Suppr超能文献

研究人员对负责任研究氛围的看法:一项多焦点组研究。

Researchers' Perceptions of a Responsible Research Climate: A Multi Focus Group Study.

机构信息

Department of Philosophy, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.

Department of Public and Occupational Health, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, Amsterdam UMC, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.

出版信息

Sci Eng Ethics. 2020 Dec;26(6):3017-3036. doi: 10.1007/s11948-020-00256-8. Epub 2020 Aug 10.

Abstract

The research climate plays a key role in fostering integrity in research. However, little is known about what constitutes a responsible research climate. We investigated academic researchers' perceptions on this through focus group interviews. We recruited researchers from the Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam and the Amsterdam University Medical Center to participate in focus group discussions that consisted of researchers from similar academic ranks and disciplinary fields. We asked participants to reflect on the characteristics of a responsible research climate, the barriers they perceived and which interventions they thought fruitful to improve the research climate. Discussions were recorded and transcribed at verbatim. We used inductive content analysis to analyse the focus group transcripts. We conducted 12 focus groups with 61 researchers in total. We identified fair evaluation, openness, sufficient time, integrity, trust and freedom to be mentioned as important characteristics of a responsible research climate. Main perceived barriers were lack of support, unfair evaluation policies, normalization of overwork and insufficient supervision of early career researchers. Possible interventions suggested by the participants centered around improving support, discussing expectations and improving the quality of supervision. Some of the elements of a responsible research climate identified by participants are reflected in national and international codes of conduct, such as trust and openness. Although it may seem hard to change the research climate, we believe that the realisation that the research climate is suboptimal should provide the impetus for change informed by researchers' experiences and opinions.

摘要

研究风气在培养研究诚信方面起着关键作用。然而,对于构成负责任的研究风气的因素,我们知之甚少。我们通过焦点小组访谈调查了学术研究人员对此的看法。我们招募了来自阿姆斯特丹自由大学和阿姆斯特丹大学医学中心的研究人员,让他们参加焦点小组讨论,这些讨论由具有相似学术地位和学科领域的研究人员组成。我们要求参与者反思负责任的研究风气的特点、他们认为存在的障碍,以及他们认为哪些干预措施有助于改善研究风气。讨论内容被记录并逐字转录。我们使用归纳内容分析法对焦点小组的转录本进行分析。我们总共进行了 12 次焦点小组讨论,共有 61 名研究人员参加。我们确定了公平评估、开放性、充足的时间、诚信、信任和自由是负责任的研究风气的重要特征。主要感知到的障碍包括缺乏支持、不公平的评估政策、过度工作的常态化以及对初级研究人员的监督不足。参与者提出的可能干预措施集中在改善支持、讨论期望和提高监督质量上。参与者所确定的负责任的研究风气的一些要素反映在国家和国际行为准则中,例如信任和开放性。尽管改变研究风气似乎很难,但我们相信,意识到研究风气不佳应该为变革提供动力,这种变革应该基于研究人员的经验和意见。

相似文献

引用本文的文献

5
Ethical decision-making and role conflict in managing a scientific laboratory.管理科学实验室中的伦理决策和角色冲突。
Account Res. 2024 Nov;31(8):1198-1221. doi: 10.1080/08989621.2023.2236553. Epub 2023 Jul 28.
8
Leaving academia: PhD attrition and unhealthy research environments.离开学术界:博士流失与不健康的研究环境。
PLoS One. 2022 Oct 5;17(10):e0274976. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0274976. eCollection 2022.
10
Moving towards less biased research.迈向偏差更小的研究。
BMJ Open Sci. 2021 Jan 17;5(1):e100116. doi: 10.1136/bmjos-2020-100116. eCollection 2021.

本文引用的文献

1
A manifesto for reproducible science.可重复科学宣言。
Nat Hum Behav. 2017 Jan 10;1(1):0021. doi: 10.1038/s41562-016-0021.
2
The Hong Kong Principles for assessing researchers: Fostering research integrity.《评估研究人员的香港原则:促进研究诚信》
PLoS Biol. 2020 Jul 16;18(7):e3000737. doi: 10.1371/journal.pbio.3000737. eCollection 2020 Jul.
8
The culture of scientific research.科学研究的文化
F1000Res. 2015 Mar 13;4:66. doi: 10.12688/f1000research.6163.1. eCollection 2015.
10
Commentary: Perverse incentives or rotten apples?评论:不当激励还是害群之马?
Account Res. 2015;22(3):148-61. doi: 10.1080/08989621.2014.950253.

文献AI研究员

20分钟写一篇综述,助力文献阅读效率提升50倍。

立即体验

用中文搜PubMed

大模型驱动的PubMed中文搜索引擎

马上搜索

文档翻译

学术文献翻译模型,支持多种主流文档格式。

立即体验