The frequency with which scientists fabricate and falsify data, or commit other forms of scientific misconduct is a matter of controversy. Many surveys have asked scientists directly whether they have committed or know of a colleague who committed research misconduct, but their results appeared difficult to compare and synthesize. This is the first meta-analysis of these surveys. To standardize outcomes, the number of respondents who recalled at least one incident of misconduct was calculated for each question, and the analysis was limited to behaviours that distort scientific knowledge: fabrication, falsification, "cooking" of data, etc... Survey questions on plagiarism and other forms of professional misconduct were excluded. The final sample consisted of 21 surveys that were included in the systematic review, and 18 in the meta-analysis. A pooled weighted average of 1.97% (N = 7, 95%CI: 0.86-4.45) of scientists admitted to have fabricated, falsified or modified data or results at least once--a serious form of misconduct by any standard--and up to 33.7% admitted other questionable research practices. In surveys asking about the behaviour of colleagues, admission rates were 14.12% (N = 12, 95% CI: 9.91-19.72) for falsification, and up to 72% for other questionable research practices. Meta-regression showed that self reports surveys, surveys using the words "falsification" or "fabrication", and mailed surveys yielded lower percentages of misconduct. When these factors were controlled for, misconduct was reported more frequently by medical/pharmacological researchers than others. Considering that these surveys ask sensitive questions and have other limitations, it appears likely that this is a conservative estimate of the true prevalence of scientific misconduct.

/pdf/how-many-scientists-fabricate-and-falsify-research-a-2itm9zeo0r.pdf

How Many Scientists Fabricate and Falsify Research? A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Survey Data

The Covid-19 pandemic has raised significant challenges for the higher education community worldwide. A particular challenge has been the urgent and unexpected request for previously face-to-face university courses to be taught online. Online teaching and learning imply a certain pedagogical content knowledge (PCK), mainly related to designing and organising for better learning experiences and creating distinctive learning environments, with the help of digital technologies. With this article, we provide some expert insights into this online-learning-related PCK, with the goal of helping non-expert university teachers (i.e. those who have little experience with online learning) to navigate in these challenging times. Our findings point at the design of learning activities with certain characteristics, the combination of three types of presence (social, cognitive and facilitatory) and the need for adapting assessment to the new learning requirements. We end with a reflection on how responding to a crisis (as best we can) may precipitate enhanced teaching and learning practices in the postdigital era.

/pdf/online-university-teaching-during-and-after-the-covid-19-3h8e2qfq5p.pdf

Online University Teaching During and After the Covid-19 Crisis: Refocusing Teacher Presence and Learning Activity

Re-Thinking Science: Knowledge and the Public in an Age of Uncertainty

Designs on Nature: Science and Democracy in Europe and the United States.BySheila Jasanoff. Princeton (New Jersey): Princeton University Press. $35.00 (hardcover); $18.95 (paper). xv + 374 p.; ill.; index. 0‐691‐11811‐6 (hc); 0‐691‐13042‐6 (pb). 2005.

In the past decade, food waste has received increased attention on both academic and societal levels. As a cause of negative economic, environmental and social effects, food waste is considered to be one of the sustainability issues that needs to be addressed. In developed countries, consumers are one of the biggest sources of food waste. To successfully reduce consumer-related food waste, it is necessary to have a clear understanding of the factors influencing food waste-related consumer perceptions and behaviors. The present paper presents the results of a literature review and expert interviews on factors causing consumer-related food waste in households and supply chains. Results show that consumers’ motivation to avoid food waste, their management skills of food provisioning and food handling and their trade-offs between priorities have an extensive influence on their food waste behaviors. We identify actions that governments, societal stakeholders and retailers can undertake to reduce consumer-related food waste, highlighting that synergistic actions between all parties are most promising. Further research should focus on exploring specific food waste contexts and interactions more in-depth. Experiments and interventions in particular can contribute to a shift from analysis to solutions.

Consumer-related food waste: causes and potential for action

Expert interviews are a good example of the way in which the everyday practice of social research and theoretical consideration of this practice do not always run parallel to one another. The use of particular methods sometimes precedes their general theoretical reflection. For many years, the widely held view was that expert interviews were conducted frequently but only rarely thought through (Meuser and Nagel, 1991). Only in recent years has the debate about expert interviews gradually become more concrete (see Bogner and Menz, 2008). However, this has certainly not led to a situation in which the different definitions and methodological conceptions of expert interviews have moved closer together. Even today there are disputes not only about how expert interviews can be placed on a secure methodological footing, but also about whether this is even possible in principle.

The Theory-Generating Expert Interview: Epistemological Interest, Forms of Knowledge, Interaction

Before we go any further, we would like to begin by providing the reader with a step-by-step introduction to the methodological debate surrounding expert interviews. In doing so, we will start with a brief discussion of the generally accepted advantages and risks of expert interviews in research practice (1). We will follow this by outlining current trends in the sociological debate regarding experts and expertise, since expert interviews are — at least on the surface — defined by their object, namely the expert (2). We will then conclude with a look at the current methodological debate regarding expert interviews, an overview of the layout and structure of this book, as well as summaries of the 12 articles it contains (3).

Introduction: Expert Interviews — An Introduction to a New Methodological Debate

Interviews mit Experten

Experteninterviews sind ein anschauliches Beispiel dafur, dass die Alltagspraxis empirischer Sozialforschung und deren methodische Reflexion nicht immer parallel verlaufen. Manchmal ist die Anwendung bestimmter Methoden ihrer theoretischen Durchdringung voraus. Oder mit anderen Worten: Experteninterviews werden oft gemacht, aber selten durchdacht Obwohl die Bedeutung von Expertenwissen beider reflexiven Umgestaltung moderner Industriegesellschaften kaum umstritten ist (vgl. Beck 1986; Giddens 1995; Bauman 1995: 239ff.), die Literatur zu Expertenbegriff und Expertenstatus in den verschiedenen Teilarenen sozialwissenschaftlicher Forschung stetig anwachst1 und das Experteninterview als Methode der Datenproduktion ohnehin langst eine prominente Rolle spielt, etwa im Rahmen industrie- und bildungssoziologischer, aber auch politologischer und padagogischer Fragestellungen2, wird die methodische Reflexion auch heute nicht zuden vordringlichen Aufgaben gerechnet. Keineswegs soll bestritten werden, dass in den letzten Jahren einzelne aus der jeweiligen Forschungspraxis angeregte Aufsatze mit unterschiedlichen Stosrichtungen und Systematisierungsinteressen publiziert wurden.3Eingang in Methodenlehrbucher haben derartige Uberlegungen bisher jedoch nicht gefunden.4

Das theoriegenerierende Experteninterview

Die eminente Bedeutung von ExpertInneninterviews fur die Forschungspraxis ist unumstritten. Sie gehoren in vielen sozialwissenschaftlichen Disziplinen zur alltaglichen Forschungspraxis; sei es als eigenstandige Erhebungsmethode, sei es als exploratives oder erganzendes Instrument im Kontext quantitativer oder qualitativer Forschungsdesigns. Auf der anderen Seite sind ExpertInneninterviews trotz (oder wegen?) ihrer Praxisrelevanz methodisch wenig reflektiert. Dieses Defizit will der vorliegende Band beheben und eine ubersichtliche, fundierte und an forschungspraktischen Problemen orientierte Einfuhrung in Theorie und Praxis der ExpertInneninterviews bieten. Neben der Diskussion des methodologischen Hintergrunds und zentraler wissenssoziologischer Basisannahmen (ExpertInnenbegriff, Wissensformen) steht dabei insbesondere die Vorbereitung, Durchfuhrung und Auswertung von ExpertInneninterviews im Mittelpunkt. (Zusammenfassung der Herausgeber)

Wolfgang Menz

Papers

The Theory-Generating Expert Interview: Epistemological Interest, Forms of Knowledge, Interaction

Introduction: Expert Interviews — An Introduction to a New Methodological Debate

Interviews mit Experten

Das theoriegenerierende Experteninterview

Interviews mit Experten. Eine praxisorientierte Einführung.