No full-text available
To read the full-text of this research,
you can request a copy directly from the authors.
Overworking in HCI: A Reflection on Why We Are Burned Out, Stressed, and Out of Control; and What We Can Do About It
HCI scholars are increasingly engaging in research about “marginalized groups,” such as LGBTQ+ people. While normative habitual readings of marginalized people in HCI often highlight real problems, this work has been criticized for flattening heterogeneous experiences and overemphasizing harms. Some have advocated for expanding how we approach research on marginalized people (e.g., assets-based design, the everyday, and joy). Sensitized by unmaking literature, we explore this tension between conditions, experiences, and representations of marginality in HCI scholarship. To do so, we perform a diffractive analysis of posts in a gay online community by bringing two readings of the same data together: a normative habitual reading of marginalization and an expanded reading. By examining the relationship between empirical material and its representations by HCI researchers, we explore how to carefully unmake HCI research, thus maintaining and repairing our research community. We discuss the political and designerly implications of different readings of marginalized people and offer considerations for attending to the processes and afterlives of HCI research.
Research assessments have been under growing scrutiny in the past few years. The way in which researchers are assessed has a tangible impact on decisions and practices in research. Yet, there is an emerging understanding that research assessments as they currently stand might hamper the quality and the integrity of research. In this chapter, we provide a narrative review of the shortcomings of current research assessments and showcase innovative actions that aim to address these. To discuss these shortcomings and actions, we target five different dimensions of research assessment. First, we discuss the content of research assessment, thereby introducing the common indicators used to assess researchers and the way these indicators are being used. Second, we address the procedure of research assessments, describing the resources needed for assessing researchers in an ever-growing research system. Third, we describe the crucial role of assessors in improving research assessments. Fourth, we present the broader environments in which researchers work, explaining that omnipresent competition and employment insecurity also need to be toned down substantially to foster high quality and high integrity research. Finally, we describe the challenge of coordinating individual actions to ensure that the problems of research assessments are addressed tangibly and sustainably.
As one of the leading work-related health problems arising from increasingly fierce competition, work-related stress has become a significant predictor of the reduced wellbeing of university faculty members, especially for non-tenured junior faculty members. In light of this and based on a survey, this research seeks to examine how and why work-related stress impacts the life satisfaction level of university junior faculty members. The results indicate that the three subdivisions of university faculty members’ work-related stress, namely, research stress, teaching stress, and administrative stress, are all negatively related to their life satisfaction level. In addition, emotional burnout has been confirmed to function as the psychological mechanism for the aforementioned main effects. The research contributes to the literature mainly by offering a new insight in which the three subdivisions of work-related stress are regarded as independent variables affecting the life satisfaction level of university junior faculty members.
Despite the special role of tenure-track faculty in society, training future researchers and producing scholarship that drives scientific and technological innovation, the sociodemographic characteristics of the professoriate have never been representative of the general population. Here we systematically investigate the indicators of faculty childhood socioeconomic status and consider how they may limit efforts to diversify the professoriate. Combining national-level data on education, income and university rankings with a 2017–2020 survey of 7,204 US-based tenure-track faculty across eight disciplines in STEM, social science and the humanities, we show that faculty are up to 25 times more likely to have a parent with a Ph.D. Moreover, this rate nearly doubles at prestigious universities and is stable across the past 50 years. Our results suggest that the professoriate is, and has remained, accessible disproportionately to the socioeconomically privileged, which is likely to deeply shape their scholarship and their reproduction.
Introduction
Burnout is a growing problem among young researchers, affecting individuals, organizations and society. Our study aims to identify burnout profiles and highlight the corresponding job demands and resources, resulting in recommendations to reduce burnout risk in the academic context.
Methods
This cross-sectional study collected data from young researchers (n = 1,123) at five Flemish universities through an online survey measuring burnout risk, work engagement, sleeping behavior, and the most prominent job demands (e.g., publication pressure) and resources (e.g., social support). We conducted Latent Profile Analysis (LPA) to identify burnout profiles in young researchers and subsequently compared these groups on job demands and resources patterns.
Results
Five burnout profiles were identified: (1) High Burnout Risk (9.3%), (2) Cynical (30.1%), (3) Overextended (2.3%), (4) Low Burnout Risk (34.8%), and (5) No Burnout Risk (23.6%). Each burnout profile was associated with a different pattern of job demands and resources. For instance, high levels of meaningfulness (OR = −1.96) decreased the odds to being classified in the Cynical profile.
Conclusion
Our findings show that the Cynical profile corresponds to a relatively high number of young researchers, which may imply that they are particularly vulnerable to the cynicism dimension of burnout. Additionally, work-life interference and perceived publication pressure seemed the most significant predictors of burnout risk, while meaningfulness, social support from supervisor and learning opportunities played an important protective role.
Despite an increasingly competitive academic market, more and more people are seeking a PhD degree. While significant research focuses on skill attainment during PhD candidature and at PhD exit, we know little about the skills that might be present at PhD entry. We developed a data-driven taxonomy and conducted logistic regressions to analyse selection criteria (listing skills, qualifications, and personal attributes) of 13,562 PhD advertisements posted in 2016–2019 on Euraxess, a European recruitment platform for researchers. We analysed the most prevalent attributes sought for PhD admission, country-based and discipline-specific differences, and changes over time. We find that many of these admission attributes include diverse and transferable skills. Specifically, cognitive, interpersonal skills and personal attributes are trending upwards, and PhD requirements vary significantly by country, discipline and year of posting. We highlight the attributes requested by top 5 countries and top 5 disciplines, and show changes over time. The insights provide guidance for practice, specifically to PhD applicants, early career researchers, and those who support career development. We discuss PhD programmes’ alignment and policy implications for pre-doctoral education, redesign of PhD assessment, and improved training provision for students and supervisors.
Several racial and ethnic identities are widely understood to be under-represented within academia, however, actual quantification of this under-representation is surprisingly limited. Challenges include data availability, demographic inertia and identifying comparison points. We use de-aggregated data from the U.S. National Science Foundation to construct a null model of ethnic and racial representation in one of the world's largest academic communities. Making comparisons between our model and actual representation in academia allows us to measure the effects of retention (while controlling for recruitment) at different academic stages. We find that, regardless of recruitment, failed retention contributes to mis-representation across academia and that the stages responsible for the largest disparities differ by race and ethnicity: for Black and Hispanic scholars this occurs at the transition from graduate student to postdoctoral researcher whereas for Native American/Alaskan Native and Native Hawaiian/Pacific Islander scholars this occurs at transitions to and within faculty stages. Even for Asian and Asian-Americans, often perceived as well represented, circumstances are complex and depend on choice of baseline. Our findings demonstrate that while recruitment continues to be important, retention is also a pervasive barrier to proportional representation. Therefore, strategies to reduce mis-representation in academia must address retention. Although our model does not directly suggest specific strategies, our framework could be used to project how representation in academia might change in the long-term under different scenarios.
Across academia, men and women tend to publish at unequal rates. Existing explanations include the potentially unequal impact of parenthood on scholarship, but a lack of appropriate data has prevented its clear assessment. Here, we quantify the impact of parenthood on scholarship using an extensive survey of the timing of parenthood events, longitudinal publication data, and perceptions of research expectations among 3064 tenure-track faculty at 450 Ph.D.-granting computer science, history, and business departments across the United States and Canada, along with data on institution-specific parental leave policies. Parenthood explains most of the gender productivity gap by lowering the average short-term productivity of mothers, even as parents tend to be slightly more productive on average than nonparents. However, the size of productivity penalty for mothers appears to have shrunk over time. Women report that paid parental leave and adequate childcare are important factors in their recruitment and retention. These results have broad implications for efforts to improve the inclusiveness of scholarship.
Background
Success shapes the lives and careers of scientists. But success in science is difficult to define, let alone to translate in indicators that can be used for assessment. In the past few years, several groups expressed their dissatisfaction with the indicators currently used for assessing researchers. But given the lack of agreement on what should constitute success in science, most propositions remain unanswered. This paper aims to complement our understanding of success in science and to document areas of tension and conflict in research assessments.
Methods
We conducted semi-structured interviews and focus groups with policy makers, funders, institution leaders, editors or publishers, research integrity office members, research integrity community members, laboratory technicians, researchers, research students, and former-researchers who changed career to inquire on the topics of success, integrity, and responsibilities in science. We used the Flemish biomedical landscape as a baseline to be able to grasp the views of interacting and complementary actors in a system setting.
Results
Given the breadth of our results, we divided our findings in a two-paper series, with the current paper focusing on what defines and determines success in science. Respondents depicted success as a multi-factorial, context-dependent, and mutable construct. Success appeared to be an interaction between characteristics from the researcher (Who), research outputs (What), processes (How), and luck. Interviewees noted that current research assessments overvalued outputs but largely ignored the processes deemed essential for research quality and integrity. Interviewees suggested that science needs a diversity of indicators that are transparent, robust, and valid, and that also allow a balanced and diverse view of success; that assessment of scientists should not blindly depend on metrics but also value human input; and that quality should be valued over quantity.
Conclusions
The objective of research assessments may be to encourage good researchers, to benefit society, or simply to advance science. Yet we show that current assessments fall short on each of these objectives. Open and transparent inter-actor dialogue is needed to understand what research assessments aim for and how they can best achieve their objective.
Study Registration
osf.io/33v3m.
Background
The academic publishing world is changing significantly, with ever-growing numbers of publications each year and shifting publishing patterns. However, the metrics used to measure academic success, such as the number of publications, citation number, and impact factor, have not changed for decades. Moreover, recent studies indicate that these metrics have become targets and follow Goodhart’s Law, according to which, “when a measure becomes a target, it ceases to be a good measure.”
Results
In this study, we analyzed >120 million papers to examine how the academic publishing world has evolved over the last century, with a deeper look into the specific field of biology. Our study shows that the validity of citation-based measures is being compromised and their usefulness is lessening. In particular, the number of publications has ceased to be a good metric as a result of longer author lists, shorter papers, and surging publication numbers. Citation-based metrics, such citation number and h-index, are likewise affected by the flood of papers, self-citations, and lengthy reference lists. Measures such as a journal’s impact factor have also ceased to be good metrics due to the soaring numbers of papers that are published in top journals, particularly from the same pool of authors. Moreover, by analyzing properties of >2,600 research fields, we observed that citation-based metrics are not beneficial for comparing researchers in different fields, or even in the same department.
Conclusions
Academic publishing has changed considerably; now we need to reconsider how we measure success.
While academic jobs generally provide a good degree of flexibility, academics also tend to work extra hours which can then lead to a poorer work-life balance. In this study, we compare academic versus nonacademic staff and anticipate that academics will generally report a poorer quality of working life, a broad conceptualization of the overall work experience of employees. Second, we investigate whether the negative relationships between being an academic and quality of working life variables are made worse by working extra hours, and moderated by the perception of having a balanced work-life interface. Our sample consisted of 1,474 academic and 1,953 nonacademic staff working for 9 higher education institutions (HEIs) in the United Kingdom. Data were analyzed via structural equation modeling. Results showed that academics tend to report a poorer quality of working life than nonacademics within HEIs, and this is exacerbated by their higher reported number of extra hours worked per week. The work-life balance of employees was found to moderate the negative relationships between academics (vs. nonacademics) in variables such as perceived working conditions and employee commitment. We additionally found curvilinear relationships where employees who worked up to 10 extra hours were more satisfied with their job and career and had more control at work than those who either did not work extra hours or worked for a higher number of extra hours. These results extend previous research and provide new insights on work-life balance among academics and nonacademics, which in turn may be relevant for the well-being practices of HEIs and wider HE policymaking.
In an increasingly competitive environment that positions students as consumers, universities have become ever more marketised, responding to policy contexts that foreground value for money, consumer choice and competition. The intensity of marketisation is argued to have profoundly affected the nature of academic work and scholars themselves, recreating academics as commodities to be weighed and measured, becoming corporatised, alienated and inauthentic in their practice. Yet with the majority of accounts of the commodification of higher education focusing on students, the actual process of how academics become consumed is under-theorised. This article therefore begins with a discussion of the historical context, providing evidence of the familiar indices of marketisation such as rampant self-promotion, the scramble for external funding and intense competition. It argues that this commodified DNA of the university provides the context for the seduction of the modern academic within the consumer society, a movement from the gratification of needs to the perpetual frustration of desires through the 'Diderot Effect' of policy shifts. It concludes with an examination of how contemporary academic work can be viewed through the lens of consumerism and how academics themselves have become consumers.
Review, promotion, and tenure (RPT) processes significantly affect how faculty direct their own career and scholarly progression. Although RPT practices vary between and within institutions, and affect various disciplines, ranks, institution types, genders, and ethnicity in different ways, some consistent themes emerge when investigating what faculty would like to change about RPT. For instance, over the last few decades, RPT processes have generally increased the value placed on research, at the expense of teaching and service, which often results in an incongruity between how faculty actually spend their time vs. what is considered in their evaluation. Another issue relates to publication practices: most agree RPT requirements should encourage peer-reviewed works of high quality, but in practice, the value of publications is often assessed using shortcuts such as the prestige of the publication venue, rather than on the quality and rigor of peer review of each individual item. Open access and online publishing have made these issues even murkier due to misconceptions about peer review practices and concerns about predatory online publishers, which leaves traditional publishing formats the most desired despite their restricted circulation. And, efforts to replace journal-level measures such as the impact factor with more precise article-level metrics (e.g., citation counts and altmetrics) have been slow to integrate with the RPT process. Questions remain as to whether, or how, RPT practices should be changed to better reflect faculty work patterns and reduce pressure to publish in only the most prestigious traditional formats. To determine the most useful way to change RPT, we need to assess further the needs and perceptions of faculty and administrators, and gain a better understanding of the level of influence of written RPT guidelines and policy in an often vague process that is meant to allow for flexibility in assessing individuals.
Though Canadian universities are legally required to accommodate disabled employees, disabled faculty still experience difficulties navigating neoliberal performance standards and medicalized conceptualizations of disability. Drawing on data from a qualitative study with Canadian university faculty, this paper explores the experiences of five disabled academics. Our analysis draws on post-structural understandings of neoliberalism, discourse, disciplinary power, and governmentality, as well as Rosemarie Garland-Thomson’s concepts of the fit and misfit. Though the sample is small, this analysis suggests universities pose disabling contexts for academics. Disability is cast as individual responsibility, leaving disabled academics navigating accommodations without institutional support. The normative academic constructed through a discourse of efficiency and productivity is the measure against which disabled academics are evaluated, requiring self-governance to produce themselves as ‘good enough’ academics. Although higher education environments are increasingly diverse, disabled academics are still having to prove their right to exist in academia, hindering their abilities to participate fully.
A growing number of postdoctoral academics cite stressful working conditions for considering abandoning their studies and leaving the academic profession entirely before they obtain a tenured position. This paper identifies the mechanisms by which work stress influences postdocs’ intentions to leave academia. Based on Schaubroeck et al.’s (1989) stress-turnover-intention model, we propose a professional turnover-intention model that includes both the effort-reward imbalance model as a comprehensive measure of work stress and affective professional commitment. The research model is tested using structural equation modeling (SEM) and data from 421 postdocs. The results show significant support for the hypothesized effects. In particular, a three-path-mediated effect is found from work stress to the intention to leave academia via strain and job satisfaction. Additional analyses reveal significant gender differences: The relationship between overcommitment and strain is stronger for female postdocs than it is for male postdocs, and the direct link between work stress and the intention to leave academia applies only to female postdocs. Further, job satisfaction fully mediates the relationship between affective professional commitment and the intention to leave academia. Thus, we provide a model on an academics’ professional turnover intention that goes beyond previous research by incorporating two important mediators, strain and job satisfaction. We also confirm the relevance of affective professional commitment to professional turnover intentions in the realm of academia. Specific policy recommendations for retaining more postdocs in academia are given.
Tenure, promotion, significant salary increases, let alone stature and recognition in one's field, are often dependent on the quantity and quality of research articles faculty members produce. In addition, research grants, text and professional publications may be dependent upon intellectual contributions and often equated with research published in professional journals. These pressures, along with accreditation requirements, often force faculty members to place greater emphasis on research rather than teaching or service responsibilities. Administrators sometimes also coerce senior faculty members to " help out " junior faculty members achieve tenure by including them in their research endeavors. In response to such pressures more and more research articles have an increasing number of authors on the publication byline. This poses ethical concerns regarding author validity and legitimate individual contribution to research that helps to advance the profession.
Research policy observers are increasingly concerned about the potential impact of current academic working conditions on mental health, particularly in PhD students. The aim of the current study is threefold. First, we assess the prevalence of mental health problems in a representative sample of PhD students in Flanders, Belgium (N = 3659). Second, we compare PhD students to three other samples: (1) highly educated in the general population (N = 769); (2) highly educated employees (N = 592); and (3) higher education students (N = 333). Third, we assess those organizational factors relating to the role of PhD students that predict mental health status. Results based on 12 mental health symptoms (GHQ-12) showed that 32% of PhD students are at risk of having or developing a common psychiatric disorder, especially depression. This estimate was significantly higher than those obtained in the comparison groups. Organizational policies were significantly associated with the prevalence of mental health problems. Especially work-family interface, job demands and job control, the supervisor’s leadership style, team decision-making culture, and perception of a career outside academia are linked to mental health problems.
Over the last 50 years, we argue that incentives for academic scientists have become increasingly perverse in terms of competition for research funding, development of quantitative metrics to measure performance, and a changing business model for higher education itself. Furthermore, decreased discretionary funding at the federal and state level is creating a hypercompetitive environment between government agencies (e.g., EPA, NIH, CDC), for scientists in these agencies, and for academics seeking funding from all sources—the combination of perverse incentives and decreased funding increases pressures that can lead to unethical behavior. If a critical mass of scientists become untrustworthy, a tipping point is possible in which the scientific enterprise itself becomes inherently corrupt and public trust is lost, risking a new dark age with devastating consequences to humanity. Academia and federal agencies should better support science as a public good, and incentivize altruistic and ethical outcomes, while de-emphasizing output.
Poor research design and data analysis encourage false-positive findings. Such poor methods persist despite perennial calls for improvement, suggesting that they result from something more than just misunderstanding. The persistence of poor methods results partly from incentives that favor them, leading to the natural selection of bad science. This dynamic requires no conscious strategizing---no deliberate cheating nor loafing---by scientists, only that publication is a principle factor for career advancement. Some normative methods of analysis have almost certainly been selected to further publication instead of discovery. In order to improve the culture of science, a shift must be made away from correcting misunderstandings and towards rewarding understanding. We support this argument with empirical evidence and computational modeling. We first present a 60-year meta-analysis of statistical power in the behavioral sciences and show that power has not improved despite repeated demonstrations of the necessity of increasing power. To demonstrate the logical consequences of structural incentives, we then present a dynamic model of scientific communities in which competing laboratories investigate novel or previously published hypotheses using culturally transmitted research methods. As in the real world, successful labs produce more "progeny", such that their methods are more often copied and their students are more likely to start labs of their own. Selection for high output leads to poorer methods and increasingly high false discovery rates. We additionally show that replication slows but does not stop the process of methodological deterioration. Improving the quality of research requires change at the institutional level.
African American women are disproportionately underrepresented in the domains of science, technology, engineering and mathematics (STEM) in relation to their share of the United States population. This disparity must be reduced in order for the United States to maintain its global standing in the competitive arenas of technology and innovation. However, current research tends to underexamine how the intersection of race and gender identities impact the experiences of African American women pursuing STEM careers. This
dearth of knowledge is addressed in this study, which examines the multifaceted marginalization that African American women typically experience in the process of obtaining their STEM degrees, particularly in the computing sciences. Accordingly, this study utilizes intersectionality theory as a theoretical foundation to explore the role race and gender play in the STEM pursuits of African American women, offering a window into some of the strategies this population employs in accomplishing STEM educational goals and pursuits.
Understanding how cultural values influence undergraduate students’ science research experiences and career interest is important
in efforts to broaden participation and to diversify the biomedical research workforce. The results from our prospective longitudinal
study demonstrated that underrepresented minority student (URM) research assistants who see the altruistic value of conducting
biomedical research feel more psychologically involved with their research over time, which, in turn, enhances their interest
in pursuing a scientific research career. These altruistic motives are uniquely influential to URM students and appear to
play an important role in influencing their interest in scientific research careers. Furthermore, seeing how research can
potentially affect society and help one's community does not replace typical motives for scientific discovery (e.g., passion,
curiosity, achievement), which are important for all students. These findings point to simple strategies for educators, training
directors, and faculty mentors to improve retention among undergraduate URM students in biomedicine and the related sciences.
The academic career in Europe used to be much more unstructured and much less
competitive than today. Currently, as reflected in interviews carried out throughout Europe, “each step in a career is competitive“, from doctoral and postdoctoral to junior academic and senior academic positions. There are significant variations across the European countries studied regarding the level of competition, often different in different places occupied in the academic hierarchy. But increasing
competition has come to the academic profession and is bound to stay: the competition for part-time and full-time academic positions, for research grants and research funding, and tokens of academic prestige. The academic progression today has to be made systematically, in increasingly
clearly defined timeframes, and the academic career seems to be sliced into comparable time periods across European systems. Usually, the timeframes are doctoral studies, employment in postdoctoral and junior positions, employment in lower-level senior positions and, finally, in higher-level senior positions (such as
traditional chair holding and/or full professorships), and all career steps have to be reached within a certain time period.
Nationwide in the United States, 70% of faculty members in higher education are employed off the tenure-track. Nearly all of these non-tenure-track (NTT) appointments share a quality that may produce stress for those who hold them: contingency. Most NTT appointments are contingent on budget, enrollment, or both, and the majority of contingent faculty members are hired for one quarter or semester at a time. Significant research has investigated the effects of contingency on teaching, students, departments, colleges, and universities; however, little research has focused on the psychological experiences of NTT faculty. The current study examined perceptions of workplace stressors and harm, organizational commitment, common coping mechanisms, and depression, anxiety and stress among NTT faculty using a longitudinal design that spanned 2–4 months. Results indicate that NTT faculty perceive unique stressors at work that are related to their contingent positions. Specific demographic characteristics and coping strategies, inability to find a permanent faculty position, and commitment to one's organization predispose NTT faculty to perceive greater harm and more sources of stress in their workplaces. Demographic characteristics, lower income, inability to find a permanent faculty position, disengagement coping mechanisms (e.g., giving up, denial), and organizational commitment were associated with the potential for negative outcomes, particularly depression, anxiety, and stress. Our findings suggest possibilities for institutional intervention. Overall, we argue that universities would be well-served by attending to the needs of NTT faculty on campus in order to mitigate negative outcomes for institutions, students, and faculty.
Depression is one of the most common psychological disorders affecting university students (Rimmer, Halikas, & Schuckit, 1982; Vazquez & Blanco, 2008); however, undergraduate students have received the majority of the research focus. The limited research available on graduate students suggests they may also be vulnerable to developing depression (Eisenberg, Gollust, Golberstein, & Hefner, 2007). The current investigation provides initial data on depression symptoms in Canadian psychology graduate students. Participants included psychology graduate students from across Canada (N = 292; 87% women) who were currently enrolled in clinical, experimental, counselling, and educational programmes. Each of the participants completed the Center for Epidemiological Studies Depression Scale (CES-D; Radloff, 1977) and measures of: funding, research productivity, hours worked, and their advisory relationship. A substantial proportion of students (33%) reported clinically significant symptoms of depression (CES-D > 16), with a significant minority reporting severe symptoms of depression and impairment. There were no differences in symptom reporting across programme type; however, results of regression analyses indicated that advisory relationship satisfaction and greater current weekly hours worked were significant predictors of depressive symptoms for students enrolled in experimental programmes. In contrast, depression symptoms were unrelated to funding, research productivity, hours worked, and advisory relationship satisfaction for students in all other programmes. Implications and future directions for research are discussed. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2012 APA, all rights reserved)
Many studies in information science have looked at the growth of science. In this study, we re-examine the question of the growth of science. To do this we (i) use current data up to publication year 2012 and (ii) analyse it across all disciplines and also separately for the natural sciences and for the medical and health sciences. Furthermore, the data are analysed with an advanced statistical technique - segmented regression analysis - which can identify specific segments with similar growth rates in the history of science. The study is based on two different sets of bibliometric data: (1) The number of publications held as source items in the Web of Science (WoS, Thomson Reuters) per publication year and (2) the number of cited references in the publications of the source items per cited reference year. We have looked at the rate at which science has grown since the mid-1600s. In our analysis of cited references we identified three growth phases in the development of science, which each led to growth rates tripling in comparison with the previous phase: from less than 1% up to the middle of the 18th century, to 2 to 3% up to the period between the two world wars and 8 to 9% to 2012.
The recent Stapel fraud case came as a shattering blow to the scientific community of psychologists and damaged both their image in the media and their collective self-esteem. The field responded with suggestions of how fraud could be prevented. However, the Stapel fraud is only one among many cases. Before basing recommendations on one case, it would be informative to study other cases to assess how these frauds were discovered. The authors analyze a convenience sample of fraud cases to see whether (social) psychology is more susceptible to fraud than other disciplines. They also evaluate whether the peer review process and replications work well in practice to detect fraud. There is no evidence that psychology is more vulnerable to fraud than the biomedical sciences, and most frauds are detected through information from whistleblowers with inside information. On the basis of this analysis, the authors suggest a number of strategies that might reduce the risk of scientific fraud.
© The Author(s) 2012.
Salami publication or segmented publication is a distinct form of redundant publication which is usually characterized by similarity of hypothesis, methodology or results but not text similarity. These aspects of publications are not objectively detected by software applications and therefore present a serious threat to publication ethics. This article presents a practical approach for dealing with manuscripts suspected of salami publication during the submission process and after article publication in Biochemia Medica.
This longitudinal study examined the causal relationships between job demands, job control and supervisor support on the one hand and mental health on the other. Whereas we assumed that work characteristics affect mental health, we also examined reversed causal relationships (mental health influences work characteristics). Further, the topic of the appropriate time lag for testing causal relationships was addressed. Our hypotheses were tested in a 4-wave study among a heterogeneous sample of 668 Dutch employees using structural equation modelling. The results provide evidence for reciprocal causal relationships between the work characteristics and mental health, although the effects of work characteristics on well-being were causally predominant. The best model fit was found for a 1-year time lag. Compared to earlier--predominantly cross-sectional--results, the present study presents a stronger case for the effects of work characteristics on the development of strain. The results also emphasize the need for a dynamic view of the relationship between work and health; the one-directional viewpoint in many work stress models does not seem to fully capture the relations between work characteristics and well-being.
Theoretical accounts of participation in collective action have become more divergent. Some analysts employ the Prisoner's Dilemma paradigm, other analysts suggest that different social dilemmas underlie collective action, and still others deny that social dilemmas play any significant role in collective action. I propose a theoretically exhaustive inventory of the dilemmas arising in collective action systems and show that five games, including the Prisoner's Dilemma, can underlie collective action. To analyze action within each game I use a dynamic selectionist model based on three modes of organization - voluntary cooperation, strategic interaction, and selective incentives. Social dilemmas exist in four of the five games, and conflicting accounts of collective action have focused on different games and modes of organization. As collective action proceeds from initiation to rapid expansion to stability, its game type varies in a way that can be precisely characterized as movement through a two-dimensional game-space. Finally, I distinguish between two ways of promoting collective action: One way focuses on resolving the dilemma within a particular game; the other focuses on changing the game so the dilemma is more easily resolved or eliminated.
While researchers are expected to look for significant results to confirm their hypotheses, some engage in intentional or unintentional HARKing (Hypothesizing After Results are Known) and p-hacking (repeated tinkering with data and retesting). If these practices are widespread, one possible result is field-wide exaggerated (inflated) results reported in Information Systems (IS) publications. In this paper, we summarize the literature on HARKing and p-hacking across different disciplines. We offer an illustrative example of how an IS study could involve HARKing and p-hacking in various stages of the project to generate a more “publishable” result. We also report on a survey targeted at IS researchers to explore their experiences and awareness of this issue. Finally, we provide recommendations and suggestions based on the review of practices in other fields and advocate for more transparency in reporting research projects, so that study results can be interpreted properly, and reproducibility and replicability can be increased.
For young immigrant women like me, the pressures of early career research are even greater than for most. But it doesn’t have to be that way. For young immigrant women like me, the pressures of early career research are even greater than for most. But it doesn’t have to be that way. Natalia Kucirkova Natalia Kucirkova
The unequal effects of the COVID-19 pandemic and resulting lockdowns on mothers around the world were identified as a concern in the early months of the pandemic. Almost immediately, women decreased work hours and women researchers reported reductions in research time as research publications by women dropped precipitously. In order to examine day-to-day activities of academics during June and July 2020 in the midst of the COVID-19 pandemic, we utilised Ecological Momentary Assessment (EMA) to ask 130 academics around the world about their current activities at six random times per day over the course of one week. Results showed that parents, especially mothers, were less likely to have uninterrupted work time and that mothers were 3 times more likely than fathers to multitask, nearly 5 times more likely than fathers to multitask while caring for children and 4.25 times more likely than fathers to be caring for children when contacted. The impact of the Covid-19 pandemic on academic mothers has many long-term implications on career progression and alleviating this gendered impact should be a priority for adminstrators worldwide.
Despite increasing interest related to the role of graduate students in economic and social development, science policy scholars have overlooked the role of stress and its broader impact on the conduct of science. To motivate future empirical research, this study systematically reviews the literature on antecedents and impact of stress among graduate students, examining thirty-four journal articles published from 2000 to 2018. We find that not only do multiple definitions of stress exist, but also that scholars have neglected broader theoretical implications and comparative dimensions of the phenomenon. While this outcome can be explained partially by the paucity of different national and disciplinary perspectives, these factors nonetheless hinder the design and implementation of effective interventions that can help graduate students reduce and manage stress levels and thus improve the conduct of science. We introduce a conceptual model of our findings and discuss implications for future research and policy.
The problem of collective action is that each member of a group wants other members to make necessary sacrifices while he or she 'free rides', reaping the benefits of collective action without doing the work. Inevitably the end result is that no one does the work and the common interest is not realized. This book analyses the social pressure whereby groups solve the problem of collective action. The authors show that the problem of collective action requires a model of group process and cannot be deduced from simple models of individual behaviour. They employ formal mathematical models to emphasize the role of small subgroups of especially motivated individuals who form the 'critical mass' that sets collective action in motion. The book will be read with special interest by sociologists, social psychologists, economists and political scientists. It will also be of concern to those in industrial relations and communications research working on issues in collective action and rational choice.
Background: The current performance of UK research can be presented as highly successful, but evidence has emerged about issues with working culture in research and the impact this may have on people and their work. Wellcome commissioned market research agency Shift Learning to investigate current perceptions and experiences of research culture among the research community.
Methods: This article presents key findings from two phases of this project: 94 qualitative interviews and a quantitative e-survey with 4267 usable responses. Interview invitations were sent out to UK-based research staff at various career stages. The survey was open to international respondents, but the majority of responses came from the UK. Respondents came predominantly from academia and the sample was intentionally skewed towards biological and biomedical sciences.
Results: While participants considered the quality of research outputs to have generally remained high, many felt that issues impacting research culture were becoming more apparent and there was real concern about the future of research professions and the high personal cost for individuals.
Factors identified as disruptive to research culture included chasing impact, increased competition, proliferation of metrics, job insecurity and rigid career pathways. Poor research culture manifested in workplace behaviours and practices, including problems with management and leadership and unhealthy power dynamics, such as patronage, bullying and harassment, discrimination and exploitation. These conditions were linked to a range of negative impacts on the researchers and the research outputs.
Conclusions: The research ecosystem is characterised by increased levels of competition, lack of job security and insufficient career flexibility. A key takeaway is that the conditions in which research takes place are not inclusive and lack sufficient support mechanisms, which is negatively affecting researchers’ wellbeing, and work-life balance. Such research culture was perceived as unsustainable.
Much is written about how criminal suspects, defendants, and undercover targets use ambiguous language in their interactions with police, prosecutors, and undercover agents. This book examines the other side of the coin, describing fifteen criminal investigations demonstrating how police, prosecutors, undercover agents, and complainants use deceptive ambiguity with their subjects, which leads to misrepresentations of the speech events, schemas, agendas, speech acts, lexicon, and grammar. These misrepresentations affect the perceptions of judges and juries about the subjects’ motives, predispositions, intentions, and voluntariness. Deception is commonly considered intentional while ambiguity is often excused as unintentional performance errors. Although perhaps overreliance on Grice’s maxim of sincerity leads some to believe this, interactions of suspects, defendants, and targets with representatives of law are adversarial, non-cooperative events that enable participants to ignore or violate the cooperative principle. One effective way the government does this is to use ambiguity deceptively. Later listeners to the recordings of such conversations may not recognize this ambiguity and react in ways that the subjects may not have intended. Deceptive ambiguity is clearly intentional in undercover operations and the case examples illustrate that the practice also is alive and well in police interviews and prosecutorial questioning. The book concludes with a summary of how the deceptive ambiguity used by representatives of the government affected the perception of the subjects’ predisposition, intentionality and voluntariness, followed by a comparison of the relative frequency of deceptive ambiguity used by the government in its representations of speech events, schemas, agendas, speech acts, lexicon, and grammar.
Becoming someone is a learning process; and what we learn are the new values around which, if we succeed, our lives will come to turn. Agents transform themselves in the process of, e.g., becoming parents, embarking on careers, or acquiring a passion for music or politics. How can such activity be rational if the reason for engaging in the relevant pursuit is available only to the person one will become? How is it psychologically possible to feel the attraction of a form of concern that is not yet one’s own? How can the work done to arrive at the finish line be ascribed to one who doesn’t (really) know what she is doing or why she is doing it? These questions belong to the theory of aspiration. Aspirants are motivated by proleptic reasons, reasons they acknowledge to be defective versions of the reasons they expect to eventually grasp. The psychology of such a transformation is marked by intrinsic conflict between aspirants’ old point of view on value and the one they are trying to acquire. They cannot adjudicate this conflict by deliberating or choosing or deciding–rather, they resolve it by working to see the world in a new way. This work has a teleological structure: by modeling herself on the person she is trying to be, the aspirant brings that person into being. Because it is open to us to engage in an activity of self-creation, we are responsible for having become the kinds of people we are.
This study aimed to establish what is known about the mental health of researchers based on the existing literature. There is limited published evidence on the prevalence of specific mental health conditions among researchers. The majority of the identified literature on prevalence relates to work-related stress among academic staff and postgraduate students in university settings. Survey data indicate that the majority of university staff find their job stressful. Levels of burnout appear higher among university staff than in general working populations and are comparable to "high-risk" groups such as healthcare workers. The proportions of both university staff and postgraduate students with a risk of having or developing a mental health problem, based on self-reported evidence, were generally higher than for other working populations. Large proportions (>40 per cent) of postgraduate students report symptoms of depression, emotion or stress-related problems, or high levels of stress. Factors including increased job autonomy, involvement in decision making and supportive management were linked to greater job satisfaction among academics, as was the amount of time spent on research. Opportunities for professional development were also associated with reduced stress. UK higher education (HE) and research staff report worse wellbeing, as compared to staff in other sectors, in most aspects of work that can affect workers' stress levels. The evidence around the effectiveness of interventions to support the mental health of researchers specifically is thin. Few interventions are described in the literature and even fewer of those have been evaluated.
Anthropologists have paid increasing attention to neoliberalism in our research, yet we have been less willing to apply this lens to our own academic positioning and the ways these roles are shaped by privatization and market models. Lives and livelihoods in the American academy are increasingly determined by neoliberalism, and it is vital that we be both reflexive about and engaged around our positions within this project. This article explores the divides that separate various forms of academic labor (secure versus nonsecure, contract, etc.) as well as the raced and gendered implications of these tracks—in particular, the stark ways in which neoliberal transformations negatively affect women of color in the academy. [neoliberalism, academy, race, gender, contingent labor]
Women are dramatically underrepresented in computer science at all levels in academia and account for just 15% of tenure-track faculty. Understanding the causes of this gender imbalance would inform both policies intended to rectify it and employment decisions by departments and individuals. Progress in this direction, however, is complicated by the complexity and decentralized nature of faculty hiring and the non-independence of hires. Using comprehensive data on both hiring outcomes and scholarly productivity for 2659 tenure-track faculty across 205 Ph.D.-granting departments in North America, we investigate the multi-dimensional nature of gender inequality in computer science faculty hiring through a network model of the hiring process. Overall, we find that hiring outcomes are most directly affected by (i) the relative prestige between hiring and placing institutions and (ii) the scholarly productivity of the candidates. After including these, and other features, the addition of gender did not significantly reduce modeling error. However, gender differences do exist, e.g., in scholarly productivity, postdoctoral training rates, and in career movements up the rankings of universities, suggesting that the effects of gender are indirectly incorporated into hiring decisions through gender's covariates. Furthermore, we find evidence that more highly ranked departments recruit female faculty at higher than expected rates, which appears to inhibit similar efforts by lower ranked departments. These findings illustrate the subtle nature of gender inequality in faculty hiring networks and provide new insights to the underrepresentation of women in computer science.
We explore factors that lead students and postdoctoral scholars who train outside their native country to come to the United States rather than go to a third country for study. We use data collected by the authors in 2011 as part of the GlobSci project of research-active scientists working in 16 countries. Our research suggests that public policy plays an important role in attracting the foreign born to study in a country and that the US is a magnet for foreign students and postdocs precisely because the US has excelled in creating a strong educational and research environment. We further find that students who come to the US score factors that are proxies for the research environment higher than students who go to most other countries for training.
We investigate the effect of conditions that create technostress, on technology-enabled innovation, technology-enabled performance and overall performance. We further look at the role of technology self-efficacy, organizational mechanisms that inhibit technostress and technology competence as possible mitigations to the effects of technostress creators. Our findings show a negative association between technostress creators and performance. We find that, while traditional effort-based mechanisms such as building technology competence reduce the impact of technostress creators on technology-enabled innovation and performance, more empowering mechanisms such as developing technology self-efficacy and information systems (IS) literacy enhancement and involvement in IS initiatives are required to counter the decrease in overall performance because of technostress creators. Noting that the professional sales context offers increasingly high expectations for technology-enabled performance in an inherently interpersonal-oriented and relationship-oriented environment with regard to overall performance, and high failure rates for IS acceptance/use, the study uses survey data collected from 237 institutional sales professionals.
This article explores the experiences of a growing but hitherto under-researched category of academics employed within UK higher education: women of non-UK origin. Drawing on an intersectional approach, we examine how gender and foreignness act as dynamic, interrelating categories in producing particular subjectivities in the context of UK business schools. We employ a qualitative methodology based on narrative interviews with 31 foreign women academics. In the analysis, we outline the broader global forces that have shaped their trajectories in choosing the UK as their destination, and the place of gender and foreignness in the participants' narratives of their experience. Our findings point to how the discourse of internationalization conceals intra-categorical differences among non-national staff, further supported by a merit-based system that promotes an individualized view. However, participants' narratives provide examples of how gender and foreignness are mobilized in different ways by different actors — including themselves — in the production of social locations. As such, the paper contributes to critical debates regarding the academic workplace and the changing conditions of UK academia.
A longitudinal test of the Job Demands-Resources (JD-R) model of work stress and engagement (Bakker & Demerouti, 2007; Demerouti et al., 2001) was conducted in a sample of Australian university academics (N= 296). The aim was to extend the JD-R model by (1) determining how well job demands (work pressure, academic workload) and job resources (procedural fairness, job autonomy) would predict psychological strain and organisational commitment over a three-year period, and (2) incorporating longitudinal tests of reversed causation. The results of SEM analyses showed that Time 1 resources directly predicted Time 2 strain and organisational commitment, but that Time 1 demands predicted Time 2 strain only indirectly via job resources. We did not find evidence for reversed causation. We discuss possible mediators of the relationships between working conditions and work stress outcomes, and the practical implications of the results.
The crown indicator is a well-known bibliometric indicator of research performance developed by our institute. The indicator aims to normalize citation counts for differences among fields. We critically examine the theoretical basis of the normalization mechanism applied in the crown indicator. We also make a comparison with an alternative normalization mechanism. The alternative mechanism turns out to have more satisfactory properties than the mechanism applied in the crown indicator. In particular, the alternative mechanism has a so-called consistency property. The mechanism applied in the crown indicator lacks this important property. As a consequence of our findings, we are currently moving towards a new crown indicator, which relies on the alternative normalization mechanism.