RESUMO
BACKGROUND: There is increasing evidence that research misbehaviour is common, especially the minor forms. Previous studies on research misbehaviour primarily focused on biomedical and social sciences, and evidence from natural sciences and humanities is scarce. We investigated what academic researchers in Amsterdam perceived to be detrimental research misbehaviours in their respective disciplinary fields. METHODS: We used an explanatory sequential mixed methods design. First, survey participants from four disciplinary fields rated perceived frequency and impact of research misbehaviours from a list of 60. We then combined these into a top five ranking of most detrimental research misbehaviours at the aggregate level, stratified by disciplinary field. Second, in focus group interviews, participants from each academic rank and disciplinary field were asked to reflect on the most relevant research misbehaviours for their disciplinary field. We used participative ranking methodology inducing participants to obtain consensus on which research misbehaviours are most detrimental. RESULTS: In total, 1080 researchers completed the survey (response rate: 15%) and 61 participated in the focus groups (3 three to 8 eight researchers per group). Insufficient supervision consistently ranked highest in the survey regardless of disciplinary field and the focus groups confirmed this. Important themes in the focus groups were insufficient supervision, sloppy science, and sloppy peer review. Biomedical researchers and social science researchers were primarily concerned with sloppy science and insufficient supervision. Natural sciences and humanities researchers discussed sloppy reviewing and theft of ideas by reviewers, a form of plagiarism. Focus group participants further provided examples of particular research misbehaviours they were confronted with and how these impacted their work as a researcher. CONCLUSION: We found insufficient supervision and various forms of sloppy science to score highly on aggregate detrimental impact throughout all disciplinary fields. Researchers from the natural sciences and humanities also perceived nepotism to be of major impact on the aggregate level. The natural sciences regarded fabrication of data of major impact as well. The focus group interviews helped to understand how researchers interpreted 'insufficient supervision'. Besides, the focus group participants added insight into sloppy science in practice. Researchers from the natural sciences and humanities added new research misbehaviours concerning their disciplinary fields to the list, such as the stealing of ideas before publication. This improves our understanding of research misbehaviour beyond the social and biomedical fields.
RESUMO
Antecedentes: La evaluación de la actividad docente llevada a cabo por la opinión de los estudiantes es un proceso que ha tenido su desarrollo en el Programa Académico de Odontología desde hace aproximadamente diez años. Este tipo de evaluación tiene su origen formal en la década de 1920 del siglo pasado en universidades de Europa y de Estados Unidos. Objetivo: Analizar los resultados del desempeño docente según una encuesta realizada a los estudiantes del Programa Académico de Odontología entre 2005 y 2007, y determinar si existe diferencia significativa en el desempeño docente según la categoría y las áreas de formación del programa. Método: Se hizo un estudio descriptivo de corte transversal, con los cuestionarios de evaluación de la docencia realizados por los estudiantes del Programa Académico de Odontología de la Universidad del Valle entre los años 2005 a 2007.Resultados: Se evaluaron 474 profesores en total. El promedio durante los cinco semestres evaluados para los profesores fue de 4.4. Se encontró que en cuatro de los cinco semestres analizados hay diferencias significativas en los resultados de la evaluación por los estudiantes en la variable categoría docente. Además, que no existen diferencias significativas en la evaluación por los estudiantes en el área de formación del Programa Académico.
Background: Teaching activity evaluation as a result of students opinion is a process that has been developing in the Dentist Academic Program for approximately ten years. This kind of evaluation has its formal origin in American and European universities during the 1920´s. Objective: To analyze the results of the teachers performance trends according to the inquiries undertaken by the Dentist Academic Program students of the Universidad del Valle from 2005 to 2007, and to determine if there are significant differences in the teachers evaluation results according to academic ranks and program formation areas.Method: A descriptive transversal study was carried out, with teaching evaluation questionnaires undertaken by students of the Dentist Academic Program of the Universidad del Valle during 2005 and 2007. Results: A total of 474 teachers were evaluated. The average results during the five semesters evaluated for the teachers were 4.4. It was found that in four of the five semesters analyzed do exist significant differences in the results of the evaluation by the students at the level of teachers academic ranks. Additionally, there were no significant differences in the results of the students evaluation for the Academic Program Areas.
