Procedural Justice, Identity, and Research Integrity

描述（由申请人提供）：本研究旨在分析科学家对程序公正的感知与他们与研究完整性相关的积极和消极行为之间的关系。我们将从三个不同的层面来研究科学家的工作背景和他们的行为之间的关系：学术部门、机构和任务环境，其中包括与科学家的研究直接相关的外部代理（资助机构、监管机构、学科组织等）网络。程序公正在这里是指个人对组织中决策的公平性的看法，特别是在决定资源分配的程序中。我们假设，当科学家意识到程序正义受到侵犯时，即认为影响自己和工作的资源决策是不公平的；他们会表现出消极的“纠正反应”，比如研究中的不当行为或其他与科学规范期望背道而驰的行为。另一方面，当科学家意识到程序公正时，他们将更有可能按照研究诚信的最高标准行事。我们的分析将基于对健康科学、医学、生物学、化学和社会科学领域的5000名科学家进行的一项全国性调查的数据。我们的具体目标是1)估计这些科学家对程序不公正的看法，相对于上面列出的三个科学水平；2)估计这些感知与研究诚信相关的积极和消极行为之间的关联程度，以及3)确定受访者作为科学家的社会身份对这种关联的影响程度。我们的长期目标是开发评估工具，用于测量科学家在工作环境中对程序正义的看法，以及针对情境层面的干预建议，这些层面显示了不公正观念与消极行为之间最强烈的关系。

DESCRIPTION (provided by applicant): This study is an analysis of the relationships between scientists' perceptions of procedural justice and their behaviors, both positive and negative, related to the integrity of their research. We will examine these relationships between the context of scientists' work and their behavior at 3 different levels: the academic department, the institution, and the task environment which encompasses the web of external agents (funding agencies, regulatory bodies, disciplinary organizations, etc.) that relate directly to scientists' research. Procedural justice here refers to individual's perceptions about the fairness of decision-making in organizations, particularly in the procedures that determine the distribution of resources. We hypothesize that when scientists perceive violations of procedural justice, that is, believe that decision-making about resources that affect themselves and their work is unfair; they will exhibit negative "corrective responses" such as misbehavior in research or other conduct that runs counter to normative expectations in science. On the other hand, when scientists perceive procedural justice, they will be more likely to behave in accordance with the highest standards of research integrity. We will base our analyses on data from a national survey of an appropriately nested random sample of 5,000 scientists in the health sciences, medicine, biology, chemistry and the social sciences. Our specific aims are 1) to estimate perceptions of procedural injustice among these scientists, with respect to the 3 levels of science listed above; 2) estimate the degree of association between these perceptions and both positive and negative behaviors related to research integrity, and 3) determine the extent to which respondents' social identity as scientists affects this association. Our long-term objective is to develop assessment tools for the measurement of scientists' perceptions of procedural justice in their work environments, as well as recommendations for interventions specific to the contextual levels that show the strongest relationships between perceptions of injustice and negative behaviors.