Since the start of this project, we paid attention to the gender aspect regarding research integrity, and it proves to be an intriguing topic. A frequently mentioned study by Fang et al. (2013) found an overrepresentation of men, because 65% of the cases of misconduct were male, which is higher than could be expected based on the male-female distribution in science and engineering. Intuitively, one could think that male and female researchers differ in their views on research integrity, and most tend to think that women are stricter in their opinions on integrity. Yet, when one tries to pinpoint what the difference between male and female researchers exactly consists of, it proves a difficult task to do. That gender is an interesting critical factor, playing a role in the prevalence of misconduct, finds support in various studies (e.g. Kisamore et al, 2007; Miller et al, 2007).

For example, in a meta-analysis on cheating behavior, it was found that women on average had a less positive attitude towards cheating than men (Whitley et al, 1999). Witmer & Johansson (2015) found that female students are certainly less prevalent in disciplinary matters regarding academic dishonesty among students. Simon et al. (2004) found that ‘women are significantly more likely to report academic dishonesty than are men’ (p81). However, in a study by Kisamore et al (2007) no convincing support was found for a hypothesis that men suspect cheating more often and report misconduct less than women. In several other studies no significant gender differences were found either (e.g., Horbach et al, 2020). Thus, the data remain inconclusive, while the question seems highly relevant.

When discussing gender, it seems that other aspects cannot be neglected, like the institutional context, power-relations and socialization in the academia. Horbach et al (2020) offer an interesting suggestion why we should not put the gender-issue to rest if we cannot easily find significant differences. They argue that the current gender imbalance in the academies does urge for further study. It is interesting to know why female witnesses in their study are, though not significantly, less likely to report such instances than their male colleagues and secondly why reporting by female researchers is less likely to lead to constructive consequences than reporting by male researchers.

Their suggestions with regards to power imbalances seem to hold for researchers in the academia, as their findings indicate that senior researchers are more likely to report than junior researchers and temporary appointed researchers also less likely will report misconduct than tenured staff. Given the fact that in the academia male staff is still dominant in the senior positions, this clarifies the suggestion to further study the gender aspect (Horbach, et al. 2020).

So, are there relevant gender differences regarding research integrity? We can only point out what is still inconclusive, also in our own study. So, the question is if and at what aspects exactly, the differences seem most relevant. Yet, an even more relevant question seems to be how we could use that information to make changes. Changes for the better.

So, are there relevant gender differences regarding research integrity? We can only point out what is still inconclusive, also in our own study. So, the question is if and at what aspects exactly, the differences seem most relevant. Yet, an even more relevant question seems to be how we could use that information to make changes. Changes for the better.

*This blog is based on the manuscript ‘Is there a relationship between gender and attitudes and behavior regarding research- and academic integrity? A survey amongst research master students in the life sciences’, which is currently under review.