Current research integrity (RI) guideline development methods can miss diverging perspectives, but these are crucial for accounting for stakeholders’ needs across countries and disciplines. Co-creation could be a promising RI guideline development method. We conducted interviews with 22 stakeholders taking part in an RI guideline co-creation project. Our results indicate that stakeholders believe that co-creation stimulates the expression of diverse perspectives. Furthermore, they say that co-creation is powerful in engaging stakeholders, and increasing support for the guidelines. Our interviewees expressed that various features of co-creation contribute towards evoking a broad range of valuable ideas. Co-creation was deemed valuable for producing a rich harvest, including reaching agreement on crucial guideline elements, and for understanding important nuances. Our interviewees supported the use of a multi-stage co-creation methodology for the initial phases of RI guideline development. Based on these findings, we recommend guideline developers to consider using co-creation to bring together diverse perspectives.

There is little research on how guidance provided in the European Code of Conduct for Research Integrity (ALLEA code) compares with recommendations developed by European discipline-specific learned societies. We identified, and conducted a content analysis of, 58 guideline documents from 245 societies. Less than 25% of societies in any discipline provide guidance and there are notable disciplinary differences. Recommendations not reflected in the ALLEA code relate primarily to research culture and environment. Medical and Health Sciences societies often focus on regulatory and procedural aspects of research, whereas Natural Sciences societies emphasize the importance of accurate and appropriate dissemination of results. Humanities and Social Sciences societies’ recommendations are more heterogenous and relate to the nature of specific sub-disciplines. Our results reflect differences in epistemological approaches as well as the specific role and responsibilities of societies as membership organizations. We recommend that societies develop, or endorse, appropriate research integrity guidance.

ZusammenfassungIris Lechner ist Gesundheits- und Kinderkrankenpflegerin und hat bis Ende Februar 2018 im stationären Kinderhospiz St. Nikolaus in Bad Grönenbach gearbeitet. Momentan lebt sie in der Schweiz und arbeitet dort als diplomierte Pflegefachfrau an der Universitätsklinik für Kinderheilkunde auf der pädiatrischen Hämatologie/Onkologie des Inselspitals Bern. Zudem ist sie seit vier Jahren als Kinderkrankenpflegerin im jährlich stattfindenden Süddeutschen Familienseminar tätig. In ihrem Beitrag stellt Iris Lechner aus eigener Erfahrung zwei pflegerische Tätigkeitsfelder in der Kinder- und Jugendhospizarbeit vor und gibt so einen wertvollen Blick in die skizzierten Arbeitsbereiche.

No abstract

Epistemic responsibilities of universities concern equipping and empowering its researchers, educators and students to attain, produce, exchange and disseminate knowledge. Epistemic responsibilities can potentially guide universities in improving their education, research and in service to society. In this study we identified six epistemic responsibilities: 1) to foster research integrity, 2) to stimulate the development of intellectual virtues, 3) to address the big questions of life, 4) to cultivate the diversity of the disciplinary fields, 5) to serve and engage with society at large, and 6) to cultivate and safeguard academic freedom.