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
N1 - Funding Information:
We acknowledge the National Science Foundation (NST) for their support and the many scientists who took the time to respond to the survey and provide data for this research. Data analyzed in this article were collected under the auspices of the project: Contested Resource Inputs to Science: How Institutional Provisions on the Access and Use of Materials and Data Affect Research Collaboration Structures and Outcomes (NSF Grant #SciSIP-1360166).
Funding Information:
We acknowledge the National Science Foundation (NST) for their support and the many scientists who took the time to respond to the survey and provide data for this research. Data analyzed in this article were collected under the auspices of the project: Contested Resource Inputs to Science: How Institutional Provisions on the Access and Use of Materials and Data Affect Research Collaboration Structures and Outcomes (NSF Grant #SciSIP-1360166).
Publisher Copyright:
© 2019 Elsevier Ltd
PY - 2019/11
Y1 - 2019/11
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
SN - 1462-9011
VL - 101
SP - 136
EP - 146
JO - Environmental Science and Policy
JF - Environmental Science and Policy
ER -