scholarly journals Rethinking success, integrity, and culture in research (part 1) — a multi-actor qualitative study on success in science

2021 ◽  
Vol 6 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Noémie Aubert Bonn ◽  
Wim Pinxten
Keyword(s):  
Qualitative Study ◽  
Focus Groups ◽  
Research Integrity ◽  
Current Paper ◽  
Research Quality ◽  
Structured Interviews ◽  
Community Members ◽  
Policy Makers ◽  
The Past ◽  
Research Students

Abstract Background Success shapes the lives and careers of scientists. But success in science is difficult to define, let alone to translate in indicators that can be used for assessment. In the past few years, several groups expressed their dissatisfaction with the indicators currently used for assessing researchers. But given the lack of agreement on what should constitute success in science, most propositions remain unanswered. This paper aims to complement our understanding of success in science and to document areas of tension and conflict in research assessments. Methods We conducted semi-structured interviews and focus groups with policy makers, funders, institution leaders, editors or publishers, research integrity office members, research integrity community members, laboratory technicians, researchers, research students, and former-researchers who changed career to inquire on the topics of success, integrity, and responsibilities in science. We used the Flemish biomedical landscape as a baseline to be able to grasp the views of interacting and complementary actors in a system setting. Results Given the breadth of our results, we divided our findings in a two-paper series, with the current paper focusing on what defines and determines success in science. Respondents depicted success as a multi-factorial, context-dependent, and mutable construct. Success appeared to be an interaction between characteristics from the researcher (Who), research outputs (What), processes (How), and luck. Interviewees noted that current research assessments overvalued outputs but largely ignored the processes deemed essential for research quality and integrity. Interviewees suggested that science needs a diversity of indicators that are transparent, robust, and valid, and that also allow a balanced and diverse view of success; that assessment of scientists should not blindly depend on metrics but also value human input; and that quality should be valued over quantity. Conclusions The objective of research assessments may be to encourage good researchers, to benefit society, or simply to advance science. Yet we show that current assessments fall short on each of these objectives. Open and transparent inter-actor dialogue is needed to understand what research assessments aim for and how they can best achieve their objective. Study Registration osf.io/33v3m.

scholarly journals Rethinking success, integrity, and culture in research (part 1) — A multi-actor qualitative study on success in science

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Noémie Aubert Bonn ◽  
Wim Pinxten
Keyword(s):  
Qualitative Study ◽  
Focus Groups ◽  
Research Integrity ◽  
Current Paper ◽  
Research Quality ◽  
Structured Interviews ◽  
Community Members ◽  
Policy Makers ◽  
The Past ◽  
Research Students

ABSTRACTBackgroundSuccess shapes the life and careers of scientists. But success in science is difficult to define, let alone to translate in indicators that can be used for assessment. In the past few years, several groups expressed their dissatisfaction with the indicators currently used for assessing researchers. But given the lack of agreement on what should constitute success in science, most propositions remain unanswered. This paper aims to complement our understanding of success in science and to document areas of tension and conflict in research assessments.MethodsWe conducted semi-structured interviews and focus groups with policy makers, funders, institution leaders, editors or publishers, research integrity office members, research integrity community members, laboratory technicians, researchers, research students, and former-researchers who changed career to inquire on the topics of success, integrity, and responsibilities in science. We used the Flemish biomedical landscape as a baseline to be able to grasp the views of interacting and complementary actors in a system setting.ResultsGiven the breadth of our results, we divided our findings in a two-paper series, with the current paper focusing on what defines and determines success in science. Respondents depicted success as a multi-factorial, context-dependent, and mutable factor. Success appeared to be an interaction between characteristics from the researcher (Who), research outputs (What), processes (How), and luck. Interviewees noted that current research assessments overvalued outputs but largely ignored the processes deemed essential for research quality and integrity. Interviewees sustained that we need a diversity of indicators to allow a balanced and diverse view of success; that assessments should not blindly depend on metrics but also value human input; that we must value quality over quantity; and that any indicators used must be transparent, robust, and valid.ConclusionsThe objective of research assessments may be to encourage good researchers, to benefit society, or simply to advance science. Yet we show that current assessments fall short on each of these objectives. Open and transparent inter-actor dialogue is needed to understand what research assessments aim for and how they can best achieve their objective.Trial Registrationosf.io/33v3m

scholarly journals Rethinking success, integrity, and culture in research (part 2) — a multi-actor qualitative study on problems of science

2021 ◽  
Vol 6 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Noémie Aubert Bonn ◽  
Wim Pinxten
Keyword(s):  
Research Misconduct ◽  
Research Integrity ◽  
Research Culture ◽  
Structured Interviews ◽  
Community Members ◽  
Questionable Research Practices ◽  
Research Problems ◽  
The Rich ◽  
Research Students ◽  
The Impact

Abstract Background Research misconduct and questionable research practices have been the subject of increasing attention in the past few years. But despite the rich body of research available, few empirical works also include the perspectives of non-researcher stakeholders. Methods We conducted semi-structured interviews and focus groups with policy makers, funders, institution leaders, editors or publishers, research integrity office members, research integrity community members, laboratory technicians, researchers, research students, and former-researchers who changed career to inquire on the topics of success, integrity, and responsibilities in science. We used the Flemish biomedical landscape as a baseline to be able to grasp the views of interacting and complementary actors in a system setting. Results Given the breadth of our results, we divided our findings in a two-paper series with the current paper focusing on the problems that affect the integrity and research culture. We first found that different actors have different perspectives on the problems that affect the integrity and culture of research. Problems were either linked to personalities and attitudes, or to the climates in which researchers operate. Elements that were described as essential for success (in the associate paper) were often thought to accentuate the problems of research climates by disrupting research culture and research integrity. Even though all participants agreed that current research climates need to be addressed, participants generally did not feel responsible nor capable of initiating change. Instead, respondents revealed a circle of blame and mistrust between actor groups. Conclusions Our findings resonate with recent debates, and extrapolate a few action points which might help advance the discussion. First, the research integrity debate must revisit and tackle the way in which researchers are assessed. Second, approaches to promote better science need to address the impact that research climates have on research integrity and research culture rather than to capitalize on individual researchers’ compliance. Finally, inter-actor dialogues and shared decision making must be given priority to ensure that the perspectives of the full research system are captured. Understanding the relations and interdependency between these perspectives is key to be able to address the problems of science. Study registration https://osf.io/33v3m

scholarly journals Rethinking success, integrity, and culture in research (Part 2) — A multi-actor qualitative study on problems of science

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Noémie Aubert Bonn ◽  
Wim Pinxten
Keyword(s):  
Research Misconduct ◽  
Research Integrity ◽  
Structured Interviews ◽  
Community Members ◽  
Research Practices ◽  
Research Issues ◽  
Questionable Research Practices ◽  
The Rich ◽  
Research Students ◽  
The Impact

ABSTRACTBackgroundResearch misconduct and questionable research practices have been the subject of increasing attention in the past few years. But despite the rich body of research available, few empirical works provide the perspectives of non-researcher stakeholders.MethodsTo capture some of the forgotten voices, we conducted semi-structured interviews and focus groups with policy makers, funders, institution leaders, editors or publishers, research integrity office members, research integrity community members, laboratory technicians, researchers, research students, and former-researchers who changed career to inquire on the topics of success, integrity, and responsibilities in science. We used the Flemish biomedical landscape as a baseline to be able to grasp the views of interacting and complementary actors in a system setting.ResultsGiven the breadth of our results, we divided our findings in a two-paper series with the current paper focusing on the problems that affect the quality and integrity of science. We first discovered that perspectives on misconduct, including the core reasons for condemning misconduct, differed between individuals and actor groups. Beyond misconduct, interviewees also identified numerous problems which affect the integrity of research. Issues related to personalities and attitudes, lack of knowledge of good practices, and research climate were mentioned. Elements that were described as essential for success (in the associate paper) were often thought to accentuate the problems of research climates by disrupting research cultures and research environments. Even though everyone agreed that current research climates need to be addressed, no one felt responsible nor capable of initiating change. Instead, respondents revealed a circle of blame and mistrust between actor groups.ConclusionsOur findings resonate with recent debates, and extrapolate a few action points which might help advance the discussion. First, we must tackle how research is assessed. Second, approaches to promote better science should be revisited: not only should they directly address the impact of climates on research practices, but they should also redefine their objective to empower and support researchers rather than to capitalize on their compliance. Finally, inter-actor dialogues and shared decision making are crucial to building joint objectives for change.Trial registrationosf.io/33v3m

scholarly journals From Best Friends to Silent Ends: Exploring the Concepts of Ghosting in Non-Romantic Relationships

2021 ◽  
Vol 2 (10) ◽  
pp. 943-950
Author(s):  
Megan Ann Yap ◽  
Angelo Miguel Francisco ◽  
Christian Gopez
Keyword(s):  
Qualitative Study ◽  
Mass Media ◽  
Romantic Relationships ◽  
Video Communication ◽  
Romantic Partner ◽  
Structured Interviews ◽  
Best Friends ◽  
The Past ◽  
The Common ◽  
The Relationship

Ghosting is a popular term in mass media that has continued to baffle many with its ambiguity as a dissolution strategy. Multiple studies in the past have explored ghosting within romantic relationships, examining how this dissolution strategy has impacted the two parties involved: the initiator (ghoster) and the non-initiator (ghostee). However, it has been stated that ghosting can exist outside of romantic relationships as it may also occur within friendships or even if the relationship is questionably nonexistent. The objectives of the paper seek to understand how ghosting happens within these non-romantic relationships, its effects on the initiators and non-initiators, and its possible differences when compared to romantic relationships. Semi-structured interviews were conducted through video communication platforms on thirty respondents ages 18-25 who have experienced ghosting or been ghosted by a friend. Through the use of descriptive phenomenological qualitative study, the results revealed that 1) ghosting in non-romantic relationships occurs on technology-mediated channels, 2) the initiators experienced post-dissolution feelings of regret, 3) the non-initiators experienced feelings of uncertainty, 4) ghosting a friend is more socially acceptable than ghosting a romantic partner, and, 5) ghosting is more frequent in non-romantic relationships due to the lower levels of commitment and expectations. Other recurring themes, such as the common reasons behind ghosting for the initiators and ghosting as a justifiable means of dissolving the relationship, were also found.  

scholarly journals COVID-19 Pandemic Adversely Affects the Provision of Desired Newborn Circumcision: Perinatal Physician Perspectives

2022 ◽  
Vol 1 ◽  
Author(s):  
Lauren E. Corona ◽  
Ilina Rosoklija ◽  
Ryan F. Walton ◽  
Derek J. Matoka ◽  
Catherine M. Seager ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Qualitative Study ◽  
The United States ◽  
Structured Interviews ◽  
Newborn Period ◽  
Policy Makers ◽  
Urban City ◽  
Physician Perspectives ◽  
Interview Guide ◽  
Hospital Policies

Over half of boys in the United States undergo circumcision, which has its greatest health benefits and lowest risks when performed during the newborn period under local anesthesia. The COVID-19 pandemic has affected delivery of patient care in many ways and likely also influenced the provision of newborn circumcisions. Prior to the pandemic, we planned to conduct a qualitative study to ascertain physician perspectives on providing newborn circumcision care. The interviews incidentally coincided with the onset of the pandemic and thus, pandemic-related changes emerged as a theme. We elected to analyze this theme in greater detail. Semi-structured interviews were conducted with perinatal physicians in a large urban city from 4/2020 to 7/2020. Physicians that perform or counsel regarding newborn circumcision and physicians with knowledge of or responsibility for hospital policies were eligible. Interviews were transcribed verbatim and qualitative coding was performed. Twenty-three physicians from 11 local hospitals participated. Despite no specific COVID-19 related questions in the interview guide, nearly half of physicians identified that the pandemic affected delivery of newborn circumcision care with 8 pandemic-related sub-themes. The commonest sub-themes included COVID-19 related changes in: (1) workflow processes, (2) staffing and availability of circumcision proceduralists, and (3) procedural settings. In summary, this qualitative study revealed unanticipated COVID-19 pandemic-related changes with primarily adverse effects on the provision of desired newborn circumcisions. Some of these changes may become permanent resulting in broad implications for policy makers that will likely need to adapt and redesign the processes and systems for the delivery of newborn circumcision care.

scholarly journals Independence of Centers of Excellence for Medical Sciences: A Qualitative Study

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Siamak Kazemi Asl ◽  
Azita Jaberi ◽  
Ali Reza Safarpour ◽  
Majid Reza Reza Farrokhi ◽  
Ladan Zarshenas ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Qualitative Study ◽  
Critical Role ◽  
Medical Sciences ◽  
Structured Interviews ◽  
Centers Of Excellence ◽  
Policy Makers ◽  
Financial Benefits ◽  
Data Saturation ◽  
Specialized Equipment ◽  
Set Up

Background: Centers of Excellence are organizations which have prominent works in a specific field, and are capable of delivering quality services using specialized equipment, innovative techniques and modern technologies and brings financial benefits and cost recovery to their organization. Promoting the independence of these organizations plays a critical role in terms of maintaining sustainable competition in their future efforts. The purpose of this study was to develop goals and challenges of independence for centers of excellence. Methods: This was a qualitative study, content analysis, involving semi-structured interviews with 7 individuals from centers of excellence for medical sciences. Sampling was continued until data saturation. Interview transcripts were analyzed through coding and classifying concepts into categories and subcategories, and then MaxQDA 2007 10, software was used for further analysis. Results: According to the participants, a number of prerequisites (such as: goals and strategies) are required to secure independence and authority for Iranian centers of excellence, and also this independence has some distinct dimensions (such as: financial and human resources). Furthermore, the participants identified the possible obstacles and challenges (such as: bureaucratic processes and failure to delegate authority) to the independence of the centers, and proposed solutions to tackle them (such as: internal and external evaluations and accreditation). Conclusion: In the end, the results were used to set up independence regulations for policy makers of centers of excellence to support them during the process of independence.

scholarly journals Syrian Crisis in Jordan: Case Study of Hosting Community Psycho-social in Low Income areas in Amman

2020 ◽  
Vol 9 (1) ◽  
pp. 171
Author(s):  
Manal Fathi Anabtawi
Keyword(s):  
Qualitative Study ◽  
Focus Groups ◽  
Low Income ◽  
Service Providers ◽  
Self Esteem ◽  
Policy Makers ◽  
Syrian Crisis ◽  
Syrian Refugee

This paper explores the influence that the Syrian crisis has on hosting community psycho-social in low income areas in Amman, Capital of Jordan. Case study was chosen as a design that would support a wider and in-depth exploration because it would be able to address the sensitivity of the issue; based on data from a qualitative study involving ten focus groups conducted from July to October 2017. Available reports and researches have investigated Syrian refugee needs and experiences, while few studies have explored the experiences of Jordanians in a hosting community, especially their psycho-social. In this paper, researcher argues that policy makers and service providers have to pay attention to hosting community experiences; especially their psycho-social. Paper concludes that Jordanians living in low income areas in Amman have been influenced by the Syrian crisis; suffering from  frustration and despair, fears, anger, low self-esteem and hopelessness.

scholarly journals Understanding men’s psychological reactions and experience following a cardiac event: a qualitative study from the MindTheHeart project

BMJ Open ◽  
2019 ◽  
Vol 9 (9) ◽  
pp. e029560 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jalila Jbilou ◽  
Jean Grenier ◽  
Marie-Helene Chomienne ◽  
France Talbot ◽  
Heather Tulloch ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Qualitative Study ◽  
Focus Groups ◽  
Psychosocial Adjustment ◽  
Cardiac Event ◽  
Clinical Training ◽  
Healthcare Services ◽  
Post Traumatic Stress ◽  
Clinical Practices ◽  
Structured Interviews ◽  
Cardiac Rehabilitation Programme

ObjectivesEmotional issues such as depression, anxiety and post-traumatic stress disorder are common following a cardiac event. Despite their high prevalence, they often go undiagnosed and research suggests that men in particular are at higher risk. Therefore, a better understanding of men’s experiences with a cardiac event and ensuing health services is key for adapting approaches that meet their needs. The aim of this study was to describe the self-reported emotional challenges that men face following a cardiac event and to understand their patterns of psychosocial adjustment.DesignQualitative study (focus groups and one-on-one interviews) using an interpretive phenomenal analysis.SettingClinical settings (cardiac departments in hospitals, cardiac rehabilitation programme and family medicine clinics) and in the community in three Canadian provinces.ParticipantsA total of 93 men participated in the study through 22 focus groups and 5 semi-structured interviews, none has been excluded based on comorbidities.ResultsFour major themes emerged: (1) managing uncertainty and adversity; (2) distancing, normalising and accepting; (3) conformity to traditional masculine norms and (4) social, literacy and communication challenges.ConclusionsHealthcare professionals caring for men following a cardiac event must be aware of the psychological and social adjustments that accompany the physical challenges. However, there is a lack of explicit guidelines, tools and clinical training in men-sensitive approaches. Further research is required to better inform clinical practices and healthcare services.

Clinicians’ perceptions of opioid error–contributing factors in inpatient palliative care services: A qualitative study

2019 ◽  
Vol 33 (4) ◽  
pp. 430-444 ◽  
Author(s):  
Nicole Heneka ◽  
Priyanka Bhattarai ◽  
Tim Shaw ◽  
Debra Rowett ◽  
Samuel Lapkin ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Palliative Care ◽  
Qualitative Study ◽  
Focus Groups ◽  
System Level ◽  
Quality And Safety ◽  
Specialist Palliative Care ◽  
Structured Interviews ◽  
Contributing Factors ◽  
Care Services ◽  
Palliative Care Services

Background: Opioid errors are a leading cause of patient harm and adversely impact palliative care inpatients’ pain and symptom management. Yet, the factors contributing to opioid errors in palliative care are poorly understood. Identifying and better understanding the individual and system factors contributing to these errors is required to inform targeted strategies. Objectives: To explore palliative care clinicians’ perceptions of the factors contributing to opioid errors in Australian inpatient palliative care services. Design: A qualitative study using focus groups or semi-structured interviews. Settings: Three specialist palliative care inpatient services in New South Wales, Australia. Participants: Inpatient palliative care clinicians who are involved with, and/or have oversight of, the services’ opioid delivery or quality and safety processes. Methods: Deductive thematic content analysis of the qualitative data. The Yorkshire Contributory Factors Framework was applied to identify error-contributing factors. Findings: A total of 58 clinicians participated in eight focus groups and 20 semi-structured interviews. Nine key error contributory factor domains were identified, including: active failures; task characteristics of opioid preparation; clinician inexperience; sub-optimal skill mix; gaps in support from central functions; the drug preparation environment; and sub-optimal clinical communication. Conclusion: This study identified multiple system-level factors contributing to opioid errors in inpatient palliative care services. Any quality and safety initiatives targeting safe opioid delivery in specialist palliative care services needs to consider the full range of contributing factors, from individual to systems/latent factors, which promote error-causing conditions.

Evaluation of a rural community’s approaches to promoting physical activity

2018 ◽  
Vol 33 (4) ◽  
Author(s):  
Kristi M. King ◽  
Jason A. Rice ◽  
Ian Maki
Keyword(s):  
Physical Activity ◽  
Health Disparities ◽  
Focus Groups ◽  
Rural Community ◽  
Funding Agency ◽  
Structured Interviews ◽  
Community Members ◽  
Non Profit ◽  
Healthy Community ◽  
Physical Activity Programming

To address the lack of physical activity opportunities in their rural community, a non-profit coali-tion formed to address health disparities. This evaluation investigated the coalition’s effectiveness in movingtoward sustainable physical activity programming for all community members. Participants engaged insemi-structured interviews or focus groups, and observations and informal conversations were conductedat approximately 30 meetings (e.g., town hall), programs (e.g., funding agency meetings), and events(e.g., two fundraising galas). A commitment to partnerships, the diversity of coalition member’s expertise,a focus on equity, and the recognition that a healthy community is economically attractive positioned thecoalition for success.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document