It takes two flints to start a fire: A focus group study into PhD supervision for responsible research.

IF 2.8 1区 哲学 Q1 MEDICAL ETHICS
Tamarinde Haven
{"title":"It takes two flints to start a fire: A focus group study into PhD supervision for responsible research.","authors":"Tamarinde Haven","doi":"10.1080/08989621.2025.2457584","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Supervision is one important means of promoting responsible research. However, what a responsible supervisor should do and how to foster a responsible supervisory climate is unclear.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Between January 2023 and February 2024, I conducted 17 focus groups in The Netherlands and Denmark with 85 PhD candidates and PhD supervisors to understand what practices supervisors engage in to promote responsible conduct of research and what strategies could promote a responsible supervisory relationship.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Supervisors were found to promote responsible research by rigorously evaluating the relevance of studies, ensuring transparency, and taking the initiative in establishing clear authorship guidelines. They critically discussed the alignment between research questions, design, and analyses. Furthermore, supervisors implemented clear data management policies and normalized conversations about ethics. They led by example through clear and coherent writing. To foster a responsible supervisory relationship, supervisors challenged the PhD candidates' ideas and supported their decision-making processes. They were mindful of the PhD candidates' needs, tailoring the research trajectory. Supervisors also practiced self-awareness and cultivated a culture of care where every contribution was appreciated.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>The North-Western context is a major limitation. I connect these findings to established leadership theories and consider their implications for fostering responsible supervision.</p>","PeriodicalId":50927,"journal":{"name":"Accountability in Research-Policies and Quality Assurance","volume":" ","pages":"1-24"},"PeriodicalIF":2.8000,"publicationDate":"2025-01-28","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/10.1080/08989621.2025.2457584","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: Supervision is one important means of promoting responsible research. However, what a responsible supervisor should do and how to foster a responsible supervisory climate is unclear.

Methods: Between January 2023 and February 2024, I conducted 17 focus groups in The Netherlands and Denmark with 85 PhD candidates and PhD supervisors to understand what practices supervisors engage in to promote responsible conduct of research and what strategies could promote a responsible supervisory relationship.

Results: Supervisors were found to promote responsible research by rigorously evaluating the relevance of studies, ensuring transparency, and taking the initiative in establishing clear authorship guidelines. They critically discussed the alignment between research questions, design, and analyses. Furthermore, supervisors implemented clear data management policies and normalized conversations about ethics. They led by example through clear and coherent writing. To foster a responsible supervisory relationship, supervisors challenged the PhD candidates' ideas and supported their decision-making processes. They were mindful of the PhD candidates' needs, tailoring the research trajectory. Supervisors also practiced self-awareness and cultivated a culture of care where every contribution was appreciated.

Conclusions: The North-Western context is a major limitation. I connect these findings to established leadership theories and consider their implications for fostering responsible supervision.

求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
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.
×
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
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
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 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信