My initial thoughts and knowledge regarding the topic of integrity in research were far less insightful in comparison to after I had read and interpreted the literature available on this topic. I thought of what my own definition of integrity was – keeping ones word, acting sincerely and being consistent in thought and deed. Further breaking the word integrity down, I thought of what ‘integral’ means, which to me is basically the essence of something. By the end of these few moments of brainstorming, and prior to reading the literature, I started off with the idea of the topic at hand being along the lines of consistency and honesty in the practice of research.
Steneck (2006) states it more eloquently by explaining that integrity in research refers to a characterization or presents an evaluation of research behavior.
It has been established in recent years that nearly 1% of researchers are involved in serious misconduct or misrepresentation of their work (Steneck, 2006). Although this may seem a small percentage, the incidence of the above-mentioned is not as rare as we would think, says Steneck (2006).
And so the research community and institutions developed research behaviors which can be categorised into three groups:
- Deliberate misconduct or fabrication, falsification, and plagiarism (FFP);
- Questionable research practices (QRP)
- Responsible conduct of research (RCR)
If research is not carried out responsibly and irresponsible conduct occurs then the research cannot be deemed reliable. If it is not reliable then how will it be possible for future research to be reliable if, for instance, irresponsible or untruthful literature is made use of to publish future studies. It is as clear as daylight that doing so will undermine the reliability of that particular research publication and perhaps even negatively future research. Soundness of moral principle! Can integrity in research be developed in all of the research community – even in those who lack integrity on a personal level, I thought. It is so clear that falsely influencing ones research can have a significant impact far wider than I would have imagined.
Sound professional standards and integrity in research applies to us as physiotherapy students as well as we conduct our research proposals and how we think and act. How we view integrity in research, and even in practice, may help us to be more honest, reliable and accurate in all that we do.
Steneck (2006) suggest that in the effort to respond to misconduct more effectively, higher standards for integrity in research should be set in order for researchers to practice responsibly. Honesty as well as accuracy should be amongst the core professional values drilled into researchers in their respective fields and this should show in their representations of their contributions to research publications (Steneck, 2006). Perhaps repercussions should also be more severe in order to curb misrepresentation and lack of integrity in research. However (with the latter) I am going to take a wild guess and say that I assume that will not be solving the problem of ensuring that researchers have the right professional morals in the first place to altogether never even consider producing irresponsible work.
In conclusion, I think it will require a great deal of discipline from individual researchers and their governing professional bodies (as well as research committees) to ensure responsible work is published and shared with the world as well as to guard the longevity of research.
(Here is a quick scenario-based video: https://youtu.be/3xsT0qG5HJc)
References:
Resnik, D. (2011). What is Ethics in Research & Why is it Important?. Retrieved from https://www.niehs.nih.gov/research/resources/bioethics/whatis/index.cfm
Steneck, N. (2006). Fostering integrity in research: Definitions, current knowledge, and future directions. Science And Engineering Ethics, 12(1), 53-74. doi: 10.1007/pl00022268
One thought on “Integrity in Research, by Kristen Ehrenreich”
Kristen, your choice of image is both striking and relevant! It sets an intriguing tone for the reader.
By first and foremost expressing your thoughts on the discussion, allows the reader to feel open minded and inclusive. It creates an open learning platform. However due to the nature of it, it may cause the reader to doubt your research. I would suggest adding atleast 1 more reference in aid of backing up your updated discussion. This will allow further confidence in your reader.
With regards to your comment on reliability, it may be best to have such a claim referenced with the appropriate literature as one cannot assume its strength of reliability.
Such further claims and thoughts should stem from the specific and appropriate literature.
I appreciated the statistical data mentioned, it is a perfect way to give the reader a deeper understanding of the importance of your topic, have you considered adding further statistical analysis?
Have you considered the positives to “irresponsible” research? Such as possibly finding limitations and setting the spark for new and upcoming research?
Do you thoroughly agree with the three categories? Do you find any limitations to them or feel adjustments could be considered to solve the root issue?
Have you thought about keeping the inclusive theme set in the opening paragraph to further convince the reader in your position? Such as not making discrete claims on your opinion but rather state your opinion in an open ended question?
As you it may be crucial to note that correlation may not equal causation.
Your logical reasoning and thoughts are present. However, you may like to keep them purely objective as one cannot measure validity and realibity subjectivity. Such as commenting “as I would have imagined” does not necessarily validate the seriousness of the impact it may have.
It would be interesting to further understand the depths of the discussion with regards to the impact within physiotherapy. Have you considered elaborating on this?
Please take care in final editing and take note of sentence construction.
Your overall presentation was creative, thought provoking and open minded, with further justification and editing it may increase the overall impact of your discussion.