Work-Strain, Career Course and Research Integrity

描述(由申请人提供)：确保科学研究的完整性 研究已成为国家的重要优先事项。在过去的20年里， 学术科学的结构、文化和性质都发生了重大变化， 在今天引发了许多价值冲突吗？S科学家。越来越多的人 反映在科学工作场所和科学工作场所所要求的价值观与 研究人员在培训中获得的行为规范。许多当代的人 对研究完整性的讨论指向了这些新的和前所未有的价值 冲突是科学不端行为的驱动因素。然而，大多数人 确保研究诚信的提案往往集中在“不良行为者”身上， 缺乏足够道德基础的个人，因此建议开设课程 回应，以确保和维护道德行为。我们认为，偏差 来自科学标准的内容不能完全通过独家参考来理解 个人的缺陷，也不能通过观察来充分解释 只考虑背景因素。我们提出的研究是从假设开始的 -在研究诚信文献中尚未探索-行为 研究人员，无论是好是坏，都必须从互动的角度来理解 在结构约束、组织背景和个人之间 特点。 本研究旨在开发和测试一种解释 学术科学家中的不道德行为主要集中在 工作压力大。功-应变的概念，源于一般应变理论， 迫使我们在社会语境中审视道德行为者：思考道德 为研究环境带来的资源以及该环境对 那些资源。我们假设工作压力会导致负面情绪， 对科学家造成不同的压力，除了其他结果外，可能 导致了有问题的研究实践。我们用以下方法测试这一假设和其他假设 来自对随机样本进行的横断面匿名调查的数据 对2,000名最近由NIH资助的博士后实习生和类似的随机样本 在最近的2000名R01支持的科学家中。主要结果衡量标准包括 坚持科学规范和反规范，坚守这些规范， 和自我报告的研究行为，从无意的错误，到 鲁莽或疏忽的行为，到严重的抄袭行为 以及伪造或伪造数据。

DESCRIPTION (provided by applicant): Ensuring the integrity of scientific research has become an important national priority. Over the past 20 years, the structure, culture and nature of academic science have changed significantly, causing a number of value conflicts for today?s scientists. Increasingly, the values reflected in, and required by, the scientific workplace are at odds with the behavioral norms researchers acquired in their training. Many contemporary discussions of research integrity point to these new and unprecedented value conflicts as the driving factors in scientific misconduct. And yet, most proposals for ensuring research integrity tend to focus on "bad actors," individuals lacking adequate moral grounding, thereby suggesting a curricular response to ensure and maintain ethical conduct. We believe that deviations from scientific standards cannot be fully understood with exclusive reference to individual deficiencies, nor can they be adequately explained by looking solely at contextual factors. Our proposed research begins from the assumption - as yet unexplored in the research integrity literature - that the behavior of researchers, for good or ill, must be understood in terms of the interaction between structural constraints, organizational contexts and individual characteristics. The present research is designed to develop and test an explanation for unethical conduct among academic scientists that focuses primarily on work-strain. The concept of work-strain, derived from general strain theory, forces us to examine the moral actor in a social context: to consider the moral resources brought to the research setting and the influence of that setting on those resources. We hypothesize that work-strain leads to negative affect, creating differential pressure on scientists that, among other outcomes, may lead to questionable research practices. We test this and other hypotheses with data from a cross-sectional, anonymous survey administered to a random sample of 2,000 recent NIH-supported postdoctoral trainees and a similar random sample of 2,000 recent R01 supported scientists. Primary outcome measures include subscription to scientific norms and counternorms, adherence to these norms, and self-reported research behavior ranging from unintentional errors, through reckless or negligent behavior, to serious misconduct in terms of plagiarism and data fabrication or falsification.