respect the dignity and worth of all people, and the rights of individuals to privacy, confidentiality,
and self-determination. Psychologists are aware that special safeguards may be necessary to protect the rights
and welfare of persons or communities whose vulnerabilities impair autonomous decision making. Psychologists
are aware of and respect cultural, individual and role differences, including those based on age, gender, gender
identity, race, ethnicity, culture, national origin, religion, sexual orientation, disability, language and socioeconomic
status and consider these factors when working with members of such groups. Psychologists try to eliminate the
effect on their work of biases based on those factors, and they do not knowingly participate in or condone
activities of others based upon such prejudices.

http://www.apa.org/ethics/code/index.aspx. apa. general principles apas code of

ethics

Resarcgh constraints
Marketing Research - Limitations and Constraints

Levels: AS, A Level

Exam boards: AQA, Edexcel, OCR, IB, Other, Pre-U

Print page

Share:
Share on FacebookShare on TwitterShare on LinkedinShare on GoogleShare by email

Accurate, up-to-date information obtained by marketing research can be of

enormous value to a business in gaining and/or maintaining its competitive edge.
However, there are a number of reasons why, in reality, these potential benefits may
not be realised.
Budgetary constraints
Gathering and processing data can be very expensive. Many organisations may lack
the expertise to conduct extensive surveys to gather primary data, whatever the
potential benefits, and also lack the funds to pay specialist market research agencies
to gather such data for them. In these cases, organisations may be forced to rely on
data that is less than perfect but that can be accessed more cheaply, e.g., from
secondary sources
Time constraints
Organisations are often forced to balance the need to build up as detailed a picture
as possible regarding customer needs etc. against the desire to make decisions as
quickly as possible, in order to maintain or improve their position in the market
Reliability of the data
The value of any research findings depend critically on the accuracy of the data
collected. Data quality can be compromised via a number of potential routes, e.g.,
leading questions, unrepresentative samples, biased interviewers etc. Efforts to
ensure that data is accurate, samples are representative and interviewers are
objective will all add to the costs of the research but such costs are necessary if poor
decisions and expensive mistakes are to be avoided.
Legal & ethical constraints
the Data Protection Act (1998) is a good example of a law that has a number of
implications for market researchers collecting and holding personal data. For
instance, researchers must ensure that the data they obtain is kept secure, is only
used for lawful purposes and is only kept for as long as it is necessary. It must be
made clear as to why data is being collected and the consent of participants must be
obtained. In addition to this, there are a number of guidelines, laid down by such

organisations as the Market Research Society, that, although not legally binding,
encourage organisations to behave ethically when dealing with members of the
public.

http://www.tutor2u.net/business/reference/marke
ting-research-limitations-and-constraints. jim
riley. 2016. tutor2u
Importance of...

Always acknowledge a study's limitations. It is far better for you to identify and
acknowledge your studys limitations than to have them pointed out by your professor
and be graded down because you appear to have ignored them.
Keep in mind that acknowledgement of a study's limitations is an opportunity to
make suggestions for further research. If you do connect your study's limitations to
suggestions for further research, be sure to explain the ways in which these unanswered
questions may become more focused because of your study.
Acknowledgement of a study's limitations also provides you with an
opportunity to demonstrate that you have thought critically about the research problem,
understood the relevant literature published about it, and correctly assessed the methods
chosen for studying the problem. A key objective of the research process is not only
discovering new knowledge but to also confront assumptions and explore what we don't
know.
Claiming limitiations is a subjective process because you must evaluate the
impact of those limitations. Don't just list key weaknesses and the magnitude of a
study's limitations. To do so diminishes the validity of your research because it leaves the
reader wondering whether, or in what ways, limitation(s) in your study may have
impacted the results and conclusions. Limitations require a critical, overall appraisal and
interpretation of their impact. You should answer the question: do these problems with
errors, methods, validity, etc. eventually matter and, if so, to what extent?

Structure: How to Structure the Research Limitations Section of Your Dissertation. Dissertations and
Theses: An Online Textbook. Laerd.com.

Descriptions of Possible Limitations

All studies have limitations. However, it is important that you restrict your discussion to
limitations related to the research problem under investigation. For example, if a metaanalysis of existing literature is not a stated purpose of your research, it should not be
discussed as a limitation. Do not apologize for not addressing issues that you did
not promise to investigate in the introduction of your paper.
Here are examples of limitations related to methodology and the research process you
may need to describe and to discuss how they possibly impacted your results.
Descriptions of limitations should be stated in the past tense because they were
discovered after you completed your research.
Possible Methodological Limitations

Sample size -- the number of the units of analysis you use in your study is
dictated by the type of research problem you are investigating. Note that, if your
sample size is too small, it will be difficult to find significant relationships from the
data, as statistical tests normally require a larger sample size to ensure a
representative distribution of the population and to be considered representative
of groups of people to whom results will be generalized or transferred. Note that
sample size is less relevant in qualitative research.

Lack of available and/or reliable data -- a lack of data or of reliable data will
likely require you to limit the scope of your analysis, the size of your sample, or it
can be a significant obstacle in finding a trend and a meaningful relationship. You
need to not only describe these limitations but to offer reasons why you believe
data is missing or is unreliable. However, dont just throw up your hands in
frustration; use this as an opportunity to describe the need for future research.

Lack of prior research studies on the topic -- citing prior research studies
forms the basis of your literature review and helps lay a foundation for
understanding the research problem you are investigating. Depending on the
currency or scope of your research topic, there may be little, if any, prior research
on your topic. Before assuming this to be true, consult with a librarian! In
cases when a librarian has confirmed that there is a lack of prior research, you
may be required to develop an entirely new research typology [for example, using
an exploratory rather than an explanatory research design]. Note again that this
limitiation can serve as an important opportunity to describe the need for further
research.

Measure used to collect the data -- sometimes it is the case that, after
completing your interpretation of the findings, you discover that the way in which

you gathered data inhibited your ability to conduct a thorough analysis of the
results. For example, you regret not including a specific question in a survey that,
in retrospect, could have helped address a particular issue that emerged later in
the study. Acknowledge the deficiency by stating a need for future researchers to
revise the specific method for gathering data.

Self-reported data -- whether you are relying on pre-existing data or you are
conducting a qualitative research study and gathering the data yourself, selfreported data is limited by the fact that it rarely can be independently verified. In
other words, you have to take what people say, whether in interviews, focus
groups, or on questionnaries, at face value. However, self-reported data can
contain several potential sources of bias that you should be alert to and note as
limitations. These biases become apparent if they are incongruent with data from
other sources. These are: (1) selective memory [remembering or not
remembering experiences or events that occurred at some point in the past];
(2) telescoping [recalling events that occurred at one time as if they occurred at
another time]; (3) attribution [the act of attributing positive events and outcomes
to one's own agency but attributing negative events and outcomes to external
forces]; and, (4) exaggeration [the act of representing outcomes or embelishing
events as more significant than is actually suggested from other data].

Possible Limitations of the Researcher

Access -- if your study depends on having access to people, organizations, or

documents and, for whatever reason, access is denied or limited in some way, the
reasons for this need to be described.

Longitudinal effects -- unlike your professor, who can literally devote years [even
a lifetime] to studying a single topic, the time available to investigate a research
problem and to measure change or stability over time is pretty much constrained
by the due date of your assignment. Be sure to choose a problem that does not
require an excessive amount of time to complete the literature review, apply the
methodology, and gather and interpret the results. If you're unsure whether you
can complete your research within the confines of the assignment's due date, talk
to your professor.

Cultural and other type of bias -- we all have biases, whether we are
conscience of them or not. Bias is when a person, place, or thing is viewed or
shown in a consistently inaccurate way. Bias is usually negative, though one can
have a positive bias as well, especially if that bias reflects your reliance on
research that only support for your hypothesis. When proof-reading your paper,
be especially critical in reviewing how you have stated a problem, selected the

data to be studied, what may have been omitted, the manner in which you have
ordered events, people, or places, how you have chosen to represent a person,
place, or thing, to name a phenomenon, or to use possible words with a positive
or negative connotation. NOTE: If you detect bias in prior research, it must be
acknowledged and you should explain what measures were taken to avoid
perpetuating that bias.

Fluency in a language -- if your research focuses on measuring the perceived

value of after-school tutoring among Mexican-American ESL [English as a
Second Language] students, for example, and you are not fluent in Spanish, you
are limited in being able to read and interpret Spanish language research studies
on the topic. This deficiency should be acknowledged.

Brutus, Stphane et al. "Self-Reported Limitations and Future Directions in Scholarly Reports:
Analysis and Recommendations." Journal of Management 39 (January 2013): 48-75; Senunyeme,
Emmanuel K. Business Research Methods. Powerpoint Presentation. Regent University of Science
and Technology.
Structure and Writing Style

Information about the limitiations of your study are generally placed either at the
beginning of the discussion section of your paper so the reader knows and
understands the limitations before reading the rest of your analysis of the findings, or, the
limitiations are outlined at the conclusion of the discussion section as an
aknowledgement of the need for further study. Statements about a study's limitations
should not be buried in the body [middle] of the discussion section unless a limitation is
specific to something covered in that part of the paper. If this is the case, though, the
limitation should be reiterated at the conclusion of the section.
If you determine that your study is seriously flawed due to important limitations,
such as, an inability to acquire critical data, consider reframing it as a pilot study
intended to lay the groundwork for a more complete research study in the future. Be
sure, though, to specifically explain the ways that these flaws can be successfully
overcome in a new study.
But, do not use this as an excuse for not developing a thorough research
paper! Review the tab in this guide for developing a research topic. If serious limitations
exist, it generally indicates a likelihood that your research problem is too narrowly
defined or that the issue or event under study is too recent and, thus, very little research
has been written about it. If serious limitations do emerge, consult with your professor
about possible ways to overcome them or how to reframe your study.

When discussing the limitations of your research, be sure to:

Describe each limitation in detailed but concise terms;

Explain why each limitation exists;

Provide the reasons why each limitation could not be overcome using the
method(s) chosen to acquire or gather the data [cite to other studies that had
similar problems when possible];

Assess the impact of each limitation in relation to the overall findings and
conclusions of your study; and,

If appropriate, describe how these limitations could point to the need for further
research.

Remember that the method you chose may be the source of a significant
limitation that has emerged during your interpretation of the results [for example,
you didn't interview a group of people that you later wish you had]. If this is the case,
don't panic. Acknowledge it, and explain how applying a different or more robust
methodology might address the research problem more effectively in a future study. A
underlying goal of scholarly research is not only to show what works, but to demonstrate
what doesn't work or what needs further clarification.

usclibraries research guides. brutus stephane.

2016.
http://libguides.usc.edu/writingguide/limitations

The 6 Project Constraints

by SHIVSHANKER SHENOY

Hello! If you are looking for the fastest and most effective way to pass your PMP
exam, I'm glad you have found this blog! Here's what you can do - 1. Visit 'Start
Here' page from menu 2. Sign up for Free PMP Study Blueprint email course (from
sidebar) 3. Join Facebook community (Like the page), to get daily free sample PMP
questions, and resources

Thank you for visiting. Please feel free to drop me a mail at

shiv(at)pmexamsmartnotes(dot)com for anything you need for PMP preparation.
Cheers,
Shiv

If you asked any

seasoned project manager about the most challenging part of project management,
most likely the answer would be managing the constraints. Or something close
enough to that.
Major part of your project management effort goes into managing constraints.
Have you read about the six legged robot by NASA to make human outposts on
Mars?
What do you think would happen even if one of these legs do not work as designed,
or get stuck in the Martian terrain?
In simpler words, the robot would not function to the extent that it is supposed to.
This will impact the Mars mission.
The 6 project constraints are similar to this 6 legged robot. Each leg represents a
constraint, and an issue with any of the constraints may impact the entire project

Figure 1: The 6 project constraints

These constraints are interrelated, so a strain on one of the constraints will affect
one or more of the other constraints. The image below shows classic triple constraint
triangle.

Figure 2: Impact on any of Scope, Time and Cost may have an impact on Quality of
deliverable
Imagine pinching any of the edges of this triangle. What would happen to the other
two points? They get stretched. And the area of the triangle gets skewed.

The same thing happens when any of these 3 core constraints scope, time (in
other words, schedule) and cost, are strained. Each will influence the other two
and may result in poor quality of the product.
All of the 6 constraints influence each other in that any one getting affected impacts
one or more of the rest. Some examples of how constraints are related

If necessary resources are not available, time to deliver will increase. This may also
increase project cost, because alternate resources if available, may be more expensive
than planned.

If QA team finds that quality of deliverable is going bad, more resources may be
required. This increases the cost (additional resources) and effort to fix the faulty
deliverable. This will also increase the time to deliver.

If scope creep happens on the project, it will result in increased time, cost,
resourcesand potentially reduced quality. And thus increased risk on delivery.

Managing 6 constraints is as much of an art as science. They will test the mettle of
project manager. But do not worry, with the knowledge of PMBOK processes and
some support from your organization (PMO), managing these constraints should be
a challenge that you enjoy.
Shivshanker Shenoy

. 2014. pm exam smartynotesx.

http://www.pmexamsmartnotes.com/the-6project-constraints/

Project management triangle

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[hide]This article has multiple issues. Please help improve it or discuss t

This article possibly contains original research.

(October 2008)

This article needs additional citations for verification.

(December 2008)

The Project Management Triangle

The Project Management Triangle (called also Triple Constraint or the Iron Triangle) is a model
of the constraints of project management. It is a graphic aid where the three attributes show on
the corners of the triangle to show opposition. It is useful to help with intentionally choosing
project biases, or analyzing the goals of a project.[1] It is used to illustrate that project
management success is measured by the project team's ability to manage the project, so that the
expected results are produced while managing time and cost.[2][3][4]
Like any human undertaking, projects need to be performed and delivered under certain
constraints. Traditionally, these constraints have been listed as "scope" (features and quality),
"time", and "cost".[5] These are also referred to as the "Project Management Triangle," where
each side represents a constraint. One side of the triangle cannot be changed without affecting
the others. A further refinement of the constraints separates product "quality" or "performance"
from scope, and turns quality into a fourth constraint.
Contents
[hide]

1Overview

2"Pick any two"

3STR Model

4Project management triangle topics

4.1Time

4.1.1Define Activities

4.1.2Activity sequencing

4.1.3Activity resource estimating

4.1.4Activity duration estimating

4.1.5Schedule development

4.1.6Schedule control

4.2Cost

4.2.1Cost Process Areas

4.2.1.1Project Management Cost Estimating Tools[8]

4.3Scope

5Evolution of the Project Constraint Model

6See also

7References

8External links

Overview[edit]
The time constraint refers to the amount of time available to complete a project. The cost
constraint refers to the budgeted amount available for the project. The scope constraint refers to
what must be done to produce the project's end result. These three constraints are often
competing constraints: increased scope typically means increased time and increased cost, a
tight time constraint could mean increased costs and reduced scope, and a tight budget could
mean increased time and reduced scope.
The discipline of project management is about providing the tools and techniques that enable the
project team (not just the project manager) to organize their work to meet these constraints.
Another approach to project management is to consider the three constraints as finance, time
and human resources. If you need to finish a job in a shorter time, you can throw more people at
the problem, which in turn will raise the cost of the project, unless by doing this task quicker we
will reduce costs elsewhere in the project by an equal amount.
As a project management graphic aid, a triangle can show time, resources, and technical
objective as the sides of a triangle, instead of the corners.[6] John Storck, a former instructor of
the American Management Association's "Basic Project Management" course, used a pair of
triangles called triangle outer and triangle inner to represent the concept that the intent of a
project is to complete on or before the allowed time, on or under budget, and to meet or exceed
the required scope. The distance between the inner and outer triangles illustrated the hedge or
contingency for each of the three elements. Bias could be shown by the distance. His example of
a project with a strong time bias was the Alaska pipeline which essentially had to be done on
time no matter the cost. After years of development, oil flowed out the end of the pipe within four
minutes of schedule. In this illustration, the time side of triangle inner was effectively on top of the
triangle outer line. This was true of the technical objective line also. The cost line of triangle inner,
however, was outside since the project ran significantly over budget.

James P. Lewis [7] suggests that project scope represents the area of the triangle, and can be
chosen as a variable to achieve project success. He calls this relationship PCTS(Performance,
Cost, Time, Scope), and suggests that a project can pick any three.
The real value of the project triangle is to show the complexity that is present in any project. The
plane area of the triangle represents the near infinite variations of priorities that could exist
between the three competing values. By acknowledging the limitless variety, possible within the
triangle, using this graphic aid can facilitate better project decisions and planning and ensure
alignment among team members and the project owners.

"Pick any two"[edit]

The project triangle as a "pick any two" Euler diagram.

You are given the options of Fast, Good, and Cheap, and told to pick any two. Here Fast refers to
the time required to deliver the product, Good is the quality of the final product, and Cheap refers
to the total cost of designing and building the product. This triangle reflects the fact that the three
properties of a project are interrelated, and it is not possible to optimize all three one will
always suffer. In other words you have three options:

Design something quickly and to a high standard, but then it will not be cheap.

Design something quickly and cheaply, but it will not be of high quality.

Design something with high quality and cheaply, but it will take a relatively long time.

STR Model[edit]
The STR model is a mathematical model which views the "triangle model" as a graphic
abstraction of the relationship:

Scope = Time Resources

Scope refers to complexity (which can also mean quality). Resources includes humans
(workers), financial, and physical. Note that these values are not considered unbounded. For
instance, if one baker can make a loaf of bread in an hour, that doesn't mean ten bakers could
make a loaf in six minutes.

Project management triangle topics[edit]

Time[edit]
For analytical purposes, the time required to produce a deliverable is estimated using several
techniques. One method is to identify tasks needed to produce the deliverables documented in
a work breakdown structure or WBS. The work effort for each task is estimated and those
estimates are rolled up into the final deliverable estimate.
The tasks are also prioritized, dependencies between tasks are identified, and this information is
documented in a project schedule. The dependencies between the tasks can affect the length of
the overall project (dependency constrained), as can the availability of resources (resource
constrained). Time is different from all other resources and cost categories.
Using actual cost of previous, similar projects as the basis for estimating the cost of current
project.
According to the Project Management Body of Knowledge (PMBOK) the Project Time
Management processes include:
1. Plan Schedule Management
2. Define Activities
3. Sequence Activities
4. Estimate Activity Resources
5. Estimate Activity Durations
6. Develop Schedule
7. Control Schedule
Define Activities[edit]
1. Inputs: Schedule Management Plan, Scope Baseline, Enterprise environmental factors,
Organizational process assets
2. Tools: Decomposition, Rolling Wave Planning, Expert Judgment
3. Outputs: Activity list, Activity attributes, Milestone list

Activity sequencing[edit]
1. Inputs: Project Scope Statement, Activity List, Activity Attributes, Milestones List,
Approved change requests
2. Tools: Precedence Diagramming Method (PDM), Arrow Diagramming Method (ADM),
Schedule Network templates, dependency degeneration, applying leads and lags
3. Outputs: Project Schedule Network diagrams, Activity List Updates, Activity Attributes
updates, Request Changes
Activity resource estimating[edit]
1. Inputs: Enterprise Environmental factoring, Organizational process assets, Activity list,
Activity attributes, Resources Availability, Project Management Plan
2. Tools: Expert Judgment Collections, Alternative Analysis, Publishing estimating data,
Project management software implementation, Bottom up estimating
3. Outputs: Activity resource requirements, Activity attributes, Resource breakdown
structure, resource calendars, request change updates.
Activity duration estimating[edit]
1. Inputs: Enterprise environmental factors, organization process assets, Project scope
statement, activity list, activity attributes, activity resource requirements, resource
calendars, project management plan, risk register, activity cost estimates
2. Tools: Expert judgment collection, analogous estimating, parametric estimating, Bottom
up Estimation, Two-Point estimation, Three-point estimation, reserve analysis
3. Outputs: Activity duration estimates, activity attribute updates and estimates
Schedule development[edit]
1. Inputs: Organizational process assets, Project scope Statement, Activity list, Activity
attributes, project Schedule Network diagrams, Activity resource requirements, Resource
calendars, Activity duration estimates, project management plan, risk register
2. Tools: Schedule Network Analysis, Critical path method, schedule compression, what if
scenario analysis, resources leveling, critical chain method, project management
software, applying calendars, adjusting leads and lags, schedule model
3. Outputs: Project schedule, Schedule model data, schedule baseline, resource
requirements update, activity attributes, project calendar updates, request changes,
project management plan updates, schedule management plan updates
Schedule control[edit]
1. Inputs: Schedule management plan, schedule baseline, performance reports, approved
change requests
2. Tools: Progressive elaboration reporting, schedule change control system, performance
measurement, project management software, variance, analysis, schedule comparison
bar charts

3. Outputs: Schedule model data updates, schedule baseline. performance measurement,

requested changes, recommended corrective actions, organizational process assets,
activity list updates, activity attribute updates, project management plan updates
Due to the complex nature of the 'Time' process group the project management credential PMI
Scheduling Professional (PMI-SP) was created.

Cost[edit]
To develop an approximation of a project cost depends on several variables including: resources,
work packages such as labor rates and mitigating or controlling influencing factors that create
cost variances. Tools used in cost are, risk management, cost contingency, cost escalation, and
indirect costs . But beyond this basic accounting approach to fixed and variable costs, the
economic cost that must be considered includes worker skill and productivity which is calculated
using various project cost estimate tools. This is important when companies hire temporary or
contract employees or outsource work.
Cost Process Areas[edit]

Cost Estimating is an approximation of the cost of all resources needed to complete

activities.

Cost budgeting aggregating the estimated costs of resources, work packages and
activities to establish a cost baseline.

Cost Control factors that create cost fluctuation and variance can be influenced and
controlled using various cost management tools.

Project Management Cost Estimating Tools[8][edit]

Analogous Estimating: Using the cost of similar project to determine the cost of the
current project

Determining Resource Cost rates: The cost of goods and labor by unit gathered through
estimates or estimation.

Bottom Up estimating: Using the lowest level of work package detail and summarizing
the cost associated with it. Then rolling it up to a higher level aimed and calculating the entire
cost of the project.

Parametric Estimating: Measuring the statistical relationship between historical data and
other variable or flow.

Vendor Bid Analysis: taking the average of several bids given by vendors for the project.

Reserve Analysis: Aggregate the cost of each activity on the network path then add a
contingency or reserve to the end result of the analysis by a factor determined by the project
manager.

Cost of Quality Analysis: Estimating the cost at the highest quality for each activity.

Project management software can be used to calculate the cost variances for a project.

Scope[edit]
Requirements specified to achieve the end result. The overall definition of what the project is
supposed to accomplish, and a specific description of what the end result should be or
accomplish. A major component of scope is the quality of the final product. The amount of time
put into individual tasks determines the overall quality of the project. Some tasks may require a
given amount of time to complete adequately, but given more time could be completed
exceptionally. Over the course of a large project, quality can have a significant impact on time
and cost (or vice versa).
Together, these three constraints have given rise to the phrase "On Time, On Spec, On Budget."
In this case, the term "scope" is substituted with "spec(ification)."

Evolution of the Project Constraint Model[edit]

The Project Management Diamond Model

The Project Management Star per PMBOK

Interpretation of Triangle Model

Interpretation of Star Model

Traditionally the Project Constraint Model recognised three key constraints; "Cost", "Time" and
"Scope". These constraints construct a triangle with geometric proportions illustrating the strong
interdependent relationship between these factors. If there is a requirement to shift any one of
these factors then at least one of the other factors must also be manipulated. [5]
With mainstream acceptance of the Triangle Model, "Cost" and "Time" appear to be represented
consistently. "Scope" however is often used interchangeably given the context of the triangle's
illustration or the perception of the respective project. Scope / Goal / Product / Deliverable /
Quality are all relatively similar and generic variation examples of this, while the above
suggestion of 'People Resources' offers a more specialised interpretation.
This widespread use of variations implies a level of ambiguity carried by the nuance of the third
constraint term and of course a level of value in the flexibility of the Triangle Model. This
ambiguity allows blurred focus between a project's output and project's process, with the
example terms above having potentially different impetus in the two contexts. Both "Cost" and
"Time" represent the top level project's inputs.

The Project Diamond model [9] engenders this blurred focus through the inclusion of "Scope" and
"Quality" separately as the third constraint. While there is merit in the addition of "Quality" as a
key constraining factor, acknowledging the increasing maturity of project management, this
model still lacks clarity between output and process. The Diamond Model does not capture the
analogy of the strong interrelation between points of the triangles however.
PMBOK 4.0 offered an evolved model based on the triple constraint with 6 factors to be
monitored and managed.[10] This is illustrated as a 6 pointed Star that maintains the strength of
the triangle analogy (two overlaid triangles), while at the same time represents the separation
and relationship between project inputs/outputs factors on one triangle and the project processes
factors on the other. The star variables are:
1. Triangle

Scope

Cost

Time

2. Triangle

Risk

Quality

Resources

When considering the ambiguity of the third constraint and the suggestions of the "Project
Diamond"; it is possible to consider instead the Goal or Product of the project as the third
constraint, being made up of the sub factors "Scope" and "Quality". In terms of a project's output
both "Scope" and "Quality" can be adjusted resulting in an overall manipulation of the
Goal/Product. This interpretation includes the four key factors in the original triangle
inputs/outputs form. This can even be incorporated into the PMBOK Star illustrating that "Quality"
in particular may be monitored separately in terms of project outputs and process. Further to this
suggestion, the use of term "Goal" may best represent change initiative outputs, while Product
may best represent more tangible outputs.[11]

2016. Wikipedia.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_managemen
t_triangle
Triple Constraints | Six Constraints

Im sure youre all familiar with the term triple

constraint, which refers to the three way conflict

between scope, time, and cost. This constraint is

often represented diagrammatically as follows:

What this diagram is attempting to show is that if

you change any constraint (scope, time, or cost) you
must impact the other two constraints in some way.
For example, if you wanted to increase the scope of
a project, this will have the effect of increasing the
time taken and thus the cost of the project. On the
other hand, if you wanted to reduce the time taken,
but were not prepared to reduce the scope, then
clearly its going to cost more to complete the
project.
In the 4th edition of PMBOK, some changes have
been made to this notion of the triple constraint.
Firstly, the term cost has been changed to budget,
and the term time to schedule. More importantly
(in my opinion), three new constraints have been
added: Quality, Resource, and Risk.
Diagrammatically, this might look as follows:

You could argue that Quality was previously covered

under Scope, and Resource under Cost, but I dont
think that Risk fits anywhere under the original
constraints. Lets look at the 6 constraints a little
closer.
Changing any one of the constraints will impact the
other five. Your aim is to apply the constraints to
meet the unique needs of the project youre
managing. You should be working with your
stakeholders to make conscious decisions about the
6 constraints.
For example, if youre running a project that must
hit a specific date, then if by going through the
constraints with your stakeholders they determine
that the date must be held but your budget cant be
increased, then clearly they must make
compromises around some or all of scope, quality,
resource, or risk. It could be that through
negotiation you agree that scope will be reduced
and the quality bar will be lowered. Essentially the

six constraints are a tool you can use to manage

your stakeholders and their expectations.
You might also like:

http://www.expertprogrammanagement.com/201
0/07/triple-constraints-six-constraints/.2015.
epert program management

The Six Constraints of Project

Management
Chapter 1 / Lesson 8
Share Feedback Rate

Lesson

Quiz

Course

Watch short & fun videos Start Your Free Trial Today
Instructor: Karen O'Brien

Karen has 14 years of experience in consultancy, including creation of training materials and
running courses for IT professionals.
This lesson specifies and explains the six constraints of project management - schedule, cost,
quality, scope, risk and resources. In addition, the interrelated nature of these constraints is
explained.

Why Do I Need To Know About Project

Constraints?
So, you want to manage a project to completion. And possibly even successfully, if you're lucky!
Where do you start? The most important aspects of project management are project constraints.
These are essentially rules that bind you when managing a project. They will determine whether
or not the project is successful. Think of them as route directions, they will get you to your
destination but may change at any time.
This lesson will identify each constraint, provide a detailed description and use a sample project
to illustrate how each constraint is related to the other. At the end of the lesson, you should be
able to identify all project constraints, ask all relevant constraint questions when planning and
understand the impact of each constraint on all others.

What Are Project Constraints?

The following are the six constraints that are recognized as determining factors in project
management:
1. Schedule - the time available to deliver a project
2. Customer satisfaction - customer must be satisfied
3. Quality - how successful and correct the project deliverable is
4. Scope - the features of the project (what the project does, how it does it)
5. Risk - uncertainties, threats to the project
6. Resources - people, budget and assets required to deliver the project
Let's take a look at an extremely simple project to help us understand the constraints and how
they are interrelated. This project requires you to make a trip to the local store for lunch during a
work day, while you pay a colleague to man your work station.

Schedule
The schedule constraint is the time available to deliver a project. In this case, your schedule is
that you must return from the store before your colleague returns to their station.

If the allotted time is overrun (due to traffic, queues at the store etc.), additional costs will be
incurred because your colleague must be paid extra to man your station for the additional time.
Alternatively the quality, scope or customer satisfaction of the project may be impacted as your
colleague may be unable to remain for the additional time, thus forcing you to return before
purchasing the lunch item.

Customer Satisfaction
If you are happy with the end result, you get a good lunch for a good price with no delay and your
work station is manned, there's a good chance the customer (you!) will be satisfied.
The satisfaction of the customer is jeopardized when any other project constraint is impacted. For
example, you will be dissatisfied if you have to pay more for your lunch/work cover than planned
or if you are unable to purchase lunch.

Quality
Project quality, in this case, will be considered high if the goal is achieved. i.e., that your lunch is
purchased on time without additional cost and your work station is manned for the duration of
your absence.
A change to project quality is likely to impact customer satisfaction.

Scope
Scope includes the lunch being purchased, driving to a specific local store and your colleague
covering your station. Examples of out of scope features are, cycling to the store, having 2
colleagues man your station or buying dinner instead of lunch.
If project scope changes, for example if the store no longer stocks lunch items, you may decide to
purchase a dinner item as an alternative but this impacts project scope (project did not deliver
what it set out to), quality (dinner may not be as nice as lunch), customer satisfaction (customer
wanted lunch) and possibly budget (dinner is more expensive).

Risks
Karen Obrien. 2016.
http://study.com/academy/lesson/the-six-

constraints-of-project-management.html.
study.com
10 Qualities of a Good Research Purpose and/or Questions
Compiled by students in CEP955, Michigan State University, Fall 2003
(Not necessarily in order of importance)
It is grounded in a theoretical framework.
It is builds on, but also offers something new to, previous research.
It has the potential to suggest directions for future research.
It is a purpose or question that the researcher is sincerely interested and/or invested in.
It addresses directly or indirectly some real problem in the world.
It takes ethical issues into consideration.
It clearly states the variables or constructs to be examined.
It is not biased in terminology or position.
It has multiple possible answers.
It is simple, or at least manageable.
The purpose and question(s) of a study should drive the study design. As such there
should be a
shufang shi. 2006. Cortland college. cottland,edu/ GoodRQQualities.pdf
14/01/2016 Characteristics of a Research Problem
http://247customwriting.com/component/k2/item/556characteristicsofaresearchproblem.
html 1/3
Order Now Satisfaction Guaranteed Contact Us
Custom Writing
Home
Contact Us
Place Order
Money Back
Rate this item (2 votes)
Monday, 10 February 2014 05:20

Characteristics of a Research Problem

Featured
Written by Administrator
font size Print Email

Characteristics of a Research Problem

Research is the wheel that drives technological, scientific, educational, and business advancement.
Through the intruding process of research, human beings have been able to solve some of the most
dogmatic issues in life. This paper explores some of the characteristics of a good research problem,
researchable problem, components of Statement of Research Problem and theoretical framework.
A quality research problem is the basis of a successful research. In broad terms, there are two types of
research questions, those that relates to the state of nature and those which relate to t relationships
between variables. Some of the fundamental characteristics of a good problem statement include:
The problem of interest should be interesting and intriguing to the researcher. The researcher should
select a topic that is worthy their time and resources. The researcher should choose a topic that will add
to the existing knowledge or create a new area of exploration. The findings of the study should be
relevant to human beings or the society. It is crucial for students to know that their topic of choice will
also reflect on their resume.
The researcher should ensure the problem is connecting to the overall goal of the research. The answer
to the problem should meet the goal of the research. The selected problem should pose questions that
can be answered scientifically or those other means. It is crucial for students to avoid questions that are
abstract and too broad. It is imperative o be specific while selecting or expounding the research problem.
The problem should be stated plainly and succinctly. The problem must be defined unambiguously for
that help discriminating relevant data from irrelevant ones. A clearly stated problem statement ensures
the researcher has a strong foundation of the research. The problem should be described in
grammatically correct sentences that are precise and easy to understand. A lot of care must to take to
ensure the background and facts concerning the problem to ensure objectivity and validity.
The second important characteristic of a good problem is that it must be feasible. The researcher should
select practical ideas. Practicability of the problem is crucial in determine the feasibility of the study. The
research should ensure that the research is not only financially viable but also methodologically. It is
crucial for the researcher to state precisely what he or she intends to study or investigate. They should 14/01/2016

Research Problem
http://247customwriting.com/component/k2/item/556characteristicsofaresearchproblem.
html 2/3
Read 527 times
Tweet

not make assumptions that the reader is abreast of the study. The choice of words should be precise and
clear to a layman.
The problem should be able to raise a number of specific research questions. This turns the problem into

Characteristics of a

a question format and presents various aspects or components of the problem. Singling out the research
problem is one of the most fundamental set in the breakdown of the main question into several questions
makes it easy to address and provide a framework for the research?
Any topic worthy commitment of resources should be a problem that is relevant to human beings. The
research problem a researcher decides to solve should be have adequate literature review to help in
developing a theoretical framework. The problem should be feasible within the resources of a
researcher. A research problem can be fined tuned to make appropriate. A researcher should conduct a
detailed literature review. This will enable him or her to generate as many questions about the topic as
possible. The researcher should visualize the problem in a holistic manner. He or she should analyze the
problem and concepts under investigation critically.
He should investigate overview all aspects of the problem including literature review, data collection and
analysis, and interpretation of results. A wellstated
problem relates to a literature review. It often
relates to a welldefined
body of literature, written by a group of researchers and published in a small
number of journals. In some instances, there are insufficient data to address the problem. Students
should select to topics/problems that will not give them a lot of challenge in accessing relevant data.
They should look for existing databases to offer them detailed and wide literature resources. As well as
being grounded in discipline, a good research problem generally relates to some sort of standard
methodology. This might be historical, or comparative or empirical, but it should build on the strengths of
the investigator (Anderson, 2002). There is a need for a student to select a problem that addressed in
statistics when the student is not comfortable with statistics. A researchable problem should be new i.e.
students should not select topics/problems that have been discussed exhaustively.
According to Hartas (2010), what constitutes a researchable problem is influenced by a, complex
dialectical, process linking the researchers identity, position and experience with their understanding of
themselves, their work and relationship with the society. This relationship is both an individual level and
social one involving the researcher in different roles as a student, practitioner, parent and a community,
that forms of social interaction that predispose the researcher to an interest in what is happening in the
society.
In the process of reviewing the literature, a research comes across a lot of literature. This literature can
be used to develop a theoretical framework. The primary purpose of a theoretical framework is to offer
an explanation of a phenomenon, its nature, challenges and experiences that shape its existence. The
researcher uses the literature to either proof or disapproves his theory or thesis. Theoretical framework
provides the researcher with a coherent outlined problem to build his argument.
Theoretical framework helps the researcher to breakdown the main research question into simpler
questions or subproblems.
This helps the researcher to chance to have a thorough analysis of each of
the concept or idea in his or her research. It is crucial for the researcher to distinguish subproblem
from
pseudo subproblems,
which may divert his or her attention. Theoretical framework of any study consists
of concepts, their definitions, and existing theories that are used in the study. An effective theoretical
framework must demonstrate a comprehensive understanding of theories and concepts that are pertinent
to the area of study. Theories developed should be based on appropriateness, simplicity of application
and its explanatory. If appropriately used, theoretical framework can strengthen the study in several
ways. It connects the research with the existing knowledge and arguments made concerning the topic.
The research can use relevant theories to create a strong basis for the chosen thesis. It also offers a
strong basis for the selection of the research method.
Development of a theoretical framework enables the research to address the questions of causes and
effects It allows the research to offer detailed anatomy of the problem instead of offering basic or
generalized observations. A researcher uses a theoretical framework to demonstrate how various
concepts of the study are interrelated. Development of an effective theoretical framework is, therefore, a
crucial process in research writing. An effective theoretical framework is based on the research problem.
The entire study is anchored o an effective research problem. The researcher should brainstorm on
variables he or she considers being the main concepts of the study. The researcher should find for
relationship between ideas and the effects they have on the phenomenon under investigation. The
researcher should use the existing theories to develop his or her theoretical framework. Such a
framework should be based on a detailed literature review to reveal competency of the concept. It is
crucial for a researcher to brainstorm with other parties on the framework developed.
Conclusion
Research problem is the core of research. Any researcher should take adequate time to refine problem
statement because it helps the researcher to link different concepts with the overall goal of the research.
Research problems should be selected from topics or areas that interest the writer. They should be
stated precisely and with standard language. Theoretical framework is a crucial component of research.
It offers the writer a chance to breakdown the concept under study into subproblems.
This makes it
easy to study the concept under investigate. A credible theoretical framework is developed from a
detailed literature review.
References
Leedy D. & ormrod E (2010). Practical research. Planning and design. 9 th edition. Pearson Publisher, New
York, USA.
Garry Anderson (2002)Fundamentals of educational research. Routledge Publishers. Philadelphia, USA.
Dimitra Hartas (2010). Educational research and inquiry. Continuum international publishing group. New
York, USA.