Assembling research integrity: negotiating a policy object in scientific governance

References

• Adam, B., and C. Groves. 2011. “Futures Tended: Care and Future-Oriented Responsibility.” Bulletin of Science, Technology & Society 31 (1): 17–27.
   Google Scholar
• ALLEA - All European Academies. 2017. The European Code of Conduct for Research Integrity (Revised Edition). Berlin: ALLEA - All European Academies.
   Google Scholar
• Arnaldi, S., and G. Gorgoni. 2016. “Turning the Tide or Surfing the Wave? Responsible Research and Innovation, Fundamental Rights and Neoliberal Virtues.” Life Sciences, Society and Policy 12 (1): 6.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Bülow, W., and G. Helgesson. 2019. “Criminalization of Scientific Misconduct.” Medicine, Health Care and Philosophy 22 (2): 245–252.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Davies, S. R. 2019. “An Ethics of the System: Talking to Scientists about Research Integrity.” Science and Engineering Ethics 25 (4): 1235–1253. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1007/s11948-018-0064-y.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Davies, S. R. 2020. “Epistemic Living Spaces, International Mobility, and Local Variation in Scientific Practice.” Minerva 58: 97–114. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1007/s11024-019-09387-0.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• De Vries, R., M. S. Anderson, and B. C. Martinson. 2006. “Normal Misbehavior: Scientists Talk about the Ethics of Research.” Journal of Empirical Research on Human Research Ethics : JERHRE 1 (1): 43–50.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dorbeck-Jung, B., and C. Shelley-Egan. 2013. “Meta-Regulation and Nanotechnologies: The Challenge of Responsibilisation within the European Commission’s Code of Conduct for Responsible Nanosciences and Nanotechnologies Research.” NanoEthics 7 (1): 55–68.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Douglas-Jones, R., and S. Wright. 2017. “Mapping the Integrity Landscape: Organisations, Policies, Concepts”. CHEF Working Papers on University Reform 27. Copenhagen: CHEF, Danish School of Education, Aarhus University.
   Google Scholar
• Fanelli, D., Costas, R., Fang, F.C. et al. Testing Hypotheses on Risk Factors for Scientific Misconduct via Matched-Control Analysis of Papers Containing Problematic Image Duplications. Sci Eng Ethics 25, 771–789 (2019). https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1007/s11948-018-0023-7.
   Google Scholar
• Fealing, K. Husbands, J. I. Lane, III M. J. H, and S.S. Shipp. 2011. The Science of Science Policy: A Handbook. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1515/9780804781602.
   Google Scholar
• Felt, U., ed. 2009. Knowing and Living in Academic Research: Convergences and Heterogeneity in Research Cultures in the European Context. Prague: Institute of Sociology of the Academy of Sciences of the Czech Republic.
   Google Scholar
• Fischer, F., D. Torgerson, A. Durnová, and M. Orsini. 2015. Handbook of Critical Policy Studies. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing.
   Google Scholar
• Franzen, M., S. Rödder, and P. Weingart. 2007. “Fraud: Causes and Culprits as Perceived by Science and the Media: Institutional Changes, Rather than Individual Motivations, Encourage Misconduct.” EMBO Reports 8 (1): 3–7.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fuster, G. G., and S. Gutwirth. 2018. PRINTEGER D3.4: Codes and Legislation.
   Google Scholar
• Gläser, J., and G. Laudel. 2016. “Governing Science: How Science Policy Shapes Research Content.” European Journal of Sociology/Archives Européennes De Sociologie 57 (1): 117–168.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Godecharle, S., B. Nemery, and K. Dierickx. 2013. “Guidance on Research Integrity: No Union in Europe.” The Lancet 381 (9872): 1097–1098.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hilgartner, S. 1990. “Research Fraud, Misconduct, and the IRB.” IRB: Ethics & Human Research 12 (1): 1–4.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Hirslund, D. V., S. R. Davies, and M. Monka (edited by). 2019. “Report on National Meeting for Temporarily Employed Researchers, Copenhagen September 2018”. Dansk Magisterforening.
   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.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hulme, M. 2009. Why We Disagree about Climate Change: Understanding Controversy, Inaction and Opportunity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Kearnes, M., and M. Wienroth. 2011. “Tools of the Trade: UK Research Intermediaries and the Politics of Impacts.” Minerva 49 (2): 153–174.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lam, A. 2010. “From “Ivory Tower Traditionalists” to “Entrepreneurial Scientists”? Academic Scientists in Fuzzy University—Industry Boundaries.” Social Studies of Science 40 (2): 307–340.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Law, J. 2002. Aircraft Stories: Decentering the Object in Technoscience. Durham: Duke University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Law, J. 2017. “STS as Method.” In The Handbook of Science and Technology Studies, edited by U. Felt, R. Fouché, C. Miller, and L. Smith-Doerr, 31–57. Boston, MA: MIT Press.
   Google Scholar
• Linkova, M. 2013. “Unable to Resist: Researchers’ Responses to Research Assessment in the Czech Republic.” Human Affairs 24 (1): 78–88.
   Google Scholar
• Martinson, B. C., A. Lauren Crain, R. De Vries, and M. S. Anderson. 2010. “The Importance of Organizational Justice in Ensuring Research Integrity.” Journal of Empirical Research on Human Research Ethics : JERHRE 5 (3): 67–83.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mellaard, A., and T. van Meijl. 2017. “Doing Policy: Enacting a Policy Assemblage about Domestic Violence.” Critical Policy Studies 11 (3): 330–348.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Miettinen, R. 1998. “Object Construction and Networks in Research Work:: The Case of Research on Cellulose-Degrading Enzymes.” Social Studies of Science 28 (3): 423–463.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mol, A. 2002. The Body Multiple: Ontology in Medical Practice. Durham: Duke University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Morris, N. 2000. “Science Policy in Action: Policy and the Researcher.” Minerva 38: 425–451.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Owen, R., J. Stilgoe, P. Macnaghten, M. Gorman, E. Fisher, and D. Guston. 2013. “A Framework for Responsible Innovation.” In Responsible Innovation, edited by R. Owen, J. Bessant, and G. G. Y. Heintz, 27–50, Hoboken: John Wiley & Sons, .
   Google Scholar
• Power, M. 2015. “How Accounting Begins: Object Formation and the Accretion of Infrastructure.” Accounting, Organizations and Society 47 (November): 43–55.
   Google Scholar
• Price, M. 2009. “Access Imagined: The Construction of Disability in Conference Policy Documents.” Disability Studies Quarterly 29 (1).
   Google Scholar
• Reich, E. S. 2009. Plastic Fantastic: How the Biggest Fraud in Physics Shook the Scientific World. Manhattan: St. Martin’s Press.
   Google Scholar
• Resnik, D. B., L. M. Rasmussen, and G. E. Kissling. 2015. “An International Study of Research Misconduct Policies.” Accountability in Research 22 (5): 249–266.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Salwén, H. 2015. “The Swedish Research Council’s Definition of “Scientific Misconduct”: A Critique.” Science and Engineering Ethics 21 (1): 115–126.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sarauw, L. L., L. Degn, and J. W. Ørberg. 2019. “Researcher Development through Doctoral Training in Research Integrity.” International Journal for Academic Development 24 (2): 178–191.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Schomberg, R. 2013. “A Vision of Responsible Innovation.” In Responsible Innovation, edited by R. Owen, M. Heintz, and J. Bessant, 51-74. London: John Wiley.
   Google Scholar
• Shore, C., S. Wright, and P. Davide. 2011. Policy Worlds: Anthropology and the Analysis of Contemporary Power. New York: Berghahn Books.
   Google Scholar
• Sin, C. 2014. “The Policy Object: A Different Perspective on Policy Enactment in Higher Education.” Higher Education 68 (3): 435–448.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Slaughter, S., and L. L. Leslie. 1997. Academic Capitalism: Politics, Policies, and the Entrepreneurial University. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Smith-Doerr, L., and I. Vardi. 2015. “Mind the Gap: Formal Ethics Policies and Chemical Scientists’ Everyday Practices in Academia and Industry.” Science, Technology, & Human Values 40 (2): 176–198.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Spruit, Shannon L., Gordon D. H., and David A. R. 2016. ‘Just a Cog in the Machine? The Individual Responsibility of Researchers in Nanotechnology Is a Duty to Collectivize’. Science and Engineering Ethics 22 (3): 871–87. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1007/s11948-0159718–1.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Star, S. L., and J. R. Griesemer. 1989. “‘Institutional Ecology, `translations’ and Boundary Objects: Amateurs and Professionals in Berkeley’s Museum of Vertebrate Zoology, 1907-39ʹ.” Social Studies of Science 19 (3): 387–420.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Stevienna de, S. 2015. “Innovating Innovation Policy: The Emergence of “Responsible Research and Innovation”.” Journal of Responsible Innovation 2 (2): 152–168.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• UFM (Uddannelses- og Forskningsministeriet, Danmark). 2014. Danish Code of Conduct for Research Integrity. Kbh.: Ministry of Higher Education and Science.
   Google Scholar
• Whitley, R., and J. Gläser, edited by. 2007. “The Changing Governance of the Sciences: The Advent of Research Evaluation Systems.” In Sociology of the Sciences Yearbook. Vol. 26. Dordrecht, the Netherlands: Springer. https://www.springer.com/gp/book/9781402067457.
   Google Scholar
• Wright, S. 2016. “Universities in a Knowledge Economy or Ecology? Policy, Contestation and Abjection.” Critical Policy Studies 10 (1): 59–78.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Yanow, D. 2007. “Interpretation in Policy Analysis: On Methods and Practice.” Critical Policy Studies 1 (1): 110–122.
   Google Scholar