Abstract
AbstractFostering research integrity (RI) increasingly focuses on normative guidance and supportive measures within institutions. To be successful, the implementation of support should be informed by stakeholders’ experiences of RI support. This study aims to explore experiences of RI support in Dutch, Spanish and Croatian universities. In total, 59 stakeholders (Netherlands n = 25, Spain n = 17, Croatia n = 17) participated in 16 focus groups in three European countries. Global themes on RI support experiences were identified by thematic analysis. Themes identified were: ‘RI governance and institutional implementation’, ‘RI roles and structures’, ‘RI education and supervision’, and ‘Infrastructure, technology and tools supporting daily practice’. Experiences of support differed between countries in relation to: the efforts to translate norms into practice; the extent to which RI oversight was a responsibility of RE structures, or separate RI structures; and the availability of support close to research practice, such as training, responsible supervision, and adequate tools and infrastructure. The study reinforces the importance of a whole institutional approach to RI, embedded within local jurisdictions, rules, and practices. A whole institutional approach puts the emphasis of responsibility on institutions rather than individual researchers. When such an approach is lacking, some stakeholders look for intervention by authorities, such as funders, outside of the university.
Publisher
Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Subject
Management of Technology and Innovation,Health Policy,Issues, ethics and legal aspects,Health (social science)
Reference55 articles.
1. Agency for Science and Higher Education. (2015). Croatian ethical code of the board of ethics in science and higher education. Retrieved June 2017, from https://www.azvo.hr/en/ethics-committee-in-science-and-higher-education.
2. Anderson, M. S. (2014). Global research integrity in relation to the United States’ research-integrity infrastructure. Accountability in Research, 21(1), 1–8.
3. Anderson, M. S., Horn, A. S., Risbey, K. R., Ronning, E. A., De Vries, R., & Martinson, B. C. (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(9), 853–860.
4. Aubert Bonn, N., Godecharle, S., & Dierickx, K. (2017). European universities’ guidance on research integrity and misconduct: Accessibility, approaches, and content. Journal of Empirical Research on Human Research Ethics, 12(1), 33–44.
5. Ayres, L., Kavanaugh, K., & Knafl, K. A. (2003). Within-case and across-case approaches to qualitative data analysis. Qualitative Health Research, 13(6), 871–883.
Cited by
1 articles.
订阅此论文施引文献
订阅此论文施引文献,注册后可以免费订阅5篇论文的施引文献,订阅后可以查看论文全部施引文献