‘I should do what?’ Addressing research misconduct through values alignment

K. Chatfield, Emma Law
{"title":"‘I should do what?’ Addressing research misconduct through values alignment","authors":"K. Chatfield, Emma Law","doi":"10.1177/17470161231224481","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Evidence suggests that the incidence of research misconduct is not in decline despite efforts to improve awareness, education and governance mechanisms. Two responses to this problem are favoured: first, the promotion of an agent-centred ethics approach to enhance researchers’ personal responsibility and accountability, and second, a change in research culture to relieve perceived pressures to engage in misconduct. This article discusses the challenges for both responses and explains how normative coherence through values alignment might assist. We argue that research integrity and research ethics convey mixed messages, which are likely to contribute to a form of normative confusion. For the successful adoption of an agent-centred approach, normative coherence is needed between the two. To facilitate normative coherence, we propose that research ethics and research integrity be underpinned by a shared set of moral values that can be enacted via codes and guidelines and imbue research environments. Furthermore, to facilitate culture change, the same normative coherence is necessary at all levels of an institution. Only via values alignment between institutional aims, management, institutional practices and researchers can an ethical culture become truly embedded in research institutions.","PeriodicalId":510000,"journal":{"name":"Research Ethics","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-02-05","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Research Ethics","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/17470161231224481","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Evidence suggests that the incidence of research misconduct is not in decline despite efforts to improve awareness, education and governance mechanisms. Two responses to this problem are favoured: first, the promotion of an agent-centred ethics approach to enhance researchers’ personal responsibility and accountability, and second, a change in research culture to relieve perceived pressures to engage in misconduct. This article discusses the challenges for both responses and explains how normative coherence through values alignment might assist. We argue that research integrity and research ethics convey mixed messages, which are likely to contribute to a form of normative confusion. For the successful adoption of an agent-centred approach, normative coherence is needed between the two. To facilitate normative coherence, we propose that research ethics and research integrity be underpinned by a shared set of moral values that can be enacted via codes and guidelines and imbue research environments. Furthermore, to facilitate culture change, the same normative coherence is necessary at all levels of an institution. Only via values alignment between institutional aims, management, institutional practices and researchers can an ethical culture become truly embedded in research institutions.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
我应该做什么?通过调整价值观解决研究不当行为
有证据表明,尽管在提高认识、教育和管理机制方面做出了努力,但研究不当行为的发生率并没有下降。针对这一问题,人们倾向于采取两种应对措施:第一,推广以代理人为中心的伦理方法,以加强研究人员的个人责任和问责制;第二,改变研究文化,以减轻参与不当行为的压力。本文讨论了这两种应对措施所面临的挑战,并解释了如何通过价值观调整来实现规范的一致性。我们认为,研究诚信和研究道德所传达的信息相互混淆,很可能会造成某种形式的规范混乱。要想成功采用以代理人为中心的方法,就需要在两者之间实现规范一致性。为了促进规范的一致性,我们建议研究伦理和研究诚信应得到一套共同的道德价值观的支持,这套价值观可以通过准则和指导方针颁布,并渗透到研究环境中。此外,为了促进文化变革,机构的各个层面都必须具有相同的规范一致性。只有通过机构目标、管理层、机构实践和研究人员之间的价值观协调,道德文化才能真正融入研究机构。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Conceptualizing dual use: A multidimensional approach Applying Ethics in the Handling of Dual Use Research: The Case of Germany Between urgency and data quality: assessing the FAIRness of data in social science research on the COVID-19 pandemic Expanding the ethical debate on human artificial placenta trials Research ethics preparedness during outbreaks and public health emergencies: Focus on community engagement
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1