Open research Europe · 2026
Research integrity in practice: Qualitative analysis of team members' reflection reports highlights the importance of ongoing collaborative learning.
СтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Evans Natalie, van der Steen Jenny T
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: Universities have a responsibility to provide research integrity (RI) training. Moreover, there is growing recognition that RI training should be continuous and the content discipline- and domain-relevant. In this study, we explore the experiences of researchers of a RI initiative embedded within a domain-specific programme, namely 'end-of-life' research. End-of-life research represents a potentially 'high-risk' domain when it comes to RI, due to the substantial methodological and ethical challenges involved in researching this patient population, and it can provide an exemplary case for domain specific initiatives. Continuous attention to RI was embedded in The CONT-END end-of-life research programme. The programme's RI component consisted of regular team meetings to discuss hypothetical RI dilemmas; a two-day RI course; and collaboration with a researcher conducting a meta-research study on end-of-life research.
METHODS: Participating researchers' experiences and perceptions of the RI component were collected through reflective essays half-way through the project (2022/23). Two researchers conducted a reflexive thematic analysis of eight reflective essays from PhD candidates, postdoctoral fellows and an intern.
RESULTS: Three main themes, each with two sub-themes, were developed from the collaborative analysis. These were: (1) 'Learning' integrity (subthemes: Collaborative team learning from cases, and Learning principles and rules); (2) 'Being' a good researcher and 'doing' good research (subthemes:'Being' more aware of RI, and 'Doing' better research); (3) 'Influencing' and 'being influenced' by the team (subthemes: Normalising and giving space to RI, and The influence of, and on, team dynamics including team building).
CONCLUSION: This qualitative evaluation of a multi-layered, continuous RI initiative situated within a domain-specific research area showed the value of case-based collaborative learning both for learning about RI and for team building and socialization as a researcher. Future research should assess what types of training, including collaborative learning initiatives, have impact on how research is actually being conducted in research practice.
METHODS: Participating researchers' experiences and perceptions of the RI component were collected through reflective essays half-way through the project (2022/23). Two researchers conducted a reflexive thematic analysis of eight reflective essays from PhD candidates, postdoctoral fellows and an intern.
RESULTS: Three main themes, each with two sub-themes, were developed from the collaborative analysis. These were: (1) 'Learning' integrity (subthemes: Collaborative team learning from cases, and Learning principles and rules); (2) 'Being' a good researcher and 'doing' good research (subthemes:'Being' more aware of RI, and 'Doing' better research); (3) 'Influencing' and 'being influenced' by the team (subthemes: Normalising and giving space to RI, and The influence of, and on, team dynamics including team building).
CONCLUSION: This qualitative evaluation of a multi-layered, continuous RI initiative situated within a domain-specific research area showed the value of case-based collaborative learning both for learning about RI and for team building and socialization as a researcher. Future research should assess what types of training, including collaborative learning initiatives, have impact on how research is actually being conducted in research practice.