Research Integrity and Responsible Scholarship Meeting 1 Integrity
Research Integrity and Responsible Scholarship Meeting 1: Integrity and quality norms in social science research René Bekkers November 6, 2017 Graduate School of Social Sciences VU University Amsterdam
Meeting overview 1. Quick round of introduction; 2. A bunch of pictures; 3. Practicalities: assignments No laptops please. The slides are on Canvas. https: //seii. mit. edu/wpcontent/uploads/2016/05/SEII-Discussion. Paper-2016. 02 -Payne-Carter-Greenbergand-Walker-2. pdf
Who thinks… Most of what we know in science is true
Who thinks… Most of what we know in science is reliable
Course overview 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. Values; Codes of conduct; Policy; Practice; Reflection. • But you can read all of this in the course manual. And I assume you have done that already. So instead…
It’s not as simple as rocket science June 29, 2015 Understanding Philanthropy Conference 15
Brian Wansink, Marketing, Cornell University Diederik Stapel, Social psychology RUG, Uv. A, Tilburg Jens Förster Social psychology Uv. A, Bochum Mart Bax, Cultural anthropology VU
https: //peerj. com/preprints/2748. pdf M&T Bestuurskunde 15 maart 2017
http: //www. volkskrant. nl/archief/het-kaartenhuis-van-hoogleraar-bax~a 3425105/ http: //antropologen. nl/antropologen-beroepsvereniging-reageert-op-rapport-bax/ M&T Bestuurskunde 15 maart 2017
http: //retractionwatch. com/2017/03/11/weekend-reads-publisher-sends-wrong-message-data-sharing-jail-scientific-fraud-pigs-fly/#comment-1291973 M&T Bestuurskunde 15 maart 2017
Integrity contraventions a. falsification of data b. inputting fictitious data c. secretly rejecting research results d. deliberately misusing (statistical) methods e. deliberately misinterpreting results f. plagiarizing (parts of) other people’s publications and results g. wrongly presenting oneself as a co-author h. deliberately ignoring or failing to credit other’s contributions i. culpable lack of scrupulousness when carrying out research
‘Alles kwam altijd heel mooi uit. Dat was het fijnst. Wat logisch leek, was waar. Dat gaf een voldaan en rustig gevoel. Als ik slimmer was geweest, had ik regelmatig onderzoek laten mislukken. Dat was realistischer, rationeler en sluwer geweest. Maar dat kon ik niet. Ik was een junkie geworden. Ik wilde dat het mooi en helder was. Hoe schitterender, hoe beter. Wat ik bedacht werd steeds mooier en mooier, en ik begon er ook meer en meer in te geloven. Wat was de wereld prachtig. Wat was alles helder, mooi en overzichtelijk gerangschikt. Hoe dikker het web van leugens werd, hoe meer ik begon te geloven dat het allemaal waar was. Dat was de enige manier om het vol te houden. ’ M&T Bestuurskunde 15 maart 2017
http: //nos. nl/artikel/2104385 -blijf-weg-van-the-lord-of-the-rings-vulkaan. html
A warm welcome to the research production plant?
Reliability of the Big Five M&T Bestuurskunde 22 maart 2017
https: //renebekkers. wordpress. com/2017/03/21/hunting-game-targeting-the-big-five/ M&T Bestuurskunde 22 maart 2017
M&T Bestuurskunde 22 maart 2017
M&T Bestuurskunde 22 maart 2017
M&T Bestuurskunde 22 maart 2017
M&T Bestuurskunde 22 maart 2017
M&T Bestuurskunde 22 maart 2017
http: //retractionwatch. com/ https: //www. wired. com/2016/05/okcupid -study-reveals-perils-big-data-science/
https: //www. wired. com /2016/05/okcupid-study -reveals-perils-big-datascience/
https: //www. youtube. com/watch? v=8 S 0 FDj. FBj 8 o
https: //youtu. be/0 Rnq 1 Np. Hdmw
Integrity in Five Research Phases Funds Press Paper Ideas Data
https: //renebekkers. wordpress. com/2017/10/04/how-not-to-solve-the-research-competition-crisis/
Fostering Integrity Info Punish Reflect Check Pledge Practice
Six abbreviations 1. RM: Research Misconduct 2. FFP: Fabrication, Fraud, Plagiarism 3. QRP: Questionable Research Practices 4. GRP: Good Research Practices 5. RCR: Responsible Conduct in Research 6. OA: Open Access
Science as a vocation Max Weber (1919)
ESF / ALLEA code 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. honesty in communication; reliability in performing research; objectivity: capable of proof and review impartiality and independence: from interests openness and accessibility: of data duty of care: with respect to participants fairness: providing references and giving credit, treating colleagues with honesty 8. responsibility for the scientists and researchers of the future: mentorship and supervision
Integrity in Five Research Phases Funds 1: Honesty 7: Fairness Press Paper 4: Impartiality Ideas Data 7: Fairness 6: Duty of care 2: Reliability 3: Objectivity 5: Openness
Values of the VSNU code 1. Scrupulousness 2. Reliability 3. Verifiability 4. Impartiality 5. Independence
Not mentioned 1. 2. 3. 4. Integrity Autonomy Criticism Respect (for authority, property)
Science is • Open - be open in every step of the journey • Failing - publish null findings • Slow - do not rush, 'calm down, it will save us'
Science is not • Magic - it is not a trick you try to hide to enchant the public • Cooking - it is not following a secret recipe to sell seats • A Ted. X talk
Standing on the shoulders of giants
Discussion • How do you know the quality of your work and your judges? • What are publication practices and norms on co-authorship in your field? • How should you review and judge the work of others? • What can go wrong in the Ph. D candidate – supervisor relation and how to interact with seniors?
Assignment 1 • Formulate a research question that you will answer in your conference paper. • In the paper, you reflect on a dilemma in current research practice. • Submit at the next lecture, and feel free to ask questions before that.
Assignment 2 • Data self-check: for the most recent empirical research paper you have written or coauthored: – Title – Where data archived? – Where code archived? – Ever asked for access? – Imagine you’re a reviewer
- Slides: 82