The role of a PhD researcher
The role of a PhD researcher from an integrity perspective
As a PhD researcher you should be aware of and adhere to the generally accepted standards of research integrity.
Open and responsive communication between supervisor and researcher is very important. Research integrity and steps to avoid honest mistakes and unacceptable research practices should be an important and active part of this communication. Make arrangements for regular, informal contact with your supervisor. Ask advice about what is expected of you when it comes to integrity and good practices.
How will I keep my supervisor up to date about my research activities?
- Reflect, suggest and discuss options in advance with your supervisor.
- Consider your own needs, personal and professional, but also your supervisor’s needs and availability. After all, your supervisor(s) has other engagements as well, so be respectful of their time by preparing meetings adequately and agreeing on a convenient time and manner to meet as working modus.
- As the project advances, it’s very likely that your knowledge and expertise will grow, maybe beyond that of your supervisor, and simultaneously so will your needs. Adjust the arrangements to these changes.
- A mentor might also have experience in communicating and can share his/her experience.
When my supervisor can’t help me with research integrity issues?
Other than your supervisor and/or mentor, different people can help you avoid or deal with research integrity dilemma’s so they don’t become unacceptable research practices or even violations of research integrity, e.g. local confidential counselors, research integrity contacts, ombudspersons,… In module 4 you can find out how to contact these people.
PhD researcher: “I present my latest progress to my supervisor. Certain trends are not so obvious, so I propose 2 different potential models to explain my observations. Based on his/her own expertise, my supervisor has a clear preference for one of the models, as it confirms the earlier hypothesis we discussed together, and dismisses the other one as being wrong. However, (s)he doesn’t explain in detail why, but states I shouldn’t lose further time with it.”
The supervisor weighs too heavily on the discussion with assumptions about obtained data, so that the PhD researcher does not dare to oppose the supervisor’s opinion. The PhD researcher is expected to think critically and to start a discussion. The supervisor is expected to give an explanation if there is indeed a mistake somewhere and is expected to take the time to explain this more in detail.
“Building bridges between different hierarchical levels by working toward a culture of open dialogue is an important action for strengthening integrity, as well as supporting transparency, fairness, collegiality and respect.” The Bonn Printeger Statement, 2018
The (im)possible aim for high impact publications
PhD researcher: “I have obtained sufficient data for a nice publication and have made a first draft. Nevertheless, my supervisor thinks that additional research can enhance the quality of my manuscript, making it more suitable for a journal with a high(er) impact. This has now happened a few times, and I’m starting to wonder if my manuscript will ever be ready to be submitted and published. I’m getting close to the end of my PhD and need to get my work published to fulfil the requirements of the doctoral school/department/university. Moreover, I would like to continue research as a postdoctoral researcher and publications are important. I’m wondering if my supervisor thinks about my career perspective.”
The PhD researcher needs to be able to finish the PhD according to the requirements of the doctoral school/department/university and also needs a career perspective. Both supervisor and PhD researcher need to keep this in mind throughout the project. This doesn’t mean you can’t aim for higher goals as long as both are aiming for the same goals.
“I’m the senior researcher and I’m telling you that’s how we’ve always done it. Everybody does it like that and everybody knows everybody is doing it.”
To be clear: only the first part of this video is an example of this slippery slope. The last scenes are part of another storyline. Centre of Innovation, Leiden University (2016) – On being a scientist (afl. 4).
The statement “everyone does it” is a clear reference to what is known in psychology as “self-justification”. Rationalisation helps to reduce the uncomfortable feeling that comes with cognitive dissonance (the conflict between behaviour and norms). Even if one simply invents that reason. By suggesting that deviant behaviour is widespread, you normalise it. In addition to the power of the statement itself, the argumentation in the above movie fragment is presented by the senior researcher with regard to a junior researcher, the hierarchical relationship makes it even stronger.
It is difficult to claim whether junior researchers really commit more misconduct than seniors. Recent research in The Netherlands showed that being a PhD candidate or junior researcher increases the odds of frequently engaging in at least one Questionable Research Practice (Gopalakrishna et al., 2022). A recent meta-analysis (Xie et al., 2021) however claimed junior researchers (self)reported lower frequencies of research misconduct and questionable research practices, in comparison to researchers. The researchers do point out the impact of the supervisor (by adjusting the junior work (prevention) or out of fear of reprisals (both at work and in reporting any misconduct) causing a possible underestimation. Other research also revealed a discrepancy between attitudes towards misconduct (with almost 10.0% of junior respondents willing to falsify or fabricate data to expedite publication) and the actual (self-reported) engaging in misconduct (0.8% admitted to having engaged in data fabrication) (Hofmann et al., 2020), making underestimation very plausible. Whatever the case may be, junior researchers are vulnerable because of tenuous and highly dependent positions and possible lack of experience. The preventative role and great importance of good supervision and mentoring to develop good research skills and prevent research misconduct is well-established scientific knowledge (Haven et al., 2019; Xie et al, 2021).
Take home messages
After module 2, I:
- Recognise that fostering research integrity relies on the shared responsibilities of diverse stakeholders (junior, senior, Doctoral Schools, …).
- Am aware of the mutual expectations and responsibilities for both PhD researchers and supervisors.
- Know the difference between supervision and mentoring.
- Know the research integrity office of my institution.
- Know that there are other people who can help deal with research integrity dilemmas.
I, as a supervisor:
- Act as a responsible role model.
- Foster a research climate in which responsible conduct of research can thrive (and therefore also my PhD researchers).
- Am available and approachable.
- Know that it is important to review data.
- Communicate my expectations.
- Provide training and other guidance on the responsible conduct of research.
- Acknowledge that not every supervisor and mentor is trained in the same way.
- Am aware of the concept of gender and diversity-sensitive mentoring and take this into consideration in my interactions.
- Recognise the importance of open and responsive communication between researcher and supervisor.
I, as a PhD researcher:
- Adhere to the principles of research integrity.
- Communicate with my supervisor openly, especially when it comes to issues related to research integrity.
- Seek guidance and help from my supervisor, if necessary, and take proactive steps to avoid making (honest) mistakes or engaging in violations of research integrity.
- Keep my supervisor up to date about my research activities.
Module 3: Good Academic Practices
References
ALLEA (2023). The European Code of Conduct for Research Integrity: Revised Edition 2023. Berlin. DOI 10.26356/ECOC
The Office of Research Integrity (n.d.). 5 ways supervisors can promote research integrity. U.S. Department of Health & Human Services. Retrieved December 13, 2021, from https://ori.hhs.gov/sites/default/files/2018-04/2_Supervisor_tips.pdf
Adam, H., Vincke, C., & Shaik, F. (2016). Gender-sensitive Mentoring Programme in Academia: A Design Process. GARCIA. Retrieved December 13, 2021, from https://www.researchgate.net/publication/309487251_Gender-sensitive_Mentoring_Programme_in_Academia_A_Design_Process
Forsberg, E.-M., Anthun, F. O., Bailey, S., Birchley, G., Bout, H., Casonato, C., Fuster, G. G., Heinrichs, B., Horbach, S., Jacobsen, I. S., Janssen, J., Kaiser, M., Lerouge, I., van der Meulen, B., de Rijcke, S., Saretzki, T., Sutrop, M., Tazewell, M., Varantola, K., Vie , K. J., Zwart H. & Zöller, M. (2018). Working with Research Integrity—Guidance for Research Performing Organisations: The Bonn PRINTEGER Statement. Science and Engineering Ethics, 24(4), 1023–1034. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11948-018-0034-4
Kearns, H., & Finn, J. (2017). Supervising PhD students: A practical guide and toolkit. Thinkwell. https://www.ithinkwell.com.au/supervising-phd-students
McKeen, C., & Bujaki, M. (2008). Gender and mentoring: Issues, effects and opportunities. In B. R. Ragins & K. E. Kram (Eds.) The handbook of mentoring at work: Theory, research, and practice (pp. 197–222). Sage Publications. http://dx.doi.org/10.4135/9781412976619.n8
McGill University. (n.d.) Mentoring. Supervision. Retrieved December 13, 2021, from https://www.mcgill.ca/gradsupervision/supervisors/roles-and-responsibilities/mentoring
Moher, D., Bouter, L., Kleinert, S., Glasziou, P., Sham, M. H., Barbour, V., Coriat, A.-M., Foeger, N., & Dirnagl, U. (2019). The Hong Kong Principles for Assessing Researchers: Fostering Research Integrity. OSF Preprints. https://doi.org/10.31219/osf.io/m9abx
Woolderink, M., Putnik, K., van der Boom, H., & Klabbers, G. (2015). The voice of PhD candidates and PhD supervisors. A qualitative exploratory study amongst PhD candidates and supervisors to evaluate the relational aspects of PhD supervision in the Netherlands. International Journal of Doctoral Studies, 10, 217-235. Retrieved from http://ijds.org/Volume10/IJDSv10p217-235Woolderink0852.pdf
Wright, D. E., Titus, S. L., & Cornelison, J. B. (2008). Mentoring and research misconduct: An analysis of research mentoring in closed ORI cases. Science and Engineering Ethics, 14(3), 323–336. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11948-008-9074-5
