The Aim of the report To provide current state of art of the codes, - - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

REPORT ON CODES OF CONDUCT AND BEST PRACTICES IN RESEARCH INTEGRITY OF LERU UNIVERSITIES

Itziar de Lecuona & Erika Löfström

Universitat de Barcelona University of Helsinki

The Aim of the report

• To provide current state of art of the codes, guidelines and best

practices …

• …. in order to identify common principles, goals, procedures,

differences, added values and potential loopholes between policies and actions in research integrity of member institutions.

Data

• The analyses rely on the research integrity documents provided by the

universities in connection to the LERU Research Integrity Survey 2013.

• N =17
• Some universities have revised the codes since the survey or are currently

revising them (e.g. University of Zurich) or have reorganised or are currently reorganising their website on research ethics and integrity (e.g. KU Leuven, University of Helsinki). When available, we have strived to use the updted knowledge.

• Excluded or addressed to a limited extent: documents outlining a) the

processes for handling allegations of misconduct; b) the use of human research participants, biological samples and personal data or research using animals; c) activities of ethics review boards.

Analyses*

• Overview and Approach
• Are guidelines national or institutional, or are they established by other bodies?
• To what extent do the guidelines rely on ethical principles as a foundation?
• Do the guidelines include practical guidance or case analysis?
• Is the purpose of the guidelines defined?
• Are the core concepts used in the guidelines defined?
• Responsibility
• To what extent do the guidelines distinguish whose responsibility research ethics/integrity is, and how is the responsibility

communicated?

• Accessibility
• How do institutions deliver information about the guidelines on their websites, and how easily accesible is the information?
• How do institutions communicate research integrity matters to the research community and society?

*The framework was inspired by the Australian Integrity Standards Project, e.g. East, J. 2009. Aligning policy and practice: An approach to integrating academic integrity. Journal of Academic Language and Learning, 3(1), A38-A51; Bretag, T., Mahmud, S., Wallace, M., Walker, R., McGowan, U., East, J., Green, M., Partridge, L., & James, C. 2013. ‘Teach us how to do it properly,!’ An Australian academic integrity student survey. Studies in Higher Education, 39(7), 1150-1169.

Overview of results

• Great variation in terms of the detail provided in the documents and

references, which makes their comparison difficult

• Some focus on the general principles of research (e.g. Guidelines of

the Finnish Advisory Board for Research Integrity, University of Geneva Charter of Ethics), whereas others provide more specific descriptions of specific practices and related contents (e.g. the Netherlands Code of Conduct for Scientific Practice and the UKRIO code and guidelines), and some have strong focus on the process e.g. complaint process (e.g. University of Amsterdam).

OVERVIEW AND APPROACH

National or institutional policies?

• Some universities have developed their own code of ethics or good

practices for research, while institutions commonly refer to National or local guidelines, statements or codes, developed by other bodies.

• Sometimes a combination of both is presented to establish general to

particular rules.

• Most guidelines contain a purpose statement detailing why the guidelines

have been created and what they intend to achieve. A vision of the purpose of the guidelines as part of the institution’s overall research strategy may serve to establish a culture of respect for integrity in research.

• Often no reference to date of adoption or possible revision, and the reader

may be unsure of whether the guidelines are the most updated ones.

Proactive, preventive or reactive approaches?

• The documents and references differ in terms of the stance they take on

proactive, preventive and reactive approaches.

• Some universities first establish a statement on principles and definitions of

integrity, and then outline associated procedures (e.g. how to make a complaint and procedures for handling misconduct allegations). Other guidelines emphasize the process of detecting misconduct providing relatively little guidelines on principles and definitions. There are references to research misconduct, but it appears that “Responsible Research and Innovation” (as established in HORIZON 2020 FP) is gaining more and more ground.

• The terminology used reflects aspects of the approach taken towards ethics and

integrity: Is the focus on proactively promoting high ethical standards, on preventing misconduct, or on reacting when there have been allegations of misconduct? All approaches serve a function, i.e. if researchers fall over, there needs to be procedures in place, but equally important is the work done in order to promote high integrity standards.

Common ethical principles?

• Most guidelines present a set of ethical principles, which, however, vary

with some relying on a values approach (e.g. Lund University) and some on a normative approach (e.g. UKRIO Code of Practice for Research).

• Openness and accountability, autonomy and maintaining independence,

responsibility in teaching and supervision, objectivity and impartiality, and integrity were among the most commonly addressed aspects of research

• integrity. Single “hits” were found on awareness of consequence,

acknowledgement of contrasting views/findings; promoting a good work climate; responsibility in other tasks e.g. reviewing, and connecting university research with society (e.g. Imperial College London, Lund University).

• Irrespective of which principles are highlighted, it is vital that these are

clearly defined.

Education and capacity building in in research in integrity

• National level documents generally recognise the importance of providing ethics and integrity

training to staff and students, and outline responsibilities in this regard. It is important that the necessity of training is recognised and institutions are explicitly given the mandate to train students and academic staff.

• Some guidelines have integrated educative aspects within them, and utilize cases, flow charts,

multimedia material, checklists, and realistic examples and dilemmas as a complement to foster integrity in research. There is merit in these efforts to foster integrity in research through translating principles to practice and raise discussion about the meaning and functions of these principles and related procedures.

• UKRIO Code of Practice for Research adopted by the University of Edinburgh contains a checklist of key points
• f good scientific practice for researchers
• Lund University guidelines provides suggestions on how to approach and discuss ethical issues
• Lund and the Netherlands Code of Conduct for Scientific Practice contain vignettes/dilemmas to encourage

readers to reflect on ethical issues.

• A general conclusion is, however, that training is not always a recognised priority. A good practice

is to link information about training schemes on the appropriate integrity web site (e.g. University

• f Zurich).

ACCESSIBILITY

Access to research integrity in guidelines

• All universities have dedicated sites to general information for ethics and

integrity, but the scope of material and information varies.

• At best, the ethics guidelines and guidance are three “clicks” away from the

university home page. One of the most logical / easiest routes appears to go via the universities’ “Research” links.

• Generally, if one knows what search terms to use, information can be found

relatively easily. However, if one tries navigating the web pages starting on the home page, it is less likely to easily find what one is looking for. The guidelines appear under research-related pages, graduate education, administration, or research collaboration.

• Access is a matter of facilitating adherence to guidelines and procedures of one’s

institution, and generating interest in the institution’s integrity policies and practices among external stakeholders. It is a question of trust and transparency: Clear, visible and accessible integrity documentation signals that there are clear standards promoting excellence in research.

RESPONSIBILITY

Responsibility

• A clear statement of whom the codes and guidelines concern is

important in terms of helping individuals recognise whether they belong to the target group or not.

• Some research integrity guidelines exclude certain groups (e.g.

university administration) or add additional levels of detail by distinguishing between organisational and individual responsibility.