In modern societies, the central task of research is to generate new knowledge and offer people orientation in a complex and diverse world [1]. This critical, reflexive, argumentation- and fact-oriented, rational way of thinking is not reserved for researchers but should spread from there into society as something that can be described as a research habitus. The scientific community discusses research habitus currently in the German-speaking context of teacher professionalisation [2]. In our talk, we transfer it to the English-speaking discourse on undergraduate research [3]. A research habitus includes an orientation towards the fundamental values of good research practices such as reliability, honesty, respect, and accountability [4]. However, a look at the present with discussions about fake news [5] and the strengthening of populist political movements [6], which are often criticising research, reveals that society struggles to live up to this claim. 

These components raise the question why research cannot fulfil its claim to serve as a rational framework of orientation for society. One possible explanation within this complex subject area has emerged in the context of an evaluation of a research integrity programme. A look into students' self-conception shows what values guide students' research practices. 

The evaluation is being carried out within the context of the Horizon2020 project Path2Integrity [7] and essentially aims to test the effectiveness of the internationally conducted research integrity programme. The first quantitative and qualitative results point to the following fundamental problem in learning and teaching research integrity: How can or why should someone learn about research integrity who does not see themselves as a researcher? 

We analysed group discussions with 1^st year Master's students using the documentary method [8]. The results show that the students by no means see themselves as researchers who are committed to “truth” and who have internalised values of good research practices. Instead, a lack of orientation about good research practices is prevalent. Positive horizons, in the sense of a desirable ideal, are not visible. At most, but only rudimentarily, collective negative horizons are evident, but these are instead based on everyday experiences and transferred to research practices, such as the rejection of unreliability in the sense that, for example, agreements made are adhered to. A specific research habitus is not evident in the analysed material. Instead, the students seem to find research annoying or ridiculed. The students’ argumentation patterns put forward reveal opportunist action to complete the study programme with as little resistance as possible. Such an opportunist orientation stands in contrast to the research habitus and bears the danger of undermining the research's credibility. 

By adding the first quantitative data from the analysis of the feedback forms collected after the respective learning units, the analysis supports the first findings. The students find it challenging to recognise the relevance and significance of the research integrity topics' contents for themselves and their practice. This lack of recognition also shows how little the students identify themselves as researchers, but rather as trainees for the professional field, which they study. These results also reflect on the effects of the Bologna Process, which prioritises employability and has led to the separation of research and teaching. The paper outlines that orientations and practices, which make it difficult to communicate the idea and value of research integrity, are currently challenging. These students' values can jeopardise the credibility of research and its function to serve as a rational framework of orientation for society.

The data set on which this paper is based will be collected mainly in February to April 2021, when the programme is expected to be implemented with n >500 participants. As part of the evaluation of the Path2Integrity learning and teaching units, four different measurement instruments were developed, each with specific objectives, embedded in a mixed-method design to complete a picture as possible of the success of the programme. These are (1) a 4-tier multiple-choice test [9] to assess the short-term learning output of the units, (2) a feedback sheet using 5-point Likert scales to assess the direct experiences with the learning units, (3) a questionnaire with open and closed questions for the trainers to identify main barriers in the preparation and implementation of the learning units and (4) group discussion [10] to get evidence of long-term behavioural changes of the participants. This paper is an exploratory and hypothesis-generating data analysis because none of the instruments mentioned above was explicitly developed to test the hypothesis outlined in the proposal. One of the core challenges in learning and teaching research integrity is that the students often do not see themselves as researchers. As this is an exploratory approach, the quantitative data is analysed mainly graphically using scatterplots. According to Bohnsack, the qualitative data in form of group discussions are analysed using the documentary method. These results are, among other things, interpreted against the background of the Bologna Process. A cross-cultural analysis of the data will also be of particular interest, as the Path2Integrity programme is used throughout Europe and internationally as well as a comparative analysis of different disciplines. It is expected that this will provide a more accurate insight into the conditioning factors of the phenomenon under discussion. The assumptions presented here are based on analyses of the pilot studies conducted as part of the test instruments' development.

Reported qualitative results: The results of the analysis of 4 group discussions so far show that regarding good research practices, a substantial lack of orientation prevails among graduate students, which is particularly evident through silence, laughter, or evasive reactions. The groups emphasise that practical participation in research is necessary for understanding research, but that they lack this experience. They do not see their perception as a problem neither as students nor for their professional future. The absence of research experience shows that a research habitus has neither explicit nor implicit relevance for this group. Furthermore, distinguishing between what (explicit knowledge) and how (tacit knowledge), which is constitutive for the documentary method, reveals that the groups are convinced on the explicit level that they already have enough knowledge regarding good research practices. However, they do not reflect this knowledge at the action level in the form of a research habitus. Expected quantitative results until July 2021: We expect that the feedback on the research integrity learning units will be positive overall, but that the aspects of individual benefit and practical relevance will be rated lower than average in the quantitative data. In detail, we hypothesise that uncertainty prevails in the pre-tests regarding the answers chosen and that students choose non-scientific patterns more often in the analysis of the 3rd tier (in which the justification of the previously chosen answer is asked for). Depending on how the results turn out, we will outline what values guide students' research practices. We outline which students’ values regarding research exist and if they can jeopardise the credibility of research and its function to serve as a rational framework of orientation for society.

[1] Mittelstraß, J. (2019). Bildung in einer Wissensgesellschaft. heiEDUCATION Journal. Transdisziplinäre Studien zur Lehrerbildung, 21-36 Seiten. https://doi.org/10.17885/HEIUP.HEIED.2019.3.23942 Deppert, W. (2019). Theorie der Wissenschaft: Band 2: Das Werden der Wissenschaft. Springer Fachmedien Wiesbaden. Barnett, R. (2000). Supercomplexity and the Curriculum. Studies in Higher Education, 25(3), 255–265. https://doi.org/10.1080/713696156 [2] Basten, M., Mertens, C., Schöning, A., & Wolf, E. (Hrsg.). (2020). Forschendes Lernen in der Lehrer/innenbildung. Waxmann. https://doi.org/10.31244/9783830991540 [3] Healey, M., & Jenkins, A. (2018). The role of academic developers in embedding high-impact undergraduate research and inquiry in mainstream higher education: Twenty years’ reflection. International Journal for Academic Development, 23(1), 52–64. https://doi.org/10.1080/1360144X.2017.1412974 Healey, M., & Jenkins, A. (2009). Developing undergraduate research and inquiry. https://www.advance-he.ac.uk/knowledge-hub/developing-undergraduate-research-and-inquiry Brew, A. (2013). Understanding the scope of undergraduate research: A framework for curricular and pedagogical decision-making. Higher Education, 66, 603–618. [4] ALLEA – All European Academies (Hrsg.). (2017). The European Code of Conduct for Research Integrity. https://www.allea.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/05/ALLEA-European-Code-of-Conduct-for-Research-Integrity-2017.pdf [5] Zhou, X., Zafarani, R., Shu, K., & Liu, H. (2019). Fake News: Fundamental Theories, Detection Strategies and Challenges. Proceedings of the Twelfth ACM International Conference on Web Search and Data Mining, 836–837. https://doi.org/10.1145/3289600.3291382 [6] Noury, A., & Roland, G. (2020). Identity Politics and Populism in Europe. Annual Review of Political Science, 23(1), 421–439. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-polisci-050718-033542 [7] Prieß-Buchheit, J., Aro, A., Demirova, I., Lanzerath, D., Stoev, P., & Wilder, N. (2020). Rotatory role-playing and role-models to enhance the research integrity culture. Research Ideas and Outcomes, 6, e53921. https://doi.org/10.3897/rio.6.e53921 [8] Bohnsack, R. (2017). Praxeologische Wissenssoziologie. Barbara Budrich. Bohnsack, R., Pfaff, N., & Weller, W. (Hrsg.). (2010). Qualitative Analysis and Documentary Method: In International Educational Research. Barbara Budrich. https://doi.org/10.3224/86649236 Bohnsack, R. (2010). Rekonstruktive Sozialforschung: Einführung in qualitative Methoden. Barbara Budrich. [9] Pan, S. J.-A., & Chou, C. (2015). Using a Two-Tier Test to Examine Taiwanese Graduate Students’ Misunderstanding of Responsible Conduct of Research. Ethics & Behavior, 25(6), 500–527. https://doi.org/10.1080/10508422.2014.987921 Peşman, H., & Eryılmaz, A. (2010). Development of a Three-Tier Test to Assess Misconceptions About Simple Electric Circuits. The Journal of Educational Research, 103(3), 208–222. https://doi.org/10.1080/00220670903383002 [10] Bohnsack, R., & Przyborski, A. (2007). Gruppendiskussionsverfahren und Focus Groups. In R. Buber & H. H. Holzmüller (Hrsg.), Qualitative Marktforschung (S. 491–506). Gabler. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-8349-9258-1_31