Suppr超能文献

驾驭科学体系:研究诚信与学术生存策略。

Navigating the Science System: Research Integrity and Academic Survival Strategies.

机构信息

Centre for Science and Technology Studies, Leiden University, Leiden, The Netherlands.

出版信息

Sci Eng Ethics. 2024 Apr 3;30(2):12. doi: 10.1007/s11948-024-00467-3.

Abstract

Research Integrity (RI) is high on the agenda of both institutions and science policy. The European Union as well as national ministries of science have launched ambitious initiatives to combat misconduct and breaches of research integrity. Often, such initiatives entail attempts to regulate scientific behavior through guidelines that institutions and academic communities can use to more easily identify and deal with cases of misconduct. Rather than framing misconduct as a result of an information deficit, we instead conceptualize Questionable Research Practices (QRPs) as attempts by researchers to reconcile epistemic and social forms of uncertainty in knowledge production. Drawing on previous literature, we define epistemic uncertainty as the inherent intellectual unpredictability of scientific inquiry, while social uncertainty arises from the human-made conditions for scientific work. Our core argument-developed on the basis of 30 focus group interviews with researchers across different fields and European countries-is that breaches of research integrity can be understood as attempts to loosen overly tight coupling between the two forms of uncertainty. Our analytical approach is not meant to relativize or excuse misconduct, but rather to offer a more fine-grained perspective on what exactly it is that researchers want to accomplish by engaging in it. Based on the analysis, we conclude by proposing some concrete ways in which institutions and academic communities could try to reconcile epistemic and social uncertainties on a more collective level, thereby reducing incentives for researchers to engage in misconduct.

摘要

研究诚信(RI)是机构和科学政策的重中之重。欧盟以及各国科学部门已经发起了雄心勃勃的举措,以打击不当行为和违反研究诚信的行为。这些举措通常试图通过机构和学术社区可以用来更轻松地识别和处理不当行为的准则来规范科学行为。我们没有将不当行为视为信息不足的结果,而是将可疑研究实践(QRPs)概念化为研究人员试图调和知识生产中认识和社会形式的不确定性。根据以往的文献,我们将认识上的不确定性定义为科学探究固有的智力不可预测性,而社会不确定性则源于科学工作的人为条件。我们的核心论点是基于对来自不同领域和欧洲国家的 30 个焦点小组访谈得出的,即研究诚信的违反可以被理解为试图放松两种不确定性之间过于紧密的耦合。我们的分析方法并不是要使不当行为相对化或原谅,而是要更细致地了解研究人员通过从事不当行为想要实现的目标。基于分析,我们最后提出了一些具体的方法,机构和学术社区可以尝试在更集体的层面上调和认识和社会不确定性,从而减少研究人员从事不当行为的动机。

相似文献

5
Stigma Management Strategies of Autistic Social Media Users.自闭症社交媒体用户的污名管理策略
Autism Adulthood. 2025 May 28;7(3):273-282. doi: 10.1089/aut.2023.0095. eCollection 2025 Jun.
7
Eliciting adverse effects data from participants in clinical trials.从临床试验参与者中获取不良反应数据。
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2018 Jan 16;1(1):MR000039. doi: 10.1002/14651858.MR000039.pub2.

本文引用的文献

1
A Significant Problem.一个重大问题。
Sci Am. 2019 Oct 1;321(4):62. doi: 10.1038/scientificamerican1019-62.
4
6
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
What Research Institutions Can Do to Foster Research Integrity.研究机构可以采取哪些措施来培养研究诚信
Sci Eng Ethics. 2020 Aug;26(4):2363-2369. doi: 10.1007/s11948-020-00178-5. Epub 2020 Jan 21.

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