With the growing scientific advancements in contemporary world, it is often expected from
the researchers to withhold high standards of ethical integrity and code of conduct. A recent study published in the journal scientific reports conducted by Linköping University (Sweden) researchers have identified a concerning phenomenon of the ‘overestimation’ of researchers regarding their adherence to good research practices compared to their peers.
The researchers of Linköping University conducted a thorough survey targeting over 33,000
Swedish researchers, receiving 11,000 responses across various disciplines on to the questions based on the Swedish Research Council’s rules for good research practice. The study revealed a widespread belief in personal and field-wide ethical superiority, particularly noticeable in medical research. This prevailing self-assessment bias among researchers suggests a potential blind spots in recognising ethical shortcomings, raising important questions about the psychological underpinnings of ethical decision-making and concerns about the authenticity of research outputs that can further hinders the scientific progress. These findings call for increased self-awareness and ethical vigilance within the scientific community.
What is self-assessment bias?
Self-assessment bias refers to the tendency for individuals to evaluate their own abilities, skills, or performance in an overly favourable or inflated manner compared to objective measures or the evaluations of others. There could be many reasons for its existence. From a psychological perspective, the self-assessment bias can be attributed to various factors, including self-serving attributions, motivated reasoning, and the desire to maintain a positive self-image. Individuals may unconsciously downplay or rationalize their own ethical mistakes while amplifying the perceived shortcomings of others, creating a distorted perception of their relative ethical standing. For instance, Scientists may unconsciously engage in motivated reasoning, selectively interpreting information and evidence in a
way that supports their desired conclusions or self-perceptions.
Key Findings
55% of researchers believed that they follow good research practices or better than their
colleagues, 44% thought they were better, and only 1% considered themselves worse (self-assessment bias) At the same time the researchers also rated their field highly compared to the others, 63% believed their field's standards were as good as most others, 29% thought they were better, and 8% believed they were worse. Also, medical researchers exhibited the most significant overestimation (field-wide ethical overestimation).
It is a common psychological bias known as “better-than-average" effect or the "superiority
illusion” where one view oneself and one’s group in a favourable light. It is a cognitive bias that branches from the most basic and fundamental human need for self enhancement and positive self- regard. For the researcher’s bias it can manifest as an inflated perception of one's ethical conduct and a skewed assessment of one's field's ethical standards. This further causes hinderance in objective self-assessment and intensify difficulties in interdisciplinary collaboration.
Broder context
According to researchers the self-assessment bias could lead to ethical blunders and if
unchecked or kept unregulated, it can further escalate over time. The study emerged with concerns of research misconduct and replication issues within the scientific community.
Implications Such biases foster a sense of superiority or mistrust between different disciplines. This polarization can hamper the free exchange of ideas and insights, ultimately hindering scientific progress in return. For example, a researcher who upholds strict ethical guidelines on a regular basis but believes that their peers are less conscientious about ethics. This kind of thinking could result in disregarding concerns of colleagues or being reluctant to have open discussions with them. On the other hand, an overconfident researcher might be less likely to question their methods or ask colleagues for advice. This lack of capability to seek feedback will in turn become incapability of a researcher to see flaws or critically evaluate one’s ethical behaviour.
Recommendations
Initiatives can be taken at both individual and at institutional levels to mitigate and reduce
impact of such phenomena. Individuals can become more receptive to feedback, mentoring and constructive criticism. They should also engage in regular practice of self-reflection and keeping up with professional ethical guidelines. At the institutional level introducing training programmes and creating a culture of ethical reviewing and bring the desired changes.
Conclusion
It is extremely important to maintain ethical code of conduct in this dynamic and ever-
changing volatile world to ensure credibility and validity of scientific research. This research tends to serve as a wake-up call and proves how even the experts are not immune to psychological biases however as said by Gustav Tinghög that “Researchers struggle with the decision of whether to pursue their own interests or the advancement of science on a daily basis. It's critical to continuously assess oneself in the mirror and adjust your research-ethical compass in such a world.”
Comments