A question of style: method, integrity and the meaning of proper science

Exploring the Gray Area: Similarities and Differences in Questionable Research Practices (QRPs) Across Main Areas of Research

This paper explores the gray area of questionable research practices (QRPs) between responsible conduct of research and severe research misconduct in the form of fabrication, falsification, and plagiarism (Steneck in SEE 12(1): 53-57, 2006). Up until now, we have had very little knowledge of disciplinary similarities and differences in QRPs. The paper is the first systematic account of variances and similarities. It reports on the findings of a comprehensive study comprising 22 focus groups on practices and perceptions of QRPs across main areas of research. The paper supports the relevance of the idea of epistemic cultures (Knorr Cetina in: Epistemic cultures: how the sciences make knowledge, Harvard University Press, Cambridge, 1999), also when it comes to QRPs. It shows which QRPs researchers from different areas of research (humanities, social sciences, medical sciences, natural sciences, and technical sciences) report as the most severe and prevalent within their fields. Furthermore, it shows where in the research process these self-reported QRPs can be found. This is done by using a five-phase analytical model of the research process (idea generation, research design, data collection, data analysis, scientific publication and reporting). The paper shows that QRPs are closely connected to the distinct research practices within the different areas of research. Many QRPs can therefore only be found within one area of research, and QRPs that cut across main areas often cover relatively different practices. In a few cases, QRPs in one area are considered good research practice in another.

An Ethics of the System: Talking to Scientists About Research Integrity

Research integrity and misconduct have recently risen to public attention as policy issues. Concern has arisen about divergence between this policy discourse and the language and concerns of scientists. This interview study, carried out in Denmark with a cohort of highly internationalised natural scientists, explores how researchers talk about integrity and good science. It finds, first, that these scientists were largely unaware of the Danish Code of Conduct for Responsible Conduct of Research and indifferent towards the value of such codes; second, that they presented an image of good science as nuanced and thereby as difficult to manage through abstracted, principle-based codes; and third, that they repeatedly pointed to systemic issues both as triggering misconduct and as ethical problems in and of themselves. Research integrity is framed as a part of wider moves to 'responsibilise' science; understood in these terms, resistance to codes of conduct and the representation of integrity as a problem of science as a whole can be seen as a rejection of a neoliberal individualisation of responsibility.

Complex narratives of health, stigma and control: Antimicrobial resistance screening among non-hospitalized refugees

Antimicrobial resistance (AMR) is often presented as a major public health problem globally. Screening for AMR usually takes place in clinical settings. Recent developments in microbiology stimulated a series of studies focusing on AMR in communities, and particularly in travelers (any mobile individual), which was argued to be important for identifying potential public health risks. Against this background, microbiologists have become interested in non-hospitalized refugees as one of the traveler groups. However, this attention to refugees has provoked some professional debates on potential stigmatization of refugees as dangerous "others". To contribute to these debates, and to explore the idea of AMR screening of non-hospitalized refugees from different perspectives, we conducted a qualitative study among four groups of stakeholders who were chosen because of their associations with potential microbiological screening: microbiologists, public health physicians, public health nurses, and refugees. The study took place in a Dutch city from June to August 2016 and had 17 participants: five microbiologists, two public health nurses, four public health physicians, and six refugees. While microbiologists and public health physicians demonstrated a de-contextualized biomedical narrative in arguing that AMR screening among non-hospitalized refugees could be important for scientific research as well as for AMR prevention in communities, public health nurses displayed a more contextualized narrative bringing the benefits for individuals at the center and indicating that screening exclusively among refugees may provoke fear and stigmatization. Refugees were rather positive about AMR screening but stressed that it should particularly contribute to their individual health. We conclude that to design AMR prevention strategies, it is important to consider the complex meanings of AMR screening, and to design these strategies as a process of co-production by diverse stakeholders, including the target populations.

Beyond Trust: Plagiarism and Truth

Academic misconduct distorts the relationship between scientific practice and the knowledge it produces. The relationship between science and the knowledge it produces is, however, not something universally agreed upon. In this paper I will critically discuss the moral status of an act of research misconduct, namely plagiarism, in the context of different epistemological positions. While from a positivist view of science, plagiarism only influences trust in science but not the content of the scientific corpus, from a constructivist point of view both are at stake. Consequently, I argue that discussions of research misconduct and responsible research ought to be explicitly informed by the authors' views on the relationship between science and the knowledge it produces.