Grounds for Ambiguity: Justifiable Bases for Engaging in Questionable Research Practices
The current study sought to determine research scientists’ sensitivity to various justifications for engaging in behaviors typically considered to be questionable research practices (QRPs) by asking them to evaluate the appropriateness and ethical defensibility of each. Utilizing a within-subjects design, 107 National Institutes of Health principal investigators responded to an invitation to complete an online survey in which they read a series of research behaviors determined, in prior research, to either be ambiguous or unambiguous in their ethical defensibility. Additionally, each behavior was paired with either an ostensibly sound or unsound reason for the behavior. Consistent with hypotheses, the results indicated that scientists perceived QRPs as more appropriate and defensible when paired with a justifiable motive relative to when paired with a clearly unethical motive, particularly for QRPs that are more ambiguous in their ethicality. In fact, ambiguous QRPs were perceived as categorically defensible when given a justifiable motive. This suggests scientists are sensitive to contextual factors related to QRPs’ appropriateness, which could inform how institutions develop appropriate training modules for research integrity.
KeywordsQuestionable research practices Ethics Integrity Motives
The authors disclose that this research was funded by grants awarded to the first and third author from the Department of Health and Human Services’ Office of Research Integrity (Grant Nos. 1 ORIIR170035-01-00 and 1 ORIIR160021-01-00).
- Anderson, M. S., Horn, A. S., Risbey, K. R., Ronning, E. A., De Vries, R., & Martinson, B. C. (2007). What do mentoring and training in the responsible conduct of research have to do with scientists’ misbehavior? Findings from a national survey of NIH-funded scientists. Academic Medicine, 82, 853–860.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- May, H. (2012). Nonequivalent comparison group designs. In H. Cooper, P. M. Camic, D. L. Long, A. T. Panter, D. Rindskopf, & K. J. Sher (Eds.), APA handbook of research methods in psychology, Vol 2: Research designs—Quantitative, qualitative, neuropsychological, and biological (pp. 489–509). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- National Academies of Science, Engineering, and Medicine. (2017). U.S. scientific research enterprise should take action to protect integrity in research; New advisory board on research integrity should be established. http://www8.nationalacademies.org/onpinews/newsitem.aspx?RecordID=21896. Accessed 23 July 2018.
- Paulhus, D. L. (2002). Socially desirable responding: The evolution of a construct. The Role of Constructs in Psychological and Educational Measurement, 4969, 49–69.Google Scholar
- Ramalingam, S., Bhuvaneswari, S., & Sankaran, R. (2014). Ethics workshops-are they effective in improving the competencies of faculty and postgraduates? Journal of Clinical and Diagnostic Research: JCDR, 8, XC01.Google Scholar
- Roig, M. (2015). Avoiding plagiarism, self-plagiarism, and other questionable writing practices: A guide to ethical writing. Office of Research Integrity. https://ori.hhs.gov/education/products/roig_st_johns/Salami%20slicing.html. Accessed 7 Mar 2018.