Are Leadership and Management Essential for Good Research? An Interview Study of Genetic Researchers

Scientific priorities and relational dynamics during the COVID-19 pandemic: A qualitative study

To rapidly respond to the COVID-19 public health crisis, researchers have been called upon to prioritize pandemic research, while simultaneously modifying their existing research to maintain the safety of all stakeholders. This study aims to explore the experiences of health science researchers in their scientific practices, research priorities, and professional relational dynamics due to COVID-19. Specifically, we interviewed 31 researchers from diverse fields at the University of Texas Medical Branch. Participants worked on COVID-19, non-COVID-19 related research, or both. We integrated inductive and deductive coding using a thematic coding method. The following four themes were explored: 1) impact of research, 2) research priorities, 3) professional relationships and 4) contextual influences on science. Participants were drawn to COVID-19 work for a diversity of reasons including social need, scientific interest, professional duty, and increased access to funding opportunities. While collaborations have increased for COVID-19 researchers, interpersonal relationships have been challenging for participants. Additionally, political, familial, and personal stresses due to the pandemic have taken a toll on researchers in very different and often inequitable ways. To ensure team cohesion, there is a need to develop research practices, policies and systems that value empathy, flexibility, and interdependence.

The Global Andrology Forum (GAF): Structure, Roles, Functioning and Outcomes: An Online Model for Collaborative Research

PURPOSE

There are no published examples of a global online research collaborative in andrology. We describe the development, profile and member characteristics of the first consortium of this type, the Global Andrology Forum (GAF).

MATERIALS AND METHODS

An online survey sent to all GAF members collected demographic information (sex, age, experience, academic title, degrees, country, specialty, profession). It also tapped data on members' characteristics e.g., skills in research, software and statistics; preferred activities; time commitments; expected roles; and interest in participating in research, in GAF's scientific activities and collaborative online research. The findings were analyzed and tabulated. We outline members' demographic and professional characteristics and scientific achievements to date. A narrative approach outlined GAF's structure and functioning.

RESULTS

A total of 418 out of 540 members completed the survey and were included in the analysis (77.4% response rate). The sample comprised mainly urologists (34.2%) and a third of the respondents had practiced for >15 years (33.3%). Up to 86.1% of the members expressed interest in being actively engaged in writing scientific articles. A third of the sample (37.1%) could dedicate 4 to 6 hours/week. Few respondents reported skills in statistics and artwork (2.6% and 1.9% respectively). Members were assigned to specific roles based on their expertise and experiences. Collaborative working ensured the timely completion of projects while maintaining quality. For outcomes, GAF published 29 original articles within one year of its creation, with authors from 48 countries spanning topics that included varicocele, sperm DNA damage, oxidative stress, semen analysis and male infertility, oocyte/embryo, and laboratory issues of assisted reproductive technique (ART) and male infertility evaluation.

CONCLUSIONS

GAF is a successful global online andrology research model. A healthy number of scientific articles have been published. Given such effectiveness, adopting the GAF model could be useful for other disciplines that wish to create and coordinate successful international online research groups.

Ethical decision-making and role conflict in managing a scientific laboratory

Scientists who manage research laboratories often face ethical dilemmas related to conflicts between their different roles, such as researcher, mentor, entrepreneur, and manager. It is not known how often uncertainty about conflicting role obligations leads scientists to engage in unethical conduct, but this probably occurs more often than many people would like to think. In this paper, we reflect on ethical decision-making in scientific laboratory management with special attention to how different roles create conflicting obligations and expectations that may produce moral uncertainty and lead to violations of research norms, especially when combined with self-interest and other factors that increase the risk of misbehavior. We also offer some suggestions and guidance for investigators and research institutions.

Co-creating Research Integrity Education Guidelines for Research Institutions

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 .

The Mentor's Role in Fostering Research Integrity Standards Among New Generations of Researchers: A Review of Empirical Studies

Promoting research integrity practices among doctoral candidates and early career researchers is important for creating a stable and healthy research environment. In addition to teaching specific technical skills and knowledge, research supervisors and mentors inevitably convey research practices, both directly and indirectly. We conducted a scoping review to summarise the role of mentors in fostering research integrity practices, mentors' responsibilities and the role that institutions have in supporting good mentorship. We searched five different databases and included studies that used an empirical methodology. After searching, a total of 1199 articles were retrieved, of which 24 were eligible for analysis. After snowballing, a total of 35 empirical articles were selected. The review discusses various themes such as the importance of good mentorship, poor mentorship practices, virtues and qualities of mentors, responsibilities and activities of mentors, group mentoring and responsibilities of the institution in supporting good mentorship. This review demonstrates the importance of mentors instilling responsible research practices and attitudes, and promoting research integrity among their mentees. Mentors are responsible for providing explicit guidance and for acting as good role models. The review highlights how poor mentorship can have a bad impact on the research climate. In addition, the review highlights the important influence that institutions can have in supporting mentorship.

For the "good of the lab": Insights from three focus groups concerning the ethics of managing a laboratory or research group

To obtain some exploratory, qualitative data on ethical issues and values in managing a research laboratory, we conducted three focus groups with experienced investigators and laboratory managers. After validating the focus group transcripts for accuracy, two coders used deductive and inductive coding to develop themes from the text. Participants regarded ethics as important in managing a laboratory (or research group) for various reasons, ranging from conducting research with integrity to exhibiting leadership and promoting an ethical research climate. Participants identified many different types of ethical issues that arise in managing a research laboratory, including issues involving the management people, financial and material resources, projects, and data. An overarching ethical dilemma identified by participants was balancing the desire for productivity against apparently competing values, such as treating people fairly and promoting the wellbeing of individuals. Participants also indicated that graduate and post-graduate education and training did not prepare them to deal with the ethical, financial, interpersonal, and other issues related to managing a research laboratory, and that communication and leadership are crucial to managing a research laboratory ethically.

Addressing serious and continuing research noncompliance and integrity violations through action plans: Interviews with institutional officials

Serious and continuing research noncompliance and integrity violations undermine the quality of research and trust in science. When researchers engage in these behaviors, institutional officials (IOs) often develop corrective action plans. Ideally, such plans address the root causes so noncompliance or research integrity violations discontinue. The aim of this study was to identify what IOs perceive as causes and action plan activities typically prescribed. We conducted semi-structured in-depth interviews with 47 IOs at research institutions across the U.S. including: institutional review board and institutional animal care and use committee chairs and directors, chief research officers, research compliance and integrity officers, and institutional conflicts of interest chairs and directors. The most common root causes identified were: 1) lack of knowledge or training, 2) failure to provide research team supervision, and 3) researcher attitudes toward compliance. The most common action plan activities include: 1) retraining in compliance or research integrity, 2) follow-up and hands-on involvement with the researcher, and 3) mandated oversight or mentoring. Because the most commonly identified action plan activities fail to adequately address the majority of root causes, our findings suggest a need for IOs to rethink existing approaches to action plan development to more effectively target root causes.

Research Integrity Supervision Practices and Institutional Support: A Qualitative Study

Scientific malpractice is not just due to researchers having bad intentions, but also due to a lack of education concerning research integrity practices. Besides the importance of institutionalised trainings on research integrity, research supervisors play an important role in translating what doctoral students learn during research integrity formal sessions. Supervision practices and role modelling influence directly and indirectly supervisees' attitudes and behaviour toward responsible research. Research supervisors can not be left alone in this effort. Research institutions are responsible for supporting supervisors in being more aware of their RI function, and in supporting responsible supervision practices to have a positive cascading effect on supervisees' research practices. We interviewed 22 European research supervisors to investigate how they perceive their role as research integrity trainers and their real-life supervision practices. Moreover, we investigated their points of view concerning the role of research institutions in supporting supervision practices. Although there are different commonalities in supervisors' perception of their research integrity-related role, differences are emphasised depending on the supervisors' characteristics such as academic domain, seniority, working country and gender. In addition, supervisors' way of mentoring depend also on supervisees' learning curve. Overall, all supervisors agreed on institutions playing an important role in support their supervision effort and practices. This study aims to be a starting point for better understanding research integrity supervision practices and the role of institutions in supporting them. Moreover, it puts the basis to further investigate differences in supervision practices depending on supervisors' characteristics.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s10805-022-09468-y.

Developing and evaluating a team development intervention to support interdisciplinary teams

Introduction:

Incentivizing the development of interdisciplinary scientific teams to address significant societal challenges usually takes the form of pilot funding. However, while pilot funding is likely necessary, it is not sufficient for successful collaborations. Interdisciplinary collaborations are enhanced when team members acquire competencies that support team success.

Methods:

We evaluated the impact of a multifaceted team development intervention that included an eight-session workshop spanning two half-days. The workshop employed multiple methods for team development, including lectures on empirically supported best practices, skills-based modules, role plays, hands-on planning sessions, and social interaction within and across teams. We evaluated the impact of the intervention by (1) asking participants to assess each of the workshop sessions and (2) by completing a pre/postquestionnaire that included variables such as readiness to collaborate, goal clarity, process clarity, role ambiguity, and behavioral trust.

Results:

The content of the team development intervention was very well received, particularly the workshop session focused on psychological safety. Comparison of survey scores before and after the team development intervention indicated that scores on readiness to collaborate and behavioral trust were significantly higher among participants who attended the workshop. Goal clarity, process clarity, and role ambiguity did not differ among those who attended versus those who did not.

Conclusions:

Multicomponent team development interventions that focus on key competencies required for interdisciplinary teams can support attitudes and cognitions that the literature on the science of team science indicate are predictive of success. We offer recommendations for the design of future interventions.

Leading the people and leading the work: Practical considerations for ethical research

Scientific work is demanding and complex, requiring those leading research to be simultaneously innovative and ethical in their work. Along with this, those leading scientific teams need to be able to influence both the work being done and lab members doing the work. Thus, both leadership and management skills are necessary to navigating the organizational, social, and ethical components of the research process in order to do rigorous, ethical, and high-quality scientific work. This paper recommends a number of practices that leaders of research teams should engage in, including management behaviors for "leading the work" and leadership behaviors for "leading the people" that foster excellence and integrity in research labs. Researchers can take an intentional approach to leadership and management to create a robust environment for ethical research. Overall, a researcher's routine behaviors as leaders of their labs should establish a healthy work environment and promote effective interpersonal interactions among lab members. Further, the lab requires routine procedures and structure to provide adequate oversight of the research. This paper also addresses challenges that may arise when implementing leadership and management practices, along with strategies for overcoming these strategies. Avenues for future research and policy development related to leadership and management in scientific contexts are discussed.

Enhancing reproducibility using interprofessional team best practices

The pervasive problem of irreproducibility of preclinical research represents a substantial threat to the translation of CTSA-generated health interventions. Key stakeholders in the research process have proposed solutions to this challenge to encourage research practices that improve reproducibility. However, these proposals have had minimal impact, because they either 1. take place too late in the research process, 2. focus exclusively on the products of research instead of the processes of research, and/or 3. fail to take into account the driving incentives in the research enterprise. Because so much clinical and translational science is team-based, CTSA hubs have a unique opportunity to leverage Science of Team Science research to implement and support innovative, evidence-based, team-focused, reproducibility-enhancing activities at a project's start, and across its evolution. Here, we describe the impact of irreproducibility on clinical and translational science, review its origins, and then describe stakeholders' efforts to impact reproducibility, and why those efforts may not have the desired effect. Based on team-science best practices and principles of scientific integrity, we then propose ways for Translational Teams to build reproducible behaviors. We end with suggestions for how CTSAs can leverage team-based best practices and identify observable behaviors that indicate a culture of reproducible research.

Leading for research excellence and integrity: A qualitative investigation of the relationship-building practices of exemplary principal investigators

We conducted semi-structured, telephone interviews with 52 federally funded researchers nominated as exemplars for their integrity and professional conduct, and their scientific achievements. The aim was to identify the practices they report utilizing to build respectful relationships in their teams. We found four practices, holding meetings, providing supervision and guidance, encouraging shared ownership, and expressing values, which were also important to performing high-quality, compliant research, were essential to fostering relationships. The most common practice described for building relationships was actively and deliberately cultivating a positive team environment. Additionally, exemplars described the need to lead by example, tailor their approach to the needs of individuals, address interpersonal conflict, and hire team members cautiously. We also identified practices the exemplars reported as important to managing the demands of their work and found that encouraging shared ownership and tailoring to individuals supported this goal. Additional strategies related to prioritization and planning, seeking advice, engaging in self-care, and managing emotional reactions. Finally, we identified priorities guiding the exemplars' practices. Key priorities included providing outstanding mentoring, building collaborations and relationships, and engaging in discovery and innovation. Investigators require exceptional leadership skills but receive limited systematic leadership training. Addressing this gap would advance research excellence and integrity.

The lab management practices of "Research Exemplars" that foster research rigor and regulatory compliance: A qualitative study of successful principal investigators

INTRODUCTION

Conducting rigorous scientific inquiry within the bounds of research regulation and acceptable practice requires a principal investigator to lead and manage research processes and personnel. This study explores the practices used by investigators nominated as exemplars of research excellence and integrity to produce rigorous, reproducible research and comply with research regulations.

METHODS

Using a qualitative research design, we interviewed 52 principal investigators working in the United States at top research universities and the National Institutes of Health Intramural Research Program. We solicited nominations of researchers meeting two criteria: (1) they are federally-funded researchers doing high-quality, high-impact research, and (2) have reputations for professionalism and integrity. Each investigator received an initial nomination addressing both criteria and at least one additional endorsement corroborating criteria 2. A panel of researchers and our research team reviewed the nominations to select finalists who were invited to participate. The cohort of "Research Exemplars" includes highly accomplished researchers in diverse scientific disciplines. The semi-structured interview questions asked them to describe the routine practices they employ to foster rigor and regulatory compliance. We used inductive thematic analysis to identify common practices.

RESULTS

The exemplars identified a core set of 8 practices and provided strategies for employing them. The practices included holding regular team meetings, encouraging shared ownership, providing supervision, ensuring adequate training, fostering positive attitudes about compliance, scrutinizing data and findings, and following standard operating procedures. Above all, the use of these practices aim to create a psychologically safe work environment in which lab members openly collaborate to scrutinize their work and share in accountability for rigorous, compliant research.

CONCLUSIONS

Researchers typically receive limited systematic training in how to lead and manage their research teams. Training and education for principal investigators should include essential leadership and management practices and strategies that support doing high-quality research with integrity.

Cultivating the Human Dimension in Research

According to "Research Exemplars," research requires attending to matters of heart as much as mind. The human dimension in research-relationships, passion, resilience, and leadership-was the common thread in their advice for a successful career. We discuss strategies to cultivate intra- and inter-personal skills fostering these aspects of research.

Leadership for Innovation in Healthcare: An Exploration

Although leadership has been studied extensively, most research has focused on the political and military spheres. More recent work has also examined the role of leadership in sectors such as manufacturing and technology, both areas where it is essential to encourage and nurture innovation. Yet, in the health sector, where innovation is now high on the policy agenda in many countries, there is a paucity of research on how leadership can foster a culture of innovation. In this perspective, written for those seeking to foster innovation in the health sector, we offer a narrative synthesis approach of eight theories and concepts that have been empirically shown to support innovation through all phases of the innovation process.