Dataset Open Access

Research Integrity Promotion Work

Loreta Tauginienė; Inga Gaižauskaitė

The aim of the research was to delve into the meaningfulness of such work as promotion of research integrity. The following research questions were formulated:

1) What aspects of the role of research integrity promoter are meaningful? Why?

2) To what changes does research integrity promotion as meaningful work lead?

To answer these research questions, a qualitative research approach was employed using individual semi-structured interviews for data collection. The population of interest were national research integrity promoters: national ombudspersons for research integrity (coded as OMB), representatives for research integrity/misconduct from research funding organizations (RFO) and representatives from national research integrity networks (RIN) in European countries.

Purposive sampling method was used to select informants. To identify potential informants, we used website of European Network of Research Integrity Offices (http://www.enrio.eu/) and official websites of target organizations; in addition, snowball method was used to identify potential informants who corresponded to sampling criteria but were not part of the ENRIO membership. At the first stage, 32 potential informants were identified; due to missing contact information or irrelevance of activities as defined in sampling criteria, only 21 informants were invited to participate in the research. Overall, 10 national research integrity promoters (7 females and 3 males; all hold PhD degree and were or currently are part of academia) consented to take part in the research: 5 national ombudspersons for research integrity, 3 representatives for research integrity/misconduct from research funding organizations and 2 representatives from national research integrity networks.

Semi-structured questionnaire (interview guide) consisting of five key topics (self-identity, goals, impediments to meaning, enablers to meaning, rewards for meaning-making) and the closing section was used. Interviews were conducted remotely. The interview language was English.

Each interview was audio-recorded, transcribed, and anonymized. Average length of interview was 53 minutes; average non-anonymized interview transcript contained 6851 words.

Each transcript was validated by two researchers for data accuracy and clarification of inaudible responses; anonymization of each transcript was validated by two researchers and a respective informant. Due to uniqueness of the national status of informants, two informants asked to change their initial consent to disclose anonymized transcript (i.e., they agreed on the use of their interview transcripts for data analysis but not on granting open access to them).

 

The research is published as Tauginienė, L., Gaižauskaitė, I. (2022). Jumping with a Parachute – Is Promoting Research Integrity Meaningful? Accountability in Research: Policies and Quality Assurance. https://doi.org/10.1080/08989621.2022.2044318

Files (293.3 kB)
Name Size
OMB1.txt
md5:ba36ff064f4565bfb953ea9e7b88a966
45.5 kB Download
OMB12.txt
md5:fe4cfba94ef6e6fe23ae103c2d6f1c50
28.4 kB Download
OMB6.txt
md5:3bddf8890b9df8be40619f27852c1a2c
28.9 kB Download
OMB7.txt
md5:6b1b04f10145fdcb5e6234980235aef4
41.2 kB Download
RFO1.txt
md5:e697160ea74ef90ebd9b1b991a79c282
25.1 kB Download
RFO3.txt
md5:171e68d054cf386e9eb4a28391d952db
50.5 kB Download
RIN5.txt
md5:b0bf77e9468c66019db4892cffba6705
29.6 kB Download
RIN6.txt
md5:74ac7520af73a7f25e0ac74b1487651e
44.1 kB Download
49
14
views
downloads
All versions This version
Views 4949
Downloads 1414
Data volume 578.3 kB578.3 kB
Unique views 4848
Unique downloads 1010

Share

Cite as