A phenomenographic study of scientists’ beliefs about the causes of scientists’ research misconduct

IF 2.1 Q2 ETHICS
Aidan C. Cairns, Caleb L. Linville, Tyler Garcia, B. Bridges, Scott Tanona, J. Herington, James T. Laverty
{"title":"A phenomenographic study of scientists’ beliefs about the causes of scientists’ research misconduct","authors":"Aidan C. Cairns, Caleb L. Linville, Tyler Garcia, B. Bridges, Scott Tanona, J. Herington, James T. Laverty","doi":"10.1177/17470161211042658","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"When scientists act unethically, their actions can cause harm to participants, undermine knowledge creation, and discredit the scientific community. Responsible Conduct of Research (RCR) training is one of the main ways institutions try to prevent scientists from acting unethically. However, this only addresses the problem if scientists value the training, and if the problem stems from ignorance. This study looks at what scientists think causes unethical behavior in science, with the hopes of improving RCR training by shaping it based on the views of the targeted audience (n = 14 scientists). Previous studies have surveyed scientists about what they believe causes unethical behavior using pre-defined response items. This study uses a qualitative research methodology to elicit scientists’ beliefs without predefining the range of responses. The data for this phenomenographic study were collected from interviews which presented ethical case studies and asked subjects how they would respond to those situations. Categories and subcategories were created to organize their reasonings. This work will inform the development of future methods for preventing unethical behavior in research.","PeriodicalId":38096,"journal":{"name":"Research Ethics","volume":"22 1","pages":"501 - 521"},"PeriodicalIF":2.1000,"publicationDate":"2021-10-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"4","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Research Ethics","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/17470161211042658","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"ETHICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 4

Abstract

When scientists act unethically, their actions can cause harm to participants, undermine knowledge creation, and discredit the scientific community. Responsible Conduct of Research (RCR) training is one of the main ways institutions try to prevent scientists from acting unethically. However, this only addresses the problem if scientists value the training, and if the problem stems from ignorance. This study looks at what scientists think causes unethical behavior in science, with the hopes of improving RCR training by shaping it based on the views of the targeted audience (n = 14 scientists). Previous studies have surveyed scientists about what they believe causes unethical behavior using pre-defined response items. This study uses a qualitative research methodology to elicit scientists’ beliefs without predefining the range of responses. The data for this phenomenographic study were collected from interviews which presented ethical case studies and asked subjects how they would respond to those situations. Categories and subcategories were created to organize their reasonings. This work will inform the development of future methods for preventing unethical behavior in research.
科学家对科学家科研不端行为原因的信念的现象研究
当科学家的行为不道德时,他们的行为会对参与者造成伤害,破坏知识创造,并使科学界失去信誉。负责任的研究行为(RCR)培训是机构试图防止科学家不道德行为的主要方式之一。然而,这只有在科学家重视训练,并且问题源于无知的情况下才能解决问题。这项研究着眼于科学家认为是什么导致了科学中的不道德行为,希望通过根据目标受众(n = 14名科学家)的观点来塑造RCR培训,从而改善RCR培训。之前的研究使用预先定义的反应项目对科学家进行了调查,了解他们认为是什么导致了不道德的行为。本研究采用定性研究方法,在不预先定义反应范围的情况下引出科学家的信念。这一现象学研究的数据是从提出伦理案例研究的访谈中收集的,并询问受试者如何应对这些情况。类别和子类别被创建来组织他们的推理。这项工作将为防止研究中不道德行为的未来方法的发展提供信息。
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
Research Ethics
Research Ethics Arts and Humanities-Philosophy
CiteScore
4.30
自引率
11.80%
发文量
17
审稿时长
15 weeks
×
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