Knut Jørgen Vie

• Godskesen, Tove; Vie, Knut Jørgen; Bülow, William; Holmberg, Bodil; Helgesson, Gert & Eriksson, Stefan (2023). How do journals publishing palliative and end-of-life care research report ethical approval and informed consent? Learned Publishing. ISSN 0953-1513. 36(4), p. 554–563. doi: 10.1002/leap.1580. Full text in Research Archive
• Kennedy, Mari-Rose; Deans, Zuzana; Ampollini, Ilaria; Breit, Eric Martin Alexander; Bucchi, Massimiano & Seppel, Külliki [Show all 8 contributors for this article] (2023). “It is Very Difficult for us to Separate Ourselves from this System”: Views of European Researchers, Research Managers, Administrators and Governance Advisors on Structural and Institutional Influences on Research Integrity. Journal of Academic Ethics. ISSN 1570-1727. 21, p. 471–495. doi: 10.1007/s10805-022-09469-x. Full text in Research Archive Show summary

  Research integrity is fundamental to the validity and reliability of scientific findings, and for ethical conduct of research. As part of PRINTEGER (Promoting Integrity as an Integral Dimension of Excellence in Research), this study explores the views of researchers, research managers, administrators, and governance advisors in Estonia, Italy, Norway and UK, focusing specifically on their understanding of institutional and organisational influences on research integrity. A total of 16 focus groups were conducted. Thematic analysis of the data revealed that competition is pervasive and appeared in most themes relating to integrity. The structural frameworks for research such as funding, evaluation and publication were thought to both protect and, more commonly, undermine integrity. In addition, institutional systems, including workload and research governance, shaped participants’ day-to-day work environment, also affecting research integrity. Participants also provided ideas for promoting research integrity, including training, and creating conditions that would be supportive of research integrity. These findings support a shift away from individual blame and towards the need for structural and institutional changes, including organisations in the wider research environment, for example funding bodies and publishing companies.

• Vie, Knut Jørgen & Gjefsen, Mads Dahl (2023). Hva skaper tillit når forskere snakker om banebrytende teknologi? Erfaringer fra opplæring i forskningsformidling. In Bjørkdahl, Kristian; Leikanger, Iris & Tellmann, Silje Maria (Ed.), Formidlende omstendigheter. Universitetsforlaget. ISSN 9788215052571. p. 197–217. doi: 10.18261/9788215052595-2023-11. Full text in Research Archive
• Gjefsen, Mads Dahl & Vie, Knut Jørgen (2023). Uregjerlige virkemidler: Utfordringer i tverrfaglig kommunikasjon. In Bjørkdahl, Kristian; Leikanger, Iris & Tellmann, Silje Maria (Ed.), Formidlende omstendigheter. Universitetsforlaget. ISSN 9788215052571. p. 177–196. doi: 10.18261/9788215052595-2023-10. Full text in Research Archive
• Vie, Knut Jørgen (2022). Empowering the Research Community to Investigate Misconduct and Promote Research Integrity and Ethics: New Regulation in Scandinavia. Science and Engineering Ethics. ISSN 1353-3452. 28(6). doi: 10.1007/s11948-022-00400-6.
• Vie, Knut Jørgen (2021). Can research integrity prevail in the market? Lessons from commissioned research organizations. Accountability in Research. ISSN 0898-9621. doi: 10.1080/08989621.2021.1937603.
• Hornmoen, Harald; Gjefsen, Mads Dahl & Vie, Knut Jørgen (2021). Questioning researchers' evaluation of communication experiences: A combined interview- and media-based study of communicating socially contestable research. Observatorio (OBS*). ISSN 1646-5954. 15(4), p. 58–76. doi: 10.15847/obsOBS15420211779. Show summary

  This case study examines researchers’ experiences with – and several media’s practices of – communicating a research project that is scientifically complex, potentially highly impactful and socially contestable: the NTNU Cyborg. The project’s researchers study human cells as components connected to a robot interfaced with biological neural networks. Key goals of our study are to understand challenges tied to communicating interdisciplinary research that tends to be regarded as pushing ethical barriers, and to contribute to critical reflection on how communication practices and media coverage may strengthen a dialogue between citizens and research communities on social issues tied to science-in-the- making.

• Gjefsen, Mads Dahl & Vie, Knut Jørgen (2021). Propping up interdisciplinarity: responsibility in university flagship research. Journal of Responsible Innovation. ISSN 2329-9460. p. 1–22. doi: 10.1080/23299460.2021.1899520. Show summary

  Researchers’ communication activities are influenced by motivations and abilities, but also by specific topics and artefacts of research. This is seldom acknowledged in efforts to embed responsible research and innovation in organizations through mechanisms that promote communication as synergistic activities. Nor is it sufficiently acknowledged in the literature on researchers’ attitudes to communication. To open up a discussion on this issue, we draw on recent literature on affordances to explore how a certain ‘prop’ influences outcomes of research communication in the NTNU Cyborg initiative, which integrates biological neural cultures with electronic circuitry and robotics to build a cybernetic organism. The case illustrates the wide range of affordances – both enabling and constraining features – that a particular object of communication may have in different settings, indicating the need for artefact-specific approaches to researchers’ attitudes to communication and to the institutionalization of RRI.

• Vie, Knut Jørgen (2020). How should researchers cope with the ethical demands of discovering research misconduct? Going beyond reporting and whistleblowing. Life Sciences, Society and Policy. ISSN 2195-7819. 16(6). doi: 10.1186/s40504-020-00102-6.
• Forsberg, Ellen-Marie; Anthun, Frank Otto; Bailey, Sharon; Birchley, Giles; Bout, Henriette & Casonato, Carlo [Show all 22 contributors for this article] (2018). Working with research integrity—Guidance for research performing organisations: The Bonn PRINTEGER Statement. Science and Engineering Ethics. ISSN 1353-3452. p. 1–12. doi: 10.1007/s11948-018-0034-4. Full text in Research Archive Show summary

  This document presents the Bonn PRINTEGER Consensus Statement: Working with Research Integrity—Guidance for research performing organisations. The aim of the statement is to complement existing instruments by focusing specifically on institutional responsibilities for strengthening integrity. It takes into account the daily challenges and organisational contexts of most researchers. The statement intends to make research integrity challenges recognisable from the work-floor perspective, providing concrete advice on organisational measures to strengthen integrity. The statement, which was concluded February 7th 2018, provides guidance on the following key issues: § 1. Providing information about research integrity § 2. Providing education, training and mentoring § 3. Strengthening a research integrity culture § 4. Facilitating open dialogue § 5. Wise incentive management § 6. Implementing quality assurance procedures § 7. Improving the work environment and work satisfaction § 8. Increasing transparency of misconduct cases § 9. Opening up research § 10. Implementing safe and effective whistle-blowing channels § 11. Protecting the alleged perpetrators § 12. Establishing a research integrity committee and appointing an ombudsperson § 13. Making explicit the applicable standards for research integrity

View all works in Cristin

• Vie, Knut Jørgen & Gulbrandsen, Magnus (2023). When the researcher and the user is that same person – A study of The National System for Managed Introduction of New Health Technologies within the Specialist Health Service in Norway.
• Vie, Knut Jørgen (2023). Er ikkevold fortsatt mulig? Minerva (nettutgaven).
• Vie, Knut Jørgen (2023). Harvard-ekspert på juks og uærlighet er tatt i juks. Nå vrakes hun som taler på Oslo Business Forum. [Newspaper]. Dagens Næringsliv.
• Vie, Knut Jørgen & Gulbrandsen, Magnus (2022). When the researcher and the user is the same person.
• Vie, Knut Jørgen (2022). Etisk teori og moralsk praksis – en dannelsesfortelling. Salongen – nettidsskrift for filosofi og idéhistorie. ISSN 2703-7053.
• Vie, Knut Jørgen (2021). Etikk er mer enn regler og rutiner. Dagens Perspektiv. ISSN 2535-6801.
• Vie, Knut Jørgen (2020). Er forskningen tilliten verdig?
• Vie, Knut Jørgen (2020). Frykter represalier ved å varsle om forskningsjuks. [Internet]. Khrono.
• Vie, Knut Jørgen; Thorstensen, Erik; Gjefsen, Mads Dahl; Nichele, Stefano & Tufte, Gunnar (2020). Ethical Tissues.
• Vie, Knut Jørgen (2020). Ut med nordmannen. Dagbladet. ISSN 0805-3766.
• Gjefsen, Mads Dahl & Vie, Knut Jørgen (2019). Forskersonen-panelene "Hvordan forske på forskningskommunikasjon og hva fant vi?" og "Hvordan kommuniserer forskere, brukere og kommunikatører?".
• Vie, Knut Jørgen & Gjefsen, Mads Dahl (2019). Some ethical perspectives on biocomputing with human neural tissue.
• Vie, Knut Jørgen (2019). Bokbransjen og hatefullt tankegods - Dette er virkelig ikke greit. Dagbladet. ISSN 0805-3766.
• Vie, Knut Jørgen (2019). Liberalisme er en norsk verdi. Dagbladet. ISSN 0805-3766.
• Vie, Knut Jørgen & Gjefsen, Mads Dahl (2019). Embodied engagement: a case study of the multidisciplinary creation of a cyborg.
• Vie, Knut Jørgen (2019). Hold Helgheim unna forskningen. Dagbladet. ISSN 0805-3766.
• Vie, Knut Jørgen (2019). På full fart mot utryddelse. Dagbladet. ISSN 0805-3766.
• Vie, Knut Jørgen (2019). Slik blir du bankeier over natten. Dagbladet. ISSN 0805-3766.
• Vie, Knut Jørgen & Solheim, Pernille (2019). Symbolpolitikk. [Newspaper]. Journalen.
• Vie, Knut Jørgen (2019). La gjengene beholde machetene. Dagbladet. ISSN 0805-3766.
• Gjefsen, Mads Dahl; Vie, Knut Jørgen; Forsberg, Ellen-Marie & Ziesler, Katrine A. (2018). Method as impact: On balancing levels of analysis in collaboration for RRI.
• Vie, Knut Jørgen (2018). Opplyst avkolonisering: Brev fra en filosof i kampmodus. Minerva (nettutgaven).
• Vie, Knut Jørgen (2018). Rule-Breaking and Research Excellence.
• Vie, Knut Jørgen & Grini, Per Ivan Bergstig (2018). Misforstått sitat ute av kontekst. Dagbladet. ISSN 0805-3766.
• Vie, Knut Jørgen (2018). Vi ble lurt av March for Science. Khrono.no. ISSN 1894-8995.
• Vie, Knut Jørgen (2018). Ex. phil - modent for reform?
• Vie, Knut Jørgen (2018). Er OsloMet umodent for ex.phil.? Khrono.no. ISSN 1894-8995.
• Vie, Knut Jørgen (2017). Når teknologi og menneske møtes. [Internet]. Viten og praksis.
• Forsberg, Ellen-Marie & Vie, Knut Jørgen (2017). Skal forske på formidling av norsk forskning. [Internet]. forskning.no.
• Vie, Knut Jørgen (2017). Bitcoin, libertarian revolution and the history of monetary technology.
• Vie, Knut Jørgen (2017). Vernet mot Breitbart. Aftenposten (morgenutg. : trykt utg.). ISSN 0804-3116.
• Knudsen, Martinius; Nichele, Stefano & Vie, Knut Jørgen (2016). Dette kyborgtrollet vil være vennen din. [Newspaper]. Under Dusken, 2016-3. Magazine and Internet..
• Vie, Knut Jørgen (2016). Politikerne har ansvar for forskningsjuks. Agenda Magasin.
• Vie, Knut Jørgen (2016). Moralpsykologiske betraktninger om forskningsjuks.
• Vie, Knut Jørgen (2016). Historie som styringsverktøy.
• Vie, Knut Jørgen (2016). Research integrity measures and bounded rationality. Show summary

  Psychological research has shown that theoretical knowledge plays a smaller role in ethical decision-making than western people usually believe. This has consequences for how we should understand research integrity measures. Empirical research suggests that even ethics professors, people who dedicate their lives to the pursuit of theoretical knowledge about ethics, do not act any more ethically than comparable groups. This tells us that measures that promote theoretical knowledge alone will not be enough to prevent misconduct. It is often argued that ethical knowledge is necessary for ethical action, since ethical actions need the right kind of motivation. This does not mean, however, that ethical knowledge is sufficient for ethical action. Psychological research is what we need in order to close this gap. We need knowledge about what motivates and enable us to act in accordance with our ethical convictions, if we want to introduce integrity measures that harmonize with empirical reality. In this presentation, I will divide research misconduct into several categories, based on what type of knowledge is in play. I will then apply psychological research on knowledge in ethical decision-making on some common measures against research misconduct in order to shed some light on how these measures work. I will consider the effects of codes of conduct, surveillance, punishment and training and education. Methodologically I will apply results from psychological experiments on the anti-misconduct measures. The effects of such measures are notoriously hard to measure directly, and I will argue that this indirect approach is our best hope when it comes to giving integrity-measures an empirical grounding.

• Bratseth, Katja; Rossebø, Beatrice; Gulbrandsen, Magnus & Vie, Knut Jørgen (2023). Veileder for innbyggerinvolvering i forskning. Byantropologene.
• Vie, Knut Jørgen; Svare, Helge; Henden, Edmund & Forsberg, Ellen-Marie (2021). Coping with integrity in research. OsloMet - storbyuniversitetet. ISSN 978-82-8364-360-2.
• Kennedy, Mari-Rose; Ampollini, Ilaria; Breit, Eric; Bucchi, Massimiano; Deans, Zuzana & Ter Meulen, Ruud [Show all 8 contributors for this article] (2018). Investigating the workfloor: experiences of research integrity and misconduct through focus groups. PRINTEGER - Promoting Integrity as an Integral Dimension of Excellence in Research.
• Vie, Knut Jørgen (2018). The work floor perspective: Integration. PRINTEGER - Promoting Integrity as an Integral Dimension of Excellence in Research.

View all works in Cristin