Research Integrity and Hidden Value Conflicts

Author:

Helgesson GertORCID,Bülow WilliamORCID

Abstract

AbstractResearch integrity is a well-established term used to talk and write about ethical issues in research. Part of its success might be its broad applicability. In this paper, we suggest that this might also be its Achilles heel, since it has the potential to conceal important value conflicts. We identify three broad domains upon which research integrity is applied in the literature: (1) the researcher (or research group), (2) research, and (3) research-related institutions and systems. Integrity in relation to researchers concerns character, although it remains to specify precisely what character traits are the desirable ones in this context and what values researchers should endorse. Integrity in relation to research concerns correct and sufficient description of the research process, data, results, and overall ‘research record’. Hence, it concerns the quality of research. However, whether or not this notion of research integrity covers all ethical aspects of research depends on whether one endorses a wider or a narrower interpretation of the ‘research process’. Integrity in relation to research-related institutions and systems leaves open whether they should be understood as agents in their own right or merely as means to research integrity. Besides the potential lack of clarity that our analysis reveals, we point to how this variety in uses might lead to concealment of value conflicts and propose an open discussion of central values.

Funder

Karolinska Institute

Publisher

Springer Science and Business Media LLC

Subject

Philosophy,Sociology and Political Science,Arts and Humanities (miscellaneous),Education

Reference35 articles.

1. ALLEA – All European Academies. (2017). The European Code of Conduct for Research Integrity. Revised Edition.

2. Balmer, A. S., Calvert, J., Marris, C., Molyneux-Hodgson, S., Frow, E., Kearnes, M., Buplin, K., Schyfter, P., MacKenzie, A., & Martin, P. (2015). Taking roles in interdisciplinary collaborations: Reflections on working in post-ELSI spaces in the UK synthetic biology community. Science & Technology Studies, 28(3), 3–25.

3. Bergström, L. (1972). Objektivitet. En undersökning av innebörden, möjligheten och önskvärdheten av objektivitet i samhällsvetenskapen. (Objectivity. An investigation of the meaning, possibility and desirability of objectivity in the social sciences.) Stockholm: Prisma.

4. Bülow, W., & Helgesson, G. (2019). Criminalization and scientific misconduct. Medicine Health Care and Philosophy, 22, 245–252.

5. Cox, D., La Caze, M., & Levine, M. Integrity. The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Retrieved September 13, 2021, from https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/integrity/

Cited by 2 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

同舟云学术

1.学者识别学者识别

2.学术分析学术分析

3.人才评估人才评估

"同舟云学术"是以全球学者为主线,采集、加工和组织学术论文而形成的新型学术文献查询和分析系统,可以对全球学者进行文献检索和人才价值评估。用户可以通过关注某些学科领域的顶尖人物而持续追踪该领域的学科进展和研究前沿。经过近期的数据扩容,当前同舟云学术共收录了国内外主流学术期刊6万余种,收集的期刊论文及会议论文总量共计约1.5亿篇,并以每天添加12000余篇中外论文的速度递增。我们也可以为用户提供个性化、定制化的学者数据。欢迎来电咨询!咨询电话:010-8811{复制后删除}0370

www.globalauthorid.com

TOP

Copyright © 2019-2024 北京同舟云网络信息技术有限公司
京公网安备11010802033243号  京ICP备18003416号-3