How to combine rules and commitment in fostering research integrity?

Research integrity (RI) is crucial for producing research that is trustworthy and of high quality. Rules are important in setting RI standards, improving research practice and fostering responsible research practices. At the same time, rules can lead to increased bureaucracy, which without commensurate increased commitment amongst researchers towards RI is unlikely to lead to more responsible research behavior. In this paper, we explore the question: How can rules and commitment be combined to foster RI?
There are three ways that research institutions can govern RI: markets (governing through incentives), hierarchies or bureaucracies (governing through rules), and network processes (governing through commitment and agreement at group level). Based on Habermas’ Theory of Communicative Action, we argue that network processes focusing on consensus, as part of the lifeworld, are necessary to legitimize and support systems, i.e. market and bureaucratic modes of governance. We analyze the institutional response to a serious RI case to illustrate how network processes can create a context in which rules can foster RI. Specifically, we analyze how the Science Committee established at Tilburg University in 2012 has navigated and combined different modes of governance to foster RI. Based on this case analysis, we formulate recommendations to research institutions on how to combine rules and commitment.