Abstract
Individual researchers may interpret responsible conduct of research (RCR) in various ways, especially given the diversity of research personnel in modern science. Therefore, understanding individuals’ RCR-related misconceptions is important, as it can help RCR instructors customize their lessons to target learners’ incorrect and incomplete ideas. In this vein, this study aimed to explore whether Taiwanese and American graduate students differ in their perceptions and misconceptions regarding RCR-related concepts and, if so, to determine these differences. A diagnostic assessment, the Revised RCR Reasoning Test (rev-RCRRT), was developed to pursue the intended goal. The rev-RCRRT is a two-tier test capable of diagnosing whether a student’s justifications of ethical acceptance in relation to specific RCR-related concepts are based on incorrect or incomplete ideas of RCR. The current results indicated that, first, participating graduate students’ test performances dropped drastically between the first- and second-tier items, suggesting that they were able to judge the ethical acceptability of given RCR-specific scenarios but lacked the advanced knowledge required to explain their judgments. Second, in general, American students achieved significantly better scores on the rev-RCRRT than Taiwanese students. Third, the two groups held different RCR-related misconceptions centered around various RCR topics. Specifically, Taiwanese students’ misconceptions involved concepts related to authorship, piecemeal publication, and human-subject protection. However, American students sometimes misjudged the issues regarding duplicate submissions and publication and the reproducibility of research and replication of ideas. In summary, through a cross-national comparative method, this study not only suggests that graduate students from different national backgrounds interpret RCR differently but also provides substantial evidence for the employment of a two-tier test approach in RCR-specific contexts. The implications of the current findings for future research and the utility of using two-tier tests in RCR instruction are also discussed in this article.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Adadan, E., & Savasci, F. (2012). An analysis of 16–17-year-old students’ understanding of solution chemistry concepts using a two-tier diagnostic instrument. International Journal of Science Education, 34(4), 513–544. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2011.636084
Anderson, L. W., & Krathwohl, D. R. (Eds.). (2001). A taxonomy for learning, teaching, and assessing: A revision of Bloom’s taxonomy of educational objectives. Longman.
Antes, A. L. (2014). A systematic approach to instruction in research ethics. Accountability in Research, 21(1), 50–67. https://doi.org/10.1080/08989621.2013.822269
Antes, A. L., English, T., Baldwin, K. A., & DuBois, J. M. (2018). The role of culture and acculturation in researchers’ perceptions of rules in science. Science and Engineering Ethics, 24(2), 361–391. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11948-017-9876-4
Antes, A. L., English, T., Baldwin, K. A., & DuBois, J. M. (2019). What explains associations of researchers’ nation of origin and scores on a measure of professional decision-Making? Exploring key variables and interpretation of scores. Science and Engineering Ethics, 25(5), 1499–1530. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11948-018-0077-6
Antes, A. L., Murphy, S. T., Waples, E. P., Mumford, M. D., Brown, R. P., Connelly, S., et al. (2009). A meta-analysis of ethics instruction effectiveness in the sciences. Ethics & Behavior, 19(5), 379–402. https://doi.org/10.1080/10508420903035380
Antes, A. L., Wang, X., Mumford, M. D., Brown, R. P., Connelly, S., & Devenport, L. D. (2010). Evaluating the effects that existing instruction on responsible conduct of research has on ethical decision making. Academic Medicine, 85(3), 519–526. https://doi.org/10.1097/ACM.0b013e3181cd1cc5
Baker, M. (2016). 1,500 scientists lift the lid on reproducibility. Nature, 533, 452–454. https://doi.org/10.1038/533452a
Barnes, B. E., Friedman, C. P., Rosenberg, J. L., Russell, J., Beedle, A., & Levine, A. S. (2006). Creating an infrastructure for training in the responsible conduct of research: The University of Pittsburgh’s experience. Academic Medicine, 81(2), 119–127. https://doi.org/10.1097/00001888-200602000-00005
Braunschweiger, P., & Goodman, K. W. (2007). The CITI program: An international online resource for education in human subjects protection and the responsible conduct of research. Academic Medicine, 82(9), 861–864. https://doi.org/10.1097/ACM.0b013e31812f7770
Camerer, C. F., Dreber, A., Holzmeister, F., Ho, T.-H., Huber, J., Johannesson, M., et al. (2018). Evaluating the replicability of social science experiments in Nature and Science between 2010 and 2015. Nature Human Behaviour, 2(9), 637–644. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41562-018-0399-z
Chen, S., & Macfarlane, B. (2016). Academic integrity in China. In T. Bretag (Ed.), Handbook of academic integrity (pp. 99–105). Springer.
Chou, C., Chan, P. S., & Wu, H. C. (2007). Using a two-tier test to assess students’ understanding and alternative conceptions of cyber copyright laws. British Journal of Educational Technology, 38(6), 1072–1084. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8535.2006.00695.x
Chou, C., & Pan, S.J.-A. (2020). Self-plagiarism in academic writing: Concepts, cases, regulations, and best practices. Journal of Library and Information Studies, 18(2), 43–72. https://doi.org/10.6182/jlis.202012_18(2).043 [Published in Chinese with an extended abstract in English].
Committee on Undergraduate Science Education. (1997). Chapter 4: Misconceptions as barriers to understanding science. In Science teaching reconsidered: A handbook (pp. 27–32). Washington, DC: National Academy Press. Retrieved September 28, 2020, from https://www.nap.edu/read/5287/chapter/5.
Craft, J. L. (2013). A review of the empirical ethical decision-making literature: 2004–2011. Journal of Business Ethics, 117(2), 221–259. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-012-1518-9
Cramér, H. (1946). Mathematical methods of statistics. Princeton University Press.
DeShong, P. R. (2020). Responsible conduct of research (RCR). In R. Iphofen (Ed.), Handbook of research ethics and scientific integrity. Cham: Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-16759-2_69
DuBois, J. M., Schilling, D. A., Heitman, E., Steneck, N. H., & Kon, A. A. (2010). Instruction in the responsible conduct of research: An inventory of programs and materials within CTSAs. Clinical and Translational Science, 3(3), 109–111. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1752-8062.2010.00193.x
Heitman, E., & Litewka, S. (2011). International perspectives on plagiarism and considerations for teaching international trainees. Urologic Oncology: Seminars and Original Investigations, 29(1), 104–108. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.urolonc.2010.09.014
Kalichman, M. (2014). Rescuing responsible conduct of research (RCR) education. Accountability in Research, 21(1), 68–83. https://doi.org/10.1080/08989621.2013.822271
Kalichman, M. (2016). Responsible conduct of research education (what, why, and does it work?). Academic Medicine, 91, e10. https://doi.org/10.1097/acm.0000000000001442
Kalichman, M. W., & Plemmons, D. K. (2007). Reported goals for responsible conduct of research courses. Academic Medicine, 82(9), 846–852. https://doi.org/10.1097/ACM.0b013e31812f78bf
Kaltakci Gurel, D., Eryilmaz, A., & McDermott, L. C. (2015). A review and comparison of diagnostic instruments to identify students’ misconceptions in science. Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science and Technology Education, 11(5), 989–1008. https://doi.org/10.12973/eurasia.2015.1369a
Lin, W.-Y.C. (2019). Author self-plagiarism in academic articles: Perspectives from TSSCI journal editors. Journal of Library and Information Studies, 17(2), 35–70. https://doi.org/10.6182/jlis.201912_17(2).035 [Published in Chinese with an extended abstract in English].
Lin, W.-Y.C. (2020). Self-plagiarism in academic journal articles: From the perspectives of international editors-in-chief in editorial and COPE case. Scientometrics, 123(1), 299–319. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-020-03373-0
Mathur, A., Lean, S. F., Maun, C., Walker, N., Cano, A., & Wood, M. E. (2019). Research ethics in inter- and multi-disciplinary teams: Differences in disciplinary interpretations. PLoS ONE, 14(11), e0225837. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0225837
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, 30–62. https://doi.org/10.1080/08989620701783758
McNutt, M. (2014). Reproducibility. Science, 343(6168), 229. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1250475
Moskovitz, C. (2019). Text recycling in scientific writing. Science and Engineering Ethics, 25(3), 813–851. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11948-017-0008-y
Moskovitz, C. (2021). Standardizing terminology for text recycling in research writing. Learned Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1002/leap.1372
MOST (Ministry of Science and Technology of Taiwan). (2019). Academic ethics guidelines for researchers by the Ministry of Science and Technology. Retrieved September 30, 2020, from https://www.most.gov.tw/most/attachments/9149925d-ec63-40b0-8ec8-c583008a43c1?.
MOST (Ministry of Science and Technology of Taiwan). (2020). Guidelines for handling and investigating research misconduct. Retrieved September 30, 2020, from https://www.most.gov.tw/most/attachments/5fde373c-b61b-4425-a22b-ed6bdd13afc1?.
Nebeker, C. (2014). Smart teaching matters! Applying the research on learning to teaching RCR. Journal of Microbiology & Biology Education, 15(2), 88–92. https://doi.org/10.1128/jmbe.v15i2.849
Nho, H.-J. (2016). Research ethics education in Korea for overcoming culture and value system differences. Journal of Open Innovation: Technology, Market, and Complexity, 2(1), 1–11. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40852-016-0030-3
Open Science Collaboration. (2015). Estimating the reproducibility of psychological science. Science, 349(6251), aac4716. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aac4716
Pan, S.J.-A., & Chou, C. (2015). Using a two-tier test to examine Taiwanese graduate students’ misunderstanding of responsible conduct of research. Ethics & Behavior, 25(6), 500–527. https://doi.org/10.1080/10508422.2014.987921
Pan, S.J.-A., & Chou, C. (2020). Taiwanese researchers’ perceptions of questionable authorship practices: An exploratory study. Science and Engineering Ethics, 26, 1499–1530. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11948-020-00180-x
Phillips, T., Nestor, F., Beach, G., & Heitman, E. (2018). America COMPETES at 5 years: An analysis of research-intensive universities’ RCR training plans. Science and Engineering Ethics, 24(1), 227–249. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11948-017-9883-5
Plemmons, D. K., & Kalichman, M. W. (2018). Mentoring for responsible research: The creation of a curriculum for faculty to teach RCR in the research environment. Science and Engineering Ethics, 24(1), 207–226. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11948-017-9897-z
Poff, D. C., & Ginley, D. S. (2020). Publication ethics. In R. Iphofen (Ed.), Handbook of research ethics and scientific integrity. Cham: Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-16759-2_61
Rajasekaran, S., Shan, R. L. P., & Finnoff, J. T. (2014). Honorary authorship: Frequency and associated factors in physical medicine and rehabilitation research articles. Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, 95(3), 418–428. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apmr.2013.09.024
Reich, E. S. (2010). Self-plagiarism case prompts calls for agencies to tighten rules. Nature, 468, 745. https://doi.org/10.1038/468745a
Resnik, D. B. (2014). Editorial: Does RCR education make students more ethical, and is this the right question to ask? Accountability in Research, 21(4), 211–217. https://doi.org/10.1080/08989621.2013.848800
Roig, M. (2015). Avoiding plagiarism, self-plagiarism, and other questionable writing practices: A guide to ethical writing. Retrieved April 10, 2020, from https://ori.hhs.gov/avoiding-plagiarism-self-plagiarism-and-other-questionable-writing-practices-guide-ethical-writing.
Sesli, E., & Kara, Y. (2012). Development and application of a two-tier multiple-choice diagnostic test for high school students’ understanding of cell division and reproduction. Journal of Biological Education, 46(4), 214–225. https://doi.org/10.1080/00219266.2012.688849
Shi, J., Wood, W. B., Martin, J. M., Guild, N. A., Vicens, Q., & Knight, J. K. (2010). A diagnostic assessment for introductory molecular and cell biology. CBE Life Sciences Education, 9(4), 453–461. https://doi.org/10.1187/cbe.10-04-0055
Steele, L. M., Johnson, J. F., Watts, L. L., MacDougall, A. E., Mumford, M. D., Connelly, S., et al. (2016). A comparison of the effects of ethics training on international and US students. Science and Engineering Ethics, 22(4), 1217–1244. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11948-015-9678-5
Steele, L. M., Mulhearn, T. J., Medeiros, K. E., Watts, L. L., Connelly, S., & Mumford, M. D. (2016). How do we know what works? A review and critique of current practices in ethics training evaluation. Accountability in Research, 23(6), 319–350. https://doi.org/10.1080/08989621.2016.1186547
Steneck, N. H. (2013). Global research integrity training. Science, 340(6132), 552–553. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1236373
Sun, Y.-C. (2009). Using a two-tier test in examining Taiwan graduate students’ perspectives on paraphrasing strategies. Asia Pacific Education Review, 10(3), 399–408. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12564-009-9035-y
Tamir, P. (1989). Some issues related to the use of justifications to multiple-choice answers. Journal of Biological Education, 23(4), 285–292. https://doi.org/10.1080/00219266.1989.9655083
Tamir, P. (1991). Multiple choice items: How to gain the most out of them. Biochemical Education, 19(4), 188–192. https://doi.org/10.1016/0307-4412(91)90094-O
Tanner, K., & Allen, D. (2005). Approaches to biology teaching and learning: Understanding the wrong answers—teaching toward conceptual change. Cell Biology Education, 4(2), 112–117. https://doi.org/10.1187/cbe.05-02-0068
Treagust, D. F. (1986). Evaluating students’misconception by means of diagnostic multiple choice items. Research in Science Education, 16(1), 199–207. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02356835
Treagust, D. F. (1988). Development and use of diagnostic tests to evaluate students’ misconceptions in science. International Journal of Science Education, 10(2), 159–169. https://doi.org/10.1080/0950069880100204
Treagust, D. F. (1995). Diagnostic assessment of students’ science knowledge. In S. M. Glynn & R. Duit (Eds.), Learning science in the schools: Research reforming practice (pp. 327–346). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Inc.
Treagust, D. F. (2006). Diagnostic assessment in science as a means to improving teaching, learning and retention. In UniServe science assessment symposium proceedings, 1–9. Retrieved September 30, 2020, from https://openjournals.library.sydney.edu.au/index.php/IISME/article/view/6375.
Treagust, D. F., & Chandrasegaran, A. L. (2007). The Taiwan national science concept learning study in an international perspective. International Journal of Science Education, 29(4), 391–403. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500690601072790
Watts, L. L., Medeiros, K. E., Mulhearn, T. J., Steele, L. M., Connelly, S., & Mumford, M. D. (2017). Are ethics training programs improving? A meta-analytic review of past and present ethics instruction in the sciences. Ethics & Behavior, 27(5), 351–384. https://doi.org/10.1080/10508422.2016.1182025
Yang, T.-C., Chen, S. Y., & Hwang, G.-J. (2015). The influences of a two-tier test strategy on student learning: A lag sequential analysis approach. Computers & Education, 82, 366–377. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2014.11.021
Acknowledgements
This article was based on part of the author’s doctoral dissertation. The author thanks Dr. Chien Chou (National Yang Ming Chiao Tung University, Taiwan) for supervising the dissertation research and Dr. Michael Kalichman (University of California San Diego) for offering valuable support while the author was conducting the study in the U.S. Preliminary results of the study were presented at the 6th World Conference on Research Integrity 2019 in Hong Kong.
Funding
This study was funded by the Graduate Students Study Abroad Program, Ministry of Science and Technology of Taiwan (Grant No. MOST105-2917-I-009–001).
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Contributions
The author (SJP) contributed to the study conception and design, material preparation, data collection and analysis, and manuscript preparation. The author has read and approved the version to be published.
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Conflict of interest
The author (SJP) has no conflicts of interest to disclose.
Consent to Participate
The institutional review boards approved a waiver of documentation of written consent. Entering the survey system required providing electronic consent on the cover page of the online rev-RCRRT. Participating students who visited the rev-RCRRT were eligible to join the present study once they had ensured that they met the inclusion criteria and completed the electronic consent form. They could then start answering the rev-RCRRT.
Ethical Approval
The institutional review boards for the protection of human participants at the National Chiao Tung University (Project#: NCTU-REC-107–012) and the University of California San Diego (Project#: 170433) reviewed and approved the administration of this study in Taiwan and the U.S., respectively. This study was conducted in accordance with the standards for ethical research involving human participants.
Additional information
Publisher's Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
The study was primarily conducted at National Chiao Tung University. The university has officially merged with National Yang-Ming University to form National Yang Ming Chiao Tung University on 1st February, 2021.
Electronic supplementary material
Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.
Appendix 1: The Criteria Applied to Extract RCR-Related Misconceptions
Appendix 1: The Criteria Applied to Extract RCR-Related Misconceptions
Each extracted RCR-related misconception fulfilled the following seven criteria.
-
1.
The p-value of the χ2 for the tier was significant (i.e., p < 0.05);
-
2.
The value of Cramér’s V for the tier was > 0.11 and the p-value of the Cramér’s V was significant (i.e., p < 0.05) (Cramér, 1946);
-
3.
According to the results of ANOVA, it was a question set that particular group(s) performed significantly lower scores than other group(s);
-
4.
It was an item that was considered not-the-best answer (i.e., an unscored answer) as identified by the SMEs;
-
5.
The Adjusted Residual value of the item was positive and > 1.96, with a significance level of 0.05;
-
6.
The item was planted with an alternative concept of RCR instead of a simple wrong idea, and
-
7.
It was not an answer written in the open-ended comment columns.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Pan, SA. Taiwanese and American Graduate Students’ Misconceptions Regarding Responsible Conduct of Research: A Cross-National Comparison Using a Two-Tier Test Approach. Sci Eng Ethics 27, 20 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11948-021-00297-7
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11948-021-00297-7