Stakeholders' perspectives on research integrity training practices: a qualitative study.

Daniel Pizzolato, Kris Dierickx
Author Information
  1. Daniel Pizzolato: Department of Public Health and Primary Care, Centre for Biomedical Ethics and Law, KU Leuven, 3000, Leuven, Belgium. daniel.pizzolato@kuleuven.be. ORCID
  2. Kris Dierickx: Department of Public Health and Primary Care, Centre for Biomedical Ethics and Law, KU Leuven, 3000, Leuven, Belgium. ORCID

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Even though research integrity (RI) training programs have been developed in the last decades, it is argued that current training practices are not always able to increase RI-related awareness within the scientific community. Defining and understanding the capacities and lacunas of existing RI training are becoming extremely important for developing up-to-date educational practices to tackle present-day challenges. Recommendations on how to implement RI education have been primarily made by selected people with specific RI-related expertise. Those recommendations were developed mainly without consulting a broader audience with no specific RI expertise. Moreover, the academic literature lacks qualitative studies on RI training practices. For these reasons, performing in-depth focus groups with non-RI expert stakeholders are of a primary necessity to understand and outline how RI education should be implemented.
METHODS: In this qualitative analysis, different focus groups were conducted to examine stakeholders' perspectives on RI training practices. Five stakeholders' groups, namely publishers and peer reviewers, researchers on RI, RI trainers, PhDs and postdoctoral researchers, and research administrators working within academia, have been identified to have a broader overview of state of the art.
RESULTS: A total of 39 participants participated in five focus group sessions. Eight training-related themes were highlighted during the focus group discussions. The training goals, timing and frequency, customisation, format and teaching approach, mentoring, compulsoriness, certification and evaluation, and RI-related responsibilities were discussed. Although confirming what was already proposed by research integrity experts in terms of timing, frequency, duration, and target audience in organising RI education, participants proposed other possible implementations strategies concerning the teaching approach, researchers' obligations, and development an evaluation-certification system.
CONCLUSIONS: This research aims to be a starting point for a better understanding of necessary, definitive, and consistent ways of structuring RI education. The research gives an overview of what has to be considered needed in planning RI training sessions regarding objectives, organisation, and teaching approach.

Keywords

References

  1. Sci Eng Ethics. 2001 Jul;7(4):541-58 [PMID: 11697010]
  2. J Med Ethics. 2010 Oct;36(10):614-9 [PMID: 20797979]
  3. J Microbiol Biol Educ. 2014 Dec 15;15(2):108-16 [PMID: 25574258]
  4. Account Res. 2011 Mar;18(2):71-5 [PMID: 21390871]
  5. J Empir Res Hum Res Ethics. 2017 Feb;12(1):33-44 [PMID: 28220725]
  6. Int J Qual Health Care. 2007 Dec;19(6):349-57 [PMID: 17872937]
  7. Lancet. 2013 Mar 30;381(9872):1097-8 [PMID: 23540852]
  8. Sci Eng Ethics. 2008 Sep;14(3):323-36 [PMID: 18615274]
  9. Sci Eng Ethics. 2013 Sep;19(3):685-701 [PMID: 22740035]
  10. Account Res. 2020 May;27(4):195-211 [PMID: 32122167]
  11. Sci Eng Ethics. 2018 Feb;24(1):227-249 [PMID: 28299561]
  12. PLoS Med. 2005 Aug;2(8):e124 [PMID: 16060722]
  13. Sci Eng Ethics. 2017 Dec;23(6):1719-1754 [PMID: 28150177]
  14. Sci Eng Ethics. 2015 Oct;21(5):1181-96 [PMID: 25344843]
  15. Sci Eng Ethics. 2021 Jan 27;27(1):5 [PMID: 33502635]
  16. Sci Eng Ethics. 2019 Jun;25(3):899-910 [PMID: 29397552]
  17. Acad Med. 2007 Sep;82(9):870-5 [PMID: 17726394]
  18. Acad Med. 2007 Sep;82(9):846-52 [PMID: 17726389]
  19. J Clin Transl Sci. 2017 Jan 13;1(1):8-15 [PMID: 31660210]
  20. Account Res. 2009 Jul;16(4):218-28 [PMID: 20183162]
  21. Sci Eng Ethics. 2003 Apr;9(2):273-90 [PMID: 12774659]
  22. Trends Pharmacol Sci. 2016 Apr;37(4):290-302 [PMID: 26776451]
  23. Nature. 2016 May 25;533(7604):452-4 [PMID: 27225100]
  24. J Microbiol Biol Educ. 2014 Dec 15;15(2):93-5 [PMID: 25574254]
  25. Am J Bioeth. 2002 Fall;2(4):38-49 [PMID: 12762924]
  26. Sci Eng Ethics. 2015 Apr;21(2):461-9 [PMID: 24760542]
  27. Science. 2013 Jun 21;340(6139):1403 [PMID: 23788782]
  28. Ethics Behav. 2017;27(5):351-384 [PMID: 30740008]
  29. Sci Eng Ethics. 2001 Jul;7(4):471-82 [PMID: 11697003]
  30. Account Res. 2018;25(6):311-339 [PMID: 29954230]
  31. Sci Eng Ethics. 2001 Jul;7(4):455-68 [PMID: 11697001]
  32. Sci Eng Ethics. 2020 Jun;26(3):1287-1313 [PMID: 31587149]
  33. JAMA. 2013 Nov 27;310(20):2191-4 [PMID: 24141714]
  34. J Gerontol B Psychol Sci Soc Sci. 2020 Oct 16;75(9):1996-2007 [PMID: 31131848]
  35. Nature. 2008 Jun 19;453(7198):980-2 [PMID: 18563131]
  36. Account Res. 2012;19(6):329-43 [PMID: 23074991]
  37. Sci Eng Ethics. 2011 Jun;17(2):289-97 [PMID: 20213534]
  38. Sci Eng Ethics. 2010 Mar;16(1):185-200 [PMID: 20155404]
  39. Sci Eng Ethics. 2017 Feb;23(1):243-262 [PMID: 26818458]
  40. Science. 2013 May 3;340(6132):552-3 [PMID: 23641099]
  41. Sci Eng Ethics. 2018 Aug;24(4):1023-1034 [PMID: 29855866]
  42. Bull Math Biol. 2018 Dec;80(12):3071-3080 [PMID: 30194523]
  43. Sci Eng Ethics. 2001 Jul;7(4):525-37; discussion 538-40 [PMID: 11697009]
  44. Nature. 2013 Mar 28;495(7442):449 [PMID: 23538818]
  45. Science. 2008 Nov 21;322(5905):1186 [PMID: 19023060]
  46. Acad Med. 2007 Sep;82(9):876-8 [PMID: 17726396]

Grants

  1. N 787580/Horizon 2020 Framework Programme

MeSH Term

Focus Groups
Humans
Qualitative Research
Referral and Consultation
Research Personnel

Word Cloud

Created with Highcharts 10.0.0RItrainingresearchpracticeseducationfocusintegrityRI-relatedqualitativegroupsteachingapproachdevelopedwithinunderstandingspecificexpertisebroaderaudiencestakeholders'perspectivesresearchersoverviewparticipantsgroupsessionstimingfrequencyproposedstudyBACKGROUND:EventhoughprogramslastdecadesarguedcurrentalwaysableincreaseawarenessscientificcommunityDefiningcapacitieslacunasexistingbecomingextremelyimportantdevelopingup-to-dateeducationaltacklepresent-daychallengesRecommendationsimplementprimarilymadeselectedpeoplerecommendationsmainlywithoutconsultingMoreoveracademicliteraturelacksstudiesreasonsperformingin-depthnon-RIexpertstakeholdersprimarynecessityunderstandoutlineimplementedMETHODS:analysisdifferentconductedexamineFivenamelypublisherspeerreviewerstrainersPhDspostdoctoraladministratorsworkingacademiaidentifiedstateartRESULTS:total39participatedfiveEighttraining-relatedthemeshighlighteddiscussionsgoalscustomisationformatmentoringcompulsorinesscertificationevaluationresponsibilitiesdiscussedAlthoughconfirmingalreadyexpertstermsdurationtargetorganisingpossibleimplementationsstrategiesconcerningresearchers'obligationsdevelopmentevaluation-certificationsystemCONCLUSIONS:aimsstartingpointbetternecessarydefinitiveconsistentwaysstructuringgivesconsideredneededplanningregardingobjectivesorganisationStakeholders'practices:PreventivemeasuresQualitativeVirtue-related

Similar Articles

Cited By