What guiding principles do researchers follow? How do they view themselves within a wider context, and what ethical criteria do they rely on? Freie Universität Berlin’s vice president with special responsibility for research, Marianne Braig, talks to campus.leben about integrity and transparency. She explains why the principles of good practice apply to everyone working in academia – from students fresh out of high school right up to senior professors. In this interview, we discuss trust, communication culture, and the responsibility of science to society.

Professor Braig, what is “good research practice”?

When we talk about good research – or scientific – practice, we’re talking about the ethical guidelines and principles that all researchers must abide by. It’s about complying with academic and scientific standards and making sure that the research process – the way in which we arrive at our findings – is transparent and comprehensible.

Good research practice is a broad and inclusive concept. At its heart is the principle of scientific integrity, a concept I find extremely important. It is the leading principle that underpins the German Research Foundation’s “Code of Conduct on Good Research Practice” – the model for our own policy here at Freie Universität – which states, “Scientific integrity is the basis for trustworthy research.” Any violation of this integrity risks damaging trust in scientific findings per se; as researchers and scholars, if we act without integrity, this impacts not only our own work, but also that of all individuals and institutions engaged in research.

Good scientific practice is a question of attitude. Freie Universität’s official seal embodies this attitude in its motto, “Veritas, Justitia, Libertas.” Veritas – Truth – demands that we act with integrity, honesty, and probity. Justitia – Justice – implies fairness, appreciation of good work, and responsibility to oneself, to one’s research, and to others. Libertas – Freedom – refers not only to academic freedom, but also to our obligation to protect researchers whose academic freedom is at risk.

What specific guidelines and principles are of particular importance in an academic context?

Our work must adhere to guidelines that, for example, require us to critically reflect on the ethical aspects of research projects, to use sources transparently and conscientiously, to document our work in full, and to ensure that our research data and findings are safely preserved. These guidelines also require us to engage in critical conversations and to be honest about the contribution others may have made to our work.

But the ideas and concepts that feed into good practice don’t just come from universities or other institutions that support research. We often first become aware of them in the context of broader social debates. Important ethical questions are constantly under discussion in the public arena, and as a university, it is essential that we respond.

Do you have any examples in mind?

There has been a lot of talk recently about how early-career researchers are affected by the power dynamics in universities. This raises questions, for example, about how to deal with relationships where I am dependent on another person’s good opinion, or they are dependent on mine. If I’m writing an article, should I cite the work of one of my doctoral students? Or should I ignore them and instead cite the work of my colleague, who just happens to be a well-known professor at Harvard? Other relevant debates have been on subjects like animal rights, dual use (meaning the misuse of research findings for unethical purposes), postcolonialism, gender equity, and diversity, to name just some examples. What happens in society is often the catalyst for a greater awareness in academia. Our interactions with society are key to developing and improving our standards here at the university.

The German Research Foundation (DFG) has announced that in future, projects will only be eligible for DFG funding if the host institution incorporates the DFG Code of Conduct in its own legally binding regulations. For Freie Universität Berlin, this means that we must incorporate the provisions of the Code of Conduct in a legally binding university statute and ensure that they are implemented by July 2022. What stage are we at now?

We’ve already amended our 2002 “Code of Honor for Safeguarding Good Scientific Practice” to align with the DFG Code of Conduct. The amended version, the “Statute for Safeguarding Good Scientific Practice,” entered into force on December 4, 2020. We are now at the stage of putting those measures into practice.

One of the measures we need to take is to set up an independent authority in the form of an ombudsperson at Freie Universität. This is something that is particularly close to my heart. We want to create and strengthen confidential, safe spaces outside of the academic hierarchy where researchers can talk about their questions and concerns in connection with their work without worrying about how this may affect their relationships at the university.

What does that mean in practical terms?

In line with our statute, we will establish a central ombudsperson and a permanent investigatory commission made up of members from different subject areas, along with decentralized ombudspersons and deputies in each department. These will replace the “persons of trust,” or Vertrauenspersonen, that the university has had up to now. Members of Freie Universität will be able to contact the ombudspersons for support and advice if they have questions or need help.

The key thing here is trust. The ombudspersons will be completely autonomous and are not required to disclose information to any other authority. Trust is the central principle that defines our work at Freie Universität.

Who can turn to the ombudspeople for help? Are they there for students too?

Yes, of course. If anyone has questions about scientific integrity, or perhaps is dealing with conflicts in this area or can see a potential conflict arising, they can turn to the central ombudsperson or to their departmental representative. This is a service offered by Freie Universität to all its members.

Because good scientific practice is important for everyone?

That’s right. It doesn’t matter if you’re a first semester student or a senior professor – the principles of good scientific practice apply to all of us who work or study at a university. As vice president for research, one of my tasks is to promote a structured exchange at the university about our ethical principles. As a teacher, I try to lead by example and show my students what good research looks like in practice.

You teach as a professor at Freie Universität’s Institute for Latin American Studies. Do you talk to your students about good scientific practice?

I tend to integrate it holistically into my seminars and lectures. For example, if I show an image, a film, or statistical data, I explain my sources and show how they fit into the discipline as a whole. I’ve become much more aware of these issues myself through working on the subject. It’s important that we talk about good research practice regularly, and that we constantly put our ethical principles into practice in our everyday work. I also tell my students about other places they can get information and support. For example, I talk to them about the courses and workshops offered by the Dahlem Research School that are open to all doctoral students at Freie Universität.

There’s a lot of talk at the moment about doctoral supervision. The issue has come up frequently at Freie Universität, too. How important is trust when people work together in this way? To what extent should good scientific practice be monitored during supervision?

We have to be very clear about this. Any form of supervision, whether it’s of a bachelor’s or master’s thesis, or of a doctoral dissertation, can only take place on the basis of trust between the student and the supervisors. Naturally, supervisors will be aware of their students’ academic and research skills on an ongoing basis as the work is being written, and students are expected to comply with the rules of good scientific practice.

But the supervising itself is not a test for the student. It is the duty of the examiners to assess the thesis or dissertation once it is submitted. At this point, the supervisors and other examiners will all look at the submitted work partly in terms of its compliance with academic and scientific standards and whether it meets the requirements of good scientific practice. If, at this point, they suspect that standards and requirements have not been met or notice some infringement of good scientific practice, then there will be a particular focus on establishing whether such infringements have occurred. In such unusual cases, mistrust then tends to take the place of trust.

In a best-case scenario, however, the working relationship between the supervisor and the student is characterized by trust. The relationship should not be a bubble, but should include regular discussions with other researchers, for example, in colloquia. I have always argued for graduate schools and research training groups, where doctoral students are part of a community where everyone is working on a different topic and discusses their work with each other.

But we must differentiate clearly between a situation where mistrust has arisen or there are some minor concerns, and a situation that calls for a formal investigation of misconduct. A specific procedure for dealing with this is set out in Freie Universität’s “Statute on Safeguarding Good Scientific Practice.”

How can the university support students and early-career researchers in developing good research practice?

We’ve looked at resources available at Freie Universität, and we’ve identified specific critical moments or potential “tipping points” in the course of an academic career where students and researchers need more support. The first is when a student starts their degree. This is the moment when the foundations for later practice are laid. Lectures and seminars should regularly include discussions on good research practice as an integral part of study. Other critical moments are the period before a student is about to begin work on their final thesis; the entire process of doctoral study; being given the leadership of a research group; during mentoring; and when a new professor is appointed. These are all moments when people may need additional reminders or awareness of what good research practice entails. Scientific integrity is also a subject that should be included in appointment guidelines, in selection interviews, and in every annual employee appraisal.

We believe it is important to ensure that people are always aware of the responsibility that comes with engaging in research. By that, I don't mean that we should encourage an atmosphere of distrust. It’s about strengthening trust, taking preventive action, and clarifying responsibilities.

You’ve referred several times to the importance of talking about good research practice. In your view, then, it’s partly about how this is communicated in a research institution – and maybe also about how we deal with mistakes?

We have to be able to talk openly about mistakes. That’s also a question of attitude. In fact, we have no choice. One aspect of scientific integrity is knowing how to create a constructive “culture of failure.”

Discussions in and around the pandemic have shown that there isn’t just one truth in science. We puzzle together the truth from our different perspectives, and our knowledge is always only temporary. Research means continually striving for truth. You might say that the pandemic has been the ideal laboratory in this sense. As researchers, we owe it to society to reflect on what we do – and part of that is an ability to admit that scientific integrity means constantly questioning your own work.

---

Marianne Braig was interviewed by Karin Bauer-Leppin and Christine Boldt. The interview originally appeared in German on June 14, 2021, in campus.leben, the online magazine of Freie Universität Berlin.