Can research integrity prevail in the market? Lessons from commissioned research organizations

References

• ALLEA. 2017. The European Code of Conduct for Research Integrity - Revised Edition. Berlin: ALLEA - All European Academies. https://allea.org/code-of-conduct/
   Google Scholar
• Als-Nielsen, B., W. Chen, C. Gluud, and L. Kjaergard. 2003. “Association of Funding and Conclusions in Randomized Drug Trials: A Reflection of Treatment Effect or Adverse Events?” Jama 290 (7): 921–928. doi:10.1001/jama.290.7.921.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Anderson, M. S., E. A. Ronning, R. de Vries, and B. C. Martinson. 2007. “The Perverse Effects of Competition on Scientists’ Work and Relationships.” Science and Engineering Ethics 13 (4): 437–461. doi:10.1007/s11948-007-9042-5.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Antes, A. L., R. P. Brown, S. T. Murphy, E. P. Waples, M. D. Mumford, S. Connelly, and L. D. Devenport. 2007. “Personality and Ethical Decision-Making in Research: The Role of Perceptions of Self and Others.” Journal of Empirical Research on Human Research Ethics 2 (4): 15–34. doi:10.1525/jer.2007.2.4.15.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Battilana, J., B. Leca, and E. Boxenbaum. 2009. “How Actors Change Institutions: Towards a Theory of Institutional Entrepreneurship.” Academy of Management Annals 3 (1): 65–107. doi:10.5465/19416520903053598.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bouter, L. 2020. ““What Research Organizations Can Do to Foster Research Integrity.” Science and Engineering Ethics 26 (4): 2363–2369. doi:10.1007/s11948-020-00178-5.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Creswell, J. W. 2014. Research Design: Qualitative, Quantitative, and Mixed Methods Approaches. 4th ed. Thousand Oaks: Sage publications
   Google Scholar
• Davis, M. S., M. Riske-Morris, and S. R. Diaz. 2007. “Causal Factors Implicated in Research Misconduct: Evidence from ORI Case Files.” Science and Engineering Ethics 13 (4): 395–414. doi:10.1007/s11948-007-9045-2.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Drenth, P. J. D. 2006. “Responsible Conduct in Research.” Science and Engineering Ethics 12 (1): 9. doi:10.1007/PL00022265.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Edwards, M. A., and S. Roy. 2017. “Academic Research in the 21st Century: Maintaining Scientific Integrity in a Climate of Perverse Incentives and Hypercompetition.” Environmental Engineering Science 34 (1): 51–61. doi:10.1089/ees.2016.0223.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fanelli, D., F. C. Rodrigo Costas, A. C. Fang, and E. M. Bik. 2019. “Testing Hypotheses on Risk Factors for Scientific Misconduct via Matched-Control Analysis of Papers Containing Problematic Image Duplications.” Science and Engineering Ethics 25 (3): 771–789. doi:10.1007/s11948-018-0023-7.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fisher, J. A., and C. Kalbaugh. 2013. “United States Private-Sector Physicians and Pharmaceutical Contract Research: A Qualitative Study”.” PLoS Med 9 (7): e1001271. doi:10.1371/journal.pmed.1001271.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Foreman, P., and D. A. Whetten. 2002. “Members’ Identification with Multiple-Identity Organizations.” Organization Science 13 (6): 618–635. doi:10.1287/orsc.13.6.618.493.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fossestøl, K., E. Breit, T. A. Andreassen, and L. Klemsdal. 2015. “Managing Institutional Complexity in Public Sector Reform: Hybridization in Front-Line Service Organizations.” Public Administration 93 (2): 290–306. doi:10.1111/padm.12144.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fox, M. F., and J. M. Braxton. 1994. “Misconduct and Social Control in Science: Issues, Problems, Solutions.” The Journal of Higher Education 65 (3): 373–383. doi:10.2307/2943973.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Friedland, R., and R. Alford. 1991. “Bringing Society Back In: Symbols, Practices, and Institutional Contradictions.” In The New Institutionalism in Organizational Analysis, edited by W. W. Powell and P. J. DiMaggio, 232–263. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
   Google Scholar
• Frølich, N., J. Huisman, S. Slipersæter, B. Stensaker, and P. C. P. Bótas. 2013. “A Reinterpretation of Institutional Transformations in European Higher Education: Strategising Pluralistic Organisations in Multiplex Environments.” Higher Education 65 (1): 79–93. doi:10.1007/s10734-012-9582-8.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Greenwood, R., C. Oliver, K. Sahlin, and R. Suddaby. 2008. “Introduction.” In The Sage Handbook of Organizational Institutionalism, edited by R. Greenwood, C. Oliver, K. Sahlin, and R. Suddaby, 1–46. London: Sage
   Google Scholar
• Grossi, G., D. Dobija, and W. Strzelczyk. October 2019. “The Impact of Competing Institutional Pressures and Logics on the Use of Performance Measurement in Hybrid Universities.” Public Performance & Management Review: 1–27. doi:10.1080/15309576.2019.1684328.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Guarini, E., F. Magli, and A. Francesconi. 2020. “Academic Logics in Changing Performance Measurement Systems: An Exploration in a University Setting.” Qualitative Research in Accounting & Management 17 (1): 109–142. doi:10.1108/QRAM-06-2019-0076.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gulbrandsen, M. 2008. “The Co-Evolution of Research Institutes with Universities and User Needs: A Historical Perspective.” In Science and Society Relationships in the Age of Globalization. Past Reforms and Future Challenges, edited by E. Moen, 188–213. Oslo: Research Council of Norway.
   Google Scholar
• Gulbrandsen, M. 2011. “Research Institutes as Hybrid Organizations: Central Challenges to Their Legitimacy.” Policy Sciences 44 (3): 215–230. doi:10.1007/s11077-011-9128-4.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hallonsten, O. 2017. “The Third Sector of R&D: Literature Review, Basic Analysis, and Research Agenda.” Prometheus 35 (1): 21–35. doi:10.1080/08109028.2017.1362830.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ham, V. 1999. “Tracking the Truth or Selling One’s Soul? Reflections on the Ethics of a Piece of Commissioned Research.” British Journal of Educational Studies 47 (3): 275–282. doi:10.1111/1467-8527.00119.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hiney, M. 2015. “Research Integrity: What It Means, Why It Is Important and How We Might Protect It.” Science Europe. http://www.scienceeurope.org/media/dnwbwaux/briefing_paper_research_integrity_web.pdf
   Google Scholar
• Holden, L., and F. Tone. 2018. Forskningsetikk for Oppdragsforskning. Vol. 22. Oslo: FAFO. https://fafo.no/images/pub/2018/10287.pdf
   Google Scholar
• Horbach, S. P. J. M., and W. Halffman. 2017. “Promoting Virtue or Punishing Fraud: Mapping Contrasts in the Language of ‘Scientific Integrity.” Science and Engineering Ethics 23 (6): 1461–1485. doi:10.1007/s11948-016-9858-y.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Israel, M. 2015. Research Ethics and Integrity for Social Scientists: Beyond Regulatory Compliance. London: Sage
   Google Scholar
• Jackall, R. 1988. Moral Mazes: The World of Corporate Managers. New York: Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Kaiser, M., K. Rønning, K. W. Ruyter, and M. E. Grung. 2003. Oppdragsforskning: Åpenhet, Kvalitet, Etterrettelighet. Oslo: De nasjonale forskningsetiske komiteer. https://www.etikkom.no/globalassets/documents/publikasjoner-som-pdf/oppdragsforskning-2003.pdf
   Google Scholar
• Kennedy, M.-R., I. Ampollini, E. Breit, M. Bucchi, Z. Deans, R. ter Meulen, K. Seppel, and K. J. Vie. 2018. “Investigating the Workfloor: Experiences of Research Integrity and Misconduct through Focus Groups.” http://printeger.eu/wp-content/uploads/2019/01/D4_3-Investigating-the-work-floor_experience-through-Focus-groups.pdf
   Google Scholar
• Kuhn, T. S. 2012. The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. Chicago and London: University of Chicago Press.
   Google Scholar
• Kuroki, T. 2018. “New Classification of Research Misconduct from the Viewpoint of Truth, Trust, and Risk.” Accountability in Research 25 (7–8): 404–408. doi:10.1080/08989621.2018.1548283.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lamont, M. 2009. How Professors Think: Inside the Curious World of Academic Judgement. Cambridge: Harvard University Press
   Google Scholar
• Late, E. 2019. “Making and Publishing Knowledge in Research Institutes.” In Research outside the Academy: Professional Knowledge-Making in the Digital Age, edited by L. Börjesson and I. Huvila, 51–70. Cham: Springer International Publishing. doi:10.1007/978-3-319-94177-6_3.
   Google Scholar
• Lepori, B. 2016. “Universities as Hybrids: Applications of Institutional Logics Theory to Higher Education.” In Theory and Method in Higher Education Research Vol. 2, edited by J. Huisman and M. Tight, 245–264. Bingley: Emerald Publishing. doi:10.1108/S2056-375220160000002013
   Google Scholar
• Lundh, A., J. Lexchin, J. B. Barbara Mintzes, and L. B. Schroll. 2017. “Industry Sponsorship and Research Outcome.” Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews (2). Art. No.: MR000033. doi:10.1002/14651858.MR000033.pub3.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Macfarlane, B. 2009. Researching with Integrity: The Ethics of Academic Enquiry. New York: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Macfarlane, B. 2019. “The Neoliberal Academic: Illustrating Shifting Academic Norms in an Age of Hyper-Performativity.” Educational Philosophy and Theory: 1–10. doi:10.1080/00131857.2019.1684262.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Marginson, S. 2000. “Rethinking Academic Work in the Global Era.” Journal of Higher Education Policy and Management 22 (1): 23–35. doi:10.1080/713678133.
   Google Scholar
• Martin, B. R. 2013. “Whither Research Integrity? Plagiarism, Self-Plagiarism and Coercive Citation in an Age of Research Assessment.” Research Policy 42 (5): 1005–1014. doi:10.1016/j.respol.2013.03.011.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Merton, R. K. 1973. “The Normative Structure of Science.” In The Sociology of Science - Theoretical and Empirical Investigations, edited by N. W. Storer, 267–278. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
   Google Scholar
• OECD. 2020. “Joint OECD-Eurostat International Data Collection on Resources Devoted to RD.” https://www.oecd.org/sti/inno/researchanddevelopmentstatisticsrds.htm
   Google Scholar
• Oravec, J. A. 2017. “The Manipulation of Scholarly Rating and Measurement Systems: Constructing Excellence in an Era of Academic Stardom.” Teaching in Higher Education 22 (4): 423–436. doi:10.1080/13562517.2017.1301909.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pincoffs, E. L. 1986. Quandaries and Virtues: Against Reductivism in Ethics. Lawrence, KS: University Press of Kansas.
   Google Scholar
• Randall, D. M., and M. F. Fernandes. 1991. “The Social Desirability Response Bias in Ethics Research.” Journal of Business Ethics 10 (11): 805–817. doi:10.1007/BF00383696.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Resnik, D. B. 2014. “Scientific Misconduct and Research Integrity.” In Handbook of Global Bioethics, edited by H. Ten Have and B. Gordijn, 799–810. Dordrecht: Springer.
   Google Scholar
• Richter, M., and U. Hostettler. 2015. “Conducting Commissioned Research in Neoliberal Academia: The Conditions Evaluations Impose on Research Practice.” Current Sociology 63 (4): 493–510. doi:10.1177/0011392114562497.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ritchie, J., J. Lewis, C. McNaughton Nicholls, and R. Ormston, eds. 2013. Qualitative Research Practice: A Guide for Social Science Students and Researchers. London: Sage
   Google Scholar
• Shaw, D. 2018. “The Quest for Clarity in Research Integrity: A Conceptual Schema.” Science and Engineering Ethics 25 (4): 1085–1093. doi:10.1007/s11948-018-0052-2.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• The Research Council of Norway. 2017. Evaluation of the Norwegian Social Science Research Institutes. Oslo: The Research Council of Norway. https://www.forskningsradet.no/contentassets/4c9af6fa297d4cbabad73222f8dbd2ac/evalueringsamfunnsvitenskapeligeinstutter.pdf/.
   Google Scholar
• Thornton, P. H., W. Ocasio, and M. Lounsbury. 2012. The Institutional Logics Perspective. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Tijdink, J. K., L. M. Bouter, C. L. S. Veldkamp, P. M. van de ven, J. M. Wicherts, and Y. M. Smulders. 2016. “Personality Traits are Associated with Research Misbehavior in Dutch Scientists: A Cross-Sectional Study.” PLOS ONE 11 (9): e0163251. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0163251.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Yang, W. 2013. “Research Integrity in China.” Science 342 (6162): 1019. doi:10.1126/science.1247700.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar