{"title":"研究造假与研究文化的动态互动:哈维分析述评","authors":"Mehmet A. Orhan","doi":"10.1080/13538322.2021.1857900","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT Increasingly more scholars are voicing concerns over fraudulent events and incidences of malpractice in academic research. Disappointingly, but unsurprisingly, research fraud is a consequence or even a rational response to fitting into a malfunctioning research environment that is fetishised globally. The current system creates a toxic ecosystem for research in which short-term individual interests and institutional goals override long-terms ones. In addition, perverse incentive systems, unequal power balances and barriers to academic freedom define the rules of research. In response to Professor Lee Harvey bringing this debate with many unique examples to light, this commentary extends the conversation by emphasising the factors that create the pressure behind fraudulent studies, as well as listing the latent problems that establish socially acceptable albeit unethical norms that have led to a dysfunctional and destructive research culture in academia.","PeriodicalId":46354,"journal":{"name":"Quality in Higher Education","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.1000,"publicationDate":"2021-01-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Dynamic interactionism between research fraud and research culture: a commentary to Harvey’s analysis\",\"authors\":\"Mehmet A. Orhan\",\"doi\":\"10.1080/13538322.2021.1857900\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"ABSTRACT Increasingly more scholars are voicing concerns over fraudulent events and incidences of malpractice in academic research. Disappointingly, but unsurprisingly, research fraud is a consequence or even a rational response to fitting into a malfunctioning research environment that is fetishised globally. The current system creates a toxic ecosystem for research in which short-term individual interests and institutional goals override long-terms ones. In addition, perverse incentive systems, unequal power balances and barriers to academic freedom define the rules of research. In response to Professor Lee Harvey bringing this debate with many unique examples to light, this commentary extends the conversation by emphasising the factors that create the pressure behind fraudulent studies, as well as listing the latent problems that establish socially acceptable albeit unethical norms that have led to a dysfunctional and destructive research culture in academia.\",\"PeriodicalId\":46354,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Quality in Higher Education\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.1000,\"publicationDate\":\"2021-01-02\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Quality in Higher Education\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1080/13538322.2021.1857900\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Quality in Higher Education","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/13538322.2021.1857900","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH","Score":null,"Total":0}
Dynamic interactionism between research fraud and research culture: a commentary to Harvey’s analysis
ABSTRACT Increasingly more scholars are voicing concerns over fraudulent events and incidences of malpractice in academic research. Disappointingly, but unsurprisingly, research fraud is a consequence or even a rational response to fitting into a malfunctioning research environment that is fetishised globally. The current system creates a toxic ecosystem for research in which short-term individual interests and institutional goals override long-terms ones. In addition, perverse incentive systems, unequal power balances and barriers to academic freedom define the rules of research. In response to Professor Lee Harvey bringing this debate with many unique examples to light, this commentary extends the conversation by emphasising the factors that create the pressure behind fraudulent studies, as well as listing the latent problems that establish socially acceptable albeit unethical norms that have led to a dysfunctional and destructive research culture in academia.
期刊介绍:
Quality in Higher Education is aimed at those interested in the theory, practice and policies relating to the control, management and improvement of quality in higher education. The journal is receptive to critical, phenomenological as well as positivistic studies. The journal would like to publish more studies that use hermeneutic, semiotic, ethnographic or dialectical research as well as the more traditional studies based on quantitative surveys and in-depth interviews and focus groups. Papers that have empirical research content are particularly welcome. The editor especially wishes to encourage papers on: reported research results, especially where these assess the impact of quality assurance systems, procedures and methodologies; theoretical analyses of quality and quality initiatives in higher education; comparative evaluation and international aspects of practice and policy with a view to identifying transportable methods, systems and good practice; quality assurance and standards monitoring of transnational higher education; the nature and impact and student feedback; improvements in learning and teaching that impact on quality and standards; links between quality assurance and employability; evaluations of the impact of quality procedures at national level, backed up by research evidence.