Research ethics education in Korea for overcoming culture and value system differences

Abstract

Although ethical standards and procedures for research in Korea have developed closer to global standards, applying those standards and procedures have led significant conflicts widely due to the cultural differences. In Korea where relationship-centered East Asian values are crucial, it is difficult for 'internal whistleblowing' and 'conflicts of interest management' to function properly. At universities, it is difficult to form an equal relationship to have a free discussion between professors and students. Also, the research community has been influenced by side effects such as 'respect for quantity and speed', 'excessive competition', and 'mammonism' that have permeated Korean society during its modernization process. Students have taken such values for granted, too. These circumstances disable research ethics system to function properly and have negative influence on organization development by discouraging open innovation. In this context, how can we educate students to follow the global standards as well as dealing with conflicts derived from cultural differences wisely? I propose that the overarching principle of research ethics education should not be a 'delivery of knowledge' but be a 'change in the way of thinking'. In this paper, five-stage education is proposed. As education methods, discussing of dilemma cases, avoiding remote online education and leading the whole team teaching classes by one head lecturer are recommended. In addition, classroom education should be provided together with social education to change the students' ways of thinking. As for social education, self-effort of universities and operational behaviour of research laboratories are two most important aspects. The government should establish legislation and expand financial support to facilitate these changes. It is very important that the universities should become key drivers that purify their member societies so that the nation may prosper.

Collaborative workshop between client and agency for open innovation

“…Nho (2016) insisted that "Open innovation explains why knowledge sharing and cooperative work between in and out-bound of organizations are important." In this context, some specific implementation plans are examined for open innovation of collaborating.…”

Cultural correlates of national innovative capacity: a cross-national analysis of national culture and innovation rates

“…Han van der Meer (2007) Although these studies mostly focused on a corporate-level analysis, such principle of open innovation is well known for its significant implications for national innovative capacity and NIS (Jeon et al 2015;Chesbrough, 2003a). In national level, Nho (2016) describes in-depth how Korea-specific research ethics has negative impact on open innovation, with detailed summary on common characteristics underlying the East Asian cultures. Furthermore, in the light of history of civilizations, Carrillo (2015) indicates further the 'cultural evolution' from nomad hunting-gathering through agricultural and industrialized to modern knowledge-based societies as a crucial factor for development of open innovation principle.…”

Student customized creative education model based on open innovation

“…Coy (2000) emphasized the emergence of a new economic system and defined the term "creative economy" to mean the economic structure where individual creativity, imagination, and ideas act as the key elements to generate social wealth. Lee (2013) suggested that as the knowledge-based society was established in South Korea, the support and preparation for the creative economy era that consist of integrated and creative industries as pivots, are the growth engines to lead the full-fledged knowledge and information age effectively. Particularly in Korea, the government since 2008 has engaged in various support policies for the "creative economy" in the direction of the national administration (Table 1).…”

“…In order to attain the creative economy, Lee (2013) created the countermeasures for each organization: companies, central government, local governments, university and research institutes, and the public. Above all, he argued that in universities, it is more important to strengthen the convergence program and groundwork of convergence human resource cultivation, as well as foundations.…”