NOTES Gender: female Interview year: 2020 Interview mode: remote Full interview length: 00 h 51 min 51 sec; 7961 words Transcript validation: two-researchers Anonymised transcript validation: two-researchers & interviewee Interview language: English ABBREVIATIONS I - interviewer R - interviewee's response [text] - anonymised excerpt <...> - excerpt omitted for anonymisation purposes (e.g., personal, or other-specific data) - technical remarks (e.g., pause, smiling, rebuking) {...} - excerpt omitted to enhance coherent reading {text} - clarification inserted to enhance coherent reading I: So, I would like to start our interview with uh... more broad questions and focus on your path uh as being part of the [network]. Could you shortly tell me about this path? How did you become part of this network? R: Ok. So... Let me think back. So... I think we started to really think about research integrity um... in [my country] about having a national effort in this. <...> And I am sure you know [name of person] who was very active in this area of research integrity. <...> and the idea then was to have a national policy statement on research integrity in [my country]. That would be done as a collaboration between universities, all research performing organisations, research funders and all other stakeholders. And the organisation that I worked in, I worked for was given the lead in developing this. So... there was a [group of people] put together to develop the [formal statement] <...>. Um... I was working at the research office there and I I wasn't involved in the preparation of the [formal statement], but when [the formal statement] was published in [year], one of the commitments was to create a standing [network]. And so, I was asked by my boss to be the [person responsible for inner management] at... for that [group of people]. <...>. And we asked for a volunteer, I suppose to chair that [group of people] and again one [person] volunteered to to chair the [network] and we put the [network] effort together and and essentially [name of a person] and I have, I suppose, built up the [network] and developed the Terms of References. We we found all the members and we continued to run the [network]. And then about [number of] years ago I changed jobs <...>. <...>. And when I moved <...>, we decided that I should remain involved in this [network], I'm also very interested in this area and I wanted to remain involved. Until then I became the [inner management of the network]. <...> That's how I personally became involved in both. I suppose the idea of creating a [network] was a very multi-sectoral thing, uh crossing over between, I suppose, the the body that funds higher education, the higher education institutions, universities themselves and, also, the funding organisations who who really wanted to have a commitment on this. That's how we started. I: Yeah... That's quite a rich path with many experiences on the way. Uh... and even given these all, what I understand, is... it it included also a lot of administration work or, let's say, administrative work. And given this, do you consider yourself as a promoter of research integrity? R: Uh... Yes, I d... I do because... because, you know, one of the the roles of the [network] is is to promote research integrity at national level. Um... I suppose as a... and within my own organisation, I'm trying to promote them to think about research integrity in their own institutions. So, we have [number of] member organisations and I I would try to have conversations with them about research integrity. So, for example, <...> I had a survey of... about all our member organisations to see what kind of policies and procedures they had in place in their institutions for research integrity, for promoting it and for handling misconducts, if they find them, if they get complaints, and for training for researchers. Um... So that's... In my own institut... in my own organisation, I I suppose, I am not really a promoter of research integrity to individual researchers. You know , because because I don't... I haven't had the opportunity, or I don't regularly have the opportunity to engage with individual researchers working in the universities. And the one thing, I suppose, is quite important for my role is that I am currently managing <...> research integrity training across all over the research performing... state-funded research performing organisations in [my country]. And, I suppose, that's that is a big aspect of promoting. <...> And, you know, my job there really is to be the liaison person <...> to really make sure that the [research integrity training] is working there and that involves working quite closely with people who are actually in charge of administering the training at local level and some of them are also in charge of delivering {in-person} training because although online training is very good, um... it's much better if you can do some in- person training as well. So, there are lots of organisations using the online training as a blended learning. So, they have workshops and and seminars. And they also have assignments and these things as well. So, I suppose, in that way I am kind of promoting research integrity. Um... And I also... I was also involved in... why I said I was involved in?... I was in charge of um... admin... tailoring the the the the research integrity training courses and changing them to make them more relevant to [my country]. So, because there... there were good training courses that are valid <...> for [country-specific] markets. And they talk a lot about [country-specific] structures and policies and... their... sort of their national statements. And we needed to update it to make sure {it} is more relevant for us. So, I put together a working group and and did that. That's that's really my my main role in in in promotion and then, I su... I suppose, the role of the... the [network] in promoting nationally as we are organising events and to try to raise awareness. So, we... we've just had [number of] events so far. So, we had a national event <...> and then we did another event which was <...> a joint event on research integrity and [specific topic] um... with another similar organisation in [my country], <...>. And that that's... that's really been our thing. And we've been thinking about what other kind of public events we could do to to to promote the area. And and then I suppose the the final part then really is the promotion of research integrity uh... almost to to policy makers as well. So, the [network] has a role in our national <...> strategy, and we have several tasks that have been allocated to us. And it's it's our job to to report every year to [national] government on our progress on those tasks. And it's part we um... we would meet <...> maybe every [number of] months also with our national government <...>. So, we will be involved in that as well. So, it's not... for me it's not really about promotion of research integrity to individual researchers, it's it's more promoting within system level. I: Yeah. That's a range... a wide range of activities that you mention and at the same time it's really huge responsibility, specifically with the [research integrity training] that you mention. R: Yeah... I... I would say overall... I I probably spend about between 15 and 20 per-cent of my work time on research integrity. So, it's it's it's quite a big portion of what I do. That varies a lot. Sometimes I am really busy with this, particularly when we have meetings coming up or we have events coming up and I'm doing a lot of work. Um... but those those... generally, particularly with the [research integrity training]. This general level of activity always in research integrity space that's going on. I: And within these duties that you've just mentioned, what are the most important goals that you strive to achieve? R: Um... I think... What are the most important goals? ... I think raising awareness is is really an important thing. Um... And I... from me, I think, it's also a b... it's really about almost educating the researchers of the future. Because if I... if I reflect on my... my own experience as a researcher, there're many things that I know now having been involved in research integrity, that I wish I had known when I was a researcher. You know? And there... I am so... I think it's really important at the very early stage of researchers' career. You know, when they begin their doctoral studies. Um... or begin working in research class they have the opportunity to get some training and to to learn from... to learn about these things. So that they start off on a really good path at the beginning. Um... And I think that's that's would probably be the key for me as it's... it's not... and that's not seen as... as a burden or box ticking or bureaucracy for researchers. But it's just seen as a as a fundamental part of what researchers do that almost about behaving ethically as a researcher and doing the right thing. And sometimes it's... it's not clear as the researcher what the right thing is to do. You know. I think, researchers come across all the time, like who should be... who should be added to their publication as an author. You know. If no one tells you what the rules are, then you could get it wrong, you know. Um... sometimes the rules change. And maybe your supervisor just realises that things moved on. And you know, they are asking you to to maybe... to add someone to your publication who wasn't really involved that much. You know. It's up to you, you know, to be able to know. That's that's really my my goal. Educating the researchers of the future is a big thing. I: Mh... And what areas do you find the most meaningful to focus on? Because I think that having so many activities, tasks, that you should establish some prioritisation. Right? R: Yeah... I I I mean, in in in many ways it's it's driven by... the demand and necessity, so obviously the research integrity training <...> isn't immediate thing, but something that needs to be managed and monitored and so... I spend my time on that. And as the as the [network] how we decide what to spend our time on um... is a very multi-collective decision. So, not just talking about maybe talking about the [network]. Um... we... so quite recently, for example, we... we had meeting last [name of month] where we had an an overview from from [name of a person] of... of sort of international trends in the area of research integrity. Hot topic and interesting things were. And then as a group, we collectively decided what were the two main things we would like to work on for the next years, we were to... We have a work programme to put all together. So, we we looked at what's happening internationally, and I suppose then using our own local, national knowledge of of what's happening, then we think about which things are the best to do. And then really because of my my role <...> it's often up to me then to to drive those activities, but it's not really my decision, so obv... obviously I have a role in deciding, but then I would be... For example, at the moment, one of the things we're thinking about doing is producing a... a framework for research integrity in collaborative research. So, whether that's, you know, research with industry or research with international partners or research between more than one institution, and and pitfalls, and things to watch out for - that um... we've decided that we are going to produce that. And I suppose that would be... that it would be my role to organise the meetings. Um... make sure that the work is done and support the [top management] to ensure that the work is done because they are a very busy person. And yeah... it's... I suppose, in that way it's it's not really my decision what to work on, but it's it's more driven by a lot of what the [network] wants to do. I: Mh. And... and given these, because it's quite, you know, interconnected what your role is in the Network and what the Network's... is going to do within the next few years. And... but you are a person here in the organisation. What {is} personal expectation in promoting research integrity? R: My personal expectations? ... Um... I think... Yeah... I think I would really... The thing... As I said, I would really like for it is just being seen as a... as a central... I suppose not as a burden, so not as some extra thing that researchers have to do or have to think about research integrity, but that research integrity and ethical behaviour is just a part of their day-to-day activities in... for researchers. And I would really love, as I suppose, if... we could get to the point - where there was no research misconduct... or at least we get to the point from we have very... or we think... we are already think that we have very small amounts of of real serious research misconduct is happening in [my country], but I think I would like to get to the point where... um... we really have very little and that, as I said, that researchers, you know, know how they should behave in any situation and should just do it. We shouldn't have in the future any instance of research misconduct because researchers should understand their responsibilities and should know uh... what a what a bad behaviour is, if we would like to say. I: Could you tell me what kind of obstacles do you face with in promoting research integrity? R: Um... I I think some of the obstacles that we have found nationally is at at a bit of tension between the the kind of carrot-and-stick approach to to promoting research integrity. And, you know, I I would always much prefer to use the carrots and talk about incentives and talk about the good reasons why researchers should should be interested in research integrity. And then then there are others who feel that the stick is the way to go. And this is sort of threat of being investigated... Um... The threat of your institution being audited and checked. It's it's how you make sure that researchers don't misbehave. And and I I don't agree with that. I I probably think that it's somewhere in the middle that some... that it is a lot about carrots and a little bit of stick, you know. Now we try to en... encourage people... I think one big obstacle that we find, even enrolling in the training, is some level of resistance among the more experienced researchers because they are kind of think - "I know all this", "Why are you talking to me about research integrity?" You know. "I... I don't do anything wrong.". I'm... I'm... you know, "I don't tell my students to do wrong things", and "I don't tell my postdocs to do wrong things". And and "I know all these. So so why should I have to do your training?" and "Why should I have to to to listen to to people talking about this?". That's that's probably I suppose, an attitude among researchers, more senior researchers that... that they know they know about this already and they don't need to be educated. I: Ok. That's pretty... pretty... how to say... similar situation that happens what is called the the change management to try to introduce some changes, doesn't matter - minor or major. There is always the first stage - resistance. I mean anything should... that should... who should overcome it. That is quite usual practice from which to start is first to resist. R: Exactly. Like one of the things that works quite nicely in the area of training is... where uh... So, one of our universities in [city, country region], they they have really nice research integrity training programme where they... the whole research team trains together. So, it's not about having separate training for the... for the... for the supervisors and and for the for the professors and a separate training for students and postdocs. The whole team trains together. And they they all do the same online training, and they work together in in teams, in in-person workshops, so that they go through the process together and they start understand as a team how research integrity is important to them and how these things could... could quite easily go wrong. And then, you know, in terms of the incentives, then they have they do get a certificate at the end, but they also get something <...> you could put it on your on your on your your LinkedIn profile, you can put it on your e-mail signature, you can put it on your CV, to say "I have been formally trained in this particular area". So, that seems to work quite well where you you try to get professor to think about those... their responsibility to their research team and how they lead the research team and how... if that doesn't go well, you may get some research misconduct in your team, even though you wouldn't intend that to happen, you haven't told your students to do the wrong things, but that if... The culture isn't right in your in your research team. And people don't feel comfortable, or people feel that they haven't been trained properly, or they don't understand something. Um... That things can easily go wrong. I: Yeah... but that what I think that in the particular example you provide the leadership is very essential because if there is no one from whom you can learn, so, even learning can sometimes... it can lead to different directions than... than... let's say, it was intended to do. So, how how... how is it going... how is it solved? Because uh... it is quite difficult to find someone who has deep... knowledge, good knowledge about research integrity and and who is able to share this knowledge with others. R: The challenge's to find good people. What... I think what we would have done really is that over time people have have built up, I suppose, an expertise in this area and, you know, this wouldn't be necessarily very senior people, but so one of the things is that... that a lot of people learn from us. We did [an international] exchange with some people from [name of country, name of university]. That's particular university in [city] did had [an international] award for... two researchers from [name of country] came over. And they were very knowledgeable in the area of research integrity and had a role in training in um... in their own institution this model this model [name of university] has adopted of sort of team-based training. And have brought them in in that way and those those people also went and visited some other institutions while they were here. And they talked about their approach. That's been been brought through. So, um... Yeah, that's really all I can say on that. I: Mh. And did you have any decisions, let's say, or solutions, that were very... tough to take or to find uh... while promoting research integrity? R: Um... I can't think of any actually myself. Um... Try to think . I: Maybe you had such a situation that both parts are in not-win position, but maybe someone less wins, someone more. And when you have to, what I say, choose between two bad things. What is the best of the {worst}? R: Yeah... I am trying to think of any example, of anything we had. Um... Yeah... I I suppose one of the things, I am still working through this, is how as a system we can, as like an education system, we can reassure the policy makers that we are doing the right thing in terms of research integrity. I'm... I'm so... We did... We are still really trying to struggle with that. And... we had one of our funding agencies uh... who was very keen that they would take responsibility. Some very strong responsibility for this... to the point of trying to put in place a process where they would audit us, institutions, to see whether they had all the appropriate processes and procedures, and training in place for for research integrity. And I suppose we very strongly resisted that although to some extent we had to go along with this... Um... Because we felt that one funding agency and... <...>. And it was the biggest one. But they only fund in [discipline-specific] research and they they don't... they concentrate a lot of their money in research intensive universities and not in other institutions <...>. So, we just didn't feel that as a funding agency it was... They have a broader freedom but here was also responsibility to audit institutions, you know. They can audit grants because they fund things, and they they have a right to audit. The funding that they put in institutions, and so they softened the language and now they are talking about our review and... and and essentially what we what we had to do - to try to to get a hand, to try to propose an alternative - was to work with the... government authority. Um... So, it's a little bit complicated. So, we have the Ministry for Education and then we have a [governmental body] ... um... which is responsible for distributing funding to the higher education system, but also other things like the policy development and things, like access to education and um... a whole range of things: gender, quality initiatives. And... So, the Ministry has given part of their role to this, this [governmental body]. I am so... We've suggested to that [governmental body] that if any kind of check was to be done on institutions for research integrity that... It was really their responsibility to do this and a bit more. They aren't quite a regulatory body, but they're almost regulatory body. Um... so, we worked with them to... and how how we've done and put together a framework of good research practice. It covers more... It covers much more than just research integrity, it also covers other things, like doctoral training, and providing, you know, gender balance, and providing training for people um... in transferable skills. All that kind of stuff within research integrity partners... and they have now put that into an annual government [formal statement] that every university and university of applied science has to prepare and submit back to the [governmental body] every year. And that covers many things. It covers finance, it covers the whole operation of the institutions. So, in in that way they, I suppose, I'll be very honest right now... while as a higher education institution we might have preferred that nobody came in or examined or so asked any questions, you know. That's instinct, I think. And it's not my instinct, but the instinct of some of the bigger universities anyway was, you know. We we... "We know how to do this", "Don't ask us any questions", "Just leave leave us to do", "We know our thing", "We are doing the right thing". And so, while they might have preferred not to have anybody ask them questions about their policies and procedures and training. I think we did get to the point now where we have the most suitable organisation doing this. So, the [governmental body] is much better that they are doing it and where... We are... We still have a little bit of the... of this funding agency want to do it, but um.... it's a bit more now in a context of... um... auditing or checking on the projects that they sought rather than checking the institution. I: This is what they fund, this is what they check. R: Yes, exactly. Yeah yeah... They just just check that, and I suppose while they are checking, they might ask questions about, well, if there is to be... So, for example, they might ask questions, like um... "How many of the researchers you are working on this project have received research integrity training?" and um... you know "If there is a problem in this project and one of the researchers has found to have made up some data, how would you as an institution would manage that?" Which are perfectly legitimate questions to ask, I think. I: Yeah, but anyway that's already, let's say, in comparison to some other European countries or, let's say, it's a good start. R: Yes, exactly. I: Yeah. Now... R: I suppose we... Yeah, we have, I thought, we have a very good situation now, you know. We have the the [governmental body] who has responsibilities for higher education, will be checking and asking questions about what we do in research integrity. And then we have the research funding agency who'll be asking the questions in relation to the projects that they fund. I: Mh... And what... R: I would also just say that it's taken us to... uh... almost [number of] years to get that point . It's been... it's been... I: Yeah... That's a long way. Yeah. Right. Ok. Again, step by step, it's still forward, not back. R: Yes. Exactly. It has been very much like that. I: And what motivates you to promote research integrity? R: Um... What motivates me... I I think research and innovation are are really important and that's much as because, I guess, I am I am a former researcher. I I just think research is extremely important for... the economic and societal benefit they can they can bring to a nation and how they can help advance nations, economy, and sort of, you know, development as a country. So, I think to me it's it is really important that we have really good research and innovation and that we can grow. So, then if we are going to have a lot of research and innovation, it's really important to me that it's carried out well. And that's... it's not... people don't do sloppy things and they don't make up things and they don't plagiarise others' work. It's important to me because it is still with integrity and it is still an ethical way. Um... And that's just part because it should be, you know. People should do their work properly, you know . Um... but also, I think because if... if there was to be any sense, I suppose, among policy makers, maybe among politicians, possibly among the general public that researchers were not behaving with integrity. Well then, I think it would be presenting threats to the amount of investments that our government will be willing to put into research and innovation every year. So, there is always this danger that, you know, we have a lot of scandals and... you know, politicians get very angry and then all of a sudden researchers' budget is cut. So, that's that's the threat that's that's that is in a background all the time. But I think my my main motivation really is... I think research and innovation is important and I think we should do more about this. And I want it to be done well if we are going to do this. I: And what makes you persistent in performing your duties? Because, as you mention, for example, not everything is white or pink, it's... there's, let's say, there're grey areas. So, what makes you persistent in performing these duties - to promote research integrity? R: Um... I guess it's I just see this part of my job. Um... So, you know, it's it's... I'm also... I'm very interested in it; I am very passionate about this. Um... so, there is there is that and I see this part of my role as as somebody who is, I suppose, a leader in the research system in [my country], to be involved in this area. Um... I mean now I've been I have been really practical about it, you know. I've committed to be in [an inner management] of the [network]. I've I've been there since it started. And, you know, if I'm going to be part of this, I'm I'm supposed... I am just a kind of person when I am going to be in something, I am really in this and I'm gonna do it properly, you know. So, if I am gonna be [managing] this, I'm going to do it properly and I'm going to be active, and I'm going to be promoting. That's that's how it is. I: And... what would you indicate as your greatest achievements in promoting research integrity? R: Um... . Let me see. I think... I think maybe getting the training up and running. That's been a big achievement and... for two for for two reasons. The first being that, you know, the year before we started the training <...>, we we estimated about [number of] researchers in [my country] had done some sort of research integrity training. Um... It's over... [trainings] are almost finished <...> and we had [number of] researchers go through the programme in that time. So, I think that's really tremendous and and it has to {impact}. I mean even if half of those people didn't pay too much attention to it and they just run just through as quickly as possible, you know. It has to have had an effect on raising awareness of research integrity and this... and research misconduct. Potentially research misconduct issues among the research population in [my country]. We we reckon there're about... about [number] of people in the system who could have benefit from this training. Maybe [number of] people. So so... we we really trained a lot of them, you know, in a very short period of time. And that's really good. And then kind of on on a personal level, we we did also manage to convince the research funding bodies to pay for the majority of the costs. And, I suppose, that for me was a bit of a personal personal victory because I had to work quite hard to persuade all of them because they all had different reservations and concerns . That was um... that that project... I'll be honest with you. It hasn't been without its problems, getting it up and running with a lot of slower than we thought it would be. It was a good 6 months to lead in time which we had and anticipated, and we were slow getting started and... We had coincided with a new GDPR legislation and people were very spooked by GDPR and they had... they all had kinds of concerns about what's what's the programme for GDPR compliance because you're transmitting people's personal contact details too. I know. That's body... All that kind of stuff. But I think in general I I am... Despite the fact that at times I have had a very frustrating experience to be involved in this, I am very proud of it. So... and then the other things, I think, that that's that's quite... I think I am quite proud of it. We were... The [network] asked by the [national] governments to be its representatives in one of [European Commission initiatives]. And I'm... I'm really... I thought I'm really glad we have such a good reputation with the Ministry that when they were asked who should be... to to participate in this, that they immediately thought of us. And said, you know, "Oh, those are the people". They didn't just say: "We pick one of those from our services or ask somebody from the research funding agency". They knew about the [network] and they respected our work, and that they wanted us to be the ones who were representing [my country]. And I'm... I'm... I think I was very proud of that. I: Yeah. Definitely, it has something that keeps moving forward afterwards. Let's hypothesize that training <...> gets its main goals which is raising awareness on research integrity or, let's say, researchers have good knowledge about research integrity, and they are able to apply... it in their daily professional life. Or let's say, that uh... all universities and universities of applied sciences have well-developed policies. So, what else would you like to further achieve? R: Um... Yeah. I think I think one of the things... that I I think is is interesting is or, I suppose, it is a challenge now. So, I think we've done quite a lot of work at individual {institution} level. I suppose, collectively on the training... Um... And in helping people at individual {institution} level to build up the policies and procedures that that they need. Um... One of the really challenging areas for people now is this whole collaborative research area. That's... you know, so where we do research with industry, where we do research with international partners and, you know, in the big Horizon 2020 where we have a mix, you know, a mix of universities, industry and sometimes several society bodies, patient organisations and... um I suppose, the things that can go wrong in those collaborations and how things should be handled, and I suppose how... When you are putting together those kinds of collaborations, you should be thinking about research integrity... um... from the very beginning. And you know, I I was bef... before I came to work for [higher education institutions] <...>. And it was something that I always suggested to people who were writing proposals um... for their... for big consortium partner projects. That when they write a section on what kind of risk planning, that they think about research integrity and how they would manage any problems in relation to research integrity um... if they arose within the consortium. And then also, how would you give training to the researchers on the project as well? So, I think there are still problems because we think about it as it's... For example, if it's a big... it's a very simple project between one university and one company (and we have lots of these in universities of applied sciences) and maybe the researcher from the company comes to work in a university for for a time and you find afterwards that they did something wrong. Where does the responsibility lie? So, you know, is it a job of the company because the person works for the company to to maybe doing investigation and and see something? Or is it the responsibility of the university um... to to do it? And um... you know, it's it's it's a very complex thing and this is something that we we haven't really given much guidance on and so we would like to give guidance to people, so that they understand what they would need to do if something went wrong. But also, they need to think about how they can be always be considering research integrity at the start of building projects. And and not always as something to think about only when things go wrong. I: Yeah. The the example you provided about this shared responsibility between university and, let's say, industry. This really reminds me some situation where, for example, the researcher is hired from university as as know-how, but, for example, hard infrastructure is in the industry. So, the researcher is asked to go to the industry lab to do some research and if something happens in the lab... Who is responsible for this researcher? So, let's say, it's an accident. R: Yeah! I: What's then?... Definitely so, I understand what you say about this kind specific area. Uh... So, what do you get from this job? R: Um... I think personal satisfaction really. Um... and, also, foremost satisfaction and then, I suppose, external recognition. You know so, obviously, I try to to advance in my career and the [network] is good... It's a good national platform to be involved in and for people to to to recognise you as being in, I suppose, leading in in an area is is always good thing, I suppose. So, yeah. So, it's it's that yeah. I: So, what makes you satisfied in in this? I mean, could you give one or two examples? R: Um... Let me see... Um... I'm trying to think... If if I think about it, one of the things that is really quite rewarding, so... I get asked a couple of times a year to go to one of the universities where they are having a workshop to introduce the training programme. And that's one of the things I find. So, I may get asked to come because of my role in the [network], I may get asked and to talk about the [network]. So, the workshop is kind of , you know, they get they get somebody, they get a chair of the ethics committee to come and talk about integrity, why it's important. He... Does the... I think I call it a harsh show sometimes, you know, he shows all the really bad cases - [names of prominent researchers] and all these people who did terrible things. And talks very much about the importance of of research integrity and then I come in and talk about the [network]. Um... then the the sort of their person who runs the programme in the university, comes in and talks about how they managed things in their own university. But, I think, what's kind of rewarding for me then is that a lot of people that wrap up in workshops are very early-stage research students. And what's really rewarding for me, I suppose, is seeing the... I suppose, how enthused is the wrong word, but it's like their eyes have been opened to this, that if probably walk in the door going... "Uh! I've been told to go to this workshop, and I have to do this course. I've no idea what it is." Um... "It's probably really boring. And I have just to do it." So, kind of here to listen to because they have to... Um... And you can see, not with all of them... You can see a kind of a spark of enthusiasm that comes to them as they listen to the talks and look at the material. And I think they go out of this with the much bigger, much better appreciation as they've thought about and understanding of how it's actually important and relevant to them and not some boring seminar when they've been told to go to by their supervisor. So that's... that's kind of I find that very rewarding. I was always really enjoyed when I get that invitation to go to that because I think it's really good to see that new generation um... of people. I: Mh. And how are you appreciated for this? I mean, what credit do you get from this? R: Um... What credit do I get? ... Um... I mean, I don't. No one gives me a medal . Yet Um... I don't know. I guess, I just get credit from my peers. It would be... How how I would describe this... Um... Um, I suppose, in terms of my career development then. Of course, I get credit from my peers. I also get credit from the Ministry in terms of the the role. So so, you know, any any time that we've gone into presenting us <...>. Um... they are always very thankful to us for for for for what we do. You know. And and always very kind of complimentary and very happy and and... very pleased. Um... I suppose, from from my own personal career development point of view, um... it does give me the opportunity to... to build up some new skills in in leadership um... particularly in managing diverse and challenging set of stakeholders. Because the [network] is a big organisation and there are a lot of different opinions around the table and it hasn't always been as easy thing to do and... Um... So, for for me there's there's that. And and this is also the... the getting to learn from the [top management] how to navigate some of these these very difficult situations. Um... because the [top management] is very experienced um... <...>. And [s/he] is very very skilled at managing these challenging conversations and challenging people and situations. And for me that's that's very rewarding to be able to work with [her/him]. Um... And, also, my rela... my relationship the relationship that I built up with [her/him] has actually been very very rewarding and I would consider [her/him] to be a mentor and somebody that I could rely on and somebody like I can, I suppose, bounce ideas off and who... what you could need any help or anything, um... yeah... [s/he's] very good good person to know. So, first of that, I suppose that personal, I mean personal, kind of professional level - it's it's been it's been very rewarding there because, I think, I've been really grown as a professional through being involved in this [network]. I: Ok. So, this kind of rewards that you mention rather relate to what you... let's say, identify at this moment. But... R: Mh. I: what about the future... I mean, how could your current role affect your career in the future? Because you mention an example of resistance from the senior researchers. R: Yeah... Yeah. I would... I I I think that... You know, I I see my my role in the future as kind of remaining in the policy space. I suppose to moving to institutions although we've never known what will happen. Um... Yeah. I think we get some resistance from senior researchers, but, I mean, over time... I think with the work that we're going with the new generation of researchers ... I think, over time there will be... come a more widespread acceptance of research integrity and, as you said, sometimes the first instinct of people is to resist something and then they kind of realise over time that actually it's a good idea. So, I I think we're we're moving beyond the resistance phase into the more acceptance phase, you know. And so yeah... I think I think we will be ok. I: Mh. Just to summing up because we've already had a few questions. What does your work mean to you? R: My work in research integrity or my work generally? I: Your... your work in promoting research integrity. R: Um... My work in promoting research integrity... what's it mean to me? Um... It's very important. Um... It's very important to me. I I think... it's important to me professionally, as I've said. But I do also feel like it's a service to both the research community and to then the nation. That sounds very lofty. And, you know, it's it's something that I'm doing for for [my country's] benefits. That's kind of or at least benefits research and innovation in [my country]. So, that's that's what it means to me. I: Yeah. As a true citizen. R: Yeah. Exactly. Sort of a citizen. Yeah. Exactly. It's sort of my my citizen duty to do this. I: Mh. Is there anything else that you find important to mention, but I haven't asked? R: Um... Let me think. . Yeah. I think I think maybe what what's interesting about the the [network] and and how it's working is that it really is, I suppose, a cross-functional group of people, diverse group of people. And I think that's very helpful because, you know, everybody... everybody has a voice on it. You know, the universities are there, the university of applied sciences are there, the the the sort of government agencies, research funders are there, the national academy is there. Um... So, it's a really diverse... it's a really good group to have. And we got diverse opinions that is not always easy, but I think as a way of making sure that everybody has a voice, and everybody has a role, it's it's really good thing and it means that it isn't just one voice that is dominating in the conversation or one type of voice is dominating the conversation. It's it's much more... bipartisan is a wrong word because this is more than two people, but it's kind of multi-partisan way of doing things. Um... I think that's really a valuable thing in terms of promoting research integrity. It's not the funders saying, you know "Do this or else". It's not the Ministry saying, you know, "Do this or we'll take your money away." Um... it's not the university saying "Oh. Leave us alone. Let's do we want ourselves." We we we always have to come to some kind of compromise that suits everybody as much as possible. Um... So, yeah, I think I think that's that's probably the only extra thing I would probably like to say. I: Mh. Ok. Uh. So, thank you, [name of an interviewee], for dedicating your time for this study. {...}