The failure of success -Careers, cultures, and integrity in science

Abstract

Science is powerful and vulnerable at the same time. On the one hand science is the basis for innovation and for allowing us to understand the world we live in. On the other hand, science is also performed by humans whose behaviours may compromise integrity. Although scientists are expected to care for the integrity of science, doing so can impose difficult dilemmas. The present thesis investigates the connections between research integrity, research cultures, and research success. Our findings are presented in three steps, each of which uses a distinct methodology. In the first step, we analysed and compared a decade of research literature on research integrity. Our analysis revealed two important blind spots in the field of research integrity. First, although issues from the research system (e.g., pressures, perverse incentives, and competition) are most frequently identified as causes for misconduct and questionable research practices, approaches to foster integrity generally tackle researchers’ knowledge and compliance rather than documented problems from the research system. Second, although past research on research integrity thoroughly captures the perspectives of researchers, it largely overlooks the perspectives of other key stakeholders. In the second step, we addressed these two blind spots by conducting interviews and focus groups with a whole array of research stakeholders to discuss issues inherent to the research system. These discussions revealed that research assessments are an important cause for concern in current academia. Indeed, current assessments overvalue research outputs but largely ignore important research processes that are essential in protecting the integrity of science. As a result, researchers often feel the need to compromise on integrity in order to advance or simply maintain their careers in academia. Although most interviewees agreed that current research assessments are inadequate, nobody felt able to instigate a change. Instead, actor groups tended to blame one another for the inadequacies of the current system and to lose faith in the possibility for change. In the final step of the project, we built a survey to capture the perspective of researchers on success indicators that raised disagreement in the interviews and focus groups. We found that success indicators related to openness, quality, and innovation were considered important or even essential in advancing science. However, these indicators were often thought to be irrelevant in advancing researchers’ careers. Conversely, indicators which denoted the prestige and competitiveness of researchers were considered important in advancing researchers’ careers, but largely irrelevant or even detrimental in advancing science. These responses evidence an obvious need to rethink research assessments so that they can value openness, quality, and innovation. Nonetheless, responses also revealed that the resources and infrastructures necessary to support openness and quality practices are largely missing, and that such resources must become available before changes to research assessments take place. Considering these cumulative findings, I conclude by proposing four recommendations which could help promote better science. First, I argue that approaches meant to foster research integrity should target the faulty dynamics of the research system rather than focus on individual researchers. Second, I propose that research assessments must be adapted to reflect our aspirations for high quality science. In this regard, I suggest that research assessments (i) must be based on transparent and reflective methods, (ii) must consider the value of team efforts, (iii) must recognise research processes even when those are not associated with positive outputs, (iv) must remain realistic in their demands and expectations, and v) must be addressed at all levels. Third, I argue that we must rethink the structure of academic careers and recognize the issues caused by current insecure and precarious climates. Finally, I support that we must discuss and collaborate between actor groups so that we can combine existing efforts into broad and coordinated approaches to make science better.