TY - JOUR

T1 - Scientists’ conceptions of good research practice

AU - Hangel, Nora

AU - Schickore, Jutta

N1 - Funding Information: This project was funded by the NSF (Grant # SES-1534628, PI Jutta Schickore. Early versions of this paper were presented at the Department of History and Philosophy of Science and Medicine Colloquium at Indiana University (spring 2016) and at the poster session at the PSA meeting in Atlanta (fall 2016). We thank the audiences as well as Klodian Çoko and the anonymous reviewer for Perspectives on Science for helpful comments and suggestions. In spring 2016, two research assistants, Alvaro Michael and Catharine Xu, helped with the re-organization and coding of the interviews. We acknowledge Diana Schmidt-Pfister, who developed the original project, “Scientific Integrity in the context of Integration and Competition” funded by the German Research Foundation (DFG 751/11, 751/11, and 472/16) and subsequently collaborated with NH at the Center of Excellence 16 “Cultural Foundations of Integration” at the University of Konstanz. We are also grateful to six research assistants at Konstanz who transcribed and helped us code the interviews. This paper builds on data that were collected for the project “Scientific Integrity in the Context of Integration and Competition” (PI Diana Schmidt-Pfister, University of Konstanz, Germany, 2009–2014, funded by the German Research Foundation). That project aimed to better understand science as cultural practice through examining the value systems and guiding normative reference frameworks of researchers in the context of changing research practice and research governance (see appendix for more details).

PY - 2017/12/1

Y1 - 2017/12/1

N2 - This study examines how working scientists themselves understand, conceptualize, apply, and communicate norms and standards for good research practice. Drawing on semi-structured, detailed narrative interviews with more than 80 scientists, we highlight various topics of concern, including tensions between methodological requirements for good research practice and individual career goals, uncertainty about how exactly certain acknowledged methodological imperatives—such as replication—should be interpreted and turned into practice and the delegation of the responsibilty for ensuring good practice.

AB - This study examines how working scientists themselves understand, conceptualize, apply, and communicate norms and standards for good research practice. Drawing on semi-structured, detailed narrative interviews with more than 80 scientists, we highlight various topics of concern, including tensions between methodological requirements for good research practice and individual career goals, uncertainty about how exactly certain acknowledged methodological imperatives—such as replication—should be interpreted and turned into practice and the delegation of the responsibilty for ensuring good practice.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85036621898&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1162/POSC_a_00265

DO - 10.1162/POSC_a_00265

M3 - Article

AN - SCOPUS:85036621898

VL - 25

SP - 766

EP - 791

JO - Perspectives on Science

JF - Perspectives on Science

SN - 1063-6145

IS - 6

ER -