Developing SOPs and guidelines (WP4) - CO creation Workshop
Creators: name: Tijdink, Joeri
name: Mejlgaard, Niels
name: Sørensen, Mads
name: Charitidis, Costas
name: Marusic, Ana
name: Allum, Nick
name: Foeger, Nicole
name: Bouter, Lex
name: Labib, Krishma
name: Buljan, Ivan
name: Roje, Rea
name: Kavouras, Panagiotis
name: Buschbom, Birgit
name: Elizondo, Andrea
name: Kaltenbrunner, Wolfgang
name: Hiney, Maura
name: Gaskell, George
name: Claesen, Nik
name: Dierickx, Kris
name: Veltri, Giuseppe
name: Domaradzka, Ann
name: de Rijcke, Sarah
name: Aagaard, Kaare
name: Widdershoven, Guy
name: Fuglsang, Simon
name: Pizzolato, Daniel
Publisher: name: Open Science Framework
Year: 2022
Subjects: subject: Physical Sciences and Mathematics
subject: Medicine and Health Sciences
subject: Life Sciences
subject: Arts and Humanities
subject: Social and Behavioral Sciences
subject: Engineering
subject: Law
subject: FOS: Law

description: Although, research integrity (RI) has been traditionally defined as the opposite of research misconduct (1), there is increasing acknowledgement that RI is also about improving research quality and relevance (2, 3). RI is not only influenced by the attitudes and behaviors of individual researchers, but by the entire system of science (4-6). For instance, the incentive structure and culture of publication in research have strong ramifications for RI (4). Furthermore, multiple research stakeholders play a role in how research is conducted, including research performing and research funding organizations (RPOs and RFOs); these have a responsibility in promoting and supporting responsible research practices (7). Therefore, fostering RI is a complex – even what is referred to as a ‘wicked’ (8) – endeavor, since it requires adequately addressing the interplay of various factors and stakeholders that have an impact on research (7). In a recent study we conducted as part of the Standard Operating Procedures for Research Integrity (SOPs4RI) project, we identified a number of topics that RPOs and RFOs should address to effectively foster RI and build a comprehensive RI system in their institutions (9, Preprint). While there are guidance documents that address some of these topics from an organizational perspective (e.g. dealing with breaches of RI), others (e.g. research environment) are currently not adequately addressed by good quality guidance documents which are publicly available (10, 11). The lack of guidance available on some of the topics (the ‘underdeveloped’ topics) makes it difficult for RPOs and RFOs to know which institutional policies to implement, and how, in order to increase RI. To help RPOs and RFOs develop and implement effective institutional RI policies, it is important to design standard operating procedures (SOPs) and guidelines on underdeveloped RI topics, that are practical and to-the-point, meet the needs of end-users and are feasible to implement. Co-creation –in which researchers acknowledge and encourage end-users as active, equal contributors to the goals at stake (12) – can be helpful to achieve this (13). There are a few features of co-creation that make it a suitable methodology for producing new institutional SOPs/guidelines on RI for RPOs and RFOs. First, engaging stakeholders not only in the implementation phase of guideline development, but also in the front-end of the design process (i.e. guideline ideation and production) allows for the creation of of guidelines that end-users (e.g. institutional policy makers) find helpful and are likely to use, thereby increasing the likelihood of implementation. Secondly, co-creation incorporates design methodology to promote out-of-the-the-box thinking (12), which is crucial to finding innovative solutions to deal with the complexity of RI (i.e. the interplay of factors that influence it). Finally, by asking stakeholders to not only ‘say’ (e.g. talk about their dream vacation) as in traditional qualitative methods, but also to ‘make’ and ‘do’ (e.g. drawing their dream vacation or engaging in role playing), co-creation exposes stakeholders’ latent values, which they themselves might not be consciously aware of (12). Exploring stakeholders’ values is important to obtain a sufficient depth of understanding about RPOs’ and RFOs’ needs, wants and concerns on the topics at hand. Therefore, in SOPs4RI, we are conducting co-creation workshops to develop content for underdeveloped topics we have identified as important to address in the institutional RI policies of RPOs and RFOs. This protocol outlines the co-creation methods that we will use in the process of guideline creation in the SOPs4RI project. Aims Our co-creation workshops have three main aims: 1. Develop ‘skeleton guidelines’ (rough version drafts of a guideline) on a selection of RI topics, targeted at the institutional level of RPOs and RFOs, together with RPO and RFO stakeholders. 2. Explore which guideline formats stakeholders prefer, regarding issues such guideline prescriptiveness, level of detail, guideline structure, etc. 3. Identify potential implementation issues of the created skeleton guidelines and explore ways to address them.