{"schema_version":"ICEQC_NEWS_ARTICLE_V1","id":"iceqc-news-b863020621016823","slug":"2017-11-17-research-integrity-and-institutional-responsibility-under-the-revised-international-recommendation","language":"en","publication_status":"READY_FOR_IMPORT","publication_date":"2017-11-17","last_modified_date":"2017-11-17","title":"Research integrity and institutional responsibility under the revised international recommendation","summary":"Explains how research integrity and institutional responsibility under the revised international recommendation should be applied in practice.","category":{"code":"STANDARDS_INTERPRETATION","label":"Standards Interpretation"},"article_type":"Standards interpretation","publisher":"International Council for Education Quality Certification (ICEQC)","jurisdictional_scope":"International","historical_reference_basis":"Recommendation on Science and Scientific Researchers, November 2017","reference_authority":"United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization","sections":[{"heading":null,"paragraphs":["The recommendation on Science and Scientific Researchers, November 2017 provides the immediate reference point for consideration of research integrity and institutional responsibility under the revised international recommendation in 2017. In reviewing the assurance question, the requirement should be read as an assurance obligation: the provider must be able to explain the control, show its operation and account for material exceptions. The effect on learner access and reliable decision-making should inform the scale of control applied."]},{"heading":"Applicable scope","paragraphs":["The formal status of the recommendation on Science and Scientific Researchers, November 2017 should be preserved in any public account. For research integrity and institutional responsibility under the revised international recommendation, the instrument should be used to identify the intended direction, the actors addressed and the implementation measures that remain necessary.","Implementation of the issue under review should be organised around a decision that can be tested. The analysis of the control proceeds on the basis that the assessment question is whether the control operates across the relevant sites, programmes, delivery modes and learner groups, including material exceptions. In relation to research integrity and institutional responsibility under the revised international recommendation, resources and activity should be reconciled with the operating evidence and result for which the responsible function is accountable.","The principal risks in relation to the relevant requirement are reasonable adjustment altering the assessed outcome, weak assurance of authorship or performance, uncontrolled changes to assessment, and tasks that do not assess the stated outcome. In relation to research integrity and institutional responsibility under the revised international recommendation, the relationship between the risks is material: one failed safeguard may remove the evidence needed to activate another.","The technical issue within the assurance question concerns the basis on which a conclusion is reached. Oversight of the assurance question should reflect the principle that the subject should be examined as a connected system of policy, people, resources, decisions and evidence. A control framework may fail at its interfaces even where each component appears satisfactory in isolation. Any condition preventing complete assurance should appear with the evidence on which the judgement relies.","Assurance of the stated expectation should draw on more than one form of evidence. Useful records include marking criteria and calibrated judgement, assessment maps to learning outcomes, analysis of results and differential outcomes, approval and change-control records, and appeal and correction records. A positive example may illustrate operation, but it cannot demonstrate coverage or consistency."]},{"heading":"Implementation and evidence","paragraphs":["Interpretation of research integrity and institutional responsibility under the revised international recommendation should avoid two errors: treating a formal commitment as proof of effect, and treating one adverse case as proof that every part of the system has failed. The analysis of the issue under review proceeds on the basis that reliability without validity produces consistent but potentially irrelevant results. Validity without adequate consistency may expose learners to unequal judgement. Oversight of the relevant requirement should reflect the principle that interpretive guidance should not create an obligation that is absent from the governing instrument or applicable law.","The assurance record for the relevant requirement should retain the date of the evidence, the source responsible for it, the scope examined and the version of any instrument or definition applied. This enables later review to separate substantive change from correction, reclassification or expanded coverage. Earlier conclusions should remain traceable if they affected a learner, provider or public decision."],"bullets":["Review differential and anomalous results before it informs a consequential decision.","Define the decision each assessment must support.","Calibrate assessors.","Align tasks and criteria with learning outcomes.","Retain evidence sufficient for review."]},{"heading":"Assessment of conformity","paragraphs":["For operational review of research integrity and institutional responsibility under the revised international recommendation, authorities and providers should proceed in a defined sequence. A competent review of the relevant requirement should map the complete process, identify the intended result and responsible authority at each stage, and test normal cases together with exceptions.","The final record on the stated expectation should identify the applicable expectation, the relevant scope, the evidence examined, the sampling basis, material exceptions and the reason for the conclusion. Departure from an illustrative method may be justified where equivalent outcome and evidence are established. No complete conclusion should be recorded while a material evidential limitation remains."],"bullets":["What outcome is intended?","Which evidence establishes operation?","What action is required by the finding?","Where do exceptions occur?","Who controls each stage?"]},{"heading":"Review and corrective action","paragraphs":["For research integrity and institutional responsibility under the revised international recommendation, governing bodies should receive a concise account of the intended result, affected scope, principal risks, evidence limitations and unresolved exceptions. The action record should identify who is responsible and when implementation is due. Evidence of outcome, rather than completion of tasks, should determine whether corrective work can close.","The quality significance of the assurance question follows from a basic distinction between availability and effective provision. The analysis of the issue under review proceeds on the basis that assessment should provide valid and sufficiently consistent evidence that the stated learning outcomes have been achieved by the learner receiving the result. Review should cover the stages at which learners receive information, provision, assessment, support and remedy.","Assurance concerning the assurance question requires corroborating evidence across the material scope."]}],"word_count":855,"content_hash":"sha256-4c74dddbf971349c518f91e75fc9edbb3622f5eee71cb4dedfbeb18968f066b4","seo_keywords":["research integrity and institutional responsibility under the revised international recommendation","education quality standards","education quality","ICEQC"],"schema_type":"TechArticle"}