Call for papers

CALL FOR PAPERS

[closed]

As part of the ANR research project CRISP (Addressing the Challenge of Research Integrity in Scientific Practices), this workshop aims to explore the sociological and legal perspectives on research integrity, with an empirical view on the practices of scientific communities.

For several years, the issue of research integrity has been a concern for research bodies and universities, which see it as a source of the public credibility of science. In France, Law No. 2020-1674 of 24 December 2020 on research programming for the years 2021 to 2030 sets out the requirements of scientific integrity as "aimed at guaranteeing the honest and scientifically rigorous nature of [research] and consolidating the bond of trust with society" (Article L. 211-2 of the Scientific Research Code). According to the definition given by Decree No. 2021-1572 of 3 December 2021, the scientific integrity referred to in the latter text "is defined as the set of rules and values that must govern research in order to guarantee its honest and scientifically rigorous nature". These legal provisions fuel and expand on legal research aimed at identifying the features of research integrity, characterising breaches and identifying its legal sources (Shrader-Frechette 1994; de Lamberterie & Vergès, 2006; Vergès, 2008; Descamps & Lairedj, 2021; Robin, 2022). The installation of integrity officers in many research institutions, stimulated in France by the Corvol report (2016), in turn raises questions about the nature of their functions and the concrete ways in which they perform their duties. The sanctions incurred and actually imposed in the event of a scientific misconduct raise questions about how the inner regulations of the scientific professions relate to the ethics of civil servants and, beyond that, to criminal law and to intellectual and industrial property law (Guglielmi & Koubi, 2012; Maurel, 2014; Bergadaà & Peixoto, 2021). From a sociological point of view, the mushrooming of legal norms on research integrity can be regarded as a demonstration of the demarcation work (Gieryn, 1983) carried out by the scientific community, aiming at sorting out 'good' and 'bad' science. The phenomenon must also be analysed in view of the professionalisation of scientific activity and the interactions between public authorities and scientific communities: as historians point out (Roberts, Sibum & Mody, 2020), the self-regulation efforts of the scientific communities are observed all the more acutely when the image of the professional researcher emerges, able to devote themselves full-time to the production of knowledge. The contemporary calls for integrity are investigated by sociologists (Didier & Guaspare, 2018; Dubois & Guaspare, 2019; Jacob, 2019), but their institutional and professional dimensions receive relatively less scrutiny. Some scientific misconducts have attracted the attention of sociologists (Braxton & Bayer, 1996; Gotweiss & Kim, 2009; Grundmann, 2012), highlighting the potential contributions of the sociology of deviance (Hesselmann, 2019; Larrègue & Saint Martin, 2018; Zuckermann, 1984).

The workshop will focus on the behaviours ascribed as being deviant from the norms and practices of the scientific communities in which scientists carry out their work, their identification, their sanctioning and the impacts of these accusations on scientists' careers. The workshop aims to consider how particular behaviours are perceived and labelled as deviant in scientific practices and how this assignment affects scientific careers, whether or not they give rise to disciplinary or even judicial sanctions. The perspective adopted pays attention to the diversity of 'questionable practices' in science (Erwin et al. 1994) and the particular issues at stake in each type of misconduct (plagiarism, data fabrication, image manipulation, etc.). We will also consider how the focus on these practices can lead to the normalisation of practices that are 'not yet questioned' or 'questioned' only in certain circles. Similarly, we may question situations where the production of research that contribute, for example, to strategic production of ignorance (Proctor, Schiebinger, 2008; Oreskes, Conway, 2010; Proctor, 2011) or that perpetuates development trajectories that are harmful to the environment is pointed out as constituting a scientific misconduct.

Symmetrically, the workshop will address the different modes of compliance with research integrity. Just as scientific deviance responds to certain social logics, the emergence of new norms results from the mobilisation of actors whose values and resources need to be analysed. These norms entail the creation of new roles within the academic institution (e.g. integrity officers), new research practices and new tools for detecting and reporting misconduct. These institutional transformations need to be documented, as do the behavioural adjustments they trigger in the day-to-day conduct of research. The allegation of scientific misconduct by actors outside the scientific community will also receive special attention. Overall, we will explore the way in which compliance is constructed legally and institutionally, and how it is rewarded symbolically and professionally.

Whether it is a question of deviance or compliance, the workshop intends to encourage an empirical approach, soliciting papers based on a sociological investigation or a legal study based on the analysis of legal materials, and possibly on field observations, for which the problematization may be less elaborate. In all cases, the aim will be that discussions are based on research practices, with attention to the diversity of disciplines (natural sciences as well as social sciences and humanities may be examined), the expectations of the various disciplines and the practical conditions for carrying out scientific work (civil servant researchers, researchers hired under private law contracts, independent researchers), while also acknowledging the differences in the national contexts.

All interested people should send proposals to the scientific committee of the workshop, in particular, but not exclusively, in the areas listed below.

1) The identification of scientific misconducts – The rules governing the correct exercise of scientific activity are not always formalised. When they are, it is often by resorting to soft law. Moreover, it has become common to identify practices clearly considered as misconduct (fabrication, falsification of results and plagiarism) alongside a "grey area" of questionable research practices, the content of which is uncertain and constantly evolving in line with technical and methodological advances in science. How to identify a scientific misconduct and what issues are associated with the suggested typologies? In what way do the evolutions of the techniques used by scientists reshape the demands of research integrity?

2) The reporting and treatment of scientific misconduct – A scientific misconduct may be reported to an integrity officer or to other actors in the governance of laboratories, research institutions and universities. The persons in charge are responsible for following up on the reports received, which implies that they carry out investigations to establish or verify the content of the reported facts and, if necessary, transmit the case to an authority competent to sanction or stop the reported behaviour. How are scientific misconducts reported? What reporting channels are set up by institutions and how do they relate to the various reporting systems they are required to have in place (health and environmental risks, breaches of ethics, etc.)? Beyond employers, what role do journals, publishers, learned societies and other professional associations play in these reporting procedures? How is the "investigation" of reported breaches carried out?

3) The proof of scientific misconduct – The identification of scientific misconducts involves assessing ordinary scientific activities and practices and documenting deviations from them. In this case, ordinary scientific practices give rise to evidentiary uses that are far removed from their original purpose. How is scientific misconduct proven in disciplinary or judicial settings? What particular evidentiary issues are raised by the different types of misconduct and questionable research practices?

4) The construction of scientific deviance – Noting the variability of the qualification of a misconduct, we will ask in what contexts and under what conditions practices that have been accepted or tolerated so far become proscribed by the scientific community. Which practices are designated as 'deviant'? While some factors (age, disciplinary culture, career stage) seem to influence the occurrence of these practices (Fanelli et al, 2015), the question arises whether the charge of misconduct is targeted at individuals with similar socio-demographic characteristics and social positions? Through which formal or informal channels do the accusations of misconduct circulate? How are these accusations made visible (Ampollini & Bucchi, 2020; Hesselmann et al., 2017) or invisible (Hesselmann & Reinhardt, 2021)? How are individuals suspected of misconduct publicly labelled? What then happens to the taxonomy used in misconduct 'cases'? Can the rising importance of research integrity be regarded independently of the outbreak of misconduct cases? And is it advisable to refrain from a spontaneously criminological reading of scientific misconducts and to adopt instead a perspective informed by the sociology of deviance?

5) The impact on careers – While the literature on research integrity provides a wealth of explanations of what drives individuals to scientific misconduct, fewer studies look at the consequences of misconduct on careers (Galbraith, 2017; Mongeon & Larivière, 2016). What are the consequences of a proven misconduct on social position? How does one pursue a career after a misconduct? Is the field or specialty in which the accused person works collectively destabilized? What happens in cases where alleged misconduct is not proven? Are there any compensation schemes? It is also important to broaden the focus and ask how individuals who have reported a misconduct are impacted by the case; and this in a negative way (banishment) but also in a positive way (access to a higher position). We could also look at the careers of individuals who hold reporting and/or mediation functions (members of ethics committees, research integrity officers). Here, the sociology of science and the sociology of professions will come together.

6) Professional misbehaviour in science – If scientists form a professional group, then the identification of a breach of research integrity can be interpreted as "professional misbehaviour" (Chateauraynaud, 1991). What do these breaches tell us about the scientific profession? What collective forms of regulation can be observed in the way these breaches are qualified and treated (deontological/ethical? prudential? collegial?)? What methodological problems arise in listing and quantifying deviant practices (both for the actors seeking to regulate these practices and for those who wish to study the construction of the problem)? Does the legal formalisation of research integrity signal the emergence of a form of 'mandate' given to the scientific community? Or should we rather interpret this as a desire for greater State control over scientific practice?

Proposals must be sent by 20 June 2022 at the latest to the following address: integrity@sciencesconf.org . They may be written in French or English. They should not exceed 4000 characters including spaces, and should indicate 5 key words and a brief professional biography.