One size doesn’t fit all: a Delphi study mapping how 'Responsible Conduct of Research' differs across disciplines
Jackie Thompson
(University of Bristol (and University of Oxford))
Tom van Drimmelen
(Leiden University Medical Center)
Sarahanne Field
(University of Groningen)
Sarah de Rijcke
(Leiden University)
Bart Penders
(Maastricht University)
Marcus Munafo
Short abstract
We descriptively illustrate how best practice manifests differently across disciplines, through a recent mixed-methods study in which 60 experts across varied disciplines rated importance of 38 dimensions of ‘responsible conduct of research.’ We further discuss interpretations and implications.
Long abstract
Metaresearch is often siloed by different models of knowledge generation, separated by barriers of differing jargon and assumptions. In order to be effective and applicable as widely as possible, our field needs to understand key elements of how the research ecosystem it studies (e.g., research disciplines, methodologies and epistemologies) vary. What are the universals of research practice that all research should aim for, and which are more niche: important in one field but irrelevant in others?
Accordingly, we conducted a mixed-methods study overviewing how Responsible Conduct of Research (RCR) manifests differently across disciplines. We first identified over 30 possible dimensions of RCR, through a scoping review of relevant literature and thematic analysis of interviews with experts. We then conducted a 3-round Delphi process bringing together 60 RCR experts from varying disciplines of academic research (including arts/humanities, social sciences, life/health sciences, and physical/mathematical sciences) who made and refined quantitative judgements of the importance of each dimension in their discipline, informed by qualitative feedback from other panellists. Our findings (see https://osf.io/8ntex) richly illustrate which dimensions of RCR are considered more universal, versus which vary widely across disciplines. These divides split along lines of methodologies, epistemologies, values, and more.
To create actionable insights from our findings, we have developed a toolkit of interactive visualisations, exercises and reports to help relevant audiences (e.g., leadership and research support staff at HEIs, and other sector stakeholders such as funders, publishers, and policymakers) better understand this landscape, informing how they deploy guidance, reforms and interventions.
Accepted Paper
Short abstract
Long abstract
Metaresearch is often siloed by different models of knowledge generation, separated by barriers of differing jargon and assumptions. In order to be effective and applicable as widely as possible, our field needs to understand key elements of how the research ecosystem it studies (e.g., research disciplines, methodologies and epistemologies) vary. What are the universals of research practice that all research should aim for, and which are more niche: important in one field but irrelevant in others?
Accordingly, we conducted a mixed-methods study overviewing how Responsible Conduct of Research (RCR) manifests differently across disciplines. We first identified over 30 possible dimensions of RCR, through a scoping review of relevant literature and thematic analysis of interviews with experts. We then conducted a 3-round Delphi process bringing together 60 RCR experts from varying disciplines of academic research (including arts/humanities, social sciences, life/health sciences, and physical/mathematical sciences) who made and refined quantitative judgements of the importance of each dimension in their discipline, informed by qualitative feedback from other panellists. Our findings (see https://osf.io/8ntex) richly illustrate which dimensions of RCR are considered more universal, versus which vary widely across disciplines. These divides split along lines of methodologies, epistemologies, values, and more.
To create actionable insights from our findings, we have developed a toolkit of interactive visualisations, exercises and reports to help relevant audiences (e.g., leadership and research support staff at HEIs, and other sector stakeholders such as funders, publishers, and policymakers) better understand this landscape, informing how they deploy guidance, reforms and interventions.
Research cultures and research qualities
Session 1 Monday 30 June, 2025, -