Research ethics in inter- and multi-disciplinary teams: Differences in disciplinary interpretations


Autoři: Ambika Mathur aff001;  Sharon F. Lean aff002;  Caroline Maun aff003;  Natalie Walker aff002;  Annmarie Cano aff004;  Mary E. Wood aff002
Působiště autorů: Graduate School, University of Texas at San Antonio, San Antonio, Texas, United States of America aff001;  Graduate School, Wayne State University, Detroit, Michigan, United States of America aff002;  Department of English, Wayne State University, Detroit, Michigan, United States of America aff003;  Office of the Provost, Wayne State University, Detroit, Michigan, United States of America aff004
Vyšlo v časopise: PLoS ONE 14(11)
Kategorie: Research Article
doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0225837

Souhrn

As research teams are increasingly comprised of members from multiple disciplines, ranging from the physical sciences, life sciences, social and behavioral sciences to the arts and humanities, it is important to revisit how research is conducted at several levels. Coupled with the national concern over rigor and reproducibility in research, it is therefore crucial to ensure that all members of such multidisciplinary teams view the need for ethics in the conduct of research in similar ways. Towards this end, Wayne State University developed a course in the Responsible Conduct of Research (RCR) which was mandatory for all its 1500 doctoral students across all disciplines in its 75 PhD programs. We found that student perceptions of the validity, applicability and usefulness of the course varied by discipline. This was in spite of iterative changes made to the course by faculty in those disciplines to make the content palatable to all. The findings show that more work needs to be done to fully incorporate the needs of social sciences and humanities disciplines in a comprehensive university course. This is especially important as these students become members of large multidisciplinary research teams in order to uphold the highest levels of rigor, reproducibility and ethics.

Klíčová slova:

Graduates – Human learning – Lectures – Research integrity – Surveys – Universities – Workshops – Scientific misconduct


Zdroje

1. National Science Foundation (NSF). What is Interdisciplinary Research? Available from: https://www.nsf.gov/od/oia/additional_resources/interdisciplinary_research/definition.jsp [Accessed 23 April 2019].

2. National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. Fostering integrity in research. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press; 2017. Available from: https://doi.org/10.17226/21896.

3. Fischer BA, Zigmond MJ. Promoting responsible conduct in research through “survival skills” workshops: some mentoring is best done in a crowd. Science and Engineering Ethics, 2001; 7(4), 563–587.\ doi: 10.1007/s11948-001-0014-x 11697012

4. Martinson BC, Anderson MS, DeVries R. Scientists behaving badly. Nature, 2005; 435(7043), 737. doi: 10.1038/435737a 15944677

5. Singal J. The Case of the Amazing Gay-Marriage Data: How a graduate student reluctantly uncovered a huge scientific fraud. The Cut. 2015. Available from: https://www.thecut.com/2015/05/how-a-grad-student-uncovered-a-huge-fraud.html.

6. Resnik DB, Smith E M, Chen SH., & Goller C. (2017). What is recklessness in scientific research? The Frank Sauer case. Accountability in research, 24(8), 497–502. doi: 10.1080/08989621.2017.1397517 29106296

7. Resnik DB, & Stewart CN Jr. (2012). Misconduct versus honest error and scientific disagreement. Accountability in research, 19(1), 56–63. doi: 10.1080/08989621.2012.650948 22268506

8. Vasgird DR. Prevention over cure: The administrative rationale for education in the responsible conduct of research. Acad Med. 2007; 82:835–837. doi: 10.1097/ACM.0b013e31812f7e0b 17726386

9. Institute of Medicine. Integrity in Scientific Research: Creating an Environment That Promotes Responsible Conduct. Washington, DC: National Academies Press; 2002.

10. Bulger RE, Heitman E. Expanding responsible conduct of research instruction across the university. Acad Med. 2007; 82: 876–878. doi: 10.1097/ACM.0b013e31812f7909 17726396

11. Grossberg M. “Plagiarism and Professional Ethics: A Journal Editor's View.” The Journal of American History, 2004; 90 (4): 1333–1340.

12. Gilmore J, Strickland D, Timmerman B, Maher M, and Feldon D. “Weeds in the flower garden: An exploration of plagiarism in graduate students’ research proposals and its connection to enculturation, ESL, and contextual factors.” International Journal for Educational Integrity, 2010; 6 (10): 13–28.

13. Weiner J. Historians in trouble: plagiarism, fraud, and politics in the ivory tower. New York: The New Press; 2007.

14. Besley JC, McCright AM, Zahry NR, Elliott KC, Kaminski NEand Martin JD. Perceived conflict of interest in health science partnerships. PLOS ONE. 2017; 12(4), e0175643. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0175643 28426697

15. Laitin DD, Reich R. Trust, transparency, and replication in political science. PS: Political Science & Politics, 2017; 50(1), 172–175.

16. Thawnghmung AM. Do consultancies compromise academic research and ethics? A case study of Burma/Myanmar. Asian Journal of Political Science, 2017; 25(2), 176–193.

17. Fujii LA Research ethics 101: Dilemmas and responsibilities. PS: Political Science & Politics, 2012; 45(4), 717–723.

18. Weidman JC and Stein EL. (2003). Socialization of doctoral students to academic norms. Research in higher education, 44(6), 641–656.

19. Mortimer JL and Simmons RG. (1978). Adult socialization. Annual Review of Sociology 4: 421–54.

20. Brim OG and Wheeler S. (1966). Socialization after Childhood: Two Essays, John Wiley and Sons, New York.

21. Kalichman MW, Plemmons DK. Reported goals for responsible conduct of research courses. Academic Medicine, 2007; 82(9), 846–852 doi: 10.1097/ACM.0b013e31812f78bf 17726389

22. Higher Learning Commission (HLC). Criteria for Accreditation. 2019. Policy number: CRRT.B.10.010. Available from: https://www.hlcommission.org/Policies/criteria-and-core-components.html

23. Phillips T, Nestor F, Beach G, Heitman E. (2017). America COMPETES at 5 years: An analysis of research-intensive universities’ RCR training plans. Science and Engineering Ethics. 2017. Available from: https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11948-017-9883-5

24. Kroll, J. RCR: Insights from the NSF Office of Inspector General. PowerPoint presentation at the Council of Graduate Schools 2017 57th Annual Meeting. Scottsdale, AZ. 2017. Available from: http://cgsnet.org/ckfinder/userfiles/files/2017%20AM/Kroll.pdf

25. Denecke D, Allum J, Kent J. An evidence-based approach to enhancing graduate education research and scholarly integrity. Communicator: Council of Graduate Schools, Washington, D.C. 2011; 44(10).

26. Vasgird D. R. (2012). Online RCR Training and the Use of Case Study Videos. Promoting Research Integrity in a Global Environment, 237.

27. Mathur A, Wood ME, Cano A. Mastery of transferrable skills by doctoral scholars: visualization using digital micro-credentialing. Change: The Magazine of Higher Learning. 2018; 50:5, 38–45, doi: 10.1080/00091383.2018.1510261 31656316

28. Council of Graduate Schools (CGS). Research and scholarly integrity in graduate education: comprehensive approach. 2012. Council of Graduate Schools, Washington, D.C.

29. University of Michigan. Research Ethics and Compliance, Responsible Conduct of Research Training. Available from: http://research-compliance.umich.edu/responsible-conduct-research-rcr-training

30. Medical University of South Carolina. College of Graduate Studies, Responsible Conduct of Research. Available from: http://academicdepartments.musc.edu/grad/post_doc_resources/curr_postdocs/resp_conduct.htm

31. Vanderbilt University School of Medicine. The Office of Biomedical Research Education & Training, Responsible Conduct of Research. Available from: https://medschool.vanderbilt.edu/bret/responsible-conduct-research


Článek vyšel v časopise

PLOS One


2019 Číslo 11