Abstracts
Abstract
Dominant initiatives focusing on research integrity are changing the research landscape by leading to the development and application of rules, guidelines and standards that researchers across borders have to abide by. There is an increasing attention within these initiatives to the importance of research fairness for conducting responsible research. However, some stakeholders view research fairness as separate and sometimes even conflicting with research integrity. To make sense of these accounts, I explore the relationship between research integrity and research fairness. I argue that dominant research integrity initiatives are currently at odds with research fairness. This is because these initiatives largely ignore anticolonial views about research and thereby perpetuate coloniality in research. Furthermore, dominant initiatives only engage superficially with aspects of fairness that are least controversial and current. Moreover, these research integrity initiatives impose Eurocentric ideals about responsible research to other countries, thereby contributing to “ethical imperialism”. Considering the wide reach of dominant research integrity initiatives and their influence on research, it is therefore urgent to develop an anticolonial research integrity agenda that takes fairness seriously.
Keywords:
- research integrity,
- fairness,
- coloniality,
- epistemic injustice,
- ethical imperialism
Résumé
Les initiatives dominantes axées sur l’intégrité de la recherche modifient le paysage de la recherche en conduisant à l’élaboration et à l’application de règles, de lignes directrices et de normes auxquelles les chercheurs doivent se conformer au-delà des frontières. Ces initiatives accordent une attention croissante à l’importance de l’équité dans la recherche pour mener une recherche responsable. Toutefois, certaines parties prenantes considèrent que l’équité dans la recherche est distincte de l’intégrité de la recherche et qu’elle entre parfois en conflit avec elle. Afin de donner un sens à ces comptes rendus, j’explore la relation entre l’intégrité et l’équité de la recherche. Je soutiens que les initiatives dominantes en matière d’intégrité de la recherche sont actuellement en contradiction avec l’équité de la recherche. En effet, ces initiatives ignorent largement les points de vue anticoloniaux sur la recherche et perpétuent ainsi la colonialité dans la recherche. En outre, les initiatives dominantes ne s’engagent que superficiellement dans les aspects de l’équité qui sont les moins controversés et les moins actuels. En outre, ces initiatives d’intégrité de la recherche imposent à d’autres pays des idéaux eurocentriques sur la recherche responsable, contribuant ainsi à l’« impérialisme éthique ». Compte tenu de la vaste portée des initiatives dominantes en matière d’intégrité de la recherche et de leur influence sur la recherche, il est donc urgent d’élaborer un programme d’intégrité de la recherche anticolonial qui prenne l’équité au sérieux.
Mots-clés :
- intégrité de la recherche,
- équité,
- colonialité,
- injustice épistémique,
- impérialisme éthique
Appendices
Bibliography
- 1. Boehme O, Föger N, Hiney M, Peatfiled T, Petiet F. Research integrity practices in science Europe member organisations. Science Europe. 7 Jul 2016.
- 2. Davies SR. An ethics of the system: talking to scientists about research integrity. Science and Engineering Ethics. 2019;25(4):1235-53.
- 3. Marušić SL, Marušić A. Codes of ethics and research integrity. In: Laas K, Davis M, Hildt E, editors. Codes of Ethics and Ethical Guidelines: Emerging Technologies, Changing Fields. Springer, Cham.; 2022. p. 83-96.
- 4. Labib K, Evans N. Gender, diversity, and the responsible assessment of researchers. PLoS Biology. 2021;19(4):e3001036.
- 5. World Conferences on Research Integrity. 8th World Conference on Research Integrity. Athens, Greece; 2-5 Jun 2024.
- 6. Horn L, Alba S, Gopalakrishna G, et al. The Cape Town Statement on fairness, equity and diversity in research. Nature. 2023;615(7954):790-3.
- 7. World Conferences on Research Integrity. 9th World Conference on Research Integrity. Vancouver, Canada; 3-6 May 2026.
- 8. ALLEA. The European Code of Conduct for Research Integrity. All European Academies; 2023.
- 9. UKRIO. Equality, Equity, Diversity and Inclusion Resources. UK Research Integrity Office; 2024.
- 10. De Peuter S, Conix S. Fostering a research integrity culture: Actionable advice for institutions. Science and Public Policy. 2023;50(1):133-45.
- 11. Evaluatiecommissie NGWI. Adviesrapport. Evaluatie Nederlandse gedragscode wetenschappelijke integriteit. 2024.
- 12. Wellcome. Which changes are already making a difference to research culture? 24 Mar 2021.
- 13. Sempa JB, Patil R, Mathewson JD, et al. Aligning the principles and practice of research integrity and research fairness in global health: a mixed-methods study. BMJ Global Health. 2024;9(3):e013917.
- 14. Labib K, Roje R, Bouter L, et al. Important topics for fostering research integrity by research performing and research funding organizations: A Delphi consensus study. Science and Engineering Ethics. 2021;27(4):1-22.
- 15. Labib K, Pizzolato D, Stappers PJ, et al. Using co-creation methods for research integrity guideline development–how, what, why and when? Accountability in Research. 2024;31(6):531-556
- 16. Moher D, Bouter L, Kleinert S, et al. The Hong Kong Principles for assessing researchers: Fostering research integrity. PLoS Biology. 2020;18(7):e3000737.
- 17. Moher D, Bouter L, Foeger N, Dirnagl U. Incorporating equity, diversity, and inclusiveness into the Hong Kong Principles. PLoS Biology. 2021;19(4):e3001140.
- 18. Ahlberg BM, Hamed S, Bradby H, Moberg C, Thapar-Björkert S. “Just throw it behind you and just keep going”: Emotional labor when ethnic minority healthcare staff encounter racism in healthcare. Frontiers in Sociology. 2022;6:741202.
- 19. Kleinert S. Singapore Statement: a global agreement on responsible research conduct. The Lancet. 2010;376(9747):1125-27.
- 20. Canadian Institutes of Health Research, Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada, Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada. Tri-Agency Framework: Responsible Conduct of Research. Ottawa: Government of Canada; 2021.
- 21. SOPs4RI. Guidelines for research funders on defining and preventing unjustified interferences from funders, political and commercial actors. 2021.
- 22. Mody CC, Sibum HO, Roberts LL. Integrating research integrity into the history of science. History of Science. 2020;58(4):369-85.
- 23. Radder H. Chapter 10. Mertonian values, scientific norms, and the commodification of academic research. In: The Commodification of Academic Research: Science and the Modern University. Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh Press; 2010. p. 231-58.
- 24. Saltelli A. Teaching scientific research integrity: A case study. Innovations in Education and Teaching International. 2023;61(5):1-14.
- 25. Merton RK. The normative structure of science. In: The Sociology of Science: Theoretical and Empirical Investigations. Chicago: University of Chicago Press; 1979. p. 267-78.
- 26. Lechner I, Embassy Editorial Team. The Mertonian norms. The Embassy of Good Science; 2020.
- 27. Redman B. Blind spots in research integrity policy: how to identify and resolve them. In: Reconstructing Research Integrity: Beyond Denial. Springer, Cham; 2023. p. 19-36.
- 28. Smith LT. Decolonizing Methodologies: Research and Indigenous Peoples. 2nd ed. London: Zed Books; 2012.
- 29. Mejlgaard N, Bouter LM, Gaskell G, et al. Research integrity: nine ways to move from talk to walk. Nature. 2020;586(7829):358-60.
- 30. Tauri JM. Research ethics, informed consent and the disempowerment of First Nation peoples. Research Ethics. 2018;14(3):1-14.
- 31. Tsosie R. Indigenous peoples, anthropology, and the legacy of epistemic injustice 1. In: Kidd IJ, Medina J, Pohlhaus Jr G, editors. The Routledge Handbook of Epistemic Injustice. Routledge; 2017. p. 356-69.
- 32. Wynter S. Unsettling the coloniality of being/power/truth/freedom. CR: The New Centennial Review. 2003;3(3):257-337.
- 33. Vergès F. A Decolonial Feminism. London: Pluto Press; 2019.
- 34. Nkoudou THM. Epistemic alienation in African scholarly communications: open access as a pharmakon. In: Eve MP, Gray J, editors. Reassembling Scholarly Communications: Histories, Infrastructures, and Global Politics of Open Access. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press; 2020.
- 35. de Sousa Santos B. Epistemologies of the South: Justice Against Epistemicide. New York, NY: Routledge; 2015.
- 36. Horn L, Alba S, Gopalakrishna G, et al. The Cape Town Statement on Fostering Research Integrity through Fairness and Equity. World Congress on Research Integrity; 2023.
- 37. Medina J. Introduction: resistance, democratic sensibilities, and the cultivation of perplexity. In: The Epistemology of Resistance: Gender and Racial Oppression, Epistemic Injustice, and the Social Imagination. New York, NY: Oxford University Press; 2013. p. 3-26.
- 38. Lanzarotta T. Ethics in retrospect: biomedical research, colonial violence, and Iñupiat sovereignty in the Alaskan Arctic. Social Studies of Science. 2020;50(5):778-801.
- 39. World Congress on Research Integrity. Plenary E: Tackling racial and ethnic bias when translating research into policy. 8th World Conference on Research Integrity. Athens, Greece; 2024.
- 40. Cerdeña JP. Tackling racial and ethnic bias when translating research into policy – the clinician-anthropologist’s perspective. 8th World Conference on Research Integrity. Athens, Greece; 2024.
- 41. Naidu T. Tackling racial and ethnic bias when translating research into policy – the researcher’s perspective. 8th World Conference on Research Integrity. Athens, Greece; 2024.
- 42. Smith CW, Mayorga-Gallo S. The new principle-policy gap: How diversity ideology subverts diversity initiatives. Sociological Perspectives. 2017;60(5):889-911.
- 43. Hasan MM. The inseparability of postcolonial studies from Palestine: reflections on Edward Said. Asiatic: IIUM Journal of English Language and Literature. 2024;18(1):1-17.
- 44. European Commission. Effective management of external borders.
- 45. European Council. EU cooperation on security and defence.
- 46. Said E. Orientalism. 1st ed. New York: Vintage Books; 1979.
- 47. Ebtikar M. The United States and the detriments of cavalier colonial knowledge production on Afghans and Afghanistan. Afghanistan Center at Kabul University. 11 Aug 2021.
- 48. Goodson LP. Afghanistan’s Endless War: State Failure, Regional Politics, and the Rise of the Taliban. University of Washington Press; 2001.
- 49. Crews RD. The challenge of Taliban ideology for international politics: religious competition, counterterrorism, and the search for legitimacy. Journal of International Analytics. 2021;12(4):50-67.
- 50. Dobbins J, Malkasian C. Time to negotiate in Afghanistan: how to talk to the Taliban. Foreign Affairs. 2015;94(4):53-64.
- 51. Ruttig T. Have the Taliban changed? Combating Terrorism Center Sentinel. 2021;14(3):1-15.
- 52. Malikzada N, Filseth T. How the US-Taliban deal failed Afghanistan. The Diplomat. 18 Aug 2023.
- 53. Mehran M. Recognition of gender apartheid in Afghanistan justified. Peace Rep. 1 Jun 2023.
- 54. Haqqani JA, Khoroush FA, Shojaei S. Hazara’s genocide in Afghanistan. International Journal of Multicultural and Multireligious Understanding. 2024;11(6):141-9.
- 55. Shafiei M, Overton K. Mirage or oasis? Assessing the role of the United Nations Assistance Mission in Afghanistan. Asian Journal of Peacebuilding. 2023;11(2):357-76.
- 56. Golbaum C. Is Afghanistan’s most-wanted militant now its best hope for change? The New York Times. 24 Oct 2024.
- 57. Hakimi H. Impasse and options: the challenges of engaging with Afghanistan under the Taliban rule. Center for International and Regional Studies, Georgetown University in Qatar; 2024.
- 58. Sadr O. Afghanistan’s public intellectuals fail to denounce the Taliban. Fair Observer. 23 Mar 2022.
- 59. Monsutti A. Anthropologizing Afghanistan: colonial and postcolonial encounters. Annual Review of Anthropology. 2013(42):269-85.
- 60. Halaimzai S, Theros M. Preserving Afghanistan’s intellectual, human rights and peacebuilding capacities. Peace Rep. 29 May 2023.
- 61. Horbach SP, Bouter LM, Gaskell G, et al. Designing and implementing a research integrity promotion plan: Recommendations for research funders. PLoS Biology. 2022;20(8):e3001773.
- 62. Schrag ZM. Ethical Imperialism: Institutional Review Boards and the Social Sciences, 1965–2009. Baltimore: John Hopkins University Press; 2010.
- 63. Fontaine P. Europe in 12 Lessons. European Commission; 2017.
- 64. Dutta M, Ramasubramanian S, Barrett M, et al. Decolonizing open science: Southern interventions. Journal of Communication. 2021;71(5):803-26.