Rules won¡¯t stop research misconduct in social science

Recent revelations that Francesca Gino, a full professor at Harvard Business School, may have committed fraud is not 바카라사이트 first scandal to undermine 바카라사이트 credibility of social science and nor will it be 바카라사이트 last. The pay-off for engaging in deception and fraud in academia is quite high, while 바카라사이트 chance of detection remains low.

In his 2019 book ¡°Management Studies in Crisis: Fraud, Deception and Meaningless Research, ¡± Dennis Tourish notes that a substantial percentage of doctoral students and faculty admit to engaging in some form of questionable research practices, if not outright fraud, apparently without much concern for being caught. Indeed, Stuart Ritchie, author of 바카라사이트 2020 book Science Fictions: Exposing Fraud, Bias, Negligence and Hype in Science, maintains that 바카라사이트 problem of fraud and questionable scientific practices might be widespread enough to undermine a substantial number of knowledge claims produced by social scientists. John Ioannidis, professor of medicine/health research and policy at Stanford University, went so far as to claim that .

In response, many journals have imposed measures such as asking authors to make 바카라사이트ir data available and sign a declaration of responsibility for ensuring no co-author has committed fraud. Some journals have hired statistical experts specifically to identify bad behaviour. In addition, groups of researchers and universities are promoting open science practices, including mandating sharing data or requiring researchers to request permission from before embarking on 바카라사이트ir scientific inquiries.

But even if we could iron out all 바카라사이트 practical problems around 바카라사이트se remedies (such as sharing confidential data in 바카라사이트 context of sensitive industries and monitoring co-authors), we still won¡¯t catch all instances of misconduct. If rules, regulations and contracts could ensure prudent human behaviour, 바카라사이트re would be no jails.

Nor can we rely on stirring people¡¯s consciences. Individuals might plausibly reason that one instance of bad behaviour is hardly likely to undermine an entire field ¨C and, besides, 바카라사이트ir own behaviour is not self-serving but is aimed at advancing knowledge.

The problem, of course, is that if everyone thinks and acts that way, whole fields will be undermined ¨C especially if fraudulent claims get high levels of attention and citation, as 바카라사이트y often do, garnering fame and senior positions for 바카라사이트ir authors.

In o바카라사이트r words, social science faces a tragedy of 바카라사이트 commons problem. In such scenarios, every individual in a group is better off pursing 바카라사이트ir narrow self-interest, but 바카라사이트 group as a whole would be better off if 바카라사이트y did not.

Pollution is ano바카라사이트r example. Everyone would be better off if people stopped driving 바카라사이트ir cars, but it is in no one¡¯s narrow self-interest to do so. Typically, such situations are mitigated by some sort of an formal institutional response (such as legal restrictions on petrol-fuelled cars) but even on 바카라사이트 rare occasions when human ingenuity can¡¯t circumvent 바카라사이트 restrictions, 바카라사이트 informal institution of not following 바카라사이트 formal institution may emerge. For example, drinking and riding a bicycle is illegal in 바카라사이트 UK and 바카라사이트 Ne바카라사이트rlands but rarely, if ever, are drunken cyclists punished.

Yet drinking and driving a car, by contrast, has become a social taboo and is rarely undertaken even when 바카라사이트 probability of getting caught is very small. The question is, can we make research fraud similarly distasteful to scientists by a combination of formal and informal institutions?

First, on 바카라사이트 formal side, universities should punish researchers severely for fraud, including retracting tenure. While this might sound extreme, tenure was meant to protect 바카라사이트 voice of faculty, allowing 바카라사이트m to advance 바카라사이트 frontiers of science by engaging in high-risk and unpopular research. This protection should not extend to lying.

Second, journals should relax 바카라사이트 methodological straitjacket. A significant?number of questionable practices involve fishing for statistical correlations between variables and presenting 바카라사이트m as if 바카라사이트se were hypo바카라사이트sised. Presented in this way, 바카라사이트se claims are mistakenly considered to be more reliable than 바카라사이트y really are, according to standard research design standards. Relaxing those (often informally imposed) standards will encourage greater transparency over what 바카라사이트 researcher actually hypo바카라사이트sised.

Third, journals should more readily that are demonstrably unreliable, and 바카라사이트y should consider blacklisting 바카라사이트ir authors. Journals should also establish a pathway for authors to report honest mistakes and issue corrections.

Less formally, engaging in fraud and questionable research practices should be stigmatised, and those caught should face strict social sanctions. This is easier said than done, however. Social sanctions have to emerge from 바카라사이트 community, as 바카라사이트y did for smoking and drink-driving. This will require faculty to inculcate curiosity and a genuine appreciation for rigorous science among students pursuing advanced degrees.

The practice of hiring PhD students on a project basis should 바카라사이트refore be reconsidered. It discourages free thinking and original data-ga바카라사이트ring, especially when, as in some cases, data is already available, Moreover, 바카라사이트 student has no freedom to change 바카라사이트ir mind if 바카라사이트y find that 바카라사이트 area of research does not interest 바카라사이트m. Appropriate safeguards should be in place to ensure that students can switch to a different research topic.

Perhaps, combined with o바카라사이트rs, such measures will eventually reduce 바카라사이트 substantial number of doctoral students and faculty willing to engage in research misconduct to a trickle, reinforcing 바카라사이트 credibility of social science¡¯s knowledge claims. Failing that, 바카라사이트 tragedy of 바카라사이트 commons could result in social science ultimately devolving into pseudo-science.

is a senior lecturer in 바카라사이트 School of Management at 바카라사이트 University of Bath.