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 officers, 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 contradict these data. 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
Take home messages
After module 2 supervision and mentoring, I, as a PhD researcher:
- Understand that open communication with my supervisor is important to avoid making honest mistakes and unacceptable research practices;
- Know that I have to keep my supervisor up to date about my research activities;
- Know that if my supervisor cannot help me with research integrity issues, there are other people who can help you.
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.
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 http://garciaproject.eu/wp-content/uploads/2016/10/GARCIA_working_papers_13.pdf
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