Field and Experience Influences on Ethical Decision Making in the Sciences

Mumford, Michael D.; Connelly, Shane; Murphy, Stephen T.; Devenport, Lynn D.; Antes, Alison L.; Brown, Ryan P.; Hill, Jason H.; Waples, Ethan P.

doi:10.1080/10508420903035257

Cited by 30 publications

(22 citation statements)

References 55 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Previous studies revealed that female students (Lin & Wen, 2007;Smith, Ghazali, & Minhad, 2007), doctoral-level students (Yang, 2012a), and education and social sciences majors (Şendag et al, 2012) reported less academic and research cheating than their peers. In addition, doctoral students in social sciences and biology performed better than health majors in relation to their performance on ethical decision making (Mumford et al, 2009). Female graduate students exhibited better ethical judgments than their male counterparts with respect to Internet-mediated misconduct resulting in fraudulence, plagiarism, or falsification (Yang, 2012a) and outperformed male counterparts in English paraphrasing strategies (Sun, 2009).…”

Section: Higher Education Students' Rcr-related Knowledgementioning

confidence: 99%

“…This finding warrants further investigation to identify perceptionand practice-based differences among students in relation to their various majors. Then the future RCR training and instruction, as suggested, should take into account the potential effects of students' prior research practices and experiences (Mumford et al, 2009;Mumford, Steele, & Watts, 2015).…”

Section: Downloaded By [University Of Nebraska Lincoln] At 05:35 30 mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Using a Two-Tier Test to Examine Taiwanese Graduate Students’ Misunderstanding of Responsible Conduct of Research

Pan

Chou

2014

Ethics & Behavior

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The present study investigates Taiwanese graduate students' general understanding and misunderstanding of Responsible Conduct of Research (RCR). A total of 580 graduate students responded to the self-developed Responsible Conduct of Research Reasoning Test. The results reveal that, first, students did not have sufficient knowledge to reason why a particular instance of research (mis)conduct was doable or not. Second, the statistical results show that female students, students majoring in the humanities or the social sciences, doctoral-level students, and students with RCR-related training outperformed others. In addition, the misbehaviors that students judged relatively uncritically comprise the following nine categories: (a) seeing authorship as a property or power, (b) misinterpreting research coauthors' responsibilities, (c) inaccurately conducting the informed-consent process, (d) fabricating and falsifying research data, (e) misinterpreting the correct citation of research sources, (f) holding vague concepts of self-plagiarism, (g) misinterpreting the Taiwan Copyright Act, (h) accepting duplicate-publication practices, and (i) accepting piecemeal publication practices. The present study discusses participative students' major misunderstandings of actual RCR-related practices. The study also presents further implications and suggestions based on the findings.

show abstract

Section: Higher Education Students' Rcr-related Knowledgementioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Downloaded By [University Of Nebraska Lincoln] At 05:35 30 mentioning

confidence: 99%

Using a Two-Tier Test to Examine Taiwanese Graduate Students’ Misunderstanding of Responsible Conduct of Research

Pan

Chou

2014

Ethics & Behavior

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…In their study examining the effects of field with respect to ethical decision making, reasoning strategies, social-behavioral responses, and exposure to unethical events, Mumford et al (2009) provided evidence that ethical decision making varies by field. This study of doctoral students in the biological, health, and social sciences demonstrated the existence of significant cross-field differences in ethical decision making, even when taking into account differences in personality and cognitive ability (Feist & Gorman, 1998).…”

Section: Biases and Compensatory Strategiesmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…This study of doctoral students in the biological, health, and social sciences demonstrated the existence of significant cross-field differences in ethical decision making, even when taking into account differences in personality and cognitive ability (Feist & Gorman, 1998). Additionally, differences across fields were found with regard to certain dimensions of ethical misconduct (Mumford et al, 2009). For example, health sciences students tended to score lower on data management issues but higher on issues involving study conduct, while biological sciences students scored lower on issues involving study conduct but higher scores on issues concerning data management.…”

Section: Biases and Compensatory Strategiesmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Differences in Biases and Compensatory Strategies Across Discipline, Rank, and Gender Among University Academics

et al. 2014

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The study of ethical behavior and ethical decision making is of increasing importance in many fields, and there is a growing literature addressing the issue. However, research examining differences in ethical decision making across fields and levels of experience is limited. In the present study, biases that undermine ethical decision making and compensatory strategies that may aid ethical decision making were identified in a series of interviews with 63 faculty members across six academic fields (e.g. biological sciences, health sciences, social sciences) and three levels of rank (assistant professor, associate professor, and full professor) as well as across gender. The degree to which certain biases and compensatory strategies were used in justifications for responses to ethical situations was compared across fields, level of experience, and gender. Major differences were found across fields for several biases and compensatory strategies, including biases and compensatory strategies related to use of professional field principles and field-specific guidelines. Furthermore, full professors tend to differ greatly from assistant and associate professors on a number of constructs, and there were differences in the consistency with which biases and compensatory strategies were displayed within these various groups. Implications of these findings for ethics training and future research are discussed.

show abstract

Institutionalizing Ethical Reasoning: Integrating the ASA’s Ethical Guidelines for Professional Practice into Course, Program, and Curriculum

Tractenberg

2016

Ethical Reasoning in Big Data

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Case studies are typically used to teach "ethics", but emphasize narrative. When the content of a course is focused on formulae and proofs, it can seem divergent or distracting -for both instructor and learner -to introduce a case analysis. Moreover, case analyses are typically focused on issues relating to people: obtaining consent, dealing with research team members, and/or potential institutional policy violations. While relevant to some research, not all students in quantitative courses plan to become researchers, and ethical practice -of mathematics, statistics, data science, and computing -is an essential topic regardless of whether or not the learner intends to do research. It is a mistake to treat "training in ethical practice" and "training in responsible conduct of research" as the same thing, just as incorrect as it is to assume that "training in ethical practice" is the same irrespective of what the learner will actually be practicing. Ethical reasoning is a way of thinking that requires the individual to assess what they know about a potential ethical problem -their prerequisite knowledge, and in some cases, how behaviors they observe, are directed to perform, or have performed, diverge from what they know to be ethical behavior. Ethical reasoning is a learnable, improvable set of knowledge, skills, and abilities that enable learners to recognize what they do and do not know about what constitutes "ethical practice" of a discipline, and in some cases, to contemplate alternative decisions about how to first recognize, and then proceed past, or respond to, such divergences. A stakeholder analysis is part of prerequisite knowledge, and can be used whether there is or is not an actual case or behavior/situation to react to. When teaching courses with primarily quantitative content, a stakeholder analysis is a useful tool for instruction and assessment of learning. It can be used to both integrate authentic ethical content and encourage careful quantitative thought. This paper discusses how to introduce ethical reasoning, stakeholder analysis, and ethical practice standards authentically in quantitative courses.

show abstract

Field and Experience Influences on Ethical Decision Making in the Sciences

Cited by 30 publications

References 55 publications

Using a Two-Tier Test to Examine Taiwanese Graduate Students’ Misunderstanding of Responsible Conduct of Research

Using a Two-Tier Test to Examine Taiwanese Graduate Students’ Misunderstanding of Responsible Conduct of Research

Differences in Biases and Compensatory Strategies Across Discipline, Rank, and Gender Among University Academics

Institutionalizing Ethical Reasoning: Integrating the ASA’s Ethical Guidelines for Professional Practice into Course, Program, and Curriculum

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About