EFFECTING CULTURAL CHANGE IN RESEARCH ETHICS AND INTEGRITY Encouraging a culture of research integrity Andrew C. Rawnsley

Concordat to Support Research Integrity (2012) Commitments to: Maintain the highest standards of rigour and integrity in all aspects of research Ensure that research is conducted according to appropriate ethical, legal and professional frameworks, obligations and standards Support a culture of integrity and the development of researchers Deal properly and fairly with allegations of research misconduct Strengthen the integrity of research across the sector and review progress collectively

What do we mean by “a culture of integrity”?

Concordat – Commitment 3 Maintaining the highest standards in research requires the right environment. It is the responsibility of employers of researchers – and all those undertaking, supporting or otherwise engaged with research – to maintain a culture that nurtures good practice. A research environment that helps to develop good research practice and embeds a culture of research integrity should, as a minimum, include: – clear policies, practices and procedures to support researchers – suitable learning, training and mentoring opportunities to support the development of researchers – robust management systems to ensure that policies relating to research integrity are implemented – awareness among researchers of the standards and behaviours that are expected of them – systems within the research environment that identify potential concerns at an early stage and mechanisms for providing support to researchers in need of assistance

Concordat – Commitment 3 researchers should take a proactive role in their own personal development employers of researchers will: – embed these features in their own systems, processes and practices – work towards reflecting recognised best practice in their own systems, processes & practices – implement the Concordat within their research environment

Research Environments Research institutions should create and sustain environments that encourage integrity through education, clear policies, and reasonable standards for advancement, while fostering work environments that support research integrity Singapore Statement on Research Integrity (2010)

European Code of Conduct for Research Integrity (2010) Universities, institutes and all others who employ researchers, as well as agencies and organisations funding their scientific work, have a duty to ensure a prevailing culture of research integrity. This involves clear policies and procedures, training and mentoring of researchers, and robust management methods that ensure awareness and application of high standards as well as early identification and, wherever possible, prevention of any transgression. While principles of integrity, and the violation thereof, have a universal character, some rules for good practice may be subject to cultural differences, and should be part of a set of national or institutional guidelines. These cannot easily be incorporated into a universal code of conduct.

Montreal Statement on Research Integrity (2013) “collaborations present special challenges”: substantial differences in regulatory and legal systems organizational and funding structures research cultures approaches to training Customary Practices and Assumptions: Collaborating partners should openly discuss their customary practices and assumptions related to the research. Diversity of perspectives, expertise and methods, and differences in customary practices, standards and assumptions that could compromise the integrity of the research should be addressed openly.

culture support development environment nurture good practice(s) education clear policies guidance mentoring

Two major aspects… and ‘resistances’ Attitudinal Structural

The ‘there is no problem’ problem Researchers think that they are ethical, understand the issues Researchers think that they have integrity How to address problems not perceived to be there? Ethics review relies on procedural ‘rightness’ as justification Compliance rationale

European Code of Conduct for Research Integrity This Code of Conduct is not a body of law, but rather a canon for self regulation. It is a basic responsibility of the scientific community to formulate the principles and virtues of scientific and scholarly research, to define its criteria for proper research behaviour, and to set its own house in order in case scientific integrity is threatened.

Openness and integrity “In order to stave off the steady rise of regulation and monitoring and to present a coherent alternative to instrumental views about research, it falls to researchers themselves to define the ethos of openness” …”clear and coherent communication about ‘what researchers do’ and ‘how researchers do it’ on the part of researchers themselves and those who support researchers, as well as a willingness to discuss and share these insights widely, on the part of institutions.” through-research-integrity/

Aspects of organisational context that affect ethical decisions Clarity and openness, allowing variety of viewpoints to be put across openly and without fear of reprisal; Representation of stakeholder groups among decision-makers; Willingness to actively seek and listen to challenges to prevailing views; Willingness to devote time to decisions proportionate to complexity & impact; Consultation which is justified, genuine and honest. National Inquiry into Organisational Ethical Decision Making in the NHS

building ethics and values into decision-making is not just a way of avoiding pitfalls... effectiveness means positively pursuing ethical values as well as more familiar concerns such as quality and value for money... ethics can also be a strong motivator, building a sense of organisational identity and purpose, and connecting individuals to the social and moral, as well as the financial, consequences of their decisions

(clear) policies (consistent) regulations formal standards formal guidance ‘training’ support formal institutional practices

(clear) policies (consistent) regulations formal standards formal guidance ‘training’ support ‘commonly accepted’ practices customary assumptions customary standards customary practices researcher(s) attitudesresearcher(s) behaviour tone from the top incentives

Things to reflect on… There is plenty of empirical evidence to show that neither codes of conduct/practice nor ‘training’ work to enable a culture of integrity Structures hinder rather than enable positive culture The keys to effective research integrity are… ????????