Occurrence of research misconduct and institutional capacity to prevent and manage research misconduct-perspectives from Kenyan research regulators

Abstract

Background Research misconduct is often defined as fabrication, falsification and plagiarism. Its occurrence is associated with individual, institutional, national and global factors. Researcher perceptions of weak or non-existent institutional guidelines on prevention and management of research misconduct encourage these practices. Few countries in Africa have clear guidance on research misconduct. In Kenya, the capacity to prevent or manage research misconduct in academic and research institutions has not been assessed. The objective of this study was to explore the perceptions of Kenyan research regulators on the occurrence of and institutional capacity to prevent or manage research misconduct. Methods Key informant interviews with open-ended questions were conducted with 27 research regulators (chairs and secretaries of ethics committees, research directors of academic and research institutions, and national regulatory bodies). Among other questions to explore their perceptions on occurrence of research misconduct and existing institutional capacity to prevent or manage research misconduct, participants were asked: (1) How common is research misconduct in your view? (2) Does your institution have capacity to Prevent research misconduct? (3) Does your institution have capacity to manage research misconduct?. Their responses were audiotaped, transcribed and coded using NVivo software. Deductive coding covered predefined themes including occurrence, prevention detection, investigation and management of research misconduct and illustrative quotes were identified. Results Respondents perceived research misconduct to be very common among students. Their responses suggested there was no dedicated capacity to prevent or manage research misconduct at the institutional and national levels. The national research regulator had no specific guidelines on research misconduct. At the institutional level, the only capacity / efforts mentioned were directed at reducing, detecting and managing student plagiarism. There was no direct mention of capacity to manage fabrication and falsification or misconduct by non-student researchers. Conclusions and Recommendations Our respondents perceived research misconduct to be common mostly pointing to student plagiarism but not by non-student researchers. Additionally, fabrication and falsification were not mentioned among the concerns. We recommend development of Kenya guidelines, at national and institutional levels, on research misconduct in all its nuances, addressing all potential perpetrators and underpinned by relevant laws.