Since the summer of 2020, researchers from ten projects pertaining to the Horizon2020 Science wit... more Since the summer of 2020, researchers from ten projects pertaining to the Horizon2020 Science with and for Society (SwafS) call have been meeting virtually as the SwafS14 Monitoring and Evaluation ecosystem. Topics of discussion were the trials and tribulations of their regional Responsible Research and Innovation (RRI) projects as well as their strategies for monitoring and evaluation. In this paper we make a first attempt at presenting these issues as problems of translation between different kinds of stakeholders. After an exploration of the diversity of stakeholders and the process of translation in regional RRI, we suggest evaluative conversations as a way of improving regional RRI. We intend to develop this idea in the future and that these conversations will facilitate more responsible and engaged monitoring and evaluation and contribute to better R&I policies.
Education is important for fostering research integrity (RI). Although RI training is increasingl... more Education is important for fostering research integrity (RI). Although RI training is increasingly provided, there is little knowledge on how research stakeholders view institutional RI education and training policies. Following a constructivist approach, we present insights about research stakeholders’ views and experiences regarding how research institutions can develop and implement RI education and training policies. We conducted thirty focus groups, engaging 147 participants in eight European countries. Using a mixed deductive-inductive thematic analysis, we identified five themes: (1) RI education should be available to all; (2) education and training approaches and goals should be tailored; (3) motivating trainees is essential; (4) both formal and informal educational formats are necessary; and (5) institutions should take into account various individual, institutional, and system-of-science factors when implementing RI education. Our findings suggest that institutions should...
This paper explores the gray area of questionable research practices (QRPs) between responsible c... more This paper explores the gray area of questionable research practices (QRPs) between responsible conduct of research (RCR) and severe research misconduct in the form of fabrication, falsification, and plagiarism (FFP) (Steneck 2006). Up until now, we have had very little knowledge of disciplinary similarities and differences in QRPs. The paper is the first systematic account of variances and similarities. It reports on the findings of a comprehensive study comprising 22 focus groups on practices and perceptions of QRPs across main areas of research. The paper supports the relevance of the idea of epistemic cultures (Knorr Cetina 1999), also when it comes to QRPs. It shows which QRPs researchers from different areas of research (humanities, social sciences, medical sciences, natural sciences, and technical sciences) report as the most severe and prevalent within their fields. Furthermore, it shows where in the research process these self-reported QRPs can be found. This is done by using a five-phase analytical model of the research process (idea generation, research design, data collection, data analysis, scientific publication and reporting). The paper shows that QRPs are closely connected to the distinct research practices within the different areas of research. Many QRPs can therefore only be found within one area of research, and QRPs that cut across main areas often cover relatively different practices. In a few cases, QRPs in one area are considered good research practice in another.
London now shuns journal-based metrics in staff assessment; it relies more on peer judgement of r... more London now shuns journal-based metrics in staff assessment; it relies more on peer judgement of research quality. At Mahidol University in Bangkok, Thailand, all staff sign the university's code of good governance, agreeing to uphold integrity, impartiality and social responsibility, for example. These are just three of dozens of efforts we found when investigating how institutions worldwide are working to improve research integrity. They form part of our long-term study on this topic, a project that is funded by the European Commission (see Table S2 in Supplementary information for more examples).
In this paper we reflect on the looming question of what constitutes expertise in ethics. Based o... more In this paper we reflect on the looming question of what constitutes expertise in ethics. Based on an empirical program that involved qualitative and quantitative as well as participatory research elements we show that expertise in research ethics and integrity is based on experience in the assessment processes. We then connect traditional concepts of expertise as “improved performance” with deliberate practice activities and, based on our research findings, show that ethical assessment experience is a form of deliberate practice. This in our view has further ramifications in the design and recruitment processes of ethical assessment units performing research ethics and integrity assessment.
Since the summer of 2020, researchers from ten projects pertaining to the Horizon2020 Science wit... more Since the summer of 2020, researchers from ten projects pertaining to the Horizon2020 Science with and for Society (SwafS) call have been meeting virtually as the SwafS14 Monitoring and Evaluation ecosystem. Topics of discussion were the trials and tribulations of their regional Responsible Research and Innovation (RRI) projects as well as their strategies for monitoring and evaluation. In this paper we make a first attempt at presenting these issues as problems of translation between different kinds of stakeholders. After an exploration of the diversity of stakeholders and the process of translation in regional RRI, we suggest evaluative conversations as a way of improving regional RRI. We intend to develop this idea in the future and that these conversations will facilitate more responsible and engaged monitoring and evaluation and contribute to better R&I policies.
Education is important for fostering research integrity (RI). Although RI training is increasingl... more Education is important for fostering research integrity (RI). Although RI training is increasingly provided, there is little knowledge on how research stakeholders view institutional RI education and training policies. Following a constructivist approach, we present insights about research stakeholders’ views and experiences regarding how research institutions can develop and implement RI education and training policies. We conducted thirty focus groups, engaging 147 participants in eight European countries. Using a mixed deductive-inductive thematic analysis, we identified five themes: (1) RI education should be available to all; (2) education and training approaches and goals should be tailored; (3) motivating trainees is essential; (4) both formal and informal educational formats are necessary; and (5) institutions should take into account various individual, institutional, and system-of-science factors when implementing RI education. Our findings suggest that institutions should...
This paper explores the gray area of questionable research practices (QRPs) between responsible c... more This paper explores the gray area of questionable research practices (QRPs) between responsible conduct of research (RCR) and severe research misconduct in the form of fabrication, falsification, and plagiarism (FFP) (Steneck 2006). Up until now, we have had very little knowledge of disciplinary similarities and differences in QRPs. The paper is the first systematic account of variances and similarities. It reports on the findings of a comprehensive study comprising 22 focus groups on practices and perceptions of QRPs across main areas of research. The paper supports the relevance of the idea of epistemic cultures (Knorr Cetina 1999), also when it comes to QRPs. It shows which QRPs researchers from different areas of research (humanities, social sciences, medical sciences, natural sciences, and technical sciences) report as the most severe and prevalent within their fields. Furthermore, it shows where in the research process these self-reported QRPs can be found. This is done by using a five-phase analytical model of the research process (idea generation, research design, data collection, data analysis, scientific publication and reporting). The paper shows that QRPs are closely connected to the distinct research practices within the different areas of research. Many QRPs can therefore only be found within one area of research, and QRPs that cut across main areas often cover relatively different practices. In a few cases, QRPs in one area are considered good research practice in another.
London now shuns journal-based metrics in staff assessment; it relies more on peer judgement of r... more London now shuns journal-based metrics in staff assessment; it relies more on peer judgement of research quality. At Mahidol University in Bangkok, Thailand, all staff sign the university's code of good governance, agreeing to uphold integrity, impartiality and social responsibility, for example. These are just three of dozens of efforts we found when investigating how institutions worldwide are working to improve research integrity. They form part of our long-term study on this topic, a project that is funded by the European Commission (see Table S2 in Supplementary information for more examples).
In this paper we reflect on the looming question of what constitutes expertise in ethics. Based o... more In this paper we reflect on the looming question of what constitutes expertise in ethics. Based on an empirical program that involved qualitative and quantitative as well as participatory research elements we show that expertise in research ethics and integrity is based on experience in the assessment processes. We then connect traditional concepts of expertise as “improved performance” with deliberate practice activities and, based on our research findings, show that ethical assessment experience is a form of deliberate practice. This in our view has further ramifications in the design and recruitment processes of ethical assessment units performing research ethics and integrity assessment.
Uploads
Papers by tine ravn