نویسندگان

1 استادیار گروه علوم اجتماعی دانشگاه شهید چمران اهواز، اهواز، ایران

2 استاد جامعه شناسی دانشگاه تبریز، تبریز، ایران

چکیده

در عصر حاضر، ترویج صداقت و اخلاق دانشگاهی و مقابله با سوء رفتارهای پژوهشی چون سرقت علمی، جعل و تحریف یافته­ها به بخش مهمی از مأموریت­ های دانشگاه ­ها تبدیل شده است، چرا که در میدان علمی، عادی شدن سوء رفتارهای پژوهشی به صداقت و شرافت علمی، پیوند علم، جامعه، صنعت و اعتبار مؤسسات علمی لطمه می­ زند. بر این اساس، هدف اصلی پژوهش حاضر مطالعه­ تعیین­ گرهای عادی شدن سوء رفتارهای پژوهشی و روش پژوهش از نظر هدف کاربردی و از منظر گردآوری داده­ ها پیمایشی بود. جامعه­ آماری کلیه­ دانشجویان تحصیلات تکمیلی دانشگاه تبریز به تعداد 6651 نفر بودند که از این تعداد 729 نفر از طریق فرمول کوکران به روش نمونه­ گیری طبقه ­ای به ­عنوان نمونه انتخاب شدند. برای گردآوری داده ­ها از ابزار پرسشنامه استفاده شد. یافته ­های پژوهش نشان داد که میانگین درصدی (88/59) عادی شدن سوء رفتارهای پژوهشی بالاتر از مقدار متوسط است. نتایج تحلیل رگرسیونی به روش گام به گام نشان داد که متغیرهای وارد شده در مدل؛ یعنی فشار اجتماعی، نظارت دانشگاهی و نظارت از سوی وزارت علوم، تحقیقات و فناوری درمجموع، توانستند 18/0 درصد تغییرات سازه عادی شدن سوء رفتارهای پژوهشی را تبیین کنند. با مقایسه­ ضرایب بتاها می­ توان گفت که سازه­ فشار اجتماعی با ضریب بتای 39 بیشترین تأثیر را در عادی شدن سوء رفتارهای پژوهشی دانشجویان منتخب در نمونه داشته است.

کلیدواژه‌ها

عنوان مقاله [English]

Sociological Study of the Determinants of Normalization of Research Misbehavior

نویسندگان [English]

  • Ali Boudaghi 1
  • Mohammad Abbaszadeh 2
  • Hosein Banifatemeh 2
  • Mohammad Bagher Aizadeh Aghdam 2

1 Assistant Professor, Department of Social Sciences, Shahid Chamran University, Ahvaz, Iran.

2 Professor of Sociology, Tabriz University, Tabriz, Iran.

چکیده [English]

Nowadays, promoting academic loyalty and ethics and coping with research misbehavior, including plagiarism, forgery and misrepresentation have become an important part of the university mission, since the normalization of research misconduct undermines the integrity and loyalty of science, the link between science, society, industry, and damages the reputation of scientific institutions. Accordingly, the main target of the present study was to study the determinants of research misbehavior normalization among the postgraduate students of Tabriz University. The research method is applied in terms of purpose and is a survey in terms of data collection. The statistical population of the study consisted of 6651 postgraduate students of Tabriz University, of whom 729 students were selected through stratified random sampling method and Cochran formula. In this study, a questionnaire was used for data collection. The findings of the present study showed that the level of research misbehavior normalization was higher than the average (59.88). The results of the stepwise regression analysis showed that the variables included in the model, namely social pressure, academic and the Ministry of Science Research and Technology supervision were able to explain 0.18% of the variance in the normalization of research misbehavior. By comparing the beta coefficients, it can be said that social pressure (B=39) has the strongest influence on the normalization of research misbehavior among the selected students.

کلیدواژه‌ها [English]

  • Social pressure
  • Normalization of research misconduct
  • Academic supervision
1. Abbasi, A., Farzan, F., & Zayer, B. (2014). Individual factors and types of scientific abuses. Communication Management in Sports Media, 2, 21-29 (in Persian).
2. Abbasi, A., Farzan, F., Seyyed Ameri, M.H, & Zayer, B. (2015). Social factors and types of academic misconduct. Applied Research of Sport Manajment, 43-49 (in Persian).
3. Abbaszadeh, M., Saadati, M., & Mohammadi, A. (2014). Investigating the relationship between social control and aggression among football spectators (Case study: Fans of Tractor Team). East Azerbaijan Law Journal, 4 (14),1-18 (in Persian).
4. Abbaszadeh, M., Banifatemeh, H., Alizadeh-Aghdam, M.B., & Boudaghi, A. )2016). The underlying commitment factors influencing research ethics among graduate students in Tabriz University: A Grounded Theory approach. Quarterly Journal of Research and Planning in Higher Education, 22 (1), 75-98 (in Persian).
5. Abbaszadeh, M., Saadati, M., & Mohammadi, A. (2014). A study of the relationship between social control and aggression among football spectators (Case study: Fans of Tabriz Tractor Manufacturing Football Team), East Azerbaijan Police Science Quarterly, 3, 1-18 (in Persian).
6. Amiri, M.A., & Khamesan, A. (2011). Academic dishonesty, a threat for honour of higher education: A review on individual and contextual factors. Higher Education Letter, 4(16), 9-30 (in Persian).
7. Ashforth, B.E., & Anand, V. (2003). The normalization of corruption in organizations. In R.M. Kramer & B.M. Staw (Eds.). Research in Organizational Behavior, 25, 1-52.
8. Ataie-Ashtiani, B. (2017). World map of scientific misconduct. Sci Eng Ethics, Retrieved from https://www.researchgate.net (in Persian).
9. Banja, J. (2010). The normalization of deviance in healthcare delivery. Business Horizons, 53(2), 139-148. ‌
10. Boudaghi, A. (2016). A sociological study of adherence to research ethics among graduate students of Tabriz University and its related factors. (Ph. D thesis). University of Tabriz, Faculty of Law and Social Sciences (in Persian).
11. Bornmann, L. (2013). Research misconduct-definitions, manifestations and extent. Publications, 1(3), 87-98.
12. Bursik, R.J., & Grasmick, H.G. (1993). Neighborhoods and crime: The dimensions of effectivecommunity control. New York: Lexington Books. ‌
13. Cadez, S. (2013). Social change, institutional pressures and knowledge creation: A bibliometric analysis. Expert Systems with Applications, 40(17), 6885-6893. ‌
14. Choupani, H., Siadat, S.A., & Rajaeeepour, S. (2018). Individual factors affecting research misconduct in Iranian Higher Education System. International Review of Management and Marketing, 8(2), 102-108 (in Persian).
15. Davis, M.S., Riske-Morris, M., & Diaz, S.R. (2007). Causal factors implicated in research misconduct: Evidence from ORI case files. Science and Engineering Ethics, 13(4), 395-414.
16. Ding, L. (2014). Drinking in context: The influence of peer pressure on drinking among chinese college students. Presented to the Faculty of the Graduate College at University of NebraskaIn Partial Fulfillment of Requirements for the Degree of Master of Arts Major: Educational Psychology, 1-99.
17. Fisher, C.B., Fried, A.L., & Feldman, L. G. (2013). Graduate socialization in the responsible conduct of research: A national survey on the research ethics training experiences of psychology doctoral students. Ethics Behavior, 1-26.
18. Gallant, T. (2008). Academic integrity in the twenty-first century: A teaching and learning imperative. ASHE Higher Education Report, 33(5). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley & Sons/Jossey-Bass.
19. Gannadan, M., Moti, N., & Sotodeh, H. (2004). Sociology (Key concepts). Tehran: Avaye Noor (in Persian).
20. Gerdeman, R.D. (2000). Academic dishonesty and the community College. ERIC Clearinghouse for Community College LosAngeles CA. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No.447840).
21. Gharakhani, M. (2014). Ethics of science in Iranian social science education. Tehran: Institute for Cultural and Social Studies (in Persian).
22. Hagsrom, W. Q. (1975). The scientific community. London and Amsterdam: Fefer and Simons, Inc.
23. Haji Heidari, F., Jafari, P., & Arasteh, H.R. (2015). Comparison of missions and goals of specialized PhD courses in Iran and some countries over the world. Iran Higher Education Quarterly, 7(4), 107- 140 (in Persian).
24. Hard, S.F., Conway, J.M., & Moran, A.C. (2006). Faculty and college student beliefs about the frequency of student academic misconduct. The Journal of Higher Education, 77(6), 1058-1080.
25. Hemmati Alamdariloo, G., Shojaee, S., Salimi, Q., & Arjmandi, M.S. (2017). Comparison of plagiarism behavior and its related factors among talented students and other students. Higher Education Letter. 10 (27). 61-77 (in Persian).
26. Holtfreter, K., Reisig, M.D, Pratt, T.C., & Mays, R.D. (2019). The perceived causes of research misconduct among faculty members in the natural, social, and applied sciences. Journal Studies in Higher Education, Published Online: 26 Mar 2019.
27. Hirota, W.B., Marcelino, R., Anjos, D., & Guedes Ferreira, D. (2016). The first test of attitudes instrument for sports competition in athlerics. Journal of Physical Education Research, 3 (1), 10-17.
28. Imam Jomezadeh, S.J., RahbarGhazi, M.R., Isanejad, O., & Marandi, Z. (2011). Investigating the relationship between feeling relative deprivation and political participation among students of Isfahan University. Political Science Quarterly, 8 (1), 37-68 (in Persian).
29. Maggio, I., Dong, T., Driessen, E., & Artino JR., A. (2019). Factors associated with scientific misconduct and questionable research practices in health professions education. Perspectives on Medical Education, 8(2), 74-82.
30. Mahdavi, M.S., & Zarei, A. (2011). Factors affecting adolescents' attitude towards ethical values (Case study: Third-year students of Hamedan province in 2003-2004). Iranian Journal of Sociological Studies, 1(3),1-21 (in Persian).
31. Martin, A., Wright, E.M., & Steiner, B. (2016). Formal controls, neighborhood disadvantage, and violent crime in U.S. cities: Examining (un)intended, consequences. Journal of Criminal Justice, 44, 58-65.
32. Mohseni Tabrizi, A.R., Ghazi Tabatabai, M., & Marjani, S.H. (2010). The impact of scientific issues and challenges on academic socialization. Quarterly Journal of Research and Planning in Higher Education, 55, 45-67 (in Persian).
33. Mundt, L. (2007). Perceptions of scientific misconduct Among graducation allied health students relative to education and gender. A Dissertation Presented in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree, doctor of education in educational leaderdhip, University of Phoenix. 1-321.
34. Okonta, P., & Rossouw, T.H. (2014). Misconduct in research: A descriptive survey of attitudes, perceptions and associated factors in a developing country. US National Library of Medicine National Institutes of Health, Retrieved from https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed.
35. Olesen, A.P., Amin, L., & Mahadi, Z. (2018). In their own words: Research misconduct from the perspective of researchers in Malaysian Universities. Science and Engineering Ethics, 24(6), 1755-1776. ‌
36. Park, Ch. (2003). In other (people’s) words: Plagiarism by university student’s literature and lessons. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 28(5), 471-488.
37. Parvin, S., Kalantari, A.H, & Davoodi, M. (2014). Social factors affecting students' tendency to high-risk behaviors and social harms (with a comparative approach between self-governing and government dormitories). Journal of Strategic Studies in Sport and Youth Studies, 26, 151-170 (in Persian).
38. Poduthase, H., Garza, I. & Wood, J. (2018). Scientific research misconduct in social science research: What is it and how can we address it?. Sociology International Journal, 2(2), 85-86.
39. Rabbani, A., Rabbani, R., Hemati, R., Ghazi Tabatabai, M., & Vedadhir, A.A. (2011). New ways of knowledge production: Sociological reflection on the evolution of ethical standards and scientific conduct in the science and technology. Journal of Ethics and Technology, 6, 1, 24-24 (in Persian).
40. Rodrigues, A. (1981). Social psychology. Petropolis, RJ: Vozes, 573.
41. Resnik, D.B., Rasmussen, L.M., & Kissling, G.E. (2015). An international study of research misconduct policies. Accountability in Research, 22(5), 249-266. ‌
42. Risal, P. (2015). Research misconduct: The cardinal sin. Annals of Clinical Chemistry and Laboratory Medicine, 1(2), 1-2. ‌
43. Ritzer, G. (1995). Contemporary sociology theories. Translated by Mohsen, S., Tehran: Elmi Press (in Persian).
44. Sabouri, M.S., Omani, A.R., Nosrati, A., & Samari, D. (2008). Correlation and regression analysis of dimensions of tendency of students of agriculture at Islamic Azad University of Gharmsar towards work in rural areas. Social Science Research Journal, 2(4), 141-155 (in Persian).
45. Singh, S.P., Dhir, S.K., Sharma, M., & Singh, T. (2018). Publication misconduct: Perceptions of participants of a faculty development programme. The National Medical Journal of India, 31(3), 169. ‌
46. Sotoudh, A., & Hedayatollah, B.S.A. (2011). The role of structural, functional, and relational factors in the internalization of science ethics among postgraduate students. Social Research Quarterly, 12 (12), 143-166 (in Persian).
47. Spicer, A. (2009). The normalization of corrupt business practices: Implications for Integrative Social Contracts Theory (ISCT). Journal of Business Ethics, 88, 833-840.
48. Stic, E., & Bearman, S.K. (2001). Body-image and eating disturbances prospectively predict increases in depressive symptoms in adolescent girls: A growth curve analysis. Developmental Psychology, 379(5), 597-607.
49. Wheeler, G. (2008). Plagiarism in the Japanese Universities: Truly a culturalmatter? Retrieved from https://www.researchgate.net/ publication/248545533_Plagiarism in the Japanese Universities Truly_a cultural matter.
50. Zamani, B.E, Azimi, S.A., & Soleymani, N. (2013). Identifying and prioritizing the effective factors affecting the students’ plagiarism in Isfahan University. Quarterly Journal of Research and Planning in Higher Education, 19 (1), 91-110 (in Persian).