Key points are not available for this paper at this time.
Unethical research practices are prevalent in China, but little research has focused on the causes of these practices. Drawing on the criminology literature on organisational deviance, as well as the concept of cengceng jiama, which illustrates the increase of pressure in the process of policy implementation within a top-down bureaucratic hierarchy, this article develops an institutional analysis of research misconduct in Chinese universities. It examines both universities and the policy environment of Chinese universities as contexts for research misconduct. Specifically, this article focuses on China’s Double First-Class University Initiative and its impact on elite universities that respond to the policy by generating new incentive structures to promote research quality and productivity as well as granting faculties and departments greater flexibility in terms of setting high promotion criteria concerning research productivity. This generates enormous institutional tensions and strains, encouraging and sometimes even compelling individual researchers who wish to survive to decouple their daily research activities from ethical research norms. This article is written based on empirical data collected from three elite universities as well as a review of policy documents, universities’ internal documents, and news articles.
Building similarity graph...
Analyzing shared references across papers
Loading...
Xinqu Zhang
Peng Wang
Research Ethics
University of Hong Kong
Chinese University of Hong Kong
Building similarity graph...
Analyzing shared references across papers
Loading...
Zhang et al. (Fri,) studied this question.
www.synapsesocial.com/papers/68e6e657b6db6435876613f3 — DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/17470161241247720
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: