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.     

沃尔玛中国市场商业诚信危机现象反思

近年来,沃尔玛在中国市场频频发生商业诚信危机,作为世界零售企业第一的沃尔玛出现这种现象,值得深思。本文通过统计沃尔玛进入中国市场以来所发生的产生较大影响的负面事件,并结合相关学者的研究成果对沃尔玛中国商业诚信危机现象进行了深入的分析与总结,从过度追求低成本、本土化与企业文化冲突、监管缺失及消费市场成熟度不够等方面分析了沃尔玛在中国市场频频出现商业诚信危机的深层次原因,并在最后针对这种现象从企业内部及外部提出了一些对策建议。     

Exploring rigour in autoethnographic research

Abstract

The changing face of qualitative research has opened up discourses on the validity and rigour of research processes and products. A current debate is whether the criteria traditionally used to judge the rigour of quantitative research are appropriate to assess the academic integrity of qualitative research including autoethnography. The purpose of this article is to appraise views on the academic rigour, validity and scientific accountability of research in general and autoethnographic research in particular. The researcher reports on issues of rigour in conducting autoethnographic research from her own experience and that of published autoethnographic researchers. The issue of relevant appraisal criteria against which the research integrity and rigour of autoethnographic studies can be assessed is investigated. It is concluded that the academic rigour of autoethnographic studies should be established to enhance its credibility and value and that the criteria used need to be judiciously determined and applied.     

Which ethics for science and public policy?

The problem of inaccurate, misapplied or fraudulent scientific data could be addressed by government regulations, or by self‐regulation from within science itself. To many, self‐regulation implies the grounding of research activities in some “neutral”; standard of “ethics”; acceptable in a “pluralistic”; society. Yet, there is no such thing as a “neutral ethics”; and many “contemporary”; theories contain such serious theoretical deficiencies and contradictions that they are practically inapplicable. As a viable alternative to these theoretical and practical problems, an objectively based realistic framework of ethics is considered, and used to ground both the individual scientific and the collective public policy decision making processes. This is an ethics of properly integrated relationships. It is then applied to an analysis of many of the causes of incorrect scientific data, as well as of many of the internal and external pressures and abuses often experienced by scientists today. This approach respects the integrity of each decision maker as a human being and a moral agent—which in turn better insures the integrity of the protocol, the data, and the public policy decisions which follow—and ultimately, the integrity of the scientific enterprise itself. The alternative is government regulations.     

Protecting the Public's Health in An Era of Bioterrorism: The Model State Emergency Health Powers Act

During the fall of 2001, public health law scholars at the Center for Law and the Public's Health at Georgetown and Johns Hopkins Universities were asked by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) and a series of national partners to develop the Model State Emergency Health Powers Act (MSEHPA). The MSEHPA provides a series of modern powers for states to consider in responding to catastrophic public health emergencies, including bioterrorism events. Since December 2001, provisions based on the MSEHPA have been introduced in nearly 40 states and passed in 20. Underlying the development of the act is a long-standing debate between legal and ethical scholars and law- and policymakers as to the appropriate ways to balance individual and communal rights. The drafting challenge was to create a comprehensive model law that provides adequate powers to protect the public's health while also respecting individual and group rights. The MSEHPA empowers public health agents with broad authority and simultaneously limits the exercise of power in time, duration, and scope to accomplish communal goals of abating serious public health threats. Coercive public health powers, particularly isolation and quarantine, are exercised on a temporary basis, only so long as are reasonably necessary and only among persons who justifiably may pose a risk to others because of their contagious conditions. Individual rights to contest the coercive use of public health powers, even during an emergency, are secured.     

Data Audit as a Way to Prevent/Contain Misconduct

Research misconduct is frequently in the media headlines. There is consensus among leading experts on research integrity that the prevalence of misconduct in research is at least 1%, and shoddy work may even go over 5%. Unfortunately, misconduct in research impacts all walks of life from drugs to human subject protections, innovations, economy, policy, and even our national security. The main method of detecting research misconduct depends primarily on whistleblowers. The current regulations are insufficient since dependence on whistleblowers manifests itself as an accidental hit or miss. No other endeavor in our society depends on such a poor system of discovery of misconduct to remedy it. Nearly a quarter of a century ago, I proposed data audit as a means to prevent/contain research misconduct. The audit has to protect the creative process and be non-obtrusive. Data audit evaluates the degree of correspondence of published data with the source data. The proposed data audit does not require any changes in the way researchers carry out their work.     

Infusing Research Integrity Principles and Practices into a Regional Master's Degree–Intensive University: A Case Study

The need for institutions of higher education to advance research and scholarly integrity across graduate degree programs involves a strong commitment from each institution to develop a comprehensive approach for promoting responsible conduct of research (RCR). In response to this need, one master's-intensive regional university implemented a three-tier model project (focusing, developing, and evaluating/sustaining) for infusing research integrity principles and practices while promoting RCR. Components of the model and implementation strategies are presented as a case study analysis. Implications of the model for promoting the RCR are projected relative to graduate programs focused on applied research.     

周公的“明德慎罚”法律思想及其现代启示

德才兼备的周公是我国历史上第一位提出较系统的法律主张的思想家和政治家。其卓越的刑法思想体系完备,内容充满历史进步性和时代先进性,标志着我国夏、商、周时期的法律思想有了重大发展。尤其是他提出的“明德慎罚”法律思想理论,包含了“崇尚德政”和“慎用刑罚”的主张,充满睿智和人性的光辉,对后世充满积极而深远的影响,对我国当今法治与社会建设也有着积极的启示意义。     

《说文解字》所收度量衡量词简论

我国度量衡起源很早。历代度量衡都经历了不断演变的过程。《说文解字》所收度量衡量词大致包括长度单位量词、地积单位量词、容量单位量词、重量单位量词等。其说解简明扼要,溯源穷流;有点有面,各成系统;既言汉世规章,又述周代古制。《说文解字》对所收度量衡量词的说解,充分反映出中国文化＂天人合一＂的思想。     

关于民俗志书写的几点思考

随着民俗学研究范式的转变,民俗志书写逐渐成为民俗学的基本研究方式之一。然而,当前民俗志书写中存在诸多问题与不足:书写样式八股化,书写中看不到人的在场,没有情境的呈现,弃用生动的民俗话语,缺乏地方感。一篇成功的民俗志应该以深度描述、深度解释为基础,力求整体性叙事,具有反思精神,讲究生动的写作风格,从而立体化地呈现出民俗生活的本质和意义。