Co-creating Research Integrity Education Guidelines for Research Institutions.
Education
Guidelines
Institutions
Research integrity
Responsible conduct of research
Training
Journal
Science and engineering ethics
ISSN: 1471-5546
Titre abrégé: Sci Eng Ethics
Pays: England
ID NLM: 9516228
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
20 07 2023
20 07 2023
Historique:
received:
07
06
2022
accepted:
30
04
2023
medline:
21
7
2023
pubmed:
20
7
2023
entrez:
20
7
2023
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
To foster research integrity (RI), research institutions should develop a continuous RI education approach, addressing various target groups. To support institutions to achieve this, we developed RI education guidelines together with RI experts and research administrators, exploring similarities and differences in recommendations across target groups, as well as recommendations about RI education using approaches other than formal RI training. We used an iterative co-creative process. We conducted four half-day online co-creation workshops with 16 participants in total, which were informed by the RI education evidence-base. In the first two workshops, participants generated ideas for guidelines' content, focusing on different target groups and various approaches to RI education. Based on this content we developed first drafts of the guidelines. Participants in the third and fourth workshop refined those drafts. We next organized a working group which further prioritized, reorganized, and optimized the content of the guidelines. We developed four guidelines on RI education focusing on (a) bachelor, master and PhD students; (b) post-doctorate and senior researchers; (c) other RI stakeholders; as well as (d) continuous RI education. Across guidelines, we recommend mandatory RI training; follow-up refresher training; informal discussions about RI; appropriate rewards and incentives for active participation in RI education; and evaluation of RI educational events. Our work provides experience-based co-created guidance to research institutions on what to consider when developing a successful RI education strategy. Each guideline is offered as a distinct, publicly available tool in our toolbox ( www.sops4ri.eu/toolbox ) which institutions can access, adapt and implement to meet their institution-specific RI education needs.Trial registration https://osf.io/zej5b .
Identifiants
pubmed: 37470823
doi: 10.1007/s11948-023-00444-2
pii: 10.1007/s11948-023-00444-2
pmc: PMC10359202
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
28Informations de copyright
© 2023. The Author(s).
Références
Abdi, S., Fieuws, S., Nemery, B., & Dierickx, K. (2021a). Do we achieve anything by teaching research integrity to starting PhD students? Humanities and Social Sciences Communications, 8(1), 1–7.
doi: 10.1057/s41599-021-00908-5
Abdi, S., Pizzolato, D., Nemery, B., & Dierickx, K. (2021b). Educating PhD students in research integrity in Europe. Science and Engineering Ethics, 27(1), 1–19.
doi: 10.1007/s11948-021-00290-0
All European Academies. (2017). The European Code of Conduct for Research Integrity. All European Academies. https://www.allea.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/05/ALLEA-European-Code-of-Conduct-for-Research-Integrity-2017.pdf
Antes, A. L., Kuykendall, A., & DuBois, J. M. (2019). Leading for research excellence and integrity: A qualitative investigation of the relationship-building practices of exemplary principal investigators. Accountability in Research, 26(3), 198–226.
doi: 10.1080/08989621.2019.1611429
Antes, A. L., Mart, A., & DuBois, J. M. (2016). Are leadership and management essential for good research? An interview study of genetic researchers. Journal of Empirical Research on Human Research Ethics, 11(5), 408–423.
doi: 10.1177/1556264616668775
Aubert Bonn, N., & Bouter, L. (2021). Research assessments should recognize responsible research practices—Narrative review of a lively debate and promising developments. In OSF Preprints. https://doi.org/10.31222/osf.io/82rmj
Barnes, B. E., Friedman, C. P., Rosenberg, J. L., Russell, J., Beedle, A., & Levine, A. S. (2006). Creating an infrastructure for training in the responsible conduct of research: The University of Pittsburgh’s experience. Academic Medicine, 81(2), 119–127.
doi: 10.1097/00001888-200602000-00005
Boehme, O., Föger, N., Hiney, M., Peatfiled, T., & Petiet, F. (2016). Research integrity practices in science Europe member organisations. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.5060196
Bouter, L. (2018). Fostering responsible research practices is a shared responsibility of multiple stakeholders. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 96, 143–146.
doi: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2017.12.016
Boyatzis, R. E. (1998). Transforming qualitative information: Thematic analysis and code development. SAGE Publications Inc.
Cahapay, M. (2021). Kirkpatrick model: Its limitations as used in higher education evaluation. International Journal of Assessment Tools in Education, 8(1), 135–144.
doi: 10.21449/ijate.856143
Crabtree, B. F., & Miller, W. F. (1992). A template approach to text analysis: Developing and using codebooks. In B. F. Crabtree & W. F. Miller (Eds.), Doing qualitative research (pp. 163–177). SAGE Publications Inc.
den Breejen, E. M. E., Nelen, W. L. D. M., Knijnenburg, J. M. L., Burgers, J. S., Hermens, R. P. M. G., & Kremer, J. A. M. (2012). Feasibility of a wiki as a participatory tool for patients in clinical guideline development. Journal of Medical Internet Research, 14(5), e2080.
ENERI. (2017). Report of stakeholder/Focus group workshop in Athens. https://eneri.eu/wp-content/uploads/2018/06/Report-Stakeholder-Workshop-Athens.pdf
Evans, N., Marusic, A., Foeger, N., Lofstrom, E., van Hoof, M., Vrijhoef-Welten, S., Inguaggiato, G., Dierickx, K., Bouter, L., & Widdershoven, G. (2021). Virtue-based ethics and integrity of research: Train-the-trainer programme for upholding the principles and practices of the European Code of Conduct for Research Integrity (VIRT2UE). Research Ideas and Outcomes, 7, e68258.
doi: 10.3897/rio.7.e68258
Fanelli, D. (2019). MLE on research integrity—training & education—thematic report No 4. https://rio.jrc.ec.europa.eu/sites/default/files/report/MLE RI No4 - Training and education.pdf
Gaskell, G., Ščepanović, R., Buljan, R., Utrobičić, A., Marušić, A., Reyes Elizondo, A., Kaltenbrunner, W., Labib, K., & Tijdink, J. (2019). D3.2: Scoping reviews including multi-level model of research cultures and research conduct (A. Marušić (ed.)). https://www.sops4ri.eu/wp-content/uploads/D3.2_Scoping-reviews-including-multi-level-model-of-research-cultures-and-research-conduct.pdf
Hamza, D. M., Ross, S., & Oandasan, I. (2020). Process and outcome evaluation of a CBME intervention guided by program theory. Journal of Evaluation in Clinical Practice, 26(4), 1096–1104.
doi: 10.1111/jep.13344
Haven, T., Tijdink, J., Martinson, B. C., & Bouter, L. (2019). Perceptions of research integrity climate differ between academic ranks and disciplinary fields: Results from a survey among academic researchers in Amsterdam. PLoS ONE, 14(1), e0210599.
doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0210599
Horbach, S., & Sørensen, M. P. (n.d.). How to create and implement a research integrity promotion plan (RIPP). https://sops4ri.eu/wp-content/uploads/Implementation-Guideline_FINAL.pdf
Joynson, C., & Leyser, O. (2015). The culture of scientific research. F1000Research. https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.6163.1
doi: 10.12688/f1000research.6163.1
Kalichman, M. (2014). Rescuing responsible conduct of research (RCR) education. Accountability in Research, 21(1), 68–83.
doi: 10.1080/08989621.2013.822271
Kalichman, M., & Plemmons, D. K. (2007). Reported goals for responsible conduct of research courses. Academic Medicine, 82(9), 846–852.
doi: 10.1097/ACM.0b013e31812f78bf
Katsarov, J., Andorno, R., Krom, A., & van den Hoven, M. (2022). Effective strategies for research integrity training—A meta-analysis. Educational Psychology Review, 34, 935–955. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-021-09630-9
doi: 10.1007/s10648-021-09630-9
Konach, T., Horbach, Serge Rochambeau, M., & Taraj, B. (2022). D7.2: Report on pilot studies. https://sops4ri.eu/wp-content/uploads/D7.2_Report-on-Pilot-Studies.pdf
Labib, K., Tijdink, J. K., Sijtsma, K., Bouter, L., Evans, N., & Widdershoven, G. (2022). How to combine rules and commitment in fostering research integrity? MetaArXiV Preprints. https://doi.org/10.31222/osf.io/sx58q
Labib, K., Evans, N., Roje, R., Kavouras, P., Reyes Elizondo, A., Kaltenbrunner, W., Buljan, I., Ravn, T., Widdershoven, G., Bouter, L., Charitidis, C., Sørensen, M. P., Tijdink, J., Scepanovic, R., Kavouras, P., Elizondo, A. R., Kaltenbrunner, W., Buljan, I., Ravn, T., … Bouter, L. (2021a). Education and training policies for research integrity: Insights from a focus group study. Science and Public Policy, 49(2), scab077. https://doi.org/10.1093/scipol/scab077
doi: 10.1093/scipol/scab077
Labib, K., Pizzolato, D., Stappers, P. J., Evans, N., Lechner, I., Widdershoven, G., Bouter, L., Dierickx, K., Bergema, K., & Tijdink, J. (2021b). Using co-creation for guideline development—How why and when? OSF Preprints. https://doi.org/10.31219/osf.io/cg3rw
doi: 10.31219/osf.io/cg3rw
Labib, K., Roje, R., Bouter, L., Widdershoven, G., Evans, N., Marušić, A., Mokkink, L., & Tijdink, J. (2021c). Important topics for fostering research integrity by research performing and research funding organizations: A Delphi consensus study. Science and Engineering Ethics, 27(47), 1–22. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11948-021-00322-9
doi: 10.1007/s11948-021-00322-9
Lechner, I., Tijdink, J., Sørensen, M. P., Ravn, T., Bendtsen, A.-K., Labib, K., Kaltenbrunner, W., Reyes Elizondo, A. E., & Kavouras, P. (2020). D4.3: Second version of SOPs and guidelines. https://sops4ri.eu/wp-content/uploads/D4.3_Second-version-of-SOPs-and-guidelines-1.pdf
Masadeh, M. (2012). Training, education, development and learning: What is the difference? European Scientific Journal, 8(10), 62–63.
McIntosh, T., Sanders, C., & Antes, A. L. (2020). Leading the people and leading the work: Practical considerations for ethical research. Translational Issues in Psychological Science, 6(3), 257.
doi: 10.1037/tps0000260
Mejlgaard, N., Bouter, L., Gaskell, G., Kavouras, P., Allum, N., Bendtsen, A.-K., Charitidis, C. A., Claesen, N., Dierickx, K., Domaradzka, A., Reyes Elizondo, A., Foeger, N., Hiney, M., Kaltenbrunner, W., Labib, K., Marušić, A., Sørensen, M. P., Ravn, T., Ščepanović, R., … Veltri, G. A. (2020). Research integrity: Nine ways to move from talk to walk. Nature, 586, 358–360.
doi: 10.1038/d41586-020-02847-8
Moher, D., Bouter, L., Kleinert, S., Glasziou, P., Sham, M. H., Barbour, V., Coriat, A.-M., Foeger, N., & Dirnagl, U. (2020). The Hong Kong principles for assessing researchers: Fostering research integrity. PLoS Biology, 18(7), e3000737.
doi: 10.1371/journal.pbio.3000737
Pizzolato, D., Dierickx, K., Tijdink, J., Labib, K., Lechner, I., Bonn, N. A., Taraj, B., Claesen, N., & Gaskell, G. (2021). D4.4: Report on the co-creation workshops. https://sops4ri.eu/wp-content/uploads/D4.4_Report-on-the-Co-Creation-Workshops.pdf
Pizzolato, D., Labib, K., Skoulikaris, N., Evans, N., Roje, R., Kavouras, P., Aubert Bonn, N., Dierickx, K., & Tijdink, J. (2022). How can research institutions support responsible supervision and leadership? Accountability in Research. https://doi.org/10.1080/08989621.2022.2112033
doi: 10.1080/08989621.2022.2112033
Roje, R., Reyes Elizondo, A., Kaltenbrunner, W., Buljan, I., & Marušić, A. (2022). Factors influencing the promotion and implementation of research integrity in research performing and research funding organizations: A scoping review. Accountability in Research. https://doi.org/10.1080/08989621.2022.2073819
doi: 10.1080/08989621.2022.2073819
Roje, R., Tomić, V., Buljan, I., & Marušić, A. (2021). Development and implementation of research integrity guidance documents: Explorative interviews with research integrity experts. Accountability in Research. https://doi.org/10.1080/08989621.2021.1989676
doi: 10.1080/08989621.2021.1989676
Sanders, E., & Stappers, P. J. (2012). Convivial toolbox: Generative research for the front end of design. BIS Publishers.
Ščepanović, R., Labib, K., Buljan, I., Tijdink, J., & Marušić, A. (2021). Practices for research integrity promotion in research performing organisations and research funding organisations: A scoping review. Science and Engineering Ethics, 27(4), 1–20. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11948-021-00281-1
doi: 10.1007/s11948-021-00281-1
Sleeswijk Visser, F., Stappers, P. J., Van der Lugt, R., & Sanders, E. (2005). Contextmapping: Experiences from practice. CoDesign, 1(2), 119–149.
doi: 10.1080/15710880500135987
Sørensen, M. P., Ravn, T., Marušić, A., Elizondo, A. R., Kavouras, P., Tijdink, J. K., & Bendtsen, A.-K. (2021). Strengthening research integrity: Which topic areas should organisations focus on? Humanities and Social Sciences Communications, 8(1), 1–15.
doi: 10.1057/s41599-021-00874-y
Thomas, D. R. (2017). Feedback from research participants: Are member checks useful in qualitative research? Qualitative Research in Psychology, 14(1), 23–41.
doi: 10.1080/14780887.2016.1219435
Tijdink, J., Bouter, L., Veldkamp, C. L. S., van de Ven, P. M., Wicherts, J. M., & Smulders, Y. M. (2016). Personality traits are associated with research misbehavior in Dutch scientists: A cross-sectional study. PLoS ONE, 11(9), e0163251.
doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0163251
Titus, S., Wells, J. A., & Rhoades, L. J. (2008). Repairing research integrity. Nature, 453, 980–982.
doi: 10.1038/453980a
Todd, E. M., Watts, L. L., Mulhearn, T. J., Torrence, B. S., Turner, M. R., Connelly, S., & Mumford, M. D. (2017). A meta-analytic comparison of face-to-face and online delivery in ethics instruction: The case for a hybrid approach. Science and Engineering Ethics, 23(6), 1719–1754.
doi: 10.1007/s11948-017-9869-3
Watts, L. L., Medeiros, K. E., Mulhearn, T. J., Steele, L. M., Connelly, S., & Mumford, M. D. (2017). Are ethics training programs improving? A meta-analytic review of past and present ethics instruction in the sciences. Ethics & Behavior, 27(5), 351–384.
doi: 10.1080/10508422.2016.1182025