How is research integrity being taught in academic institutions in Europe? What are the main challenges faced by teachers instructing students about research integrity? How can the quality and efficacy of this teaching be improved? In an attempt to answer these questions, the team at University of Zurich – one of the partners in the H2020 INTEGRITY Project – conducted an online survey targeting scholars teaching research integrity across Europe – see the Deliverable 3.2 – Results of mapping current practice to get the full scope of the survey.

The survey was intending to gain a comprehensive picture of the teaching of research integrity in Europe, and 3 open-ended questions aiming to reveal the respondents’ personal views about the challenges they face, the potential blind spots in their teaching, and the possible ways to improve their efforts in this area. The responses from 21 European countries were gathered between June and July 2019 and provided insightful qualitative and quantitative data:

Nearly half of participants were male and the other half female and around 80% of them had a doctoral degree and around 35% of them had a background in Humanities (e.g., Philosophy), while 25% of respondents had a background in Life Sciences (e.g., Biology, Medicine). Mixed academic backgrounds were also common.

A majority of respondents (64 %) taught early career researchers and PhD students, with only approximately one third (also) taught students of other levels (Bachelor’s and Master’s students). Almost half reported that their audience came from the Life Sciences (mostly, Medicine). One third taught mixed audiences while only 17% of them taught exclusively students from social and human sciences.

Concerning the features of research integrity courses or lectures, most respondents reported that they taught medium-sized (11 to 30) and very large (more than 70) groups of students. Around 75% of the lessons and courses given by respondents were mandatory. More than half of the courses and lectures were stand-alone activities, and not being taught as part of a course on something else than research integrity (such as “Ethics” or “Research Methodology”).

When asked about the teaching methodology, the most popular method was the discussion based on real and/or fictional cases, with half the participants reporting they did this “very often”. One third of participants also mentioned the traditional lecture method as an option. In contrast, less used methods are, among others, role-playing, written essays or online exercises (over half of participants reported they never used these methods).

Survey participants had the possibility to rate how lessons/courses were focused on particular topics on a scale from 1 (not at all) to 5 (very strongly). Interestingly, the analysis of Guidelines on Research Integrity is the most popular topic, with a mean score of 4.08. Plagiarism and Authorship Ethics are also prevalent subjects, with a mean score of 3.92 and 3.90 respectively. Among the least covered topics are whistleblower protection and intellectual property. Half of the survey participants did not discuss any ethical theories during their lesson/course, while a little less than half of them briefly presented ethical theories during the course or lesson.

Participants were also asked about the challenges they face and the blind spots in the teaching of research integrity in their institutions or countries. The main challenge (mentioned by 30% of respondents) was the students’ lack of motivation. This problem is due to a variety of factors: some students “don’t see the relevance of this teaching”, either because they are not directly involved in research yet, or are not planning to do research in the future. Several participants complained also about the lack of time to adequately cover the rich variety of issues that make part of research integrity, and the absence of follow-up of issues relating to integrity in other courses.

Concerning the blind spots, many respondents insisted on the need for a less theoretical and more practical orientation in the teaching, and the importance of appealing to real life examples. Accordingly, several participants pointed out the need to address grey areas such as questionable research practices instead of focusing only on the most spectacular cases of scientific misconduct. Respondents also stressed the importance of finding a strategy to involve supervisors and senior researchers in the teaching, given that their behavior in everyday scientific practice – for good and bad – has great influence on the behavior of young researchers. The non-mandatory nature of courses on research integrity was also considered a problem by many participants in the survey. Among the topics rarely addressed in courses on research integrity are: whistleblower protection, methodological issues, conflict of interests, data analysis and data management, and social responsibility of scientists. The little use of online tools in the teaching is also regarded by some respondents as a blind spot.

Respondents were asked to name at least two essential elements (e.g. methods) that, according to their experience, contribute to the efficacy of their teaching. Interestingly, around half of them agreed that the most efficient tool is the recourse to case studies combined with discussion. Cases can either be taken from real-life or be fictitious “but close enough to real life.” Specific methods that were mentioned as helpful to improve the quality and efficacy of the teaching are role-playing, individual and group presentations by students, and various online tools and videos.

The survey provided a good picture of the current teaching of research integrity in Europe and allowed to identify some challenges and blind spots: a) Courses on research integrity seem to be especially established in countries such as The Netherlands, Denmark, United Kingdom, Germany and Switzerland; b) Most of these trainings are offered to doctoral students and postdoctoral researchers; c) Around half of these courses take place exclusively in programs on life sciences and natural sciences, while those focused on social and human sciences are, by far, less frequent (17%); d) Interestingly, respondents reported that around 75% of the lessons and courses they give are mandatory.

Topics that are insufficiently addressed in courses on research integrity are: whistleblower protection, methodological issues, conflict of interests, data analysis and data management, and social responsibility of scientists: f) A visible blind spot is the lack of assessment methods:around half of respondents pointed out that they do not use any procedure to evaluate the outcomes of their teaching; g) The European Code of Conduct for Research Integrity seems to be little known or, at least, little used in the teaching of research integrity: no participant in the survey referred spontaneously to the Code as a tool or material used in the teaching. In spite of this, respondents strongly support the importance of the four principles proposed by the Code: reliability, honesty/transparency in reporting research results, respect for others, and accountability.

Check the Deliverable 3.2 – Results of mapping current practice to get a full scope on the report.