Abstract
The inculcation of academic integrity among post-graduate students is an ongoing concern for universities across the world. While various researchers have focused on causal relations between forms of instruction, student characteristics, and possession of academic integrity, there is need for an increased examination of the role of supervisors in shaping student perceptions of academic integrity. Unlike the undergraduate level, where student interaction with professors is often limited, post-graduate students have an ongoing relationship with their supervisors, whether at the Masters or Doctorate level. In some ways like masters over apprentices, rather than teachers over students, supervisors engage in continued interaction with post-graduate students, shaping these students views not only on the substance of their research, but also in how researchers “should” act. As part of a larger project in examining post-graduate student opinions on academic integrity and research ethics, we conducted surveys to investigate the relationship between student perceptions of their supervisors and student perceptions of academic integrity. We use survey data from a population of post-graduate students at a comprehensive research university in Hong Kong to analyze student perceptions of academic integrity and how students might be influenced by their supervisors’ service as mentors and/or ethic exemplars.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
Notes
We differentiate academic integrity and research ethics in the following way: academic integrity is a concept with a higher level of abstraction, meaning that its meaning encompasses many topics, such as abiding by the norms of research ethics. We use the term research ethics to mean compliance with the directives of research ethics review boards, such as Institutional Review Boards. This conceptual distinction is made to emphasize that academic integrity is a more inclusive concept than research ethics or research compliance.
Initial validation of the survey for question clarity and time to completion was conducted with undergraduate students in an “Ethics and Public Affairs” tutorial course. The students were given 10 min to complete the survey, although the test population finished the survey in 3 min or less. The survey time was set at 10 min to accommodate speakers of English as a second language.
To minimize possible identification of students, either by direct or indirect means, we used broad categories for age and race responses, and only provided “Faculty” (a.k.a. “college”) affiliation identification instead of departmental identification. We linked students to their surveys through an anonymous “Research PIN”. This PIN was constructed using a random number generator and the PINs were assigned to students by an RA on the project who did not have access to the students’ classroom materials or grades. The PINs linked the surveys together but not the student to the survey. Ultimately, the PINs were not used as many students could not recall their PIN or did not put their PIN on the survey instrument. This conservative stance on protecting student response confidentiality was not required by the review board of the institution, but was selected by the PI/course instructor. This stance was chosen partially as a response to concerns about changing laws on personal data in Hong Kong. As our data is presented at the aggregate level, the PIN system was ultimately unnecessary for the project.
For visual simplicity, we have created tables illustrating the directionality of variables reaching a p-value of at least .050. The adjusted R2 and standardized coefficients of these regressions can be provided by the authors on request.
References
Alfredo, K., & Hart, H. (2011). The University and the responsible conduct of research: who is responsible for what? Science and Engineering Ethics, 17(3), 447–457.
Anderson, M. S., & Louis, K. S. (1994). The Graduate student experience and subscription to the norms of science. Research in Higher Education, 35(3), 273–299.
Anderson, M. S., Horn, A. S., Risbey, K. R., Ronning, E. A., De Vries, R., & Martinson, B. C. (2007). What do mentoring and training in the responsible conduct of research have to do with scientists’ misbehavior? Findings from a National Survey of NIH-Funded Scientists. Academic Medicine, 82(9), 853–860.
Bebeau, M., & Thoma, S. J. (1994). The impact of a dental ethics curriculum on moral reasoning. Journal of Dental Education, 58(9), 684–692.
Bird, S. J. (2001). Mentors, advisors, and supervisors: their role in teaching responsible research conduct. Science and Engineering Ethics, 7(4), 455–468.
Brown, S., & Kalichman, M. W. (1998). Effects of training in the responsible conduct of research: a survey of graduate students in experimental science. Science and Engineering Ethics, 4(4), 487–498.
Calkins, S., & Kelley, M. R. (2005). Mentoring and the faculty-TA relationship: faculty perceptions and practices. Mentoring & Tutoring: Partnership in Learning, 13(2), 259–80.
Crown, D. F., & Spiller, S. (1998). Learning from the literature on collegiate cheating: a review of empirical research. Journal of Business Ethics, 17(6), 683–700.
Folse, K. A. (1991). Ethics and the profession: graduate student teaching. Teaching Sociology, 19(3), 344–350.
Hollander, R. D. (2001). Mentoring and ethical beliefs in graduate education in science: commentary on ‘influences on the ethical beliefs of graduate students concerning research (Sprague, Daw and Roberts). Science and Engineering Ethics, 7(4), 521–524.
Johnson, W. B., & Huwe, J. M. (2002). Toward a typology of mentorship dysfunction in graduate school. Psychotherapy: Theory, Research, Practice, Training, 39(1), 44–55.
Jones, N. L., Pfeiffer, A. M., Lambros, A., Guthold, M., Johnson, A. D., Tytell, M., Ronca, A. E., & Eldridge, J. C. (2010). Developing a problem-based Learning (PBL) curriculum for professionalism and scientific integrity training for biomedical students. Journal of Medical Ethics, 36(10), 614–619.
Kligyte, V., Marcy, R. T., Sevier, S. T., Godfrey, E. S., & Mumford, M. D. (2008). A qualitative approach to responsible conduct of research (RCR) training development: identification of metacognitive strategies. Science and Engineering Ethics, 14(1), 3–31.
Love, P. G., & Simmons, J. (1998). Factors influencing cheating and plagiarism among graduate students in a college of education. College Student Journal, 32(4), 539–550.
Mastroianni, A. C., & Kahn, J. P. (1998). The importance of expanding current training in the responsible conduct of research. Academic Medicine, 73(12), 1249–1254.
McCabe, D. L., Butterfield, K. D., & Treviño, L. K. (2003). Faculty and academic integrity: the influences of current honor codes and past honor code experiences. Research in Higher Education, 44(3), 367–385.
McCabe, D. L., Butterfield, K. D., & Treviño, L. K. (2006). Academic dishonesty in graduate business programs: prevalence, causes, and proposed action. Academy of Management Learning & Education, 5(3), 294–305.
McGee, R., Almquist, J., Keller, J. L., & Jacobsen, S. J. (2008). Teaching and learning responsible research conduct: influences of prior experiences on acceptance of new ideas. Accountability in Research, 15(1), 30–62.
McGuffin, V. L. (2008). Teaching research ethics: it takes more than good science to make a good scientist. Analytical and Bioanalytical Chemistry, 390(5), 1209–1215.
Nadelson, S. (2006). The role of the environment in student ethical behavior. Journal of College & Character, 8(5), 1–9.
Plemmons, D. K., Brody, S. A., & Kalichman, M. W. (2006). Student perceptions of the effectiveness of education in the responsible conduct of research. Science and Engineering Ethics, 12(3), 571–582.
Roberts, G. C., Kavussanu, M., & Sprague, R. L. (2001). Mentoring and the impact of the research climate. Science and Engineering Ethics, 7(4), 525–537.
Rose, G. A. (2005). Group differences in graduate students’ concepts of the ideal mentor. Research in Higher Education, 46(1), 53–80.
Sambunjak, D., Straus, S. E., & Marušić, A. (2006). Mentoring in academic medicine: a systematic review. JAMA: Journal of the American Medical Association, 296(9), 1103–1115.
Weil, V. (2001). Mentoring: some ethical considerations. Science and Engineering Ethics, 7(4), 471–482.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Appendix A: Survey Instrument
Appendix A: Survey Instrument
Meeting the students where they are at: A survey assessment of post-graduate student knowledge and attitudes towards research integrity
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Gray, P.W., Jordan, S.R. Supervisors and Academic Integrity: Supervisors as Exemplars and Mentors. J Acad Ethics 10, 299–311 (2012). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10805-012-9155-6
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10805-012-9155-6