6 found
Order:
Disambiguations
Tamarinde Haven [4]Tamarinde L. Haven [2]
  1.  5
    Researchers’ Perceptions of a Responsible Research Climate: A Multi Focus Group Study.Tamarinde Haven, H. Roeline Pasman, Guy Widdershoven, Lex Bouter & Joeri Tijdink - 2020 - Science and Engineering Ethics 26 (6):3017-3036.
    The research climate plays a key role in fostering integrity in research. However, little is known about what constitutes a responsible research climate. We investigated academic researchers’ perceptions on this through focus group interviews. We recruited researchers from the Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam and the Amsterdam University Medical Center to participate in focus group discussions that consisted of researchers from similar academic ranks and disciplinary fields. We asked participants to reflect on the characteristics of a responsible research climate, the barriers they (...)
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   4 citations  
  2. Explaining variance in perceived research misbehavior: results from a survey among academic researchers in Amsterdam.Frans Oort, Lex Bouter, Brian Martinson, Joeri Tijdink & Tamarinde Haven - 2021 - Research Integrity and Peer Review 6 (1).
    BackgroundConcerns about research misbehavior in academic science have sparked interest in the factors that may explain research misbehavior. Often three clusters of factors are distinguished: individual factors, climate factors and publication factors. Our research question was: to what extent can individual, climate and publication factors explain the variance in frequently perceived research misbehaviors?MethodsFrom May 2017 until July 2017, we conducted a survey study among academic researchers in Amsterdam. The survey included three measurement instruments that we previously reported individual results of (...)
    No categories
    Direct download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   2 citations  
  3.  9
    Value pluralism in research integrity.Lex Bouter, Tamarinde Haven, Jeroen de Ridder & Rik Peels - 2019 - Research Integrity and Peer Review 4 (1).
    Both scientists and society at large have rightfully become increasingly concerned about research integrity in recent decades. In response, codes of conduct for research have been developed and elaborated. We show that these codes contain substantial pluralism. First, there is metaphysical pluralism in that codes include values, norms, and virtues. Second, there is axiological pluralism, because there are different categories of values, norms, and virtues: epistemic, moral, professional, social, and legal. Within and between these different categories, norms can be incommensurable (...)
    No categories
    Direct download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   4 citations  
  4.  8
    Personally perceived publication pressure: revising the Publication Pressure Questionnaire by using work stress models.Frans Jeroen Oort, Joeri K. Tijdink, Marije Esther Evalien de Goede & Tamarinde L. Haven - 2019 - Research Integrity and Peer Review 4 (1).
    BackgroundThe emphasis on impact factors and the quantity of publications intensifies competition between researchers. This competition was traditionally considered an incentive to produce high-quality work, but there are unwanted side-effects of this competition like publication pressure. To measure the effect of publication pressure on researchers, the Publication Pressure Questionnaire was developed. Upon using the PPQ, some issues came to light that motivated a revision.MethodWe constructed two new subscales based on work stress models using the facet method. We administered the revised (...)
    No categories
    Direct download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   4 citations  
  5.  2
    Researchers’ perceptions of research misbehaviours: a mixed methods study among academic researchers in Amsterdam.Lex M. Bouter, Gerben ter Riet, Guy Widdershoven, H. Roeline Pasman, Joeri K. Tijdink & Tamarinde L. Haven - 2019 - Research Integrity and Peer Review 4 (1).
    BackgroundThere is increasing evidence that research misbehaviour is common, especially the minor forms. Previous studies on research misbehaviour primarily focused on biomedical and social sciences, and evidence from natural sciences and humanities is scarce. We investigated what academic researchers in Amsterdam perceived to be detrimental research misbehaviours in their respective disciplinary fields.MethodsWe used an explanatory sequential mixed methods design. First, survey participants from four disciplinary fields rated perceived frequency and impact of research misbehaviours from a list of 60. We then (...)
    No categories
    Direct download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   4 citations  
  6.  6
    Explanations of Research Misconduct, and How They Hang Together.Tamarinde Haven & René van Woudenberg - 2021 - Journal for General Philosophy of Science / Zeitschrift für Allgemeine Wissenschaftstheorie 52 (4):543-561.
    In this paper, we explore different possible explanations for research misconduct, and investigate whether they are compatible. We suggest that to explain research misconduct, we should pay attention to three factors: the beliefs and desires of the misconductor, contextual affordances, and unconscious biases or influences. We draw on the three different narratives of research misconduct as proposed by Sovacool to review six different explanations. Four theories start from the individual: Rational Choice theory, Bad Apple theory, General Strain Theory and Prospect (...)
    Direct download (3 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   1 citation