Bounded research ethicality: researchers rate themselves and their field as better than others at following good research practice.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
SUBMITTER: Lindkvist AM
PROVIDER: S-EPMC10847100 | biostudies-literature | 2024 Feb
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Publications
Bounded research ethicality: researchers rate themselves and their field as better than others at following good research practice.
Lindkvist Amanda M AM Koppel Lina L Tinghög Gustav G
Scientific reports 20240206 1
Bounded ethicality refers to people's limited capacity to consistently behave in line with their ethical standards. Here, we present results from a pre-registered, large-scale (N = 11,050) survey of researchers in Sweden, suggesting that researchers too are boundedly ethical. Specifically, researchers on average rated themselves as better than other researchers in their field at following good research practice, and rated researchers in their own field as better than researchers in other fields ...[more]
Similar Datasets
Project description:Social comparisons are a fundamental characteristic of human behaviour, yet relatively little is known about their evolutionary foundations. Adapting the co-acting paradigm from human research (Seta in J Pers Soc Psychol 42:281-291, 1982. doi: 10.1037//0022-3514.42.2.281), we examined how the performance of a partner influenced subjects' performance in long-tailed macaques (Macaca fascicularis). Using parallel testing in touch screen setups in which subjects had to discriminate familiar and novel photographs of men and women, we investigated whether accuracy and reaction time were influenced by partner performance and relationship quality (affiliate vs. non-affiliate). Auditory feedback about the alleged performance of the co-actor was provided via playback; partner performance was either moderately or extremely better or worse than subject performance. We predicted that subjects would assimilate to moderately different comparison standards as well as to affiliates and contrast away from extreme standards and non-affiliates. Subjects instantly generalized to novel pictures. While accuracy was not affected by any of the factors, long reaction times occurred more frequently when subjects were tested with a non-affiliate who was performing worse, compared to one who was doing better than them (80% quantile worse: 5.1, better: 4.3 s). For affiliate co-actors, there was no marked effect (worse: 4.4, better: 4.6 s). In a control condition with no auditory feedback, subjects performed somewhat better in the presence of affiliates (M = 77.8% correct) compared to non-affiliates (M = 71.1%), while reaction time was not affected. Apparently, subjects were sensitive to partner identity and performance, yet variation in motivation rather than assimilation and contrast effects may account for the observed effects.
| S-EPMC4751161 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Actions such as sharing food and cooperating to reach a common goal have played a fundamental role in the evolution of human societies. Despite the importance of such good actions, little is known about if and how they can spread from person to person to person. For instance, does being recipient of an altruistic act increase your probability of being cooperative with a third party? We have conducted an experiment on Amazon Mechanical Turk to test this mechanism using economic games. We have measured willingness to be cooperative through a standard Prisoner's dilemma and willingness to act altruistically using a binary Dictator game. In the baseline treatments, the endowments needed to play were given by the experimenters, as usual; in the control treatments, they came from a good action made by someone else. Across four different comparisons and a total of 572 subjects, we have never found a significant increase of cooperation or altruism when the endowment came from a good action. We conclude that good actions do not necessarily inspire good actions in others. While this is consistent with the theoretical prediction, it challenges the majority of other experimental studies.
| S-EPMC4264010 | biostudies-literature
Project description:IntroductionWomen with addiction issues are under-researched, despite previous evidence that women's needs are less understood than men's and that services can overlook gender-specific issues. The majority of women in treatment are mothers and a significant number have contact with child welfare services. The voices of these women are needed to shape and influence evidence-based treatment and service development.AimTo examine reasons and rationale for participation in research in mothers with addiction issues and involvement with the child welfare system.MethodReflexive thematic analysis was used on interview transcripts from two qualitative studies. Individual themes from each study were combined and analysed to develop themes covering both studies and at different timepoints in process of child welfare assessment or removal of child/ren.ResultsThree themes were identified (1) altruism; (2) personal benefit; and (3) empowerment. These mothers wanted to help with research. However, they also participated with the hope that this might facilitate the return of their children or help them to access support or services. A change over time was evident and, in those further down the line from child removal, there was a stronger want for their voices to be heard in order to advocate for other women and create change in services.
| S-EPMC10582753 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Measured field electron emission (FE) current-voltage I m(V m) data are traditionally analysed via Fowler-Nordheim (FN) plots, as ln{Im/Vm2} versus 1/V m. These have been used since 1929, because in 1928 FN predicted they would be linear. In the 1950s, a mistake in FN's thinking was found. Corrected theory by Murphy and Good (MG) made theoretical FN plots slightly curved. This causes difficulties when attempting to extract precise values of emission characterization parameters from straight lines fitted to experimental FN plots. Improved mathematical understanding, from 2006 onwards, has now enabled a new FE data-plot form, the 'Murphy-Good plot'. This plot has the form ln{Im/Vm(2-η/6)} versus 1/V m, where η ≅ 9.836239 (eV/ϕ)1/2 and ϕ is the local work function. Modern (twenty-first century) MG theory predicts that a theoretical MG plot should be 'almost exactly' straight. This makes precise extraction of well-defined characterization parameters from ideal I m(V m) data much easier. This article gives the theory needed to extract characterization parameters from MG plots, setting it within the framework of wider difficulties in interpreting FE I m(V m) data (among them, use of 'smooth planar emitter methodology'). Careful use of MG plots could also help remedy other problems in FE technological literature. It is suggested that MG plots should replace FN plots.
| S-EPMC6936271 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Early career researchers (ECRs) are important stakeholders leading efforts to catalyze systemic change in research culture and practice. Here, we summarize the outputs from a virtual unconventional conference (unconference), which brought together 54 invited experts from 20 countries with extensive experience in ECR initiatives designed to improve the culture and practice of science. Together, we drafted 2 sets of recommendations for (1) ECRs directly involved in initiatives or activities to change research culture and practice; and (2) stakeholders who wish to support ECRs in these efforts. Importantly, these points apply to ECRs working to promote change on a systemic level, not only those improving aspects of their own work. In both sets of recommendations, we underline the importance of incentivizing and providing time and resources for systems-level science improvement activities, including ECRs in organizational decision-making processes, and working to dismantle structural barriers to participation for marginalized groups. We further highlight obstacles that ECRs face when working to promote reform, as well as proposed solutions and examples of current best practices. The abstract and recommendations for stakeholders are available in Dutch, German, Greek (abstract only), Italian, Japanese, Polish, Portuguese, Spanish, and Serbian.
| S-EPMC9295962 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Although it takes several hundred milliseconds to prepare a spoken contribution, gaps between turns in conversation tend to be much shorter. To produce these short gaps, it appears that interlocutors predict the end of their partner's turn. The theory of prediction-by-simulation proposes that individuals use their own motor system to model a partner's upcoming actions by referring to prior production experience. In this study we investigate the role of motor experience for both predicting a turn-end and producing a spoken response by manipulating the similarity of heard speech to participants' own production style. We hypothesised that they would be better at predicting, and initiating responses to, speech produced in the style they speak themselves. Participants recorded a series of questions in two sessions, and several months later they listened to their own speech and that of a stylistically similar and a stylistically dissimilar participant (as assessed by independent raters). Participants predicted the end of 60 of these questions by pressing a button, and for the remaining 60 questions, by producing a spoken response. An analysis of response times showed that participants' button-press responses were faster for utterances spoken by themselves and by a stylistically similar partner, than for utterances spoken by a stylistically dissimilar partner. We conclude that simulation facilitates prediction of similar speakers.
| S-EPMC7408002 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundResearch codesign is generally defined as end-users' involvement in planning, implementation, and evaluation of projects. Recently, there has been a growing interest in codesign to maximise research acceptability, applicability, and impact and to address longstanding issues around power and depth of involvement. Frameworks have been developed to assist in understanding research codesign processes at a project level. However, little is known about how university based researchers construct or adopt a coherent approach to sustain research codesign in governance, methodological approaches, and practice. This study investigated the perspectives of researchers within a newly formed research institute about principles and practices of research codesign in the context of their previous and current projects. We also investigated their perceptions of institution-level enablers and barriers to codesign. University based researchers are our primary focus here and we intend to consult other stakeholders in future work.MethodsUsing an interview guide informed by exploratory work and a scoping review of the literature, we conducted 15 individual interviews with Caring Futures Institute (CFI) leaders and researchers at different career stages working across multiple areas of health, care, and social research. Qualitative thematic analysis was conducted.ResultsThe researchers we interviewed were involved in projects ranging from large nationally funded projects to small studies funded by the university or PhD projects. Research codesign activities were generally part of larger researcher-led projects but there were a few examples of community-led projects. There was agreement amongst participants on the principles and perceived benefits of research codesign such as partnership, co-learning, and power sharing. Less agreement was found regarding the definition of research codesign and best terminology to be used. Themes reflecting the success of research codesign included pre-existing community relationships, communication skills, knowledge, and training on codesign, balancing power relationships, use of external facilitators, and adequacy of funding, time, and resources.ConclusionsThe study reaffirmed the complexity of research codesign from researchers' perspectives and identified areas of potential action that may be beneficial for university based research institutions in building codesign skills, capacity and culture for example training, peer learning and funding support. Implications for practice improvement centre on a dual strategy of building practical capacity in researchers and integrating institutional dimensions (such as governance and leadership) into codesign frameworks. This can help to ensure research codesign is integrated into organisational culture and through the work of individual researchers.
| S-EPMC9730560 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundDiagnosis of autism falls under the remit of psychiatry. Recognition that psychiatrists could be autistic is recent. Psychiatrists are the second largest specialty group in Autistic Doctors International, a peer support group for autistic doctors.AimsTo explore the experiences of autistic psychiatrists in relation to recognising themselves and others as autistic.MethodThis was a qualitative study using loosely structured interviews and an interpretive phenomenological analysis.ResultsEight autistic senior psychiatrists based in the UK participated. One had a childhood diagnosis, two had been diagnosed in adulthood and the remainder self-identified as autistic as adults. Recognition of autism followed diagnosis of their children or encounters with autistic patients. Barriers to self-recognition included lack of autism training, the deficit-based diagnostic criteria and stereotypical views of autism. Recognising that they were autistic led to the realisation that many colleagues were also likely to be autistic, particularly in neurodevelopmental psychiatry. All participants reported the ability to quickly recognise autistic patients and to develop a good rapport easily, once they were aware of their own autistic identity. Difficulties recognising patients as autistic occurred before self-recognition when they shared autistic characteristics and experiences. 'If we don't recognise ourselves as autistic how on earth can we diagnose patients accurately?'ConclusionsAutistic psychiatrists face multiple barriers to recognising that they are autistic. Lack of self-recognition may impede diagnostic accuracy with autistic patients. Self-recognition and disclosure by autistic psychiatrists may be facilitated by reframing the traditional deficit-based view of autism towards a neurodiversity-affirmative approach, with consequent benefits for autistic patients.
| S-EPMC11698211 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Plain english summaryBackground Patient and public involvement means researchers working with members of the public, patients or carers to jointly plan and carry out research.Aim This article is written by members of three involvement groups, and the university employees that they work with. We wanted to jointly reflect on what enables our collaborative work, and what the challenges are for everyone involved.What we did and how we did it We wanted to establish what the literature defines as 'good' public involvement and compare this with processes and practices in our involvement groups. We therefore carried out a literature review and each group met separately to discuss what characterises good involvement, and what the challenges are. From these discussions we developed a set of descriptions about each group. We compared the literature review findings with what came out of the discussions within the involvement groups.Findings Some of the involvement principles from the literature were similar to the priorities of the involvement groups. In addition, the groups identified characteristics of 'good' involvement practice that were not reported in the literature: passion and enthusiasm, informal and welcoming meeting spaces, and opportunities to share lived experiences. In this article we present examples of how principles for good involvement are practiced in these groups, and difficulties we have experienced.AbstractBackground Patient and public involvement is important for producing relevant and accessible health research. Evidence of impact from involvement is growing, but there is also a need for research on how to create conditions for meaningful collaborations between researchers and public advisers.Objective We report on a co-produced self-reflective evaluation of involvement practices in three UK research programmes.Methods A structured review identified research-based principles for 'good' public involvement in research. In parallel, members of three involvement groups co-developed statements on how the groups work, and enablers and challenges to collaborative research. The author team analysed these statements using the findings from the review.Results We identified 11 international articles reporting research-based principles for involvement published between 2013 and 2017. We identified five 'values' and seven 'practice principles' for 'good' involvement. There was convergence between these principles and the priorities of the involvement groups. But the groups also identified additional good involvement practice that were not reported by the literature: passion, enthusiasm, informal and welcoming meeting spaces, and opportunities to share lived experiences. We present examples of how principles for good involvement are practiced in these groups, and highlight principles that have been challenging to implement.Conclusions Ongoing appraisal of public involvement is crucial. We present a process for self-evaluation, illuminate what 'good' means to researchers and public advisers involved in research, and identify areas for improvement. We conclude that provision of resources that enable support to public advisers in turn enable universities and research teams to implement other principles of good involvement.
| S-EPMC7110674 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Health research priority setting processes assist researchers and policymakers in effectively targeting research that has the greatest potential public health benefit. Many different approaches to health research prioritization exist, but there is no agreement on what might constitute best practice. Moreover, because of the many different contexts for which priorities can be set, attempting to produce one best practice is in fact not appropriate, as the optimal approach varies per exercise. Therefore, following a literature review and an analysis of health research priority setting exercises that were organized or coordinated by the World Health Organization since 2005, we propose a checklist for health research priority setting that allows for informed choices on different approaches and outlines nine common themes of good practice. It is intended to provide generic assistance for planning health research prioritization processes. The checklist explains what needs to be clarified in order to establish the context for which priorities are set; it reviews available approaches to health research priority setting; it offers discussions on stakeholder participation and information gathering; it sets out options for use of criteria and different methods for deciding upon priorities; and it emphasizes the importance of well-planned implementation, evaluation and transparency.
| S-EPMC3018439 | biostudies-literature