Research integrity and institutional responsibility under the revised international recommendation

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. 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.

Applicable scope

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.

For research integrity and institutional responsibility under the revised international recommendation, Implementation should be organised around a decision that can be tested. The assessment question is whether the control operates across the relevant sites, programmes, delivery modes and learner groups, including material exceptions. 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 applicable 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. When examining 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.

For decisions concerning research integrity and institutional responsibility under the revised international recommendation, 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 applicable 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. As regards research integrity and institutional responsibility under the revised international recommendation, a positive example may illustrate operation, but it cannot demonstrate coverage or consistency.

Implementation and evidence

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. Reliability without validity produces consistent but potentially irrelevant results. Within the scope under review, validity without adequate consistency may expose learners to unequal judgement. Interpretive guidance should not create an obligation that is absent from the governing instrument or applicable law.

The assurance record for the applicable 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. For research integrity and institutional responsibility under the revised international recommendation, 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.

• 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.

Assessment of conformity

Authorities and providers reviewing research integrity and institutional responsibility under the revised international recommendation should proceed in a defined sequence. A competent review of the applicable requirement should map the complete process, identify the intended result and responsible authority at each stage, and test normal cases together with exceptions.

In the context of research integrity and institutional responsibility under the revised international recommendation, the final record on the applicable 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.

• What outcome is intended?
• Which evidence establishes operation?
• What action is required by the finding?
• Where do exceptions occur?
• Who controls each stage?

Review and corrective action

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.

For decisions concerning research integrity and institutional responsibility under the revised international recommendation, 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 conclusion requires corroborating evidence across the material scope.