Teaching phronesis in a research integrity course

Goddiksen, Mads; Gjerris, Mickey

doi:10.1139/facets-2021-0064

Cited by 15 publications

(3 citation statements)

References 18 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…To change the culture in a research institution senior researchers must also receive research integrity training [ 6 ], and the norms of good authorship practice should be made clear to all staff. In addition, initiatives should be taken to promote and support the continued discussion of good authorship practice in the labs and corridors after the training has finished [ 45 , 46 ]. Clearly, these actions will in many instances require support and resources from the management level.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“The person in power told me to”—European PhD students’ perspectives on guest authorship and good authorship practice

et al. 2023

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Questionable authorship practices in scientific publishing are detrimental to research quality and management. The existing literature dealing with the prevalence, and perceptions, of such practices has focused on the medical sciences, and on experienced researchers. In contrast, this study investigated how younger researchers (PhD students) from across the faculties view fair authorship attribution, their experience with granting guest authorships to more powerful researchers and their reasons for doing so. Data for the study were collected in a survey of European PhD students. The final dataset included 1,336 participants from five European countries (Denmark, Hungary, Ireland, Portugal, and Switzerland) representing all major disciplines. Approximately three in ten reported that they had granted at least one guest authorship to “a person in power”. Half of these indicated that they had done so because they had been told to do so by the person in power. Participants from the medical, natural and technical sciences were much more likely to state that they had granted a guest authorship than those from other faculties. We identified four general views about what is sufficient for co-authorship. There were two dominant views. The first (inclusive view) considered a broad range of contributions to merit co-authorship. The second (strongly writing-oriented) emphasised that co-authors must have written a piece of the manuscript text. The inclusive view dominated in the natural, technical, and medical sciences. Participants from other faculties were more evenly distributed between the inclusive and writing oriented view. Those with an inclusive view were most likely to indicate that they have granted a guest authorship. According to the experiences of our participants, questionable authorship practices are prevalent among early-career researchers, and they appear to be reinforced through a combination of coercive power relations and dominant norms in some research cultures, particularly in the natural, technical, and medical sciences.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“The person in power told me to”—European PhD students’ perspectives on guest authorship and good authorship practice

et al. 2023

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Justifying research actions requires deeper insights, skills, and a tting mindset. We link the stagnation of how students justi ed their actions with Goddiksen's and Gjerri's request that changes of mindsets take (training) time [21].…”

Section: Table 5: Standardized Residuals Of the Scienti C Actionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Recent studies by Koterwas et al [20] and Goddiksen and Gjerris [21] summarize various teaching objectives and methods in such training, pointing to dialogical approaches [20] and advocating for longer training to enable students' mindset to grow [21]. Shanahan et al [22] speci cally document the latest progress on how to teach FAIR, and Sefcik et al [23] proper data management and to explain and justify arguments for FAIR data management [25].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Training to act FAIR: A pre-post study on teaching FAIR guiding principles to (future) researchers in higher education.

Priess-Buchheit,

Hermeking,

Möbius

2023

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background By supporting data management teams, promoting legal frameworks on the FAIR guiding principles, and embedding FAIR training, the scientific community tried to implement the FAIR guiding principles to foster open science in higher education since 2016. However, it still needs to be determined what strategies work and which do not in fostering open science. This article is the first step to closing this research gap by examining one strategy, the effectiveness of FAIR training in higher education. Methods With a pre-post test design, the study evaluates the effectiveness of FAIR training on students' scientific actions and justifications in line with FAIR guiding principles. The study also assesses the influence of university legal frameworks on students' inclination towards FAIR training. We analyze the students' response behavior with odds ratios and Pearson's -chi-square-test, with the null being that response behavior is independent of pre-and post-testing. On top of that, we observe with a volcano plot what learning factors students rate highest in FAIR training. Results Before FAIR training, 81.1% of students suggest scientific actions not in line with the FAIR guiding principles. However, after the training, there is a 3.75-fold increase in scientific actions that adhere to these principles. Interestingly, the training does not significantly impact how students justify FAIR actions. The study observes a positive correlation between the presence of university legal frameworks on FAIR guiding principles and students' inclination towards FAIR training. It explicates safe space, participation, motivation, usefulness, and satisfaction as the five highest-rated learning factors in FAIR training. Conclusions The study highlights the effectiveness of FAIR training. It underscores the training potential in driving the transition towards open science in higher education and shows how much university legal frameworks can push toward such training. Students rate FAIR training as very useful and satisfactory. Important learning factors in effective FAIR training seem to be creating a safe space, letting students contribute, and encouraging students to engage in the training. However, the study also reveals the need for further training improvement, particularly in enhancing students' ability to justify FAIR actions. Trial registration is not applicable as this study involves no clinical trial. The study involves an educational intervention to improve students' actions and justifications of the FAIR guiding principles in scientific research. Kiel University (Germany) collected the open data in this study between June 2019 and November 2022. The institutional research committee (Central Ethics Committee of the University of Kiel) approved all procedures performed in the data collection with the approval number ZEK-10/20.

show abstract

Ethics and Integrity in Research, Publishing, and Educational Leadership: Introduction

Tauginienė

2023

Handbook of Academic Integrity

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Teaching phronesis in a research integrity course

Cited by 15 publications

References 18 publications

“The person in power told me to”—European PhD students’ perspectives on guest authorship and good authorship practice

“The person in power told me to”—European PhD students’ perspectives on guest authorship and good authorship practice

Training to act FAIR: A pre-post study on teaching FAIR guiding principles to (future) researchers in higher education.

Ethics and Integrity in Research, Publishing, and Educational Leadership: Introduction

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About