Work-Strain, Career Course and Research Integrity

描述（由申请人提供）：确保科学的完整性 研究已成为国家的一个重要优先事项。在过去的20年里， 学院科学的结构、文化和性质发生了重大变化， 导致了今天的一些价值观冲突？的科学家。越来越多 科学工作场所所反映和要求的价值观与 研究人员在培训中获得的行为规范。许多当代 研究完整性的讨论指出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 确保研究诚信的建议往往集中在“不良行为者”， 个人缺乏足够的道德基础，从而建议课程 以确保和保持道德行为。我们认为， 从科学标准不能完全理解与独家参考 个别缺陷，也不能通过观察来充分解释 仅仅是因为环境因素。我们的研究假设 - 在研究诚信文献中尚未探索的是， 研究人员，不管是好是坏，必须从相互作用的角度来理解， 结构约束、组织环境和个人 特色 本研究旨在开发和测试一种解释， 学术科学家的不道德行为，主要集中在 工作紧张工作应变的概念是从一般应变理论导出的， 迫使我们在社会背景下审视道德行为者：考虑道德行为者的道德行为。 为研究环境带来的资源以及该环境对 这些资源。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， 导致研究实践存在问题。我们测试这个假设和其他假设， 数据来自一项对随机样本进行的横断面匿名调查 2,000名最近由NIH资助的博士后实习生和类似的随机样本 2,000名R 01资助的科学家主要结果指标包括 对科学规范和反规范的认同，对这些规范的遵守， 和自我报告的研究行为，从无意的错误， 鲁莽或疏忽的行为，以严重不当行为方面的剽窃 和数据伪造或篡改。

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.