Search engine for discovering works of Art, research articles, and books related to Art and Culture
ShareThis
Javascript must be enabled to continue!

Rethinking success, integrity, and culture in research (part 2) — a multi-actor qualitative study on problems of science

View through CrossRef
Abstract Background Research misconduct and questionable research practices have been the subject of increasing attention in the past few years. But despite the rich body of research available, few empirical works also include the perspectives of non-researcher stakeholders. Methods We conducted semi-structured interviews and focus groups with policy makers, funders, institution leaders, editors or publishers, research integrity office members, research integrity community members, laboratory technicians, researchers, research students, and former-researchers who changed career to inquire on the topics of success, integrity, and responsibilities in science. We used the Flemish biomedical landscape as a baseline to be able to grasp the views of interacting and complementary actors in a system setting. Results Given the breadth of our results, we divided our findings in a two-paper series with the current paper focusing on the problems that affect the integrity and research culture. We first found that different actors have different perspectives on the problems that affect the integrity and culture of research. Problems were either linked to personalities and attitudes, or to the climates in which researchers operate. Elements that were described as essential for success (in the associate paper) were often thought to accentuate the problems of research climates by disrupting research culture and research integrity. Even though all participants agreed that current research climates need to be addressed, participants generally did not feel responsible nor capable of initiating change. Instead, respondents revealed a circle of blame and mistrust between actor groups. Conclusions Our findings resonate with recent debates, and extrapolate a few action points which might help advance the discussion. First, the research integrity debate must revisit and tackle the way in which researchers are assessed. Second, approaches to promote better science need to address the impact that research climates have on research integrity and research culture rather than to capitalize on individual researchers’ compliance. Finally, inter-actor dialogues and shared decision making must be given priority to ensure that the perspectives of the full research system are captured. Understanding the relations and interdependency between these perspectives is key to be able to address the problems of science. Study registration https://osf.io/33v3m
Title: Rethinking success, integrity, and culture in research (part 2) — a multi-actor qualitative study on problems of science
Description:
Abstract Background Research misconduct and questionable research practices have been the subject of increasing attention in the past few years.
But despite the rich body of research available, few empirical works also include the perspectives of non-researcher stakeholders.
Methods We conducted semi-structured interviews and focus groups with policy makers, funders, institution leaders, editors or publishers, research integrity office members, research integrity community members, laboratory technicians, researchers, research students, and former-researchers who changed career to inquire on the topics of success, integrity, and responsibilities in science.
We used the Flemish biomedical landscape as a baseline to be able to grasp the views of interacting and complementary actors in a system setting.
Results Given the breadth of our results, we divided our findings in a two-paper series with the current paper focusing on the problems that affect the integrity and research culture.
We first found that different actors have different perspectives on the problems that affect the integrity and culture of research.
Problems were either linked to personalities and attitudes, or to the climates in which researchers operate.
Elements that were described as essential for success (in the associate paper) were often thought to accentuate the problems of research climates by disrupting research culture and research integrity.
Even though all participants agreed that current research climates need to be addressed, participants generally did not feel responsible nor capable of initiating change.
Instead, respondents revealed a circle of blame and mistrust between actor groups.
Conclusions Our findings resonate with recent debates, and extrapolate a few action points which might help advance the discussion.
First, the research integrity debate must revisit and tackle the way in which researchers are assessed.
Second, approaches to promote better science need to address the impact that research climates have on research integrity and research culture rather than to capitalize on individual researchers’ compliance.
Finally, inter-actor dialogues and shared decision making must be given priority to ensure that the perspectives of the full research system are captured.
Understanding the relations and interdependency between these perspectives is key to be able to address the problems of science.
Study registration https://osf.
io/33v3m.

Related Results

Developing guidelines for research institutions
Developing guidelines for research institutions
As introduced in Chapter 1, in this thesis, I developed guidelines to research institutions on how to foster research integrity. I did this by exploring how research institutions c...
Actualització consistent de bases de dades deductives
Actualització consistent de bases de dades deductives
En aquesta tesi, proposem un nou mètode per a l'actualització consistent de bases de dades deductives. Donada una petició d'actualització, aquest mètode tradueix de forma automàtic...
Fissure Integrity and Volume Reduction in Emphysema: A Retrospective Study
Fissure Integrity and Volume Reduction in Emphysema: A Retrospective Study
<b><i>Background:</i></b> One-way endobronchial valves (EBVs) relieve symptoms of emphysema, particularly in patients without collateral ventilation between...
Mõtestades materiaalset kultuuri / Making sense of the material culture
Mõtestades materiaalset kultuuri / Making sense of the material culture
People live amidst objects, things, articles, items, artefacts, materials, substances, and stuff – described in social sciences and humanities as material culture, which denotes bo...
Guest editors' notes: Special issue on qualitative research support
Guest editors' notes: Special issue on qualitative research support
Welcome to the second issue of Volume 43 of the IASSIST Quarterly (IQ 43:2, 2019). Four papers are presented in this issue on qualitative research support. This special issue arise...
Formation of an innovation-pedagogical actor in the school environment
Formation of an innovation-pedagogical actor in the school environment
Introduction. The need to develop and test a complex of psychological-pedagogical tools for the development of an innovation actor is due to the priorities of the national policy i...
Artificial intelligence VS human mind
Artificial intelligence VS human mind
In this scientific work, the author briefly analyzes some current problems of philosophical rethinking of the relationship between artificial intelligence and the human mind. To do...

Back to Top