Skip to main content
Log in

Taiwanese and American Graduate Students’ Misconceptions Regarding Responsible Conduct of Research: A Cross-National Comparison Using a Two-Tier Test Approach

  • Original Research/Scholarship
  • Published:
Science and Engineering Ethics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

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.

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

Download references

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

Authors

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

Correspondence to Sophia Jui-An Pan.

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.

Supplementary file1 (PDF 358 kb)

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. 1.

    The p-value of the χ2 for the tier was significant (i.e., p < 0.05);

  2. 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. 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. 4.

    It was an item that was considered not-the-best answer (i.e., an unscored answer) as identified by the SMEs;

  5. 5.

    The Adjusted Residual value of the item was positive and > 1.96, with a significance level of 0.05;

  6. 6.

    The item was planted with an alternative concept of RCR instead of a simple wrong idea, and

  7. 7.

    It was not an answer written in the open-ended comment columns.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

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

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11948-021-00297-7

Keywords

Navigation