Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32048141›Full record

ArticleScience and engineering ethics2020

"I am Primarily Paid for Publishing…": The Narrative Framing of Societal Responsibilities in Academic Life Science Research.

Lisa Sigl, Ulrike Felt, Maximilian Fochler

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Science and engineering ethics, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

7 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Science communication in the wild.Public understanding of science (Bristol, England) · 2026
    Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors.

Lisa SiglResearch Platform Responsible Research and Innovation in Academic Practice, University of Vienna, Universitätsstrasse 7, Vienna, 1010, Austria. lisa.sigl@univie.ac.at.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-9255-8420
Ulrike FeltResearch Platform Responsible Research and Innovation in Academic Practice, University of Vienna, Universitätsstrasse 7, Vienna, 1010, Austria.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-7506-4234
Maximilian FochlerResearch Platform Responsible Research and Innovation in Academic Practice, University of Vienna, Universitätsstrasse 7, Vienna, 1010, Austria.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-8601-3210

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Building on group discussions and interviews with life science researchers in Austria, this paper analyses the narratives that researchers use in describing what they feel responsible for, with a particular focus on how they perceive the societal responsibilities of their research. Our analysis shows that the core narratives used by the life scientists participating in this study continue to be informed by the linear model of innovation. This makes it challenging for more complex innovation models [such as responsible research and innovation (RRI)] to gain ground in how researchers make sense of and conduct their research. Furthermore, the paper shows that the life scientists were not easily able to imagine specific practices that would address broader societal concerns and thus found it hard to integrate the latter into their core responsibilities. Linked to this, researchers saw institutional reward structures (e.g. evaluations, contractual commitments) as strongly focused on scientific excellence ("I am primarily paid for publishing…"). Thus, they saw reward structures as competing with-rather than incentivising-broader notions of societal responsibility. This narrative framing of societal responsibilities is indicative of a structural marginalisation of responsibility practices and explains the claim, made by many researchers in our sample, that they cannot afford to spend time on such practices. The paper thus concludes that the core ideas of RRI stand in tension with predominant narrative and institutional infrastructures that researchers draw on to attribute meaning to their research practices. This suggests that scientific institutions (like universities, professional communities or funding institutions) still have a core role to play in providing new and context-specific narratives as well as new forms of valuing responsibility practices.

Indexed as

Biological Science DisciplinesSocial ResponsibilityHumansPublishingResearch PersonnelUniversitiesCommunicationDiligenceInteractionNarrative infrastructureResponsible research and innovationSocietal relevance

Identifiers

PMID32048141
PMCPMC7286937

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.