Perceptions of network-level ethics in an engineering research center: Analysis of ethical issues & practices reported by scientific & engineering participants.

IF 2.8 1区哲学 Q1 MEDICAL ETHICS

Accountability in Research-Policies and Quality Assurance Pub Date : 2025-04-16 DOI:10.1080/08989621.2025.2491106

Gillian Roehrig, Shuvra Rahman, Timothy Pruett, Korkut Uygun, Susan Wolf

{"title":"Perceptions of network-level ethics in an engineering research center: Analysis of ethical issues & practices reported by scientific & engineering participants.","authors":"Gillian Roehrig, Shuvra Rahman, Timothy Pruett, Korkut Uygun, Susan Wolf","doi":"10.1080/08989621.2025.2491106","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Background: Despite the rise of big-team science and multi-institutional, multidisciplinary research networks, little research has explored the unique challenges that large, distributed research networks face in ensuring the ethical and responsible conduct of research (RCR) at the network level.Methods: This qualitative case study explored the views of the scientists, engineers, clinicians, and trainees within a large Engineering Research Center (ERC) on ethical and RCR issues arising at the network level.Results: Semi-structured interviews of 26 ERC members were analyzed and revealed five major themes: (1) data sharing, (2) authorship or inventorship credit, (3) ethics and regulation, (4) collaboration, and (5) network leadership, norms, and policy. Interviews revealed cross-laboratory differences and disciplinary differences as sources of challenge.Conclusions: This study illuminates ethical challenges that a large, multi-institutional research network is likely to face. Research collaboration across disciplines, laboratories, and institutions invites conflict over norms and practices. Network leadership requires anticipating, monitoring, and addressing the ethical challenges in order to ensure the network's ethical and responsible conduct of research and optimize research collaboration. Studying perceived ethical issues that arise at the meso-level of a research network is essential for understanding how to advance network ethics.","PeriodicalId":50927,"journal":{"name":"Accountability in Research-Policies and Quality Assurance","volume":" ","pages":"1-22"},"PeriodicalIF":2.8000,"publicationDate":"2025-04-16","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/10.1080/08989621.2025.2491106","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: Despite the rise of big-team science and multi-institutional, multidisciplinary research networks, little research has explored the unique challenges that large, distributed research networks face in ensuring the ethical and responsible conduct of research (RCR) at the network level.

Methods: This qualitative case study explored the views of the scientists, engineers, clinicians, and trainees within a large Engineering Research Center (ERC) on ethical and RCR issues arising at the network level.

Results: Semi-structured interviews of 26 ERC members were analyzed and revealed five major themes: (1) data sharing, (2) authorship or inventorship credit, (3) ethics and regulation, (4) collaboration, and (5) network leadership, norms, and policy. Interviews revealed cross-laboratory differences and disciplinary differences as sources of challenge.

Conclusions: This study illuminates ethical challenges that a large, multi-institutional research network is likely to face. Research collaboration across disciplines, laboratories, and institutions invites conflict over norms and practices. Network leadership requires anticipating, monitoring, and addressing the ethical challenges in order to ensure the network's ethical and responsible conduct of research and optimize research collaboration. Studying perceived ethical issues that arise at the meso-level of a research network is essential for understanding how to advance network ethics.

查看原文本刊更多论文

工程研究中心对网络层面伦理的认知：科学与工程参与者报告的伦理问题与实践分析。

背景：尽管大团队科学和多机构、多学科研究网络的兴起，但很少有研究探索大型分布式研究网络在确保网络层面的道德和负责任的研究行为（RCR）方面所面临的独特挑战。方法：本定性案例研究探讨了大型工程研究中心（ERC）内科学家、工程师、临床医生和学员对网络层面出现的伦理和RCR问题的看法。结果：对26名伦理委员会成员的半结构化访谈进行了分析，并揭示了五个主要主题：(1)数据共享，(2)作者或发明人信用，(3)道德与监管，(4)合作，以及(5)网络领导，规范和政策。访谈揭示了跨实验室差异和学科差异是挑战的来源。结论：本研究阐明了大型多机构研究网络可能面临的伦理挑战。跨学科、实验室和机构的研究合作会引发规范和实践方面的冲突。网络领导需要预测、监控和解决伦理挑战，以确保网络的道德和负责任的研究行为，并优化研究合作。研究在研究网络中观层面产生的感知伦理问题对于理解如何推进网络伦理至关重要。

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

Accountability in Research-Policies and Quality Assurance MEDICAL ETHICS-

CiteScore

4.90

自引率

14.70%

发文量

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.