Targets for Honesty: How Performance Indicators Shape Integrity in Dutch Higher Education

Overman, Sjors; Akkerman, Agnes; Torenvlied, René

doi:10.1111/padm.12282

Cited by 5 publications

(6 citation statements)

References 59 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…"Academic misconduct is considered to be the logical behavioral consequence of outputoriented management practices, based on performance incentives." [44] (p. 1140).…”

Section: Theoretical Background: Explanations For Misconductmentioning

confidence: 99%

Reflexive Behaviour: How Publication Pressure Affects Research Quality in Astronomy

Heuritsch¹

2021

Publications

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Reflexive metrics is a branch of science studies that explores how the demand for accountability and performance measurement in science has shaped the research culture in recent decades. Hypercompetition and publication pressure are part of this neoliberal culture. How do scientists respond to these pressures? Studies on research integrity and organisational culture suggest that people who feel treated unfairly by their institution are more likely to engage in deviant behaviour, such as scientific misconduct. By building up on reflexive metrics, combined with studies on the influence of organisational culture on research integrity, this study reflects on the research behaviour of astronomers with the following questions: (1) To what extent is research (mis-)behaviour reflexive, i.e., dependent on perceptions of publication pressure and distributive and organisational justice? (2) What impact does scientific misconduct have on research quality? In order to perform this reflection, we conducted a comprehensive survey of academic and non-academic astronomers worldwide and received 3509 responses. We found that publication pressure explains 10% of the variance in occurrence of misconduct and between 7% and 13% of the variance of the perception of distributive and organisational justice as well as overcommitment to work. Our results on the perceived impact of scientific misconduct on research quality show that the epistemic harm of questionable research practices should not be underestimated. This suggests there is a need for a policy change. In particular, lesser attention to metrics (such as publication rate) in the allocation of grants, telescope time and institutional rewards would foster better scientific conduct and, hence, research quality.

show abstract

“…"Academic misconduct is considered to be the logical behavioral consequence of outputoriented management practices, based on performance incentives." [44] (p. 1140).…”

Section: Theoretical Background: Explanations For Misconductmentioning

confidence: 99%

Reflexive Behaviour: How Publication Pressure Affects Research Quality in Astronomy

Heuritsch¹

2021

Publications

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The items reported for the framework of Bennett and Robinson (2000) are from the subscale 'organizational deviance,' which includes the behaviors of the former category 'production deviance' is negatively related to scholarly performance, whereas Lewis (2014) concludes that there is no relationship between scientists' attitudes toward performance measurement and their publication performance. Overman et al (2016) found a positive relationship between the specificity of performance contracts (i.e., the extent to which there are concrete and detailed agreements on performance targets regarding results and rewards) and the level of integrity (i.e., conforming to norms) that academics perceive at their workplace. Both studies, Lewis (2014) and Overman et al (2016), focused on the positive consequences of increasing the use of performance measurement practices in academia.…”

Section: Limitations and Future Researchmentioning

confidence: 98%

“…Overman et al (2016) found a positive relationship between the specificity of performance contracts (i.e., the extent to which there are concrete and detailed agreements on performance targets regarding results and rewards) and the level of integrity (i.e., conforming to norms) that academics perceive at their workplace. Both studies, Lewis (2014) and Overman et al (2016), focused on the positive consequences of increasing the use of performance measurement practices in academia. This viewpoint is not only consistent with our finding that performance measurement practices have positive as well as negative effects on scientists' behavior, but it is also in line with the extensive research on the positive effects of goal setting on performance (e.g., Locke 1990, 1991;Latham 2002, 2006).…”

Section: Limitations and Future Researchmentioning

confidence: 98%

Wanting More, Getting Less: Gaming Performance Measurement as a Form of Deviant Workplace Behavior

et al. 2017

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Investigating the causes of unethical behaviors in academia, such as scientific misconduct, has become a highly important research subject. The current performance measurement practices (e.g., equating research performance with the number of publications in top-tier journals) are frequently referred to as being responsible for scientists' unethical behaviors. We conducted qualitative semistructured interviews with different stakeholders of the higher education system (e.g., professors and policy makers; N = 43) to analyze the influence of performance measurement on scientists' behavior. We followed a threestep coding procedure and found (1) that the participants described a variety of positive behavioral consequences (e.g., higher productivity) but mainly negative behavioral consequences (e.g., questionable publishing practices) of current performance measurement practices in academia;(2) that scientists' behavior can be described as gaming performance measurement (i.e., achieving performance goals by reducing performance quality and focusing on those tasks that are measured); and (3) that gaming performance measurement shares the same characteristics as deviant workplace behavior (i.e., a voluntary violation of organizational norms that harms the university). We discuss that gaming performance measurement has not been considered as a type of deviant workplace behavior in the previous literature. Furthermore, we draw from research on deviant workplace behavior and goal setting to discuss psychological processes that may underlie gaming performance measurement. Our results indicate the importance of connecting literature on deviant workplace behavior and goal setting to advance our understanding of gaming performance measurement.

show abstract

“…When this happens, it can lead to corrupt individuals. Overman et al (2016) seem to subscribe to this proposition when they write: "Academic misconduct is considered to be the logical behavioral consequence of output-oriented management practices, based on performance incentives." (p. 1140).…”

Section: Six 12 : Ethos Of Public Administrationmentioning

confidence: 99%

Explanations of Research Misconduct, and How They Hang Together

Haven

Woudenberg

2021

J Gen Philos Sci

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In this paper, we explore different possible explanations for research misconduct (especially falsification and fabrication), and investigate whether they are compatible. We suggest that to explain research misconduct, we should pay attention to three factors: (1) the beliefs and desires of the misconductor, (2) contextual affordances, (3) and unconscious biases or influences. We draw on the three different narratives (individual, institutional, system of science) of research misconduct as proposed by Sovacool to review six different explanations. Four theories start from the individual: Rational Choice theory, Bad Apple theory, General Strain Theory and Prospect Theory. Organizational Justice Theory focuses on institutional factors, while New Public Management targets the system of science. For each theory, we illustrate the kinds of facts that must be known in order for explanations based on them to have minimal plausibility. We suggest that none can constitute a full explanation. Finally, we explore how the different possible explanations interrelate. We find that they are compatible, with the exception of explanations based on Rational Choice Theory and Prospect Theory respectively, which are incompatible with one another. For illustrative purposes we examine the case of Diederik Stapel.

show abstract

Targets for Honesty: How Performance Indicators Shape Integrity in Dutch Higher Education

Cited by 5 publications

References 59 publications

Reflexive Behaviour: How Publication Pressure Affects Research Quality in Astronomy

Reflexive Behaviour: How Publication Pressure Affects Research Quality in Astronomy

Wanting More, Getting Less: Gaming Performance Measurement as a Form of Deviant Workplace Behavior

Explanations of Research Misconduct, and How They Hang Together

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About