Education and training policies for research integrity: Insights from a focus group study

Abstract

Education is important for fostering research integrity (RI). Although RI training is increasingly provided, there is little knowledge on how research stakeholders view institutional RI education and training policies. Following a constructivist approach, we present insights about research stakeholders’ views and experiences regarding how research institutions can develop and implement RI education and training policies. We conducted thirty focus groups, engaging 147 participants in eight European countries. Using a mixed deductive-inductive thematic analysis, we identified five themes: (1) RI education should be available to all; (2) education and training approaches and goals should be tailored; (3) motivating trainees is essential; (4) both formal and informal educational formats are necessary; and (5) institutions should take into account various individual, institutional, and system-of-science factors when implementing RI education. Our findings suggest that institutions should make RI education attractive for all and tailor training to disciplinary-specific contexts.

Perception and reaction of Nanyang Technological University (NTU) researchers to different forms of research integrity education modality

“…As one respondent pointed out, more specialised information may be required as research activities get more specific. This is also in-line with existing research that RI education should be tailored to researchers’ discipline and level of experience [ 20 , 21 ]. If possible, steps should be taken to further accommodate different learning styles.…”

“…The issue of competing priorities is not unique to Compass e-newsletters. Resistance to RI education due to competing priorities was also highlighted at Labib and colleagues [ 20 ]. Qualitative feedback for Compass e-newsletters was mixed, with most thinking that it is a spam email that clutters their inbox, while a few respondents appreciated it for the timely updates.…”

“…This is consistent with findings from Labib and colleagues that many researchers are still resistant to RI education. While mandating certain modes of RI education as a solution was agreed upon, there is concern that it will create even more resistance and become an obstacle to RI education instead [ 20 ]. Other strategies can be considered to boost participation rates in non-compulsory education modes, which has a baseline participation rate of < 38%.…”

Seven challenges for research integrity education: current status and recommendations

“…These global developments, however, do not imply that all research organizations have a mandatory or default offer on integrity courses available (see , nor that such courses are of comparable quality or are offered to the same target groups. Despite the great variety of courses, modules and training that cater to the needs of a diverse set of target groups, topical areas and contexts, there is a need for improvements and voids to be filled, including training that attracts and speaks to more senior academics, training of non-researcher staff, and the availability of training materials in national languages (Labib et al 2022).…”

How to set the agenda for training in responsible conduct of research using the target audience as a narrative guide

“…As RCR training should be tailored to the target group (Anderson et al 2012;Labib et al 2022), should address the needs of specific day-to-day research practices, and should be a bottom-up process (Zwart and Ter Meulen 2019), it is important to tailor training to UAS researchers and therefore involve them early on in the process of training development. How does one achieve that?…”