(Episode 102) Beyond misconduct: Cultivating a culture of research integrity (in conversation with UKRIO CEO Steph Neave)

Intro / outro [: 00:00:04

Welcome to the Research Culture Uncovered podcast, where in every episode we explore what is research culture and what should it be. You'll hear thoughts and opinions from a range of contributors to help you change research culture into what you want it to be.

Emily Goodall [: 00:00:22

Hello and welcome to Research Culture Uncovered. I. I'm Emily Goodall, a researcher developer from the University of Leeds and my episodes focus on research integrity, research ethics and themes around responsible research practices. Today, I'm delighted to be joined by Steph Neave, who is CEO of the UK Research Integrity Office, or UKRIO for short. UKRIO is a national charity established in 2006 to provide independent support on research integrity to the research community and the wider public. In this episode, we are going to explore the relationship between research integrity and research culture. So, Steph, welcome to the podcast.

Steph Neave [: 00:01:03

Thank you, Emily, for that kind introduction and hello to those listening. I am delighted to be here.

Emily Goodall [: 00:01:09

For our listeners who may not be aware of UKRIO, can you tell us a little bit more about what you do to support the research community?

Steph Neave [: 00:01:16

UKRIO was founded in 2006 with a mission to support the research community to produce research of the highest integrity, quality and efficacy. We do that in a number of ways. So first we produce information, advice and guidance to champion good governance, management and conduct in research. We act as thought leaders to shape the national and international conversation about research integrity. We also operate a confidential advisory service to support any and all on matters of research integrity. And finally, we act as conveners to facilitate the sharing of good practice. We provide the support to all disciplines of research and all sectors. So of course higher education, but also the NHS and the third public and private sectors.

Steph Neave [: 00:02:06

So wherever research affects the public good, and I think that's what makes UK Rio unique, Emily. We work across all parts of the research system and at all levels, from early career researchers to those working in research governance to to senior leaders to really advance the integrity of research as a whole. In fact, One of our USPs is our advisory service where we field hundreds of inquiries every year from institutions, funders, publishers and the general public. And it's this intelligence that gives us a keen understanding of issues on the ground and ensures our work remains informed and responsive to the needs of the community.

Emily Goodall [: 00:02:45

How many organizations do you support and for our international listeners, to what extent do you work in internationally?

Steph Neave [: 00:02:54

Well, as our name might suggest, UK Rio was originally established for the UK context. We do support a growing number of international organizations as well as take part in global conversations about research integrity and that really speaks to the fact that research integrity can't be contained in individual country because as we know, research is often a highly collaborative endeavor that crosses countries and continents. That's why we regularly participate in the World Congress of Research Integrity and help found in Rio, the European Network of Research Integrity Offices. And I'm really proud to say the number of international organizations who subscribe and utilize our work is ever growing, as is the international crowd attending our events, because research integrity is a global concern and effort.

Emily Goodall [: 00:03:44

Thank you very much for that overview. It certainly sounds like you've got a really impressive portfolio that's great grown over the years. As mentioned in the introduction, I'd really like to dive into the relationship between research integrity and research culture. What is your view on this?

Steph Neave [: 00:04:01

I'm really glad you raised this question because research integrity is often seen in this very narrow light as bureaucracy and procedural that while necessary, can be burdensome and even restrictive to research and by extension, research culture. The Concordat to Support research integrity the UK's National Framework for Good Research Practice, identifies five components to research integrity, those being honesty, transparency, accountability, rigor and care. That is conducting research with care and respect. And I think that really illuminates what research integrity is. It's not bureaucratic procedure. Rather, it covers all the factors that underpin good research practice, and that includes making sure environments and systems. Or research culture enables researchers to do the very best research they can. These principles really ought to be at the heart of every stage, phase and corner of the research life cycle, but unfortunately, research integrity is often siloed and seen as the sole responsibility of a single governance or integrity officer.

Steph Neave [: 00:05:10

In fact, I often find that researchers, arguably the very people who who should be thinking about research integrity at every stage of their work, have never even heard of the term, whereas they're much more familiar with the term research culture. So I think there's work to be done here to demystify what research integrity is, to make clear that it's the responsibility of every person involved in research, and to establish the link between research integrity and research culture. When we think about research culture, we should be asking ourselves what environment will enable research to be honest, transparent, accountable, rigorous, conducted with care? How do we embed these integrity principles into the fabric and culture of our environment? Because at the end of the day, what we're trying to accomplish through research is evidence with integrity. So in my opinion, research culture needs to be seen as an enabler for research integrity and vice versa.

Emily Goodall [: 00:06:10

I completely agree with you with the describing what research integrity is. So when I first started At Leeds a couple of years ago, there was definitely an element of me having to define what research integrity is and relating it back to the Concordat. Raising the awareness of the Concordat is part of my role here at the University of Leeds. So there's been a lot of attention paid recently to research misconduct and the impact that has on on the research record. But how big of a problem is research misconduct in reality?

Steph Neave [: 00:06:42

The unfortunate reality, at least here in the uk, is that we simply don't know how prevalent research misconduct is. It's likely that it only affects a small fraction of the research conducted in the uk, but we simply aren't sure because the reporting is patchy. What we do know, however, is that the impact research misconduct can have on confidence in research is profound. And this is a serious problem because confidence in research is so important. It's that foundation for researchers to build the evidence base. It's the currency for research funding and investment and the basis on which policymakers and the public make informed decisions. So it's essential that we take action to address and prevent misconduct to safeguard that confidence and ultimately to safeguard the positive impact research can have on society.

Emily Goodall [: 00:07:36

Completely agree with you. I think it's that unknown quantity. We know that it's happening, but we don't know how prevalent it is. And there has been some big cases recently where it has all kind of come out. So. UKRIO has recently published a review in the Challenges in Reporting and Investigating Research Misconduct. Can you tell us a little bit more about that?

Steph Neave [: 00:08:00

Absolutely, and I'm glad you brought this up. Looking into those challenges has been one of UKRIO's key priorities, because we know this is fundamental to advancing research integrity. So to help us do this, in 2023, we convened a working group of UKRIO trustees and advisory council members to examine the barriers to investigating and reporting misconduct. Chaired by Tracy Brown, Director of Sense About Science, that working group considered a range of evidence from a consultation we conducted with research employers, researchers and publishers, a survey of major research funders, analysis of the inquiries we received through our advisory service and several roundtables we convened on the topic. And that culminated in the publication of our report, Barriers to Reporting and Investigating Research Misconduct, last May. Now, those perspectives and experiences naturally differed across the actors we spoke to. But what consistently came up was that our current research culture is a major barrier to addressing research misconduct. In part, this is because there is a lack of clarity on how best to investigate and report instances of research misconduct.

Steph Neave [: 00:09:16

But it's also because people often don't have the Confidence that they can raise concerns without fear of reprisal or trust that those concerns will be taken forward appropriately. Now, there's been a lot of recent talk in the UK about potentially creating a regulatory body to address this issue, but our review found that in the absence of this, there are immediate steps we can take to reduce the barriers to effective reporting and investigation. These include standardizing procedures relating to research misconduct to really address that issue of clarity, as well as mandating training to ensure those leading investigations have the appropriate skills and knowledge to do so. So very much responding to those issues around confidence, we also proposed national infrastructure be developed to monitor and report on research misconduct because, as we discussed, Emily, we just need a better understanding of its prevalence. Understanding how often it occurs will in turn help us to better develop and evaluate any interventions taken forward.

Emily Goodall [: 00:10:19

Yeah, I completely agree. I think there's been. There's quite a lot of work going on internationally. It's great to hear that we have such a strong voice in the UK in those processes as well. So I know that you recently published an opinion piece in the Research Professional about the need not only to address research misconduct when it occurs, but thinking about the wider preventative measures so it doesn't happen in the first place. Where do you start doing that or how do you start doing that?

Steph Neave [: 00:10:49

Well, there's understandably been a lot of focus on research misconduct. The truth is that there is a whole spectrum of what are often called questionable research practices, or QRPs for short. These don't necessarily meet the definition of research misconduct, so behaviors that deliberately or recklessly fall short of the standards expected in the conduct of research, but they nevertheless compromise the integrity of research. QRPs can range from honest mistakes and errors to more serious practices such as manipulating data or selective reporting. And in my opinion piece, I make the case that as a first step toward preventing questionable research practices and research misconduct, we need to first acknowledge and recognize research is fallible. And with that in mind, we need to create the culture and environment where we appreciate mistakes and misconduct can and does occur. That we encourage and support people to express concerns about potential breaches in research integrity, that there are clear ways those concerns will be taken forward and the scholarly record corrected if necessary. And that there's a high degree of coordination and collaboration between a range of actors, so research institutions, funders, publishers and so forth to tackle this together.

Emily Goodall [: 00:12:11

So you say we need to encourage people to raise concerns about potential breaches in research integrity earlier on. What do you think is stopping them?

Steph Neave [: 00:12:21

At present, we know that a significant barrier to addressing QRPs and research misconduct is the stigma people face when they raise concerns or when they are the subject of those concerns. So as a community, we really need to work to promote a transparent environment and culture where early reporting of concerns is encouraged and enabled. So, alongside my recent opinion piece, UK Rio published a discussion paper last month examining the language used in research misconduct investigations. In that paper, we offer suggestions for making the language more neutral to really destigmatize reporting, drawing inspiration from a model adopted in Australia. And crucially, the proposals we put forward are intended to shift the focus of investigations toward protecting the integrity and trustworthiness of the research rather than focusing on establishing individual blame and wrongdoing. Though establishing individual wrongdoing certainly can be, and often is part of investigations, the language and procedures we use can be seen to overly focus on this as opposed to what ought to be the core objective at hand, which is safeguarding the scholarly record. When we conducted our review, we heard how much stigma and personal risk individuals often felt when they reported concerns and the sense that they were being pitted head to head against those involved in the research in question. Conversely, those who were involved said similarly highlighted the stigma they felt and the sense that intentional wrongdoing on their part was assumed.

Steph Neave [: 00:14:03

Terms like complainant and allegation of research misconduct, commonly used in investigations, help to reinforce that dynamic by implying two opposing parties with the institution between them as adjudicator. So our discussion paper proposes the use of more neutral terms such as initiator rather than complainant or initial, initiating a concern about a breach in research integrity rather than an allegation of research misconduct to help remove that head to head tone, to re establish the focus and objective of these investigations and to help destigmatize and encourage earlier reporting. We're under no illusions that language alone will solve the issue, but it is a step forward toward creating the culture. We need an environment that enables researchers to do the best work they can, but also recognize that people are only human and mistakes and misconduct will inevitably happen from time to time. Another crucial step is to critically examine why these issues arise, identifying what aspects of our environment, culture or systems enable or even incentivize questionable research projects, practices and misconduct. Recently, UKRIO was commissioned by UK Research and Innovation, the public body in the UK that directs research and innovation funding, to lead a project with the UK Reproducibility Network, or ukrn, and the University of Sussex, to explore the enablers and inhibitors of research integrity. We found that there are aspects of our current research culture that often act as inhibitors to research integrity. In particular, our culture of publish or perish, the tendency to view unexciting or null results as less publishable, and the lack of support for researchers to understand and consider how to embed research integrity into their work.

Steph Neave [: 00:16:02

More happily, we also identified a range of enablers to research integrity. So, for example, more nuanced assessment approaches that go beyond quantifying citations, open research practices, metrics to assess and hold institutions to account in respect to research integrity, embedding research integrity considerations in funding allocations and ensuring research integrity. Training and mentoring is available for all those involved in research and at all levels, not just early career researchers. I know there's been some fantastic initiatives to drive these enablers forward. The UK Committee of Research Integrity, for example, recently undertook work to develop indicators of research integrity and the UK Reproducibility Network has a whole program of work on open research. I'm encouraged by this and I also want to encourage our community to continue to adopt these enablers in our culture so that we can safeguard, advance and incentivize integrity in research.

Emily Goodall [: 00:17:04

I think you've made some really good points in there. I think the couple of things that kind of stood out for me is, firstly, that language. I've read quite a few research misconduct protocols and it is quite intimidating and I think if I was still an early career researcher, it would make me stop and think about whether I actually wanted to go down that road. But some way of creating a safe environment where you can question and challenge is really important for research integrity. So thank you. I think that that's a really interesting piece of work that you're doing. Can you tell us a little bit more about the work UK Rio is doing to address it and the support for the community more generally around research integrity matters?

Steph Neave [: 00:17:48

Absolutely. As the UK Research Integrity Office, we know we have a key role to play, both in terms of supporting those on the ground and in working collaboratively and at the national and international level to drive forward systems change. This year we have four priority areas identified in consultation with the research community to really focus our efforts on both the thorny and the emerging issues for research integrity. The first is, perhaps unsurprisingly, research misconduct. So while we've spoken at length about some of the work we've already done in this space, that is just a starting point. We're now focusing on responding to the proposals outlined in our review. So, for example, advancing the destigmatization agenda and creating training materials to support those involved in leading investigations. Another priority area and I hope this comes as music to you and your listeners ears is research culture.

Steph Neave [: 00:18:43

In practice. This involves engaging with the research community through such avenues as this podcast, but also through roundtables and events about the inhibitors and enablers for research integrity. It also involves producing and sharing practical guidance to ensure that the principles of research integrity are embedded into every stage of the research process and the research environment. Our third priority area addresses authorship, which is one of the most common issues raised through our advisory service. And that makes sense. Authorship is fundamental to research as it confers cross credit, responsibility and accountability, and from a culture point of view, it has a major bearing on researcher well being, career progression and the wider environment. So while authorship should be straightforward in theory, we know that it's often tricky in practice. And that is made all the more tricky when, for example, norms differ wildly by discipline.

Steph Neave [: 00:19:39

I'm really pleased to say we've been recently commissioned by UKRI to convene actors from across the Research UK ecosystem to collaboratively develop strategies to address authorship disputes. The intention is to co create practical tools for the research community, including an authorship agreement, template, guidance and model procedure, so that we can both address disputes when they occur, but also prevent them from arising in the first place. We're currently asking anyone with experience in authorship disputes to submit an expression of interest to contribute to this project by attending one of two stakeholder workshops we're hosting in March. I very much invite listeners to take this up as we're really keen to have as many people involved as possible. Our final priority area is artificial intelligence, which I'm sure you and your listeners will agree will and is already having a profound impact on how research is conducted and by extension, research integrity. The field is rapidly evolving and we need to have a proactive and thoughtful approach to harness both the opportunities and the challenges posed by AI in relation to research.

Emily Goodall [: 00:20:47

So in your opinion, what needs to happen to drive forward really good and positive research culture?

Steph Neave [: 00:20:55

You know, there's this fantastic graphic created by the center for Open Science called the Research Culture Change Pyramid, which I find so helpful that I actually printed it out and taped it onto my desk. And appreciating this is on audio, so unfortunately I can't show listeners the image. It comes down to for culture to change, work is needed on a multitude of levels. First, we need to make it required through policy, but that isn't going to be enough. We also need to make it rewarding through incentives. And it can't just be a few people here or there, we need to make it normative through communities, and we need to make it easy for individuals to practice good research. Finally, at the bottom of the pyramid is the foundation we need to make it possible through clear and strong infrastructure. That sentiment is echoed in the UK Cory Research Integrity Indicators project I mentioned earlier.

Steph Neave [: 00:21:50

So in that project they identified 16 indicators and notably they categorized these into four domains in leadership, in strategy, in procedure and in practice. And I think that really speaks to my earlier point that research integrity needs to be applied at every component and stage of research and embedded into the fabric and culture of the research environment. And it's important to recognize this work isn't limited to the institutional level. There are many actors involved in the research sector funders, publishers, researchers, those who consume research, and each has a hand in ensuring its integrity. Every part and actor of the research ecosystem has a role and a responsibility in creating a culture of research integrity.

Emily Goodall [: 00:22:40

Yeah, I completely agree and I think that's one of the things that we get across when we run Research Culture or research integrity training here at Leeds. It's all about everyone has a role to play. It's not a single responsibility, but everybody can make a contribution to a more positive research environment. So finally, how do our listeners get involved in UKRIO's work? What upcoming opportunities are there for all our listeners to get involved?

Steph Neave [: 00:23:09

So first of all, for those listening, if ever you have a research integrity issue or concern, please do reach out. We provide confidential impartial advice and guidance through our advisory service and that's free and open to all. Beyond that, do feel free to check out our website where you'll find a bank of open access information, advice and guidance on the key priority areas I spoke about, but also on wider issues such as research ethics, equality, diversity and inclusion and good research governance. We also run a series of public lectures, webinars and events open and available to all. Upcoming on the 5th of February is our expert webinar on embedding equity and research integrity. And on the 24th of April we'll be running another webinar on strengthening research integrity in the arts and humanities. For those of you who aren't part of an institution subscribing to UKRIO already, I do encourage you to explore the benefits of of this UKRIO subscription provides you and everyone in your institution with access to additional events, training, resources and support. And by subscribing, you also support ukrio.

Steph Neave [: 00:24:19

Do what we do to advance research integrity for and with the research community. Finally, if you as an individual want to make a difference and foster a culture of research integrity. Do you consider joining us as a member of our Expert Community, a group of volunteers who support our work by ensuring it's grounded in expertise and experience? Please do get in touch if you'd like to join. We'd love to hear from you.

Emily Goodall [: 00:24:45

Excellent. Steph, thank you so much for joining us on the podcast. It's been really interesting and I've had a really enjoyable discussion with you. There is so much happening in the Research Culture and the Research Integrity space and I really appreciate you highlighting some of the key issues and and resources that we have or you have available to the community.

Steph Neave [: 00:25:07

Thank you for having me, Emily. I've really enjoyed our conversation and I hope your listeners enjoy hearing it.

Emily Goodall [: 00:25:14

Listeners links to those resources can be found in the show Notes. I really encourage you to take a look at those and sign up for the future events with Ukrio. I've been to quite a few of the webinars. I'm always using the link for the Social Media in Ethics webinar that you did and I've sent that to quite a few people. Those webinars always leave me with some food for thought, so I encourage other people to go and have a look at those. That's all we have time for today, so thank you for listening and please join us for future episodes.

Intro / outro [: 00:25:46

Thanks for listening to the Research Culture Uncovered podcast. Please subscribe so you never miss out on our brand new episodes. And if you're enjoying the discussions, give us some love by dropping a five star star rating and written review as it helps other research culturists find us. And please share with a friend and show them how to subscribe. Thanks for listening and here's to you and your research culture.