Researchers' Perceptions of a Responsible Research Climate: A Multi Focus Group Study
- PMID: 32779115
- PMCID: PMC7755866
- DOI: 10.1007/s11948-020-00256-8
Researchers' Perceptions of a Responsible Research Climate: A Multi Focus Group Study
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.
Keywords: Research climate; Research integrity; Responsible conduct of research.
Conflict of interest statement
The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.
Similar articles
-
Perceptions of research integrity climate differ between academic ranks and disciplinary fields: Results from a survey among academic researchers in Amsterdam.PLoS One. 2019 Jan 18;14(1):e0210599. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0210599. eCollection 2019. PLoS One. 2019. PMID: 30657778 Free PMC article.
-
Researchers' perceptions of research misbehaviours: a mixed methods study among academic researchers in Amsterdam.Res Integr Peer Rev. 2019 Dec 2;4:25. doi: 10.1186/s41073-019-0081-7. eCollection 2019. Res Integr Peer Rev. 2019. PMID: 31819806 Free PMC article.
-
Academic research integrity: Exploring researchers' perceptions of responsibilities and enablers.Account Res. 2020 Apr;27(3):146-177. doi: 10.1080/08989621.2020.1732824. Epub 2020 Mar 3. Account Res. 2020. PMID: 32073893
-
A scoping review of researchers' involvement in health policy dialogue in Africa.Syst Rev. 2021 Jun 27;10(1):190. doi: 10.1186/s13643-021-01745-y. Syst Rev. 2021. PMID: 34174957 Free PMC article. Review.
-
Review of published evidence on knowledge translation capacity, practice and support among researchers and research institutions in low- and middle-income countries.Health Res Policy Syst. 2020 Feb 10;18(1):16. doi: 10.1186/s12961-019-0524-0. Health Res Policy Syst. 2020. PMID: 32039738 Free PMC article. Review.
Cited by
-
Exploring the dimensions of responsible research systems and cultures: a scoping review.R Soc Open Sci. 2024 Jan 17;11(1):230624. doi: 10.1098/rsos.230624. eCollection 2024 Jan. R Soc Open Sci. 2024. PMID: 38234444 Free PMC article. Review.
-
Role-based responsibilities in securing research integrity: increasing support for multi-level implementers.Front Res Metr Anal. 2023 Sep 14;8:1256426. doi: 10.3389/frma.2023.1256426. eCollection 2023. Front Res Metr Anal. 2023. PMID: 37779555 Free PMC article.
-
Ethical decision-making and role conflict in managing a scientific laboratory.Account Res. 2023 Jul 28:1-24. doi: 10.1080/08989621.2023.2236553. Online ahead of print. Account Res. 2023. PMID: 37482770
-
Using multi-focus group method as an effective tool for eliciting business system requirements: Verified by a case study.PLoS One. 2023 Mar 10;18(3):e0281603. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0281603. eCollection 2023. PLoS One. 2023. PMID: 36897871 Free PMC article.
-
Research Integrity Supervision Practices and Institutional Support: A Qualitative Study.J Acad Ethics. 2022 Dec 22:1-22. doi: 10.1007/s10805-022-09468-y. Online ahead of print. J Acad Ethics. 2022. PMID: 36573209 Free PMC article.
References
-
- Anderson MS, Louis KS, Earle J. Disciplinary and departmental effects on observations of faculty and graduate student misconduct. The Journal of Higher Education. 1994;65(3):331. doi: 10.2307/2943971. - DOI
-
- Boyd L. Exploring the utility of workload models in academe: A pilot study. Journal of Higher Education Policy and Management. 2014;36(3):315–326. doi: 10.1080/01587919.2014.899050. - DOI
Publication types
MeSH terms
LinkOut - more resources
Full Text Sources
