Science and Engineering Ethics

, Volume 19, Issue 3, pp 835–850 | Cite as

Relationships Between the Survey of Organizational Research Climate (SORC) and Self-Reported Research Practices

  • A. Lauren Crain
  • Brian C. Martinson
  • Carol R. Thrush
Original Paper

Abstract

The Survey of Organizational Research Climate (SORC) is a validated tool to facilitate promotion of research integrity and research best practices. This work uses the SORC to assess shared and individual perceptions of the research climate in universities and academic departments and relate these perceptions to desirable and undesirable research practices. An anonymous web- and mail-based survey was administered to randomly selected biomedical and social science faculty and postdoctoral fellows in the United States. Respondents reported their perceptions of the research climates at their universities and primary departments, and the frequency with which they engaged in desirable and undesirable research practices. More positive individual perceptions of the research climate in one’s university or department were associated with higher likelihoods of desirable, and lower likelihoods of undesirable, research practices. Shared perceptions of the research climate tended to be similarly predictive of both desirable and undesirable research practices as individuals’ deviations from these shared perceptions. Study results supported the central prediction that more positive SORC-measured perceptions of the research climate were associated with more positive reports of research practices. There were differences with respect to whether shared or individual climate perceptions were related to desirable or undesirable practices but the general pattern of results provide empirical evidence that the SORC is predictive of self-reported research behavior.

Keywords

Research integrity Organizational climate Misconduct Misbehavior Organizational survey 

References

  1. Anderson, M. S., Ronning, E. A., De Vries, R., & Martinson, B. C. (2007). The perverse effects of competition on scientists’ work and relationships. Science and Engineering Ethics, 13, 437–461.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Colquitt, J. A. (2001). On the dimensionality of organizational justice: A construct validation of a measure. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86, 386–400.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Colquitt, J. A., Noe, R. A., & Jackson, C. L. (2002). Justice in teams: Antecedents and consequences of procedural justice climate. Personnel Psychology, 55, 83–109.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Committee on Assessing Integrity in Research Environments (U.S.), National Research Council (U.S.), United States, Office of the Assistant Secretary for Health, & Office of Research Integrity. (2002). Integrity in scientific research: Creating an environment that promotes responsible conduct. Washington, D.C.: National Academies Press.Google Scholar
  5. Council of Canadian Academies, & The Expert Panel on Research Integrity. (2010). Honesty, accountability and trust: Fostering research integrity in Canada. Ottawa: Council of Canadian Academies.Google Scholar
  6. Council of Graduate Schools. (2011). Project for scholarly integrity [WWW Document]. http://www.scholarlyintegrity.org/ShowContent.aspx?id=402.
  7. DuBois, J. M., Anderson, E. E., Carroll, K., Gibb, T., Kraus, E., Rubbelke, T., et al. (2012). Environmental factors contributing to wrongdoing in medicine: A criterion-based review of studies and cases. Ethics and Behavior, 22, 163–188.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Fanelli, D. (2009). How many scientists fabricate and falsify research? A systematic review and meta-analysis of survey data. PLoS ONE, 4, e5738.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Groves, R. M. (2006). Nonresponse rates and nonresponse bias in household surveys. Public Opinion Quarterly, 70, 646–675.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Hackett, E. J. (1994). A social control perspective on scientific misconduct. The Journal of Higher Education, 65, 242–260.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Heitman, E., Anestidou, L., Olsen, C., & Bulger, R. E. (2005). Do researchers learn to overlook misbehavior? The Hastings Center Report, 35, 49.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Irish Council for Bioethics, & Rapporteur Group. (2010). Recommendations for promoting research integrity. Dublin: The Irish Council for Bioethics.Google Scholar
  13. Leape, L.L., (2010). Transparency and public reporting are essential for a safe health care system. New York: The Commonwealth Fund. http://www.commonwealthfund.org/Publications/Perspectives-on-Health-Reform-Briefs/2010/Mar/Transparency-and-Public-Reporting-Are-Essential-for-a-Safe-Health-Care-System.aspx#citation.
  14. Martinson, B. C., Anderson, M. S., Crain, A. L., & De Vries, R. (2006). Scientists’ perceptions of organizational justice and self-reported misbehaviors. Journal of Empirical Research on Human Research Ethics 1, 51–66 http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?tool=pubmed&pubmedid=16810337.Google Scholar
  15. Martinson, B. C., Anderson, M. S., & De Vries, R. (2005). Scientists behaving badly. Nature, 435, 737–738.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Martinson, B. C., Crain, A. L., Anderson, M. S., & De Vries, R. (2009). Institutions’ expectations for researchers’ self-funding, federal grant holding and private industry involvement: Manifold drivers of self-interest and researcher behavior. Academic Medicine, 84, 1491–1499.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Martinson, B. C., Crain, A. L., De Vries, R., & Anderson, M. S. (2010). The importance of organizational justice in ensuring research integrity. Journal of Empirical Research on Human Research Ethics, 5, 67–83.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Martinson, B. C., Thrush, C. R., & Crain, A. L. (2012). Development and validation of the survey of organizational research climate (SORC). Science and Engineering Ethics. doi:10.1007/s11948-012-9410-7.
  19. Mumford, M., & Helton, W.B. (2001). Organizational Influences on Scientific Integrity. In Proceedings of the 2000 ORI conference on research on research integrity, November, Bethesda, MD: Investigating Research Integrity. pp. 73–90.Google Scholar
  20. Office of Science and Technology Policy. (2000). Federal policy on research misconduct. http://www.ostp.gov/cs/federal_policy_on_research_misconduct [WWW Document].
  21. Sovacool, B. (2008). Exploring scientific misconduct: Isolated individuals, impure institutions, or an inevitable idiom of modern science? Journal of Bioethical Inquiry, 5, 271–282.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Steneck, N. H. (2004). ORI introduction to the responsible conduct of research. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office.Google Scholar
  23. Steneck, N. H. (2006). Fostering integrity in research: Definitions, current knowledge, and future directions. Science and Engineering Ethics, 12, 53–74.Google Scholar
  24. Steneck, N., & Mayer, T. (2010). Singapore statement on research integrity [WWW Document]. http://www.singaporestatement.org/.
  25. Teitelbaum, M. S. (2008). RESEARCH FUNDING: Structural disequilibria in biomedical research. Science, 321, 644–645.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Titus, S. L., Wells, J. A., & Rhoades, L. J. (2008). Repairing research integrity. Nature, 453, 980–982.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  • A. Lauren Crain
    • 1
  • Brian C. Martinson
    • 1
  • Carol R. Thrush
    • 2
  1. 1.HealthPartners Institute for Education and ResearchMinneapolisUSA
  2. 2.Office of Educational DevelopmentUniversity of Arkansas for Medical SciencesLittle RockUSA

Personalised recommendations