Suppr超能文献

拓展研究诚信:文化实践视角。

Expanding Research Integrity: A Cultural-Practice Perspective.

机构信息

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.

出版信息

Sci Eng Ethics. 2021 Feb 9;27(1):10. doi: 10.1007/s11948-021-00291-z.

Abstract

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.

摘要

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。

相似文献

1
4
The future of Cochrane Neonatal.考克兰新生儿协作网的未来。
Early Hum Dev. 2020 Nov;150:105191. doi: 10.1016/j.earlhumdev.2020.105191. Epub 2020 Sep 12.

引用本文的文献

5
A scoping review on what constitutes a good research culture.关于何为良好研究文化的范围综述。
F1000Res. 2024 Oct 14;13:324. doi: 10.12688/f1000research.147599.1. eCollection 2024.
8
Coordinating culture change across the research landscape.协调整个研究领域的文化变革。
Front Res Metr Anal. 2023 Aug 10;8:1134082. doi: 10.3389/frma.2023.1134082. eCollection 2023.
9
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.

本文引用的文献

6
An Ethics of the System: Talking to Scientists About Research Integrity.系统伦理:与科学家谈研究诚信。
Sci Eng Ethics. 2019 Aug;25(4):1235-1253. doi: 10.1007/s11948-018-0064-y. Epub 2018 Sep 24.
7
The Quest for Clarity in Research Integrity: A Conceptual Schema.追求研究诚信的清晰性:概念框架。
Sci Eng Ethics. 2019 Aug;25(4):1085-1093. doi: 10.1007/s11948-018-0052-2. Epub 2018 Mar 28.

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