使用共同创造方法制定研究诚信准则--如何、做什么、为什么、何时?

IF 2.8 1区 哲学 Q1 MEDICAL ETHICS Accountability in Research-Policies and Quality Assurance Pub Date : 2024-08-01 Epub Date: 2023-01-15 DOI:10.1080/08989621.2022.2154154
Krishma Labib, Daniel Pizzolato, Pieter Jan Stappers, Natalie Evans, Iris Lechner, Guy Widdershoven, Lex Bouter, Kris Dierickx, Katinka Bergema, Joeri Tijdink
{"title":"使用共同创造方法制定研究诚信准则--如何、做什么、为什么、何时?","authors":"Krishma Labib, Daniel Pizzolato, Pieter Jan Stappers, Natalie Evans, Iris Lechner, Guy Widdershoven, Lex Bouter, Kris Dierickx, Katinka Bergema, Joeri Tijdink","doi":"10.1080/08989621.2022.2154154","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Existing research integrity (RI) guideline development methods are limited in including various perspectives. While co-creation methods could help to address this, there is little information available to researchers and practitioners on how, why and when to use co-creation for developing RI guidelines, nor what the outcomes of co-creation methods are. In this paper, we aim to address this gap. First, we discuss <i>how</i> co-creation methods can be used for RI guideline development, based on our experience of developing RI guidelines. We elaborate on steps including preparation of the aims and design; participant sensitization; organizing and facilitating workshops; and analyzing data and translating them into guidelines. Secondly, we present the resulting RI guidelines, to show <i>what</i> the outcome of co-creation methods are. Thirdly, we reflect on <i>why</i> and <i>when</i> researchers might want to use co-creation methods for developing RI guidelines. We discuss that stakeholder engagement and inclusion of diverse perspectives are key strengths of co-creation methods. We also reflect that co-creation methods have the potential to make guidelines implementable if followed by additional steps such as revision working groups. We conclude that co-creation methods are a valuable approach to creating new RI guidelines when used together with additional methods.</p>","PeriodicalId":50927,"journal":{"name":"Accountability in Research-Policies and Quality Assurance","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.8000,"publicationDate":"2024-08-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Using co-creation methods for research integrity guideline development - how, what, why and when?\",\"authors\":\"Krishma Labib, Daniel Pizzolato, Pieter Jan Stappers, Natalie Evans, Iris Lechner, Guy Widdershoven, Lex Bouter, Kris Dierickx, Katinka Bergema, Joeri Tijdink\",\"doi\":\"10.1080/08989621.2022.2154154\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>Existing research integrity (RI) guideline development methods are limited in including various perspectives. While co-creation methods could help to address this, there is little information available to researchers and practitioners on how, why and when to use co-creation for developing RI guidelines, nor what the outcomes of co-creation methods are. In this paper, we aim to address this gap. First, we discuss <i>how</i> co-creation methods can be used for RI guideline development, based on our experience of developing RI guidelines. We elaborate on steps including preparation of the aims and design; participant sensitization; organizing and facilitating workshops; and analyzing data and translating them into guidelines. Secondly, we present the resulting RI guidelines, to show <i>what</i> the outcome of co-creation methods are. Thirdly, we reflect on <i>why</i> and <i>when</i> researchers might want to use co-creation methods for developing RI guidelines. We discuss that stakeholder engagement and inclusion of diverse perspectives are key strengths of co-creation methods. We also reflect that co-creation methods have the potential to make guidelines implementable if followed by additional steps such as revision working groups. We conclude that co-creation methods are a valuable approach to creating new RI guidelines when used together with additional methods.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":50927,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Accountability in Research-Policies and Quality Assurance\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.8000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-08-01\",\"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/10.1080/08989621.2022.2154154\",\"RegionNum\":1,\"RegionCategory\":\"哲学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2023/1/15 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"Epub\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"MEDICAL ETHICS\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Accountability in Research-Policies and Quality Assurance","FirstCategoryId":"98","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/08989621.2022.2154154","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2023/1/15 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"MEDICAL ETHICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

现有的研究诚信(RI)指南制定方法在纳入各种观点方面存在局限性。虽然共创方法可以帮助解决这一问题,但研究人员和从业人员却很少了解如何、为何以及何时使用共创方法来制定 RI 准则,也不知道共创方法的结果如何。本文旨在填补这一空白。首先,我们将根据自身制定 RI 指南的经验,讨论如何将共同创造方法用于 RI 指南的制定。我们详细阐述了包括目标和设计准备、参与者宣传、组织和促进研讨会、分析数据并将其转化为指南在内的各个步骤。其次,我们介绍由此产生的 RI 指导方针,以展示共同创造方法的成果。第三,我们反思了研究人员为什么以及在什么情况下可能希望使用共同创造方法来制定 RI 指南。我们讨论了利益相关者的参与和纳入不同观点是共同创造方法的主要优势。我们还反思到,如果采取更多步骤(如修订工作组),共同创造方法有可能使指南具有可实施性。我们的结论是,如果与其他方法一起使用,共同创造方法是制定新的 RI 准则的一种有价值的方法。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
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
Using co-creation methods for research integrity guideline development - how, what, why and when?

Existing research integrity (RI) guideline development methods are limited in including various perspectives. While co-creation methods could help to address this, there is little information available to researchers and practitioners on how, why and when to use co-creation for developing RI guidelines, nor what the outcomes of co-creation methods are. In this paper, we aim to address this gap. First, we discuss how co-creation methods can be used for RI guideline development, based on our experience of developing RI guidelines. We elaborate on steps including preparation of the aims and design; participant sensitization; organizing and facilitating workshops; and analyzing data and translating them into guidelines. Secondly, we present the resulting RI guidelines, to show what the outcome of co-creation methods are. Thirdly, we reflect on why and when researchers might want to use co-creation methods for developing RI guidelines. We discuss that stakeholder engagement and inclusion of diverse perspectives are key strengths of co-creation methods. We also reflect that co-creation methods have the potential to make guidelines implementable if followed by additional steps such as revision working groups. We conclude that co-creation methods are a valuable approach to creating new RI guidelines when used together with additional methods.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 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
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