Changing explanatory frameworks in the U.S. government’s attempt to define research misconduct

Nearly two decades of debate have not settled the definition of research misconduct. The literature provides four explanatory frameworks for misconduct. The paper examines these frameworks and maps them onto efforts by the U.S. Public Health Service to define research misconduct and subsequent responses to these efforts by the scientific community. The changing frameworks suggest that closure will not be achieved without an authoritative effort, which may occur through the Research Integrity Panel’s recent attempt to create a government-wide definition.     

Stepfamilies Doing Family: A Meta‐Ethnography

The present review examines how stepfamily members without a shared history co‐construct a shared family identity and what family processes are relevant in this stepfamily formation. Three databases (Web of Science, PsycInfo, and ProQuest) were systematically searched, resulting in 20 included qualitative studies. The meta‐ethnography approach of Noblit and Hare allowed synthesizing these qualitative studies and constructing a comprehensive framework of stepfamilies doing family. Three interdependent family tasks were identified: (a) honoring the past, (b) marking the present, and (c) investing in the future. Stepfamily members’ experiences of these family tasks are strongly affected by the dominant societal perspectives and characterized by an underlying dialectical tension between wanting to be like a first‐time family and feeling the differences in their family structure at the same time. These findings clearly demonstrate the family work that all stepfamily members undertake and provide a broader context for interpreting stepfamilies’ co‐construction of a new family identity.     

Prevalence,Prediction, and Prevention of Psychologist Misconduct

Studies of psychologist misconduct generally focus on unethical sexual behaviours. In contrast, the following study reports on all complaints by the public against psychologists reported to the New South Wales Psychologists Registration Board over a 4‐year period. There were 248 independent notifications of misconduct about 224 registered psychologists, out of a total sample of 9,489 registered psychologists. The most frequent type of misconduct reported was in relation to poor communication standards (35.5%). Other complaints were in relation to professional incompetency (16.5%), poor report writing (14.1%), poor business practices (12.5%), boundary violations (9.7%), poor character (5.6%), registration status (3.2%), impairment (1.6%), and the inappropriate use of specialist titles (1.2%). Males were 2.5 times more likely to have a misconduct complaint made about them than females. Senior highly qualified psychologists attracted a greater number of complaints, but these were generally of a less serious nature. Over a 30‐year career, about 20 out of every 100 psychologists can expect to receive a complaint from the public, and two will receive a serious misconduct complaint that might lead to deregistration. Strategies for preventing malpractice arising from these results include regular peer consultation, developing quality practise standards, and maintaining professional boundaries.     

Rational Choice and Moral Decision Making in Research

University psychology and sociology researchers rated the likelihood they would engage in misconduct as described in 9 research scenarios, while also making moral judgments and rating the likelihood of discovery and sanctions. Multiple regression revealed significant effects across various scenarios for moral judgment as well as shame and embarrassment on reducing misconduct. The effects on misconduct of the perceived probability of sanctions were conditioned on moral judgments in some scenarios. The results have implications for how universities address the prevention, detection, and sanctioning of research misconduct.     

Research trauma in incarcerated spaces: Listening to incarcerated women's narratives

This paper discusses researcher emotional experiences evoked while conducting narrative interviews in a research project that explored the rehabilitation experiences of 18 incarcerated women. I highlight the significance of listening as a methodology in spaces of incarceration. The importance of retrospective reflexivity in locating experiences of trauma encountered during the research process is discussed. The paper also brings to the fore the transformative power of stories for listeners as I share how my prejudices and attitudes regarding incarcerated women, as people who are framed as dangerous, were challenged. Experiences with interviewing and connecting with the incarcerated women further emphasised the importance of proactive self-care for researchers, with the significance of reflexivity as a self-care tool when doing qualitative research with vulnerable populations.     

Can Muslims Befriend Non-Muslims? Debating al-walāʾ wa-al-barāʾ (Loyalty and Disavowal) in Theory and Practice

This article analyzes the polemic on the concept of al-walā? wa-al-barā? (commonly translated as “loyalty and disavowal”). While existing academic literature focuses on the usages of this concept by jihad activists, the article centers on the role “loyalty and disavowal” plays in debates between contemporary salafī and wasa?ī jurists and theologians, specifically in their conflicting agendas for Muslims living as minorities. Salafīs, relying on several qur'anic verses and Prophetic traditions, promote an understanding of “loyalty and disavowal” that requires Muslims to refrain from befriending or loving non-Muslims, or imitating their beliefs and customs. Relying on counter-verses and traditions, in particular Q 60.8, wasa?īs have interpreted the concept of “loyalty and disavowal” more narrowly, arguing that it applies only to non-Muslims who fight against Muslims; as part of their integration-oriented doctrine for Muslims in the West, they have in recent years dedicated considerable efforts to refuting the salafī interpretation of al-walā? wa-al-barā?. The article examines the juristic methodologies utilized in the debate, and how it has affected religious decisions (fatwās) on Islamic life in Western societies.