Explore the vast range of titles available.

Counselling, coaches and collegiality — how institutions can share resources to promote best practice in science. Counselling, coaches and collegiality — how institutions can share resources to promote best practice in science.

This comparative study examines the everyday Facebook activities of all Danish and Spanish members of the European Parliament (MEPs), and the extent to which there is a real political conversation between citizens and European re- presentatives. Through content analysis, it analyzes the Facebook practices of a significantly under-studied population (MEPs) during a non-campaign period (January 15 to February 15, 2017) while most of recent research has overwhel- mingly focused on campaign periods. The results show that both Danish and Spanish MEPs are generously present and active on Facebook, but that they are less popular than their national counterparts. The study shows that Danish MEPs use Facebook in a clearly more dialogue-oriented way than their Spanish colleagues. Their updates often lead to conver- sations between followers, and they frequently take part in these political discussions, while Spanish MEPs tend to limit their Facebook practices to content publication, avoiding citizen conversation.

This paper explores the gray area of questionable research practices (QRPs) between responsible conduct of research and severe research misconduct in the form of fabrication, falsification, and plagiarism (Steneck in SEE 12(1): 53–57, 2006). Up until now, we have had very little knowledge of disciplinary similarities and differences in QRPs. The paper is the first systematic account of variances and similarities. It reports on the findings of a comprehensive study comprising 22 focus groups on practices and perceptions of QRPs across main areas of research. The paper supports the relevance of the idea of epistemic cultures (Knorr Cetina in: Epistemic cultures: how the sciences make knowledge, Harvard University Press, Cambridge, 1999), also when it comes to QRPs. It shows which QRPs researchers from different areas of research (humanities, social sciences, medical sciences, natural sciences, and technical sciences) report as the most severe and prevalent within their fields. Furthermore, it shows where in the research process these self-reported QRPs can be found. This is done by using a five-phase analytical model of the research process (idea generation, research design, data collection, data analysis, scientific publication and reporting). The paper shows that QRPs are closely connected to the distinct research practices within the different areas of research. Many QRPs can therefore only be found within one area of research, and QRPs that cut across main areas often cover relatively different practices. In a few cases, QRPs in one area are considered good research practice in another.

State-university relations across Europe have undergone massive transformations, ranging from establishing new control institutions to reaffirming institutional autonomy. In this reform wave Denmark can in many ways be seen as an extreme case as the reforms affecting the Danish higher education system have gone further than in many of the comparable European countries. In this article, Danish higher education policy is examined as an exemplary case of how differing ideas transform the perception of the higher education system over time. The Danish case is thus in addition to being an exemplary case of a common European trend an excellent opportunity for examining the dynamics of a reform process within higher education and particularly the notions of autonomy and control have taken on different meanings over time, changing how the role and governance of higher education institutions is perceived. The most recent developments in Danish higher education policy are discussed in terms of the concept of the competition state and the notion of 'conduct of conduct', in order to offer new insights into the state-university relation. (HRK / Abstract übernommen).

The aim of this paper is to investigate the organization of research in high-performing research groups in an age of increasing competition and pressure from outside and within higher-education institutions. To explore how researchers navigate such pressures and demands, the practice and perceptions of four high-performing research groups in Denmark and the Netherlands are examined, and the extent to which these groups can be understood as \"communities of practice\" or if they are displaying \"team\"-like characteristics is discussed. Previous studies have shown the benefits of communities of practice for organizational performance, and the present study demonstrates that the successful groups do indeed share many characteristics with such communities. A central argument of the paper is, however, also that incentive structures, inherent in many new policy initiatives that are meant to foster excellence in science, are more directed at \"team-like\" organization by focusing on, e.g., formally organized work processes, predefined goals, milestones, work packages, and hierarchically organized consortia. The potential implications of this are discussed. (HRK / Abstract übernommen).

The widespread problems with scientific fraud, questionable research practices, and the reliability of scientific results have led to an increased focus on research integrity (RI). International organisations and networks have been established, declarations have been issued, and codes of conducts have been formed. The abstract principles of these documents are now also being translated into concrete topic areas that Research Performing organisations (RPOs) and Research Funding organisations (RFOs) should focus on. However, so far, we know very little about disciplinary differences in the need for RI support from RPOs and RFOs. The paper attempts to fill this knowledge gap. It reports on a comprehensive focus group study with 30 focus group interviews carried out in eight different countries across Europe focusing on the following research question: “Which RI topics would researchers and stakeholders from the four main areas of research (humanities, social science, natural science incl. technical science, and medical science incl. biomedicine) prioritise for RPOs and RFOs?” The paper reports on the results of these focus group interviews and gives an overview of the priorities of the four main areas of research. The paper ends with six policy recommendations and a reflection on how the results of the study can be used in RPOs and RFOs.

Various stakeholders in science have put research integrity high on their agenda. Among them, research funders are prominently placed to foster research integrity by requiring that the organizations and individual researchers they support make an explicit commitment to research integrity. Moreover, funders need to adopt appropriate research integrity practices themselves. To facilitate this, we recommend that funders develop and implement a Research Integrity Promotion Plan (RIPP). This Consensus View offers a range of examples of how funders are already promoting research integrity, distills 6 core topics that funders should cover in a RIPP, and provides guidelines on how to develop and implement a RIPP. We believe that the 6 core topics we put forward will guide funders towards strengthening research integrity policy in their organization and guide the researchers and research organizations they fund.

The emphasis on competitiveness and the knowledge-based economy in European policymaking has resulted in a heightened focus on monitoring and steering the science system, particularly through metric-based instruments. Policymakers' general aims of fostering excellent research and breakthroughs are shared by researchers as well; however, below the surface is a paradox that is rarely discussed. The political system and the science system understand and pursue these concepts and objectives differently. Through two case studies on high-performing university-based resear ch environments in Denmark and Sweden, this article uncovers the ways in which highly successful researchers often behave in ways that run counter to policy steering attempts. They do this by shielding themselves and their research group from steering pressures originating in the political system. Using Luhmann's systems theory, the cases demonstrate why the relationship between the science system and the political system needs to be understood as a horizontal rather than a vertical relationship, and using concepts from organizational theory, provides a model and terminology for identifying and analyzing the types of mechanisms and strategic responses that the science system uses to shield itself from political steering pressures. (HRK / Abstract übernommen).

Since the 1980s, Ulrich Beck has worked extensively on his theories of second modernity and the risk society. In Ulrich Beck, Mads P. Sørensen and Allan Christiansen provide an extensive and thorough introduction to the German sociologist's collected works. The book covers his sociology of work, his theories of individualization, globalization and subpolitics, his world famous theory of the risk society and second modernity as well as his latest work on cosmopolitanism. Focusing on the theory outlined in Beck's chief work, Risk Society, and on his theory of second modernity, Sørensen and Christiansen explain the sociologist's ideas and writing in a clear and accessible way. Largely concerned with the last 25 years of Beck's authorship, the book nevertheless takes a retrospective look at his works from the late seventies and early eighties, and reviews the critique that has been raised against Beck's sociology through the years. Each chapter of Ulrich Beck comes with a list of suggested further reading, as well as explanations of core terms. The book also includes a biography of Beck, and full bibliographies of his work in both English and German. This comprehensive introduction will be of interest to all students of sociology, contemporary social theory, globalization theory, environmental studies, politics, geography and risk studies.

Research and innovation are attributed a growing role in maintaining global competitiveness; in particular, research advances are seen as important catalysts for innovation and growth. However, our understanding is still limited concerning how important research results are achieved. This is particularly the case for the role of serendipity, where discoveries or the path towards them are unexpected. This paper explores through the use of a narrative approach the role of planned and unplanned factors and presents elements for understanding how and when serendipity occurs in highly cited research. In this explorative study, we have interviewed 12 first authors, each of whom has played a key role in a highly cited piece of research. Their own perceptions of how research progressed, key turning points, and conditions for the research are important in illustrating what motivates and influences the researchers’ pursuit of new discoveries. The narrative approach, by introducing a temporal element, is both able to characterize the stories behind the advances, including key turning points in achieving research accomplishments, and to analyze cross-cutting themes related to researcher behavior and environment for the research.