By Dr Sam Oakley, Research Governance and Integrity Manager
If I’m asked to clarify, I might glibly say Research Culture has a focus on people; Research Integrity has a focus on the research. This is, as I well know, half the story: the two are inextricably linked in what feels like a circular relationship. As a former historian, the Ouroboros comes to mind: the mythical symbol of wholeness or unity.
The UK Research Integrity Office (UKRIO) neatly summarise Research Integrity as “another name for ‘good research practice’. It’s the conduct of research in ways that promote trust and confidence in all aspects of the research process.”. They highlight ‘Respect’ as one core area in the UK Concordat to Support Research Integrity (2019), including respect for other researchers; “professional courtesy and fairness” is a principle in the 2010 Singapore Statement. These key documents argue that the way you treat other researchers, or run your team, is essential to the integrity of your research.
In the UK we had two landmark reports, one by by Wellcome and one by UKRI which also emphasise this point. Funders now have strong expectations about Research Culture; advance word suggests the next REF will focus on this too. Research Integrity is one of the strategic priorities of our 2020-2025 Research Culture Statement and our Research Strategy has the underlying principles that “how research is done is as important as what research is done” and “we value the quality of our research over its quantity”. At both local and national level, the link between Integrity and Culture in research is clear and emphatic.
How is Research Integrity influenced by Research Culture?
The Research Governance and Integrity team in Research Services, inevitably does a lot of reflecting on Research Integrity: we think about the queries we get, the cases we have to investigate, the training responses we receive and occasional passing remarks which give us a insight into how others experience the work environment. In 2023 we started a regular reflection process to action what we can learn from our cases and queries. Very little is procedural; almost all has been cultural: guidance for PIs and supervisors on how to negotiate ongoing publications when researchers move on from the team, how to have regular and early conversations about authorship, how to support researchers (especially PGRs) to protect their ideas whilst still looking outward for collaborations and impact.
We also think about our team’s scope for action. We are aware from conversations in the sector that integrity issues can co-manifest with what is experienced as bullying behaviour. We have therefore initiated a small project to signpost support and reporting for bullying, particularly for our Integrity Champions and Advisers. We are also raising awareness of what Research Misconduct is, and how to report it, with the staff who support those bullying allegations.
On a more upbeat note, nothing makes us happier than positive feedback on our Research Integrity training. Much of this too is cultural: ideas on nurturing open practice within a team, how to approach authorship or supervision discussions, resources to support activities. We also learn how much good practice is already going on. We can celebrate this and incorporate suggestions and examples into the next revision of our training.
Yes, but…
The really interesting question for Research Culture and Research Integrity is: what does a cultural approach to research integrity look like in practice? One excellent evidence-based answer is this 2019 study of Principal Investigators which has great quotes and examples from a ‘lab’ context. Drawing from this, other reading and our own reflections, here are some examples I’d highlight:
- Working somewhere where there’s no stigma in reporting a mistake. As a recent Science article said, we badly need “a more generative culture in which information about all potential problems—especially errors and misconduct related to research—is welcomed”.
- Negative results are considered equally useful and valid; sharing all work – and data – is encouraged for the greater good.
- Providing training required to do the job and supportive colleagues in the workplace: training needs to be reinforced repeatedly in practice, not a one-off activity.
- Leadership is so important! A leader / supervisor / senior researcher(s) who cares passionately about the quality of the work and recognises this takes extra time. See our work on Research Leadership here, under the University’s Talent Lab.
- Recognition that not everyone can – and nobody should – be working unhealthily long hours as this creates inequalities and may unintentionally exclude the best minds from the work. Plus – of course – tired people make mistakes. Leaders need to role model this boundary setting.
- And more leadership: foregrounding the values which drive the team as well as technical discussions. This helps with sustaining positive attitudes for governance activities.
- Open discussion encouraged early and often about topics such as data management, work processes and authorship so projects aren’t incubating problems that will surface down the line.
- Authorship is an interesting one. Incorrect application of authorship critieria is often done for ‘good’ reasons: to further careers, to thank colleagues, to respect seniors. Yet authorship is really about accountability for the paper and any errors contained within. It should not be gifted; too often this creates frustrations. Ensuring fairness, discussion and use of The CRediT guidance is essential.
- Supportive discussion of everyone’s projects and side projects: both in research design and informal peer review. So many highlight this in our research integrity training as the number one way to boost the integrity of the research. It’s also a great learning opportunity for newer members of the team, as well as a way to incorporate wider perspectives into the work.
- Research and teams benefit from diversity, not just having the right people in the (virtual) room but ensuring all voices are heard and nurtured to give their best. There is so much good work taking place on inclusive practice that can provide a focus for team discussions on this.
How else can a healthy research culture support the quality of the research, as well as the careers and day-to-day professional fulfilment of our researchers? What does this look like in practice, for different disciplines? These are the questions we will keep asking: it remains at the heart of all our work on Research Integrity. We also recognise that – despite best efforts of funders and institutions – ‘the system’ doesn’t yet fully empower all good practice activity and we need to keep working on this too.
We welcome any comments or ideas you want to add in the comments!
The Auditorium: a research culture and researcher development blog 