Is failure to raise concerns about misconduct a breach of integrity? Researchers’ reflections on reporting misconduct

This article describes and discusses the views of researchers on the significance of raising concerns about scientific misconduct in their work environment and the reasons or circumstances that might deter them from doing so. In this exploratory qualitative research study, we conducted in-depth interviews with 33 researchers working in life sciences and medicine. They represent three seniority levels and five universities across Switzerland. A large majority of respondents in this research study argued that failure to raise concerns about scientific misconduct compromises research integrity. This is an encouraging result demonstrating that researchers try to adhere to high ethical standards. However, further interaction with respondents highlighted that this correct ethical assessment does not lead researchers to take the consequent action of raising concerns. The factors that discourage researchers from raising concerns need to be addressed at the level of research groups, institutions, and by setting a positive precedent which helps them to believe in the system’s ability to investigate concerns raised in a timely and professional manner. Training of researchers in research integrity related issues will have limited utility unless it is coupled with the creation of research culture where raising concerns is a standard practice of scientific and research activities.     

Disability policy in Australia: a triumph of the scriptio inferior on impotence and neediness?

From the time that development of a National Disability Insurance Scheme arrived on the agenda of the Australian Labor Government's 2008 Ideas Summit, the lives of disabled Australian citizens have been widely discussed, consulted on, planned for and acted on. This discourse analysis (Fairclough 2003; 2010) critiques the ways in which disabled lives have been framed in these high profile policy debates, with detailed focus on two key policy documents. The Shut Out Report: the Experiences of People with Disabilities in Australia (2009) (2009) and Disability Care and Support (Productivity Commission 2011) are both grounded in extensive national consultations and provide significant evidence about the ways that disabled Australians talk about the problems they face and the solutions they advocate. The paper employs the well‐known recognition‐redistribution debate of Nancy Fraser and Axel Honneth (2003) to interpret the findings that narratives of suffering, burden and marginalisation predominate in current policy conversations. This tends to push out discussions concerning the non‐redistributive aspects of disability reform, potentially contributing to non‐integrationist discourse entrenched over 150 years of policies of segregation. Minority voices advocating social integration are present but muted. At this stage, their influence is undetermined.