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

IF 4 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":"717-740"},"PeriodicalIF":4.0000,"publicationDate":"2025-07-01","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/10.1080/08989621.2025.2457584","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2025/1/28 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","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.

点燃一团火需要两个火石:一个关于博士监督负责任研究的焦点小组研究。
背景:监督是促进负责任研究的重要手段之一。然而,一个负责任的监管者应该做什么,以及如何培养负责任的监管氛围,目前还不清楚。方法:在2023年1月至2024年2月期间,我在荷兰和丹麦进行了17个焦点小组,共有85名博士生和博士生导师,以了解导师从事哪些实践来促进负责任的研究行为,以及哪些策略可以促进负责任的监督关系。结果:通过严格评估研究的相关性,确保透明度,并主动建立明确的作者指导方针,发现主管人员促进负责任的研究。他们批判性地讨论了研究问题、设计和分析之间的一致性。此外,主管实施了明确的数据管理政策,并规范了有关道德的对话。他们通过清晰连贯的文字以身作则。为了培养负责任的主管关系,导师们对博士生的想法提出质疑,并支持他们的决策过程。他们注意到博士候选人的需求,调整研究轨迹。主管们还练习自我意识,培养一种关怀的文化,在这种文化中,每一项贡献都受到赞赏。结论:西北地区的环境是主要的限制。我将这些发现与已建立的领导理论联系起来,并考虑它们对培养负责任的监督的影响。
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 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:604180095
Book学术官方微信