Grounds for Ambiguity: Justifiable Bases for Engaging in Questionable Research Practices

Science and Engineering Ethics 25 (5):1321-1337 (2019)
  Copy   BIBTEX

Abstract

The current study sought to determine research scientists’ sensitivity to various justifications for engaging in behaviors typically considered to be questionable research practices 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.

Other Versions

No versions found

Links

PhilArchive



    Upload a copy of this work     Papers currently archived: 100,061

External links

Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server

Through your library

Similar books and articles

What Research Institutions Can Do to Foster Research Integrity.Lex Bouter - 2020 - Science and Engineering Ethics 26 (4):2363-2369.

Analytics

Added to PP
2018-09-26

Downloads
26 (#818,231)

6 months
3 (#1,492,768)

Historical graph of downloads
How can I increase my downloads?