Although discussion of composition research methods over the last 10 years has culminated in Conference on College Composition and Communication (CCCC) guidelines, these guidelines do not include procedures for verifying qualitative data. Such procedures would entail having a third party check to some degree that the researcher spent the time claimed at the site and that the subjects did what was described and said what was quoted in the published research. This commentary reviews federal policies on research misconduct and government and professional association responses to data faking, noting the additional danger of incompetent investigations of research misconduct. Arguing that the discipline should take appropriate measures to verify qualitative data, I recommend a two-tiered approach.
American Anthropological Association. (2001). Past AAA action alert. Federal policy on research misconduct. Retrieved February 23, 2001, from www.aanet.org/gvt/actmisconduct.htm
2.
Brainard, J. (2000, December 8). As U.S. releases new rules on scientific fraud, scholars debate how much and why it occurs. Chronicle of Higher Education, p. A26.
3.
Breuch, L.-A. K., Olson, A. M., & Frantz, A. B. (2002). Considering ethical issues in technical communication research. In L. J. Gurak & M. M. Lay (Eds.), Research in technical communication (pp. 1-22). New York: Praegar.
4.
Broadhead, G., & Freed, R. C. (1986). The variables of composition. Carbondale: Southern Illinois University Press.
5.
Burling, S. (2003, March 3). Researcher fights for her notes. Philadelphia Inquirer. Retrieved September 6, 2003, from www.philly.com/mid/inquirer/living/health/5301924.htm
6.
Campbell, K. S. (2000). Research methods course work for students specializing in business and technical communication. Journal of Business and Technical Communication, 14, 223-241.
7.
Cecil, J. S., & Wetherington, G. T. (Eds.). (1996). Court-ordered disclosure of academic research: A clash of values of science and law [Special issue]. Law and Contemporary Problems, 59(3).
8.
Clifford, J. (1986). Introduction: Partial truths. In J. Clifford & G. Marcus (Eds.), Writing culture: The politics and poetics of ethnography (pp. 1-26). Berkeley: University of California Press.
9.
Conference on College Composition and Communication Ad Hoc Committee on the Ethical Use of Students and Student Writing in Composition. (2001). Guidelines for the ethical treatment of students and student writing in composition studies. College Composition and Communication, 52, 485-490.
10.
Cross, G. A. (1994). Ethnographic research in business and technical writing: Between extremes and margins. Journal of Business and Technical Communication, 8, 118-134.
11.
Dobrin, D. N. (1987). Writing without discipline(s). Journal of Business and Technical Communication, 1(1), 5-8.
12.
Doheny-Farina, S. (1984). Writing in an emergent organization: An ethnographic study. Dissertation Abstracts International, 45, 3337A. (UMI No. 8500944)
13.
Doheny-Farina, S. (1993). Research as rhetoric: Confronting the methodological and ethical problems of research on writing in nonacademic settings. In R. Spilka (Ed.), Writing in the workplace: New research perspectives (pp. 253-267). Carbondale: Southern Illinois University Press.
14.
Geertz, C. (1973). The interpretation of cultures. New York: Basic Books.
15.
Guba, E. G., & Lincoln, Y. S. (1981). Effective evaluation. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
16.
Herndl, C. G. (1991). Writing ethnography: Representation, rhetoric, and institutional practice. College English, 53(3), 320-332.
17.
Herndl, C. G., & Nahrwold, C. A. (2000). Research as social practice: A case study of research on technical and professional communication. Written Communication, 17(2), 258-296.
18.
Johnsrud, L. K. (2000). Education research: Challenges in the current context of public higher education. The Pen. Retrieved February 19, 2001, from www.aera.net/divisions/j/penfall00.htm
19.
Kalichman, M. W., & Friedman, P. J. (1992). A pilot study of biomedical trainees’ perceptions concerning research ethics. Academic Medicine, 67, 769-775.
20.
Knoll, M. (1996). Faking a dissertation: Ellsworth Collings, William H. Kilpatrick, and the project “curriculum.”Journal of Curriculum Studies, 28(2), 193-222. Retrieved April 23, 2004, from EBSCO Host database.
21.
Levine, F. J. (1993). ASA files amicus brief protecting confidential research information. ASA Footnotes, 21(5), 52-54.
22.
Lunsford, A., & Ede, L. (1990). Singular texts/plural authors. Carbondale: Southern Illinois University Press.
23.
MacNealy, M. S. (1999). Strategies for empirical research in writing. Boston: Allyn & Bacon.
24.
Maxwell, J. A. (1996). Qualitative research design: An interactive approach. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
25.
Miles, M. B., & Huberman, A. M. (1994). Qualitative data analysis. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
26.
Monaghan, P. (1993, April 7). Facing jail, a sociologist raises questions about a scholar’s right to protect sources. Chronicle of Higher Education, p. A10.
27.
National Institutes of Health Office of Extramural Research. (2002, March 15). Frequently asked questions on certificates of confidentiality. Retrieved September 19, 2003, from www.grants1.nih.gov/grants/policy/coc/faqs.htm
28.
North, S. M. (1987). The making of knowledge in composition. Upper Montclair, NJ: Boynton/Cook.
29.
Odell, L., & Goswami, D. (1982). Writing in a non-academic setting. Research in the Teaching of English, 16, 201-223.
30.
Office of Science and Technology Policy. (2000). Federal policy on research misconduct. Retrieved April 13, 2003, from http://ostp.gov/html/001207_3.html
31.
Porter, L., & Coggin, W. (1995). Research strategies in technical communication. New York: John Wiley.
32.
Smith, R. (1997). Misconduct in research: Editors respond. British Medical Journal, 7102, 201. Retrieved February 19, 2001, from EBSCO host database.
33.
Thompson, T. T., & Cusella, L. P. (1988). Field research in the organization. In P. G. Campbell, T. Housel, & K. O. Locker (Eds.), Conducting research in business communication (pp. 157-186). New York: Association for Business Communication.
34.
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. (2002, March). Federalwide assurance of protection for human subjects. Retrieved September 6, 2003, from http://ohrp.osophs.dhhs.gov/humansubjects/assurance/filasurt.htm
35.
Wolfe, J., & Alexander, K. (in press). The computer expert in mixed-gendered collaborative writing groups. Journal of Business and Technical Communication.
