Expanding Research Integrity: A Cultural-Practice Perspective

被引:0
作者
Govert Valkenburg
Guus Dix
Joeri Tijdink
Sarah de Rijcke
机构
[1] Leiden University,Centre for Science and Technology Studies (CWTS), Faculty of Social and Behavioral Sciences
[2] Amsterdam University Medical Center,Department of Ethics, Law and Humanities
[3] Location VUmc,Department of Philosophy
[4] VU University,Department of Interdisciplinary Studies of Culture, Faculty of Humanities
[5] Norwegian University of Science and Technology,Center for Higher Education Policy Studies (CHEPS), Faculty of Behavioural, Management and Social Sciences (BMS)
[6] University of Twente,undefined
来源
Science and Engineering Ethics | 2021年 / 27卷
关键词
Research practice; Research culture; Institutions; Research integrity; Research ethics;
D O I
暂无
中图分类号
学科分类号
摘要
Research integrity (RI) is usually discussed in terms of responsibilities that individual researchers bear towards the scientific work they conduct, as well as responsibilities that institutions have to enable those individual researchers to do so. In addition to these two bearers of responsibility, a third category often surfaces, which is variably referred to as culture and practice. These notions merit further development beyond a residual category that is to contain everything that is not covered by attributions to individuals and institutions. This paper discusses how thinking in RI can take benefit from more specific ideas on practice and culture. We start by articulating elements of practice and culture, and explore how values central to RI are related to these elements. These insights help identify additional points of intervention for fostering responsible conduct. This helps to build “cultures and practices of research integrity”, as it makes clear that specific times and places are connected to specific practices and cultures and should have a place in the debate on Research Integrity. With this conceptual framework, practitioners as well as theorists can avoid using the notions as residual categories that de facto amount to vague, additional burdens of responsibility for the individual.
引用
收藏
相关论文
共 141 条
[1]  
Anderson MS(2007)The perverse effects of competition on scientists' work and relationships Science and Engineering Ethics 13 437-461
[2]  
Ronning EA(2007)What do mentoring and training in the responsible conduct of research have to do with scientists’ misbehavior? Findings from a national survey of NIH-funded scientists Academic Medicine 82 853-860
[3]  
De Vries R(2007)Normative dissonance in science: Results from a national survey of U.S. scientists Journal of Empirical Research on Human Research Ethics 2 3-14
[4]  
Martinson BC(2018)the role of culture and acculturation in researchers' perceptions of rules in science Science and Engineering Ethics 24 361-391
[5]  
Anderson MS(2001)Peer review culture Science and Engineering Ethics 7 193-204
[6]  
Horn AS(2019)a decade of empirical research on research integrity: What have we (Not) looked at? Journal of Empirical Research on Human Research Ethics 14 338-352
[7]  
Risbey KR(1998)Integrity in organizations: Beyond honesty and conscientiousness The Academy of Management Review 23 154-161
[8]  
Ronning EA(2013)Who's afraid of peer review? Science 342 60-65
[9]  
Vries RD(2015)Commentary: Perverse incentives or rotten apples? Accountability in Research 22 148-161
[10]  
Martinson BC(1978)Racism and research: The case of the tuskegee syphilis study The Hastings Center Report 8 21-29