Do research misbehaviours differ between disciplinary fields? A mixed methods study among academic researchers in Amsterdam

Abstract

Background: There is increasing evidence that research misbehaviour is common, especially the minor forms. Previous studies on research misbehaviour primarily focused on biomedical and social sciences, and evidence in the natural sciences and humanities is scarce. We investigated whether the importance of particular research misbehaviours, as perceived by researchers in their respective disciplines, varies across disciplinary fields. Methods: We used a mixed methods explanatory quantitative first design. First, survey participants from 4 disciplinary fields rated perceived frequency and impact of research misbehaviours from a list of 60. We then combined these into a top 5 ranking of most important research misbehaviours, stratified by disciplinary field. Second, in focus group interviews participants from each academic rank and disciplinary field were asked to reflect on the most important research misbehaviours for their disciplinary field. We used participative ranking methodology pressing participants to obtain consensus on which research misbehaviours are most important. Results: The survey response rate was 15%. Between 3 and 8 researchers participated per focus group. Insufficient supervision consistently ranked highest in the survey regardless of disciplinary field and the focus groups confirmed this. Important themes in the focus groups were insufficient supervision, sloppy science, and sloppy peer review. Biomedical researchers and social science researchers were primarily concerned with sloppy science and insufficient supervision. Natural sciences and humanities researchers discussed sloppy reviewing and theft of ideas by reviewers, a form of plagiarism. Focus group participants further provided examples of particular research misbehaviours they were confronted with and how these impacted their work as a researcher.Conclusion: Academic researchers considered insufficient supervision and a variety of sloppy science examples the most important research misbehaviours. Research misbehaviour that involved the stealing of ideas and misconduct in the review process, which were absent in the initial list of 60, were identified as additional research misbehaviours. Future research should investigate the relevance and importance of these added research misbehaviours.

Ähnliche Arbeiten