Centre for Science and Technology Studies (CWTS), Faculty of Social and Behavioral Sciences, Leiden University, Leiden, Netherlands.
Department of Interdisciplinary Studies of Culture, Faculty of Humanities, Norwegian University of Science and Technology, Trondheim, Norway.
Sci Eng Ethics. 2021 Feb 9;27(1):10. doi: 10.1007/s11948-021-00291-z.
Research integrity (RI) is usually discussed in terms of responsibilities that individual researchers bear towards the scientific work they conduct, as well as responsibilities that institutions have to enable those individual researchers to do so. In addition to these two bearers of responsibility, a third category often surfaces, which is variably referred to as culture and practice. These notions merit further development beyond a residual category that is to contain everything that is not covered by attributions to individuals and institutions. This paper discusses how thinking in RI can take benefit from more specific ideas on practice and culture. We start by articulating elements of practice and culture, and explore how values central to RI are related to these elements. These insights help identify additional points of intervention for fostering responsible conduct. This helps to build "cultures and practices of research integrity", as it makes clear that specific times and places are connected to specific practices and cultures and should have a place in the debate on Research Integrity. With this conceptual framework, practitioners as well as theorists can avoid using the notions as residual categories that de facto amount to vague, additional burdens of responsibility for the individual.
研究诚信（RI）通常是从个体研究人员对其进行的科学工作所承担的责任，以及机构为使这些个体研究人员能够履行这些责任所承担的责任这两个方面来讨论的。除了这两个责任承担者之外，通常还会出现第三个类别，这个类别被不同地称为文化和实践。这些概念值得进一步发展，而不是作为一个剩余类别来包含所有不能归因于个人和机构的内容。本文讨论了 RI 思维如何从关于实践和文化的更具体的想法中获益。我们首先阐明实践和文化的要素，并探讨 RI 中核心的价值观与这些要素的关系。这些见解有助于确定促进负责任行为的额外干预点。这有助于构建“研究诚信的文化和实践”，因为它清楚地表明，特定的时间和地点与特定的实践和文化相关联，应该在研究诚信的辩论中占有一席之地。有了这个概念框架，实践者和理论家都可以避免将这些概念作为剩余类别来使用，这些类别实际上对个人来说是模糊的、额外的责任负担。
