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

Previous page Next page

The role of (co)supervisor

The role of (co)supervisor from a research integrity perspective

The (co)supervisor complies oneself with the generally accepted standards of research integrity. The (co)supervisor should thereby act as a responsible role model in order to ensure that the PhD researcher picks up good habits. The (co)supervisor creates a climate in which these standards drive the conduct of the PhD researcher and in which fair and honest scientific conduct is the norm.

5 tips for supervisors to promote research integrity

According to ORI (Office of Research Integrity, USA) there are 5 ways you can promote research integrity towards your PhD students and other (new) colleagues.

1. Be available and approachable

Take the time to cultivate a relationship with your trainees. They are there to learn from you, so discuss progress and problems in an open and constructive manner. This can encourage conversation, promote transparency, and make them more comfortable coming to you with questions and concerns.

Create a safe and secure environment that builds on trust and facilitates an open dialogue. Researchers may come across new situations, in which they inadvertently end up facing integrity challenges.

2. Review raw data

You are responsible for the data used or produced by any member of your research group. Regularly reviewing raw data, especially data relating to any paper/grant/poster, can help catch both honest errors and intentional manipulations before the data and the paper are made public.

In 45 cases of research misconduct committed by trainees, 72% of supervisors had not reviewed the source data (Wright, Titus & Cornelison, 2008).

3. Communicate your expectations

Be clear about individual roles and responsibilities regarding data management, experiments, authorship, and timelines of projects, as well as how trainees will be evaluated. Consider providing a (formal) onboarding or introduction for junior researchers and inform them about the (written) standards of the research group. Be clear about what kinds of research conduct are considered to be dishonest, and ensure that researchers know such behaviour is not acceptable.

4. Provide training and guidance

Not all trainees will arrive with the same skill level. Avoid making assumptions about anyone’s prior knowledge concerning e.g. reviewing protocols, proper use of equipment, and data storage and management.

5. Know your research integrity officer (RIO)

Be prepared so that you can act quickly and decisively if you suspect research misconduct. Find out now who the research integrity officer is at your institution (Module 4: violations of research integrity) and share their contact information with your research team.

PhD researcher: “My supervisor is extremely interested in my project and the daily progress. (S)he inquires every day, sometimes more than once about new data, experiments, etc. sometimes immediately followed by suggestions for follow up research. I feel that my role in my own project is very small and I am just executing what my supervisor asks, based on his/her insight. I always thought that doing a PhD is developing your own ideas.”

The supervisor is not supposed to micromanage by not allowing the PhD researcher to develop his/her own project; the PhD researchers should be able to see “the whole picture” if part of a project is carried out.

Their training might be different than yours

As a supervisor and mentor, but also as a (post) doctoral researcher, it’s safe to assume that not everybody was trained in a similar way, adheres to the same principles and rules, and works according to the same standards. Work ethics, reporting, communicating, etc., can be very different because of (unconscious) biased assumptions being made based on gender, past experiences, ethnicity, home country, etc.

For example: a new doctoral researcher might be trained in a culture or research system in which challenging the beliefs of a higher-ranked person such as a supervisor, is rare or not accepted. It may be that this attitude will persist even as the researcher integrates into the new culture, and independently of how open and accessible the supervisor might be. The supervisor is seen as a respected and experienced researcher and the doctoral researcher is honoured to work in his/her research group, so the last thing the doctoral researcher thinks about is to contradict his/her opinion.

Or, maybe, as a supervisor, you may wrongfully assume that your doctoral researcher from country A will start a discussion if (s)he doesn’t agree with a hypothesis you put forward, because all your other colleagues from country B would do this, and surely, you are always open to discuss and hierarchy shouldn’t play a role.

Take home messages

After module 2 supervision and mentoring, I, as a supervisor:

Understand what the role of (co)supervisor entails;
Understand that it is important to be available and approachable being a supervisor;
Know that, as a supervisor, it is important to review raw data;
Know that, as a supervisor, it is important to communicate your expectations;
Should, as a supervisor, provide training and guidance;
Know, as a supervisor, know the research integrity office of my institution;
Acknowledge that not every supervisor and mentor is trained in the same way;
Am aware and adhere to the generally accepted standards of research integrity;
Know that open and responsive communication between researcher and supervisor is very important and that I can always ask for advice;
Know that there are other people who can help deal with research integrity dilemma’s if my supervisor is not able to.

Previous page Next page

Who’s involved in supervision and mentoring?

The ALLEA Code states:

Senior researchers, research leaders, and supervisors mentor their team members, lead by example, and offer specific guidance and training to properly develop and structure their research activities.
Researchers across the entire career path, from junior to the most senior level, undertake training in ethics and research integrity.

Junior Researcher - Phd student

Junior researchers are expected to establish an open and responsive communication with their supervisor or mentor which promotes research integrity.

Senior Researcher

Senior researchers are expected to create a climate in which fair and honest scientific conduct is the norm.

Doctoral Schools

Doctoral Schools facilitate the process of a doctoral trajectory in which effective supervision is key.

Confidential Counselor

Confidential counselors or ombudspersons are important contact points when problems arise. They can play an important role in advising and mediating between the parties involved.

Supervisor - Mentor

The (co)supervisor is expected to act as a responsible role model in order to assure that the PhD researcher develops good habits. (Co)supervisors comply with the generally accepted standards of research integrity.

The (co)supervisor also creates a climate in which these standards drive the conduct of the PhD researcher and in which fair and honest scientific conduct is the norm.

Distinction between supervision and mentoring

One of the major differences between supervising and mentoring is that the former is often task-oriented (e.g., completion of a thesis or dissertation) whereas the latter is more about caring for an individual’s long-term development (Acker, 2011).

A supervisor has an official hierarchical relationship with official responsibilities and is involved in a formal advisory process which is mandated or assigned within a graduate programme that tends to be short term.
A mentor role, on the other hand, can be quite informal and is less structured or institutionalized. (S)he can provide guidance and support to the mentee as a trusted counselor thereby acting as a neutral sounding board.

It is important that the role of the supervisor and possible mentor(s) and the role of the PhD researcher are made clear from the start of the research project. Who is responsible for what? Who has the final responsibility? In certain cases, like (inter)national bilateral PhD agreements or interdisciplinary PhD projects, there are at least two supervisors from each university or discipline involved. The implementation of principles might differ (slightly) with respect to authorship issues, e.g. order of authors. Potential differences should ideally be identified, discussed, and clarified at the start of the project, so that problems do not occur at a stage when they will be more difficult to solve, e.g. when a first draft manuscript is ready.

Cartoon by Patrick Hochstenbach under a Creative Commons CC BY-SA 4.0 license

What is the role of the supervisor and the PhD researcher?

Each Flemish university has adopted a charter for the PhD researcher and the supervisor. It outlines the mutual expectations and responsibilities of (co)supervisors and PhD researchers and should be used as a basis for effective supervision and fruitful scientific collaboration. At the start of their collaboration the supervisor and PhD researcher should go through the charter to make the necessary arrangements concerning scientific supervision. Research integrity is a crucial part of these arrangements. The initial stage of the PhD is a good time to reflect together on the responsible conduct of research and exchange information and guidelines about good data management, responsible authorship, avoiding conflict of interest, …

Numerous mentoring programmes have been developed in academia, which focus on leadership for women (combatting the “glass ceiling” and “leaky pipeline”). The specific cause of these inequalities are less rooted in direct and explicit discrimination as in the dynamics of a gendered organisation. The principal objective so far in gender equality progammes has been to gain greater access to the highest positions of the organisation, where large disparities have been observed between the sexes. The actions have been orientated largely towards enlarging the professional network and/or the integration of women in this network. The analysis of the results of various research studying these programmes have shown positive effects upon the access to high positions, however with some limits pointed out by McKeen and Bujaki (2008):

The mentors behave differently towards men (more instrumental orientation of the mentoring: promotion of the career, transfer of knowledge, orientation towards the needs of the institution, knowledge about organization) and women (more developmental orientation: development of the person, guidance and support, orientation towards the needs of the mentee).
The objectives and aims of mentors in the mentoring relationship are different according to actions destined to a woman (adaption of the system) or to a man (promotion and enlarging of networks).

These results do however have a tendency to show positive effects of mentoring by focusing on how women have successfully adapted to a masculine dominated environment, rather than a general inclusion of woman in various academic levels of positions.

Take home messages

After module 2 supervision and mentoring, I:

Know the different roles that are involved in conducting research;
Know the difference between supervision and mentoring;
Understand that it is important that each role (supervisor vs. mentor) is defined before the start of the research project.

Example of gender sensitive mentoring

We would encourage the mentoring programmes to not only focus upon targeting gender inequality in the long-term in sense of increasing numbers of women in science, but also being able to create in more immediate terms, a more gender friendly, gender sensitive, and more reflexive and conscientious research work environment. It is about playing on and working with the existing system, but also about guiding people towards a realistic and balanced working life and career, by integrating gender sensitivity in our work units. In the framework of transformative mentoring, the idea is to aim at transforming the researcher the person on the one hand (socialization through a process of adaptation to the structural functioning of the organisation), and transforming the organisation on the other hand. This in view of a system that is more adapted to the rhythm of the researchers, whatever may be their gender and of a better adaptation to their articulation of private and professional life. Mentoring then intervenes as a tool for change.

Previous page Next page