TY - JOUR
T1 - Reflecting on Responsible Conduct of Research
T2 - A Self Study of a Research-Oriented University Community
AU - Hite, Rebecca L.
AU - Shin, Sungwon
AU - Lesley, Mellinee
N1 - Funding Information:
Thus far, the discussion has centered on internal forces that influence RCR. External forces (and namely funding) are shifting university research priorities toward increased publications (Auranen & Nieminen, ) while paying for authorship on publications from grant funds (Sweedler, ) or open access to boost article citation counts (Morillo, ). There is also a push toward higher quantity but lower quality research outputs (Civera et al., ; Laudel, ). Funding has now even directed researchers toward specific research topics (Geiger, ; Kyvik, ) and away from others (Farooq et al., ; Laudel & Gläser, ). As such, federal agencies like the National Institutes of Health (NIH) and National Science Foundation (NSF) require strict compliance with RCR principles (Steele et al., ), which in turn increases the importance of research universities to enforce RCR to maintain their current grants and the ability to apply for future monies. For example, the NIH () explicitly recommends training on RCR to be held within three weeks of a researcher’s arrival on campus so that they may discuss ethical principles, be exposed to vignettes or real-world scenarios to test their knowledge of RCR practices, and become aware of mentoring and annual review mechanisms. Therefore, we believe that there is an urgent need to gauge the extent to which research stakeholders in universities access and value concepts presented through training, which can significantly mediate or predict task-based transfer (Alliger et al., ). We also believe the importance of examining how stakeholders perceive the nature of RCR and what they believe is the best way(s) to address the training of researchers, especially graduate students, on RCR at a research-oriented university.
Publisher Copyright:
© 2021, The Author(s).
PY - 2022/9
Y1 - 2022/9
N2 - Abstract: Research-oriented universities are known for prolific research activity that is often supported by students in faculty-guided research. To maintain ethical standards, universities require on-going training of both faculty and students to ensure Responsible Conduct of Research (RCR). However, previous research has indicated RCR-based training is insufficient to address the ethical dilemmas that are prevalent within academic settings: navigating issues of authorship, modeling relationships between faculty and students, minimization of risk, and adequate informed consent. U.S. universities must explore ways to identify and improve RCR concerns for current (faculty) and future researchers (students). This article reports the findings of a self-study (N = 50) of research stakeholders (students and faculty) at a top tier research institution. First, we report on their perceived importance of applying RCR principles. Second, we explore relationships between stakeholder backgrounds (e.g., prior training, field, and position) and how they ranked the degree of ethical concerns in fictitious vignettes that presented different unethical issues university students could encounter when conducting research. Vignette rankings suggested concerns of inappropriate relationships, predatory authorship and IRB violations which were judged as most unethical, which was dissimilar to what sampled researchers reported in practice as the most important RCR elements to understand and adhere to for successful research. Regression models indicated there was no significant relationship between individuals’ vignette ethics scores and backgrounds, affirming previous literature suggesting that training can be ineffectual in shifting researcher judgments of ethical dilemmas. Recommendations for training are discussed.
AB - Abstract: Research-oriented universities are known for prolific research activity that is often supported by students in faculty-guided research. To maintain ethical standards, universities require on-going training of both faculty and students to ensure Responsible Conduct of Research (RCR). However, previous research has indicated RCR-based training is insufficient to address the ethical dilemmas that are prevalent within academic settings: navigating issues of authorship, modeling relationships between faculty and students, minimization of risk, and adequate informed consent. U.S. universities must explore ways to identify and improve RCR concerns for current (faculty) and future researchers (students). This article reports the findings of a self-study (N = 50) of research stakeholders (students and faculty) at a top tier research institution. First, we report on their perceived importance of applying RCR principles. Second, we explore relationships between stakeholder backgrounds (e.g., prior training, field, and position) and how they ranked the degree of ethical concerns in fictitious vignettes that presented different unethical issues university students could encounter when conducting research. Vignette rankings suggested concerns of inappropriate relationships, predatory authorship and IRB violations which were judged as most unethical, which was dissimilar to what sampled researchers reported in practice as the most important RCR elements to understand and adhere to for successful research. Regression models indicated there was no significant relationship between individuals’ vignette ethics scores and backgrounds, affirming previous literature suggesting that training can be ineffectual in shifting researcher judgments of ethical dilemmas. Recommendations for training are discussed.
KW - Ethical Dilemmas
KW - Research-Oriented Universities
KW - Responsible Conduct of Research
KW - Self-Study
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85107496537&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1007/s10805-021-09418-0
DO - 10.1007/s10805-021-09418-0
M3 - Article
AN - SCOPUS:85107496537
SN - 1570-1727
VL - 20
SP - 399
EP - 419
JO - Journal of Academic Ethics
JF - Journal of Academic Ethics
IS - 3
ER -