Navigating the labyrinth: Academic scientists’ responses to new regulatory controls on biological material inputs to research

Eric W. Welch, Gabel Taggart, Mary K. Feeney, Michael Siciliano

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Abstract

Academic scientists who access and use biological materials are embedded in an increasingly complex arrangement of conflicting scientific, commercial, regulatory and ethical institutional logics. This paper examines how scientists navigate and respond to these conflicting institutions. Using in-depth interviews with 40 academic scientists in four fields (marine biology, entomology, agricultural studies, ecology), we undertake a grounded theory approach to identify key categories of individual responses and the drivers of those responses. We find that scientists adopt one or more of five strategies in response to regulatory pressures: acquiescence, compromise, avoidance, defiance, and manipulation. We then leverage the institutional work literature to 1) propose a scientist response framework for understanding how individuals respond to competing logics and changing regulations and 2) demonstrate how individual cognition and effort by academic scientists reconciles (or not) conflicting institutions. We outline implications for policy and practice and conclude with a discussion of future research opportunities.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)136-146
Number of pages11
JournalEnvironmental Science and Policy
Volume101
DOIs
StatePublished - Nov 1 2019

Fingerprint

entomology
cognition
ecology
grounded theory
compromise
manipulation
regulatory control
regulation
policy
marine biology
material
biology
driver
interview

Keywords

  • Biological materials
  • Open science
  • Regulations
  • Rules
  • University scientists

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Geography, Planning and Development
  • Management, Monitoring, Policy and Law

Cite this

Navigating the labyrinth : Academic scientists’ responses to new regulatory controls on biological material inputs to research. / Welch, Eric W.; Taggart, Gabel; Feeney, Mary K.; Siciliano, Michael.

In: Environmental Science and Policy, Vol. 101, 01.11.2019, p. 136-146.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

@article{215a7513cb9a495c942cc89ef5c48a56,
title = "Navigating the labyrinth: Academic scientists’ responses to new regulatory controls on biological material inputs to research",
abstract = "Academic scientists who access and use biological materials are embedded in an increasingly complex arrangement of conflicting scientific, commercial, regulatory and ethical institutional logics. This paper examines how scientists navigate and respond to these conflicting institutions. Using in-depth interviews with 40 academic scientists in four fields (marine biology, entomology, agricultural studies, ecology), we undertake a grounded theory approach to identify key categories of individual responses and the drivers of those responses. We find that scientists adopt one or more of five strategies in response to regulatory pressures: acquiescence, compromise, avoidance, defiance, and manipulation. We then leverage the institutional work literature to 1) propose a scientist response framework for understanding how individuals respond to competing logics and changing regulations and 2) demonstrate how individual cognition and effort by academic scientists reconciles (or not) conflicting institutions. We outline implications for policy and practice and conclude with a discussion of future research opportunities.",
keywords = "Biological materials, Open science, Regulations, Rules, University scientists",
author = "Welch, {Eric W.} and Gabel Taggart and Feeney, {Mary K.} and Michael Siciliano",
year = "2019",
month = "11",
day = "1",
doi = "10.1016/j.envsci.2019.08.001",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "101",
pages = "136--146",
journal = "Environmental Science and Policy",
issn = "1462-9011",
publisher = "Elsevier BV",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Navigating the labyrinth

T2 - Academic scientists’ responses to new regulatory controls on biological material inputs to research

AU - Welch, Eric W.

AU - Taggart, Gabel

AU - Feeney, Mary K.

AU - Siciliano, Michael

PY - 2019/11/1

Y1 - 2019/11/1

N2 - Academic scientists who access and use biological materials are embedded in an increasingly complex arrangement of conflicting scientific, commercial, regulatory and ethical institutional logics. This paper examines how scientists navigate and respond to these conflicting institutions. Using in-depth interviews with 40 academic scientists in four fields (marine biology, entomology, agricultural studies, ecology), we undertake a grounded theory approach to identify key categories of individual responses and the drivers of those responses. We find that scientists adopt one or more of five strategies in response to regulatory pressures: acquiescence, compromise, avoidance, defiance, and manipulation. We then leverage the institutional work literature to 1) propose a scientist response framework for understanding how individuals respond to competing logics and changing regulations and 2) demonstrate how individual cognition and effort by academic scientists reconciles (or not) conflicting institutions. We outline implications for policy and practice and conclude with a discussion of future research opportunities.

AB - Academic scientists who access and use biological materials are embedded in an increasingly complex arrangement of conflicting scientific, commercial, regulatory and ethical institutional logics. This paper examines how scientists navigate and respond to these conflicting institutions. Using in-depth interviews with 40 academic scientists in four fields (marine biology, entomology, agricultural studies, ecology), we undertake a grounded theory approach to identify key categories of individual responses and the drivers of those responses. We find that scientists adopt one or more of five strategies in response to regulatory pressures: acquiescence, compromise, avoidance, defiance, and manipulation. We then leverage the institutional work literature to 1) propose a scientist response framework for understanding how individuals respond to competing logics and changing regulations and 2) demonstrate how individual cognition and effort by academic scientists reconciles (or not) conflicting institutions. We outline implications for policy and practice and conclude with a discussion of future research opportunities.

KW - Biological materials

KW - Open science

KW - Regulations

KW - Rules

KW - University scientists

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85071125824&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=85071125824&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1016/j.envsci.2019.08.001

DO - 10.1016/j.envsci.2019.08.001

M3 - Article

AN - SCOPUS:85071125824

VL - 101

SP - 136

EP - 146

JO - Environmental Science and Policy

JF - Environmental Science and Policy

SN - 1462-9011

ER -