Skip to main content
Log in

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

  • Published:
Journal of Academic Ethics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

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.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Alfredo, K., & Hart, H. (2011). The university and the responsible conduct of research: who is responsible for what? Science and Engineering Ethics, 17, 447–457.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Aluede, O., Omoregie, E. O., & Osa-Edoh, G. I. (2006). Academic dishonesty as a contemporary problem in higher education: how can academic advisers help. Reading Improvement, 43(2), 97–106.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Beauvais, L. L., Desplaces, D. E., Melchar, D. E., & Bosco, S. M. (2007). Business faculty perceptions and actions regarding ethics education. Journal of Academic Ethics, 5, 121–136.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bernardi, R. A., Lecca, C. L., Murphy, J. C., & Sturgis, E. M. (2011). Does education influence ethical decisions? An international study. Journal of Academic Ethics, 9, 235–256.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bertram Gallant, T. (2008). Academic integrity in the twenty-first century: a teaching and learning imperative. ASHE Higher Education Report, 33(5), 1–143.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bertram Gallant, T. & Goodchild, L. F. (2011). Introduction. In T. Bertram Gallant. (Ed.) Creating the Ethical Academy. A systems approach to understanding misconduct and empowering change in Higher Education (pp. 3–11). New York, NY: Routledge.

  • Bowen, G. A. (2008). Naturalistic inquiry and the saturation concept: a research note. Qualitative Research, 8(1), 137–152.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Branstetter, S. A., & Handelsman, M. M. (2000). Graduate teaching assistants: ethical training, beliefs, and practices. Ethics & Behavior, 10(1), 27–50.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 3, 77–101.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Breen, L., & Maassen, M. (2005). Reducing the incidence of plagiarism in an undergraduate course: the role of education. Issues In Educational Research, 15, 1–16.

    Google Scholar 

  • Burr, V., & King, N. (2012). ‘You’re in cruel England now!’: teaching research ethics through reality television. Psychology Learning and Teaching, 11, 22–29.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Collins, M. E., & Amodeo, M. (2005). Responding to plagiarism in schools of social work: considerations and recommendations. Journal of Social Work Education, 41, 527–543.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Denzin, N. K. (2012). Triangulation 2.0. Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 6, 80–88.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ericsson, K. A., & Simon, H. A. (1993). Protocol analysis: verbal reports as data (Revised ed.). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ferguson, K., Masur, S., Olson, L., Ramirez, J., Robyn, E., & Schmaling, K. (2007). Enhancing the culture of research ethics of university campuses. Journal of Academic Ethics, 5, 189–198.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Finnish Advisory Board on Research Integrity (2009). Ethical principles of research in the humanities and social and behavioural sciences and proposals for ethical review. Helsinki .http://www.tenk.fi/sites/tenk.fi/files/ethicalprinciples.pdf. Accessed 29 June 2015

  • Finnish Advisory Board on Research Integrity (2012). Responsible conduct of research and procedures for handling allegations of misconduct in Finland. Guidelines of the Finnish Advisory Board on Research Integrity, 2012 .http://www.tenk.fi/sites/tenk.fi/files/HTK_ohje_2012.pdf. Accessed 29 August 2016

  • Finnish Ministry of Education and Culture (2016). University Education in Finland. http://www.minedu.fi/OPM/Koulutus/yliopistokoulutus/?lang=en. Accessed 28 August 2016.

  • Fisher, C. B., & Kuther, T. L. (1997). Integrating research ethics into the introductory psychology course curriculum. Teaching of Psychology, 24, 172–175.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fly, B. J., van Bark, W. P., Weinman, L., Kitchener, K. S., & Lang, P. R. (1997). Ethical transgressions of psychology graduate students: critical incidents with implications for training. Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, 28, 492–495.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Godecharle, S., Nemery, B., & Diereckx, K. (2013). Integrity training: conflicting practices. Science, 340(6139). doi:10.1126/science.340.6139.1403-b.

  • Gray, P. W., & Jordan, S. R. (2012). Supervisors and academic integrity: supervisors as exemplars and mentors. Journal of Academic Ethics, 10, 299–311.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Guillemin, M., & Gillam, L. (2004). Ethics, reflexivity, and “ethically important moments” in research. Qualitative Inquiry, 10(2), 261–280.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gullifer, J., & Tyson, G. A. (2010). Exploring university students’ perceptions of plagiarism: a focus group study. Studies in Higher Education, 35(4), 463–481.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gynnild, V., & Gotschalk, P. (2008). Promoting academic integrity at a Midwestern university: critical review and current challenges. International Journal for Educational Integrity, 4, 41–59.

    Google Scholar 

  • Halkoaho, A., Matveinen, M., Leinonen, V., Luoto, K., & Keränen, T. (2013). Education for research ethics for clinical investigators with Moodle tool. BMC Medical Ethics, 14(53), 1–6.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hofer, B. (2004). Epistemological understanding as a metacognitive process: thinking aloud during online searching. Educational Psychologist, 39, 43–55.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hyytinen, H., Holma, K., Shavelson, R. J. & Lindblom-Ylänne, S. (2014). The complex relationship between students’ critical thinking and epistemological beliefs in the context of problem solving. Frontline Learning Research, doi:10.14786/flr.v2i4.124.

  • Johnson, J. R., & Onwuegbuzie, A. J. (2004). Mixed methods research: a research paradigm whose time has come. Educational Researcher, 33, 14–26.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jordan, S. R. (2013). Conceptual clarification and the task of improving research on academic ethics. Journal of Academic Ethics, 11, 243–256.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kember, D., & Kwan, K. (2000). Lecturers’ approaches to teaching and their relationship to conceptions of good teaching. Instructional Science, 28(5), 469–490. doi:10.1023/A:1026569608656.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kennedy, J. E. (2005). Grey matter: ambiguities and complexities of ethics in research. Journal of Academic Ethics, 3, 143–158.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Löfström, E. (2012). Students’ ethical awareness and conceptions of research ethics. Ethics & Behavior, 22(5), 349–361.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Löfström, E., & Kupila, P. (2013). The instructional challenges of student plagiarism. Journal of Academic Ethics, 11, 3. doi:10.1007/s10805-013-9181-z.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Löfström, E., & Pyhältö, K. (2012). The supervisory relationship as an arena for ethical problem-solving. Education Research International, article ID, 961505, 1–12.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Löfström, E., & Pyhältö, K. (2014). Ethical issues in doctoral supervision - the perspectives of PhD students in the natural and behavioural sciences. Ethics & Behavior, 24(3), 195–214.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Löfström, E., & Pyhältö, K. (2015). Supervision from an ethical perspective: supervisors’ and doctoral students’ ethical dilemmas in the natural and behavioural sciences. Studies in Higher Education. doi:10.1080/03075079.2015.1045475.

    Google Scholar 

  • Löfström, E., Trotman, T., Furnari, M., & Shephard, K. (2015). Who teaches academic integrity and how do they do it? Higher Education, 69(3), 435–448.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Martinson, B. C., Anderson M. S., & de Vries, R. (2005). Scientists behaving badly. Nature, 435, 737–738 (9 June 2005), doi:10.1038/435737a.

  • McGowan, U. (2009). Pedagogy, not policing. Positive approaches to academic integrity at the university. International Journal for Educational Integrity, 5(1), 35–37.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mumford, M. D., Devenport, L. D., Brown, R. P., Connelly, S., Murphy, S. T., Hill, J. H., & Antes, A. L. (2006). Validation of ethical decision making measures: evidence for a new set of measures. Ethics & Behavior, 16(4), 319–345.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Necker, S. (2014). Scientific misbehavior in economics. Research Policy, 43, 1747–1759.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nonis, S., & Swift, C. O. (2001). An examination of the relationship between academic dishonesty and workplace dishonesty: a multicampus investigation. Journal of Education for Business, 77, 69–77.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • O’Leary, C., & Cotter, D. (2000). The ethics of final year accountancy students: an international comparison. Managerial Auditing Journal, 15(3), 108–115.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Onwuegbuzie, A. J., & Leech, N. L. (2007). A call for qualitative power analyses. Quality and Quantity, 41, 105–121.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Poff, D. (2010). Reflections on the relationship of research integrity to research ethics in publishing. Journal of Academic Ethics, 8, 259–263.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Postareff, L., Lindblom-Ylänne, S., & Nevgi, A. (2008). A follow-up study of the effect of pedagogical training on teaching in higher education. Higher Education, 56(1), 29–43.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rissanen, M., & Löfström, E. (2014). Students’ research ethics competences and the university as a learning environment. International Journal for Educational Integrity, 10(2), 17–30.

    Google Scholar 

  • Shephard, K., Trotman, T., Furnari, M., & Löfström, E. (2015). Teaching research integrity in higher education: policy and strategy. Journal of Higher Education Policy and Management. doi:10.1080/1360080X.2015.1102823.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stenner, P., Watts, S., & Worrell, M. (2008). Q methodology. In C. Willig & W. Stainton Rogers (Eds.), The sage handbook of qualitative research methods in psychology (pp. 215–239). London: Sage.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • The European Code of Conduct on Research Integrity. (2011). European Federation of Academies of Science and Humanities and the European Science Foundation. http://www.allea.org. Accessed August 11, 2016.

  • Trotman, T., Furnari, M., Löfström, E., & Shephard, K. (2013). Developing a research instrument for academic integrity in higher education: let’s start by asking the right questions. In A. Nayak & S. Saddiqui (Eds.), From policy to practice – bridging the gap. A collection of talks presented at the 6th APCEI (Asia Pacific conference on educational integrity), pp. 112–133. Maquarie University .http://web.science.mq.edu.au/conferences/6apcei/Proceedings/6APCEI_Proceedings.pdf

  • van Someren, M.W., Barnard, Y. F., & Sandberg, J. A. C. (1994). The think aloud method. A practical guide to modelling cognitive processes. Department of Social Science Informatics. University of Amsterdam. London: Academic Press.

  • Walker, J. (2010). Measuring plagiarism: researching what students do, not what they say they do. Studies in Higher Education, 35(1), 41–59.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zucchero, R. A. (2008). Can psychology ethics be integrated into introductory psychology? Journal of Academic Ethics, 6, 245–257.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

This work was funded by the Academy of Finland with a grant (number 252813) to Erika Löfström. The authors would like to thank the anonymous reviewers for their feedback on an earlier version of the manuscript. The authors would also like to thank Elisa Huotari for assistance in the research.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Heidi Hyytinen.

Additional information

Heidi Hyytinen and Erika Löfström contributed equally to this work.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Hyytinen, H., Löfström, E. Reactively, Proactively, Implicitly, Explicitly? Academics’ Pedagogical Conceptions of how to Promote Research Ethics and Integrity. J Acad Ethics 15, 23–41 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10805-016-9271-9

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10805-016-9271-9

Keywords

Navigation