Disciplinary differences in research integrity training
ThemesDisciplinary differences in research integrity training
What is this about?
Why is this important?
Specific disciplines deal with different problems concerning research integrity and research ethics. For instance, a physicist might have different concerns to a statistician or a researcher in a hospital. As universities have different faculties, often reflecting specific disciplines, research integrity training is often given per discipline. One study looked into the specific differences of doctoral courses on research integrity ([1]). The main lesson learned from this study concerns the variation of the “problem narrative” underpinning the different courses.
These problem narratives frame the way the research integrity is presented, and also the way that the roles of the doctoral students are articulated.
- In the Health Faculty, for instance, the course was based on the idea that researchers are inherently ‘small cheaters’ who individually have to navigate an inimical culture; a problem narrative that was reproduced in the pedagogical design and the didactical choices made by the course teachers.
- In the Social Sciences Faculty, the problem narrative of the “broken system” was emphasized, where the doctoral students were caught between incentivizing and promotion systems which incentivize questionable practices and a scientific system with inherent biases and poor practices.
- In the Humanities Faculty, ethical dilemmas were accepted as part of scientific practice.
- In the Natural Sciences Faculty, the disciplinary field was thought to be fundamentally sound, and research integrity training merely served to provide early career academics with the research practices and techniques to maintain and strengthen this field of science.
Despite these different problematizations, the solutions that were promoted in the courses were surprisingly similar. While participants were informed about the institutional support that was available, all the courses (explicitly and implicitly) highlighted the responsibility of individuals and research groups for acting with integrity in their own local practice. All the courses used casework and group discussions to focus on everyday dilemmas in the belief that through ‘reflexivity’ participants would be empowered to act responsibly, even when surrounded by ‘small cheaters’ and dealing with structural pressures from an increasingly competitive research environment.
The study suggests that a common trait of the doctoral courses is to responsibilize the early career researchers, while not necessarily giving them the tools necessary to carry this responsibility. The concept of the varying problem narratives emerging from this study is a key insight which might be very valuable in the design of future training activities. Teachers and course leaders are very influential in framing the courses, based on their own conceptions of the “problem of research integrity”. These problem narratives might be based on disciplinary differences, but they may also be influenced by the background of the course leaders and teachers, their own experiences with research integrity or research cultures, and it is vital that course leaders reflect on these problem narratives and how they shape the training activities.
- ↑ Sarauw, L. L., Degn, L., & Ørberg, J. W. (2019). Researcher development through doctoral training in research integrity. International Journal for Academic Development, 24(2), 178-191.
For whom is this important?
The Embassy Editorial team, Iris Lechner, Natalie Evans, Andrijana Perković Paloš contributed to this theme. Latest contribution was Oct 22, 2021
