好高骛远与复制危机:促进研究诚信的措施为何会失败

IF 2.2 Q1 ETHICS
{"title":"好高骛远与复制危机:促进研究诚信的措施为何会失败","authors":"","doi":"10.1007/s10805-024-09528-5","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<h3>Abstract</h3> <p>This paper introduces the concept of ‘hyper-ambition’ in academia as a contributing factor to what has been termed a ‘replication crisis’ across some sciences. The replication crisis is an umbrella term that covers a range of ‘questionable research practices’, from sloppy reporting to fraud. There are already many proposals to address questionable research practices, some of which focus on the values, norms, and motivations of researchers and institutes, and suggest measures to promote research integrity. Yet it is not easy to promote integrity in hyper-competitive academic environments that value high levels of ambition. I argue that in such contexts, it is as likely that a kind of hyper-ambition is fostered that (inadvertently or otherwise) prioritises individual success above all, including to the detriment of scientific quality. In addition, efforts to promote values like integrity falter because they rely on sufficient uniformity in motivations or tendencies. Codes and guidance promoting integrity are, however, likely to influence those for whom such values are not optional, while others simply find ways around them. To demonstrate this I offer a thought experiment in which we consider the imaginary working situations of two ordinary academics. I conclude that tackling questionable research practices in the light of the replication crisis requires robust ‘top down’ measures that expect and accommodate a broader range of academic values, motivations, and tendencies, while challenging those that help to promote hyper-ambition.</p>","PeriodicalId":45961,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Academic Ethics","volume":"35 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.2000,"publicationDate":"2024-04-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Hyper-ambition and the Replication Crisis: Why Measures to Promote Research Integrity can Falter\",\"authors\":\"\",\"doi\":\"10.1007/s10805-024-09528-5\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<h3>Abstract</h3> <p>This paper introduces the concept of ‘hyper-ambition’ in academia as a contributing factor to what has been termed a ‘replication crisis’ across some sciences. The replication crisis is an umbrella term that covers a range of ‘questionable research practices’, from sloppy reporting to fraud. There are already many proposals to address questionable research practices, some of which focus on the values, norms, and motivations of researchers and institutes, and suggest measures to promote research integrity. Yet it is not easy to promote integrity in hyper-competitive academic environments that value high levels of ambition. I argue that in such contexts, it is as likely that a kind of hyper-ambition is fostered that (inadvertently or otherwise) prioritises individual success above all, including to the detriment of scientific quality. In addition, efforts to promote values like integrity falter because they rely on sufficient uniformity in motivations or tendencies. Codes and guidance promoting integrity are, however, likely to influence those for whom such values are not optional, while others simply find ways around them. To demonstrate this I offer a thought experiment in which we consider the imaginary working situations of two ordinary academics. I conclude that tackling questionable research practices in the light of the replication crisis requires robust ‘top down’ measures that expect and accommodate a broader range of academic values, motivations, and tendencies, while challenging those that help to promote hyper-ambition.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":45961,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Academic Ethics\",\"volume\":\"35 1\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.2000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-04-03\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Academic Ethics\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1007/s10805-024-09528-5\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"ETHICS\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Academic Ethics","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s10805-024-09528-5","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"ETHICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

摘要 本文介绍了学术界 "好高骛远 "的概念,它是导致某些科学领域出现 "复制危机 "的一个因素。复制危机是一个总括性术语,涵盖了从马虎报告到欺诈等一系列 "有问题的研究实践"。目前已经有很多解决可疑研究行为的建议,其中一些建议关注研究人员和研究机构的价值观、规范和动机,并提出了促进研究诚信的措施。然而,在竞争激烈、志存高远的学术环境中,促进诚信并非易事。我认为,在这样的环境中,很可能会培养出一种超强的野心,这种野心(不管是无意的还是其他原因)将个人的成功看得高于一切,包括损害科学质量。此外,促进廉正等价值观的努力之所以会失败,是因为它们依赖于动机或倾向的充分一致性。然而,促进诚信的守则和指南很可能会影响到那些无法选择此类价值观的人,而其他人则会想方设法绕过这些守则和指南。为了说明这一点,我提供了一个思想实验,让我们考虑两位普通学者的假想工作情况。我的结论是,鉴于复制危机,要解决有问题的研究实践,就必须采取强有力的 "自上而下 "的措施,期望并包容更广泛的学术价值观、动机和倾向,同时挑战那些助长过度追求的价值观、动机和倾向。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Hyper-ambition and the Replication Crisis: Why Measures to Promote Research Integrity can Falter

Abstract

This paper introduces the concept of ‘hyper-ambition’ in academia as a contributing factor to what has been termed a ‘replication crisis’ across some sciences. The replication crisis is an umbrella term that covers a range of ‘questionable research practices’, from sloppy reporting to fraud. There are already many proposals to address questionable research practices, some of which focus on the values, norms, and motivations of researchers and institutes, and suggest measures to promote research integrity. Yet it is not easy to promote integrity in hyper-competitive academic environments that value high levels of ambition. I argue that in such contexts, it is as likely that a kind of hyper-ambition is fostered that (inadvertently or otherwise) prioritises individual success above all, including to the detriment of scientific quality. In addition, efforts to promote values like integrity falter because they rely on sufficient uniformity in motivations or tendencies. Codes and guidance promoting integrity are, however, likely to influence those for whom such values are not optional, while others simply find ways around them. To demonstrate this I offer a thought experiment in which we consider the imaginary working situations of two ordinary academics. I conclude that tackling questionable research practices in the light of the replication crisis requires robust ‘top down’ measures that expect and accommodate a broader range of academic values, motivations, and tendencies, while challenging those that help to promote hyper-ambition.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
4.70
自引率
5.60%
发文量
18
期刊介绍: The Journal of Academic Ethics is a multidisciplinary and interdisciplinary, peer reviewed journal which examines all ethical issues which arise within the scope of university purposes. The journal publishes original research in the ethics of research production and publication; teaching and student relations; leadership; management and governance. The journal offers sustained inquiry into such topics as the ethics of university strategic directions; ethical investments; sustainability practices; the responsible conduct of research and teaching; collegiality and faculty relations; and the appropriate models of ethical and accountable governance for universities in the 21st century.
×
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