The integrity of knowledge that emerges from research is based on individual and collective adherence to core values of objectivity, honesty, openness, fairness, accountability, and stewardship. Integrity in science means that the organizations in which research is conducted encourage those involved to exemplify these values in every step of the research process. Understanding the dynamics that support – or distort – practices that uphold the integrity of research by all participants ensures that the research enterprise advances knowledge.
The 1992 report Responsible Science: Ensuring the Integrity of the Research Process evaluated issues related to scientific responsibility and the conduct of research. It provided a valuable service in describing and analyzing a very complicated set of issues and has served as a crucial basis for thinking about research integrity for more than two decades. However, as experience has accumulated with various forms of research misconduct, detrimental research practices, and other forms of misconduct, as subsequent empirical research has revealed more about the nature of scientific misconduct, and because technological and social changes have altered the environment in which science is conducted, it is clear that the framework established more than two decades ago needs to be updated.
Responsible Science served as a valuable benchmark to set the context for this most recent analysis and to help guide the committee’s thought process. The Integrity of Science identifies best practices in research and recommends practical options for discouraging and addressing research misconduct and detrimental research practices.
The label ‘literature review’ is a misnomer which sometimes leads thesis writers to produce unfocused and badly written literature review chapters. This post begins a series of four that untangles the purpose of working with literature. The literature review chapter usually follows the introductory chapter which has argued for a specific research problem and question, and precedes the research design chapter which will explain how the question is to be answered. In the introductory chapter the question is posed, but in the research design chapter the question is taken for granted. Positioning the literature review chapter between these two chapters tells us a lot about its purpose – and there is much more to it than simply ‘reviewing’ the literature. I suggest that a primary aim of the literature review chapter is to make the case that the question should be accepted. To state it differently: the literature review is a series of connected arguments in support of the research question. Instead of a mere ‘review’, it must firmly scaffold the overall argument, the thesis, by argumentatively engaging with the literature.
Part I – Part II – Part III – Part IV
Posted in Thesis
In order to get beyond the rhetoric of interdisciplinarity, Erin Leahey has designed a series of research projects that address the actual impact of interdisciplinary work on scholars and institutions. In this essay, Leahey discusses how interdisciplinary research affects academic careers, the visibility of research, and scholarly productivity. She also reports on an ongoing project that explores the ways in which universities support interdisciplinary work among their faculty.
Read also: A Multidimensional Scoring System for Interdisciplinary Research Proposals
A December 2015 article in Research Design Review discusses “A Quality Approach to the Qualitative Research Proposal.” The article outlines quality image the eight sections of a “TQF proposal,” i.e., a proposal whereby quality design issues – specifically, related to the four components of the Total Quality Framework – play a central role throughout the writing of each proposal section. This approach enables the researcher to be mindful of the considerations that go into developing, implementing, and reporting a qualitative research study that is built on quality standards. The TQF proposal can then live on beyond the proposal phase to inform the researcher as he/she goes about executing the proposed design.
Read also: A Quality Approach to the Qualitative Research Proposal
Interdisciplinarity has become all the rage as scientists tackle climate change and other intractable issues. But there is still strong resistance to crossing borders.
“The problems challenging us today, the ones really worth working on, are complex, require sophisticated equipment and intellectual tools, and just don’t yield to a narrow approach,” he says. “The traditional structure of university departments and colleges was not conducive to cooperative, interdisciplinary work.” As an academic movement, interdisciplinarity caught on during the 1970s and has been growing ever since, says Larivière. He credits that rise in part to libraries, which began to stockpile subscriptions and improved researchers’ access to journals in alternative fields. A particle physicist could more easily browse biology journals, say. Furthermore, the US focus began to shift from basic research and scientific liberty back to societal problems such as environmental protection, which can rarely be tackled by a single discipline.
Posted in Complex knowledge, Complex problems, Interdisciplinarity, Research, Research methods, Research network
Tagged Complex knowledge, Complex problems, interdisciplinarity, research, research methods, research network
An urgent push to bridge the divide between the biophysical and the social sciences is crucial. It is the only way to drive global sustainable development that delivers social inclusion, environmental sustainability and economic prosperity. Sustainability is the classic ‘wicked’ problem, characterized by poorly defined requirements, unclear boundaries and contested causes that no single agency or discipline is able to address. It is crucial to understand, then, why so many well-meaning attempts at interdisciplinary collaboration fail to deliver tangible outcomes — and why others succeed. Here we offer an unapologetically personal answer by reflecting on how, working across multiple faculties of Monash University in Melbourne, Australia, we have built a team of disciplinary experts that delivers integrated and sustainable water management across multiple cities. We have now grown this interdisciplinary team to incorporate other institutions nationally and internationally. At the same time, we acknowledge that substantial transaction costs come with interdisciplinary research — it takes extra time and effort to make it work.
Posted in Collaboration, Collaborative inquiry, Interdisciplinarity, Research, Research methods, Research network
Tagged collaboration, collaborative inquiry, interdisciplinarity, research, research methods, research network
If this book provided a set of rules to be learned and applied, writing a thesis might seem pleasingly easy. But, because writing a thesis is seldom easy, the book instead offers a more complex mapping of the process. The purpose is to raise awareness of the critical choices involved in research and thesis writing for both masters and doctorates. Running as a leitmotif throughout is the notion that no conceptual construct can be complete unto itself. Concepts can only be defined in terms of their dynamic relations with other constructs. It is in this context that the three broad methodological categories informing discussion in the book – exegetic, empirical, and qualitative – were adopted for didactic purposes only: at no time are they considered autonomies. Therefore, not only can they be compared in multiple ways, their shared continuities are often as significant as their differences. Nonetheless, as in the case of different disciplines, differing methodological positions have different textual outcomes. Writing a masters’ or doctoral thesis is not only an inherently idiosyncratic exercise, it is also epistemic and, in the current intellectual climate, rhetorical. The malleability of the disciplinary and methodological vocabularies used in academic rhetorics reflects the manner in which not only words but also styles of writing evolve to suit particular purposes. For this reason, the style of writing and the words used in a thesis will need to be interrogated with the same informed intensity applied to all other aspects of the research undertaking. Only then, with the drawing of a more complex cognitive map, will a definition incrementally develop of what – in terms of a researcher’s own needs – constitutes sound academic discourse.
To maximise the value of your research, you need to communicate it to others. There are many ways to do so: examples include applications and bids, conference presentations, gray literature, journal papers, media (old and new), public talks, and teaching. This book provides fresh, creative, ways of making the most of these and other opportunities. It provides 53 practical suggestions, each based on ideas tried and tested by the contributors. Key terms:communication; impact; presenting; publication; public engagement; research; social media; writing.
Read also: Review