Incorporating replication in higher education: Supervisors' perspectives and institutional pressures.

IF 2.8 1区 哲学 Q1 MEDICAL ETHICS Accountability in Research-Policies and Quality Assurance Pub Date : 2024-10-10 DOI:10.1080/08989621.2024.2412054
Fahimeh Marefat, Mohammad Hassanzadeh, Farzaneh Hamidi
{"title":"Incorporating replication in higher education: Supervisors' perspectives and institutional pressures.","authors":"Fahimeh Marefat, Mohammad Hassanzadeh, Farzaneh Hamidi","doi":"10.1080/08989621.2024.2412054","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p><b>Background:</b> Even though replication research has gained traction within academia over the recent years, it is not often well-received as a stand-alone thesis topic by supervisors and university administrators.<b>Methods:</b> In this qualitative investigation, we delve into the perspectives of academic supervisors on the feasibility of replication as a thesis topic within the field of applied linguistics (AL). Drawing on Institutional Theory, administrative pressures facing supervisors on what to be considered permissible for a thesis were also explored. By conducting semi-structured e-mail interviews with a global cohort of AL supervisors and a thematic analysis of their responses, a nuanced landscape was brought to light.<b>Results:</b> Supervisors outlined numerous benefits associated with replication including fostering academic advancement as well as providing opportunities for reevaluating prior research. Nonetheless, they also pointed to several obstacles along the way, such as concerns over originality, constraints on time and resources, and the necessity for mentorship. Moreover, supervisors emphasized their pivotal role as decision-makers in accepting or rejecting replication for a thesis project, while acknowledging the partial influence of institutional pressures.<b>Conclusions:</b> Lastly, some implications and recommendations on allocating more resources to replication research are provided.</p>","PeriodicalId":50927,"journal":{"name":"Accountability in Research-Policies and Quality Assurance","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.8000,"publicationDate":"2024-10-10","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Accountability in Research-Policies and Quality Assurance","FirstCategoryId":"98","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/08989621.2024.2412054","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"MEDICAL ETHICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: Even though replication research has gained traction within academia over the recent years, it is not often well-received as a stand-alone thesis topic by supervisors and university administrators.Methods: In this qualitative investigation, we delve into the perspectives of academic supervisors on the feasibility of replication as a thesis topic within the field of applied linguistics (AL). Drawing on Institutional Theory, administrative pressures facing supervisors on what to be considered permissible for a thesis were also explored. By conducting semi-structured e-mail interviews with a global cohort of AL supervisors and a thematic analysis of their responses, a nuanced landscape was brought to light.Results: Supervisors outlined numerous benefits associated with replication including fostering academic advancement as well as providing opportunities for reevaluating prior research. Nonetheless, they also pointed to several obstacles along the way, such as concerns over originality, constraints on time and resources, and the necessity for mentorship. Moreover, supervisors emphasized their pivotal role as decision-makers in accepting or rejecting replication for a thesis project, while acknowledging the partial influence of institutional pressures.Conclusions: Lastly, some implications and recommendations on allocating more resources to replication research are provided.

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
将复制纳入高等教育:导师的观点和机构的压力。
背景:尽管近年来复制研究在学术界获得了越来越多的关注,但作为一个独立的论文题目,它并不经常受到导师和大学管理者的欢迎:在这项定性调查中,我们深入研究了学术导师对应用语言学(AL)领域将复制作为论文题目的可行性的看法。此外,我们还借鉴制度理论,探讨了导师们在论文允许内容方面所面临的行政压力。通过对全球一批应用语言学导师进行半结构化电子邮件访谈,并对他们的回答进行主题分析,揭示了细微的情况:结果:导师们概述了复制的诸多好处,包括促进学术进步以及为重新评估先前的研究提供机会。然而,他们也指出了复制过程中的一些障碍,如对原创性的担忧、时间和资源的限制以及导师指导的必要性。此外,导师们还强调了他们作为决策者在接受或拒绝论文项目复制中的关键作用,同时也承认机构压力的部分影响:最后,就为复制研究分配更多资源提出了一些影响和建议。
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
CiteScore
4.90
自引率
14.70%
发文量
49
审稿时长
>12 weeks
期刊介绍: Accountability in Research: Policies and Quality Assurance is devoted to the examination and critical analysis of systems for maximizing integrity in the conduct of research. It provides an interdisciplinary, international forum for the development of ethics, procedures, standards policies, and concepts to encourage the ethical conduct of research and to enhance the validity of research results. The journal welcomes views on advancing the integrity of research in the fields of general and multidisciplinary sciences, medicine, law, economics, statistics, management studies, public policy, politics, sociology, history, psychology, philosophy, ethics, and information science. All submitted manuscripts are subject to initial appraisal by the Editor, and if found suitable for further consideration, to peer review by independent, anonymous expert referees.
期刊最新文献
Procrastination and inconsistency: Expressions of concern for publications with compromised integrity. A policy toolkit for authorship and dissemination policies may benefit NIH research consortia. A randomized trial alerting authors, with or without coauthors or editors, that research they cited in systematic reviews and guidelines has been retracted. Citation bias, diversity, and ethics. Time-based changes in authorship trend in research-intensive universities in Malaysia.
×
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