Reactively, Proactively, Implicitly, Explicitly? Academics’ Pedagogical Conceptions of how to Promote Research Ethics and Integrity

Journal of Academic Ethics 15 (1):23-41 (2017)
  Copy   BIBTEX

Abstract

This article focuses on academics’ conceptions of teaching research ethics and integrity. Seventeen academics from a Finnish research intensive university participated in this qualitative study. The data were collected using a qualitative multi-method approach, including think-aloud and interview data. The material was scrutinized using thematic analysis, with both deductive and inductive approaches. The results revealed variation in academics’ views on the responsibility for teaching research integrity, the methods employed to teach it and the necessity of intervening when misconduct occurs. The academics emphasized the responsibility of the individual teacher and the student to foster integrity as well as the shared responsibility of all members of the academic community. However, many academics felt that they themselves needed pedagogical training. Most shared the view that practices of responsible conduct in research can be explicitly and intentionally taught through demonstration, explanation, and practice. However, the academics also noted that learning research integrity and ethics takes place implicitly. A few questioned the need for and the utility of training in the form of courses or through an explicitly addressed topic included in, for instance, methods courses. Their views on the question of how to deal with alleged cases of misconduct varied. While many academics considered a proactive approach the best way to prevent misconduct, some trusted more in a reactive approach. The results show that, while in general academics agree on the importance of research ethics, their conceptions of teaching it vary. The teaching conception bears consequences for the teaching methods chosen, assignment of responsibility for both teaching and students learning, and for the way in which teachers believe that misconduct should be responded to.

Links

PhilArchive



    Upload a copy of this work     Papers currently archived: 91,386

External links

Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server

Through your library

Similar books and articles

Integrity in Postgraduate Research: The Student Voice.Saadia Mahmud & Tracey Bretag - 2015 - Science and Engineering Ethics 21 (6):1657-1672.
Self-plagiarism or appropriate textual re-use?Tracey Bretag & Saadia Mahmud - 2009 - Journal of Academic Ethics 7 (3):193-205.
Responsible Conduct of Research.Adil E. Shamoo & David B. Resnik - 2009 - New York: Oxford University Press USA.
Are academics committed to accounting ethics education?Sally Gunz & John McCutcheon - 1998 - Journal of Business Ethics 17 (11):1145-1154.
Digital storytelling in Australia: Academic perspectives and reflections.Robert Clarke & Andrea Adam - 2012 - Arts and Humanities in Higher Education 11 (1-2):157-176.
Co-responsibility for research integrity.Carl Mitcham - 2003 - Science and Engineering Ethics 9 (2):273-290.

Analytics

Added to PP
2016-11-01

Downloads
27 (#576,320)

6 months
6 (#512,819)

Historical graph of downloads
How can I increase my downloads?