English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Zendy Plus

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Zendy Tools

Zendy Open

In Anticipating Law: Research Methods, Ethics and the Law of Privilege, -- J. Sociological Methodology -- (2002), Ted Palys and John Lowman set forth the rationale for a "researcher-participant privilege" and advise scholars how best to preserve the confidentiality of their research in the face of a legal system that has not looked kindly on such a privilege. Although recognition of a researcher-participant privilege would, on balance, be beneficial, the case for the privilege is hardly self-evident. This paper reviews some of the reasons why courts and legislatures have not embraced such a privilege. The paper also explores the advice Palys and Lowman offer researchers in the absence of such a privilege (to promise research-participants absolute confidentiality, even if the researcher will have to defy a court order to satisfy the promise) and concludes that their advice is unwise and, arguably, unethical.

Above the Law: Research Methods, Ethics, and the Law of Privilege