Prevalence of questionable research practices in Spanish sociology: a comparative approach to other disciplines and countries

Article Sidebar

methaodos.revista de ciencias sociales. Vol. 12 Núm. 2 (2024)
Data (Español (España)) PDF (Español (España)) HTML (Español (España)) Mobile (Español (España)) ePUB (Español (España)) XML (Español (España))
Published: Aug 6, 2024
DOI: https://doi.org/10.17502/mrcs.v12i2.788
Keywords:
Social research, ethics, integrity, questionable research practices, Spain investigación social, ética, integridad, prácticas cuestionables de investigación, España
Alternative metrics:

Main Article Content

Daniel de Gracia Palomera
Autonomous University of Barcelona image/svg+xml
Álvaro Suárez-Vergne
Spanish National Research Council image/svg+xml

Abstract

sociology in Spain, contrasting it with other disciplines and countries. Utilizing the International Research Integrity Survey (IRIS) (Allum & Reid, 2022), which compiles data from a survey distributed to researchers across various fields and countries, a proportions comparative Bonferroni significance test has been performed. The results of this analysis highlight a significant incidence of two particular practices in Spanish sociology: the omission of references that contradict personal beliefs and the execution of studies without ethical approval. Compared to the natural sciences and engineering, these malpractices are more common in sociology, and on an international scale, they are more prevalent than in Italy, Germany, and the UK. The findings indicate that these discrepancies stem not from the discipline itself but from differing national or institutional frameworks.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

Article Details

How to Cite
de Gracia Palomera, D., & Suárez-Vergne, Álvaro. (2024). Prevalence of questionable research practices in Spanish sociology: a comparative approach to other disciplines and countries. methaodos.Social Science Journal, 12(2), m241202a01. https://doi.org/10.17502/mrcs.v12i2.788
Issue
Vol. 12 No. 2 (2024)
Section
Articles
Creative Commons License

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.

Author Biographies

Daniel de Gracia Palomera, Autonomous University of Barcelona

Doctor (cum laude) en Sociología y Antropología por la UCM, actualmente es investigador post-doctoral en el marco del programa de ayudas Juan de la Cierva. Ha realizado estancias doctorales financiadas en el University College Dublin y la Universidad de Chile, además de periodos de formación e investigación en instituciones como el CIS, el INE y el Instituto de Salud Carlos III. Su principal interés investigador se liga con el estudio de la pluralidad metodológica en la investigación social, la práctica investigadora en ciencias sociales, las trayectorias biográficas y la sociología de las profesiones.

Álvaro Suárez-Vergne, Spanish National Research Council

Doctor en Sociología y Antropología por la UCM (cum laude, mención internacional). Es investigador postdoctoral en el Instituto de Economía, Geografía y Demografía (CCHS-CSIC). Ha participado como investigador en proyectos nacionales e internacionales. Visiting Scholar en la Universidad de California, Santa Barbara en 2021. Graduado en Sociología por la Pablo de Olavide y especializado en metodologías de la investigación, sus líneas de investigación se centran en el estudio de las dinámicas de discriminación y las desigualdades sociales, la sociología de la salud, y la metodología de la investigación.

References

Allum, N., y Reid, A. (2022). IRIS International Research Integrity Survey, 2021 (1st Edition). [Dataset]. UK Data Service. https://doi.org/10.5255/UKDA-SN-9023-1

Anderson, E. (2004). Uses of Value Judgments in Science: A General Argument, with Lessons from a Case Study of Feminist Research on Divorce. Hypatia, 19(1), 1-24. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1527-2001.2004.tb01266.x

Armond, A. C. V., Gordijn, B., Lewis, J., Hosseini, M., Bodnár, J. K., Holm, S., y Kakuk, P. (2021). A scoping review of the literature featuring research ethics and research integrity cases. BMC Medical Ethics, 22(1), 50. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12910-021-00620-8

Banks, G. C., Rogelberg, S. G., Woznyj, H. M., Landis, R. S., y Rupp, D. E. (2016). Editorial: Evidence on Questionable Research Practices: The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly. Journal of Business and Psychology, 31(3), 323-338. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10869-016-9456-7

Bouter, L. (2020). What Research Institutions Can Do to Foster Research Integrity. Science and Engineering Ethics, 26, 2363-2369. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11948-020-00178-5

Castillo, J. J., y Moré, P. (2018). Universidad precaria, universidad sin futuro: En liquidación. FUHEM Ecosocial.

de Gracia, D. (2023). La trastienda de los inicios en la investigación social: Elementos característicos. Barataria. Revista Castellano-Manchega de Ciencias Sociales, 33. https://doi.org/10.20932/barataria.v0i33.667

Fiedler, K., y Schwarz, N. (2016). Questionable Research Practices Revisited. Social Psychological and Personality Science, 7(1), 45-52. https://doi.org/10.1177/1948550615612150

Goffman, E. (1997). La presentación de la persona en la vida cotidiana. Amorrortu.

Gopalakrishna, G., Riet, G. ter, Vink, G., Stoop, I., Wicherts, J., y Bouter, L. (2021). Prevalence of questionable research practices, research misconduct and their potential explanatory factors: A survey among academic researchers in The Netherlands. PLoS ONE, 17. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0263023

Haraway, D. (1988). Situated Knowledges: The Science Question in Feminism and the Privilege of Partial Perspective. Feminist Studies, 14(3), 575-599. https://doi.org/10.2307/3178066

Katsarov, J., Andorno, R., Krom, A., y Van Den Hoven, M. (2022). Effective Strategies for Research Integrity Training—A Meta-analysis. Educational Psychology Review, 34(2), 935-955. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-021-09630-9

Khuram, W., Wang, Y., Ali, M., Khalid, A., y Han, H. (2023). Impact of Supportive Supervisor on Doctoral Students’ Research Productivity: The Mediating Roles of Academic Engagement and Academic Psychological Capital. Sage Open, 13(3), 21582440231185554. https://doi.org/10.1177/21582440231185554

Koshland, D. E. (1987). Fraud in Science. Science, 235(4785), 141-141. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.3798097

Larsson, T., Plonsky, L., Sterling, S., Kytö, M., Yaw, K., y Wood, M. (2023). On the frequency, prevalence, and perceived severity of questionable research practices. Research Methods in Applied Linguistics, 2(3), 100064.

Martinson, B. C., Anderson, M. S., y de Vries, R. (2005). Scientists behaving badly. Nature, 435(7043), 7043. https://doi.org/10.1038/435737a

Mesko, G., y Oberckal, A. (2010). Questionable research practices: An introductory reflection on causes, patterns and possible responses. Varstvoslovje Journal of Criminal Justice and Security, 4, 444-457.

Noll, H. (2019). ¡Es taylorismo, estúpido! Sobre la nueva organización científica de la investigación y la docencia en la Universidad Española. Sociología Del Trabajo, 95, 1-18. https://doi.org/10.5209/stra.66436

Ravn, T., y Sørensen, M. P. (2021). Exploring the Gray Area: Similarities and Differences in Questionable Research Practices (QRPs) Across Main Areas of Research. Science and Engineering Ethics, 27(4), 40. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11948-021-00310-z

Shaw, D., y Erren, T. (2015). Ten Simple Rules for Protecting Research Integrity. PLoS Computational Biology, 11(10): e1004388. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pcbi.1004388

Steneck, N. (2006). Fostering integrity in research: Definitions, current knowledge, and future directions. Science and Engineering Ethics, 12, 53-74. https://doi.org/10.1007/PL00022268

Stürmer, S., Oeberst, A., Trötschel, R., y Decker, O. (2017). Early-Career Researchers’ Perceptions of the Prevalence of Questionable Research Practices, Potential Causes, and Open Science. Social Psychology, 48(6). https://doi.org/10.1027/1864-9335/a000324

Titus, S. L., Wells, J. A., y Rhoades, L. J. (2008). Repairing research integrity. Nature, 453(7198), 980- 982. https://doi.org/10.1038/453980a

Troy, J. D., Rockhold, F., y Samsa, G. P. (2023). Institutional approaches to preventing questionable research practices. Accountability in Research, 30(4), 252-259. https://doi.org/10.1080/08989621.2021.1986017

Van Den Hoven, M., Lindemann, T., Zollitsch, L., y Prieß-Buchheit, J. (2023). A Taxonomy for Research Integrity Training: Design, Conduct, and Improvements in Research Integrity Courses. Science and Engineering Ethics, 29(3), 14. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11948-022-00425-x

Xie, Y., Wang, K., y Kong, Y. (2021a). Prevalence of Research Misconduct and Questionable Research Practices: A Systematic Review and Meta- Analysis. Science and Engineering Ethics, 27 4. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11948-021-00314-9