Navigating the Science System: Research Integrity and Academic Survival Strategies

IF 2.7 2区 哲学 Q1 ENGINEERING, MULTIDISCIPLINARY Science and Engineering Ethics Pub Date : 2024-04-03 DOI:10.1007/s11948-024-00467-3
Andrea Reyes Elizondo, Wolfgang Kaltenbrunner
{"title":"Navigating the Science System: Research Integrity and Academic Survival Strategies","authors":"Andrea Reyes Elizondo, Wolfgang Kaltenbrunner","doi":"10.1007/s11948-024-00467-3","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p>Research Integrity (RI) is high on the agenda of both institutions and science policy. The European Union as well as national ministries of science have launched ambitious initiatives to combat misconduct and breaches of research integrity. Often, such initiatives entail attempts to regulate scientific behavior through guidelines that institutions and academic communities can use to more easily identify and deal with cases of misconduct. Rather than framing misconduct as a result of an information deficit, we instead conceptualize Questionable Research Practices (QRPs) as attempts by researchers to reconcile epistemic and social forms of uncertainty in knowledge production. Drawing on previous literature, we define epistemic uncertainty as the inherent intellectual unpredictability of scientific inquiry, while social uncertainty arises from the human-made conditions for scientific work. Our core argument—developed on the basis of 30 focus group interviews with researchers across different fields and European countries—is that breaches of research integrity can be understood as attempts to loosen overly tight coupling between the two forms of uncertainty. Our analytical approach is not meant to relativize or excuse misconduct, but rather to offer a more fine-grained perspective on what exactly it is that researchers want to accomplish by engaging in it. Based on the analysis, we conclude by proposing some concrete ways in which institutions and academic communities could try to reconcile epistemic and social uncertainties on a more collective level, thereby reducing incentives for researchers to engage in misconduct.</p>","PeriodicalId":49564,"journal":{"name":"Science and Engineering Ethics","volume":"69 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.7000,"publicationDate":"2024-04-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Science and Engineering Ethics","FirstCategoryId":"98","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s11948-024-00467-3","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"ENGINEERING, MULTIDISCIPLINARY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Research Integrity (RI) is high on the agenda of both institutions and science policy. The European Union as well as national ministries of science have launched ambitious initiatives to combat misconduct and breaches of research integrity. Often, such initiatives entail attempts to regulate scientific behavior through guidelines that institutions and academic communities can use to more easily identify and deal with cases of misconduct. Rather than framing misconduct as a result of an information deficit, we instead conceptualize Questionable Research Practices (QRPs) as attempts by researchers to reconcile epistemic and social forms of uncertainty in knowledge production. Drawing on previous literature, we define epistemic uncertainty as the inherent intellectual unpredictability of scientific inquiry, while social uncertainty arises from the human-made conditions for scientific work. Our core argument—developed on the basis of 30 focus group interviews with researchers across different fields and European countries—is that breaches of research integrity can be understood as attempts to loosen overly tight coupling between the two forms of uncertainty. Our analytical approach is not meant to relativize or excuse misconduct, but rather to offer a more fine-grained perspective on what exactly it is that researchers want to accomplish by engaging in it. Based on the analysis, we conclude by proposing some concrete ways in which institutions and academic communities could try to reconcile epistemic and social uncertainties on a more collective level, thereby reducing incentives for researchers to engage in misconduct.

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
驾驭科学体系:科研诚信与学术生存策略
研究诚信(RI)是各机构和科学政策议程上的重要议题。欧盟和各国的科学部都发起了雄心勃勃的倡议,以打击不当行为和违反研究诚信的行为。通常情况下,这些举措都是试图通过指导原则来规范科学行为,让机构和学术界能够更容易地识别和处理不当行为。我们没有把不当行为归结为信息匮乏的结果,而是把 "有问题的研究实践"(QRPs)概念化为研究人员在知识生产中调和认识论和社会形式的不确定性的尝试。借鉴以往的文献,我们将认识上的不确定性定义为科学探究在知识上固有的不可预测性,而社会上的不确定性则产生于科学工作的人为条件。我们的核心论点是,违背研究诚信的行为可以理解为试图放松这两种不确定性形式之间过于紧密的耦合。我们的分析方法并不是要为不端行为相对化或开脱,而是要提供一个更精细的视角,说明研究人员从事不端行为的目的究竟是什么。在分析的基础上,我们最后提出了一些具体的方法,让机构和学术界可以尝试在更集体的层面上协调认识论和社会的不确定性,从而减少研究人员从事不端行为的动机。
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
Science and Engineering Ethics
Science and Engineering Ethics 综合性期刊-工程:综合
CiteScore
10.70
自引率
5.40%
发文量
54
审稿时长
>12 weeks
期刊介绍: Science and Engineering Ethics is an international multidisciplinary journal dedicated to exploring ethical issues associated with science and engineering, covering professional education, research and practice as well as the effects of technological innovations and research findings on society. While the focus of this journal is on science and engineering, contributions from a broad range of disciplines, including social sciences and humanities, are welcomed. Areas of interest include, but are not limited to, ethics of new and emerging technologies, research ethics, computer ethics, energy ethics, animals and human subjects ethics, ethics education in science and engineering, ethics in design, biomedical ethics, values in technology and innovation. We welcome contributions that deal with these issues from an international perspective, particularly from countries that are underrepresented in these discussions.
期刊最新文献
"Business as usual"? Safe-by-Design Vis-à-Vis Proclaimed Safety Cultures in Technology Development for the Bioeconomy. Justifying Our Credences in the Trustworthiness of AI Systems: A Reliabilistic Approach. Know Thyself, Improve Thyself: Personalized LLMs for Self-Knowledge and Moral Enhancement. Authorship and Citizen Science: Seven Heuristic Rules. A Confucian Algorithm for Autonomous Vehicles.
×
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