A Sensemaking Approach to Ethics Training for Scientists: Preliminary Evidence of Training Effectiveness

Abstract

In recent years, we have seen a new concern with ethics training for research and development professionals. Although ethics training has become more common, the effectiveness of the training being provided is open to question. In the present effort, a new ethics training course was developed that stresses the importance of the strategies people apply to make sense of ethical problems. The effectiveness of this training was assessed in a sample of 59 doctoral students working in the biological and social sciences using a pre-post design with follow-up, and a series of ethical decisionmaking measures serving as the outcome variable. Results showed that this training not only led to sizable gains in ethical decision-making, but that these gains were maintained over time. The implications of these findings for ethics training in the sciences are discussed. Keywordsintegrity; ethics; training; evaluation; sensemaking Notorious events, ranging from the death of study participants to the falsification of data (Kimmelman, 2004; Nature, 2006;Marshall, 1996) have served to remind the scientific community of the importance of ethics. As dramatic as these cases may be, the best available evidence indicates that less noteworthy, but still significant, ethical breeches, such as conflicts of interest and data trimming, may be more pervasive in the sciences than is commonly assumed (Martinson, Anderson, & de Vries, 2005;Steneck, 2004). Recognition of the problems posed by these ethical breeches has led to the proposal of a number of remedies -ranging from the establishment of professional codes of conduct to more effective student mentoring (National Institute of Medicine, 2002).Prominent among these suggested remedies has been training in the responsible conduct of research (e.g., Chen, 2003;Coughlin, Katz, & Mattison, 1999;De Las Fuentes, Willmuth, & Yarrow, 2005). In fact, the National Institutes of Health now mandates such training for all investigators it supports (Dalton, 2000). Although training in research ethics has become a widespread panacea for the problems posed by scientific integrity, or the lack thereof, one must ask a basic question: How well does training in research integrity work?Even bearing in mind the many issues that impinge on effective program evaluation (Kraiger, Ford, & Salas, 1993;Sims, 1993), it seems reasonable to question the efficacy of ethics training. An illustration of this point may be found by considering the many studies conducted examining the effects of training on one key criterion -ethical decision-making (Loe, Ferrell, Correspondence should be addressed to Dr. Michael D. Mumford, Department of Psychology, The University of Oklahoma, Norman, Oklahoma 73019 or mmumford@ou.edu.. & Mansfield, 2000;O'Fallon & Butterfield, 2005). Some studies have provided evidence indicating that training may lead to improvements in ethical decision-making among scientists (e.g., Al-Jalahma & Fakhroo, 2004;Bebeau & Thoma, 1994;Clarkeburn, Downie, & Matthew, 2002). Other studies, however, sugge...

Strategies for Teaching Professional Ethics to IT Engineering Degree Students and Evaluating the Result

“…For the basic components, our main references have been the PMEAR Rubric (Shuman et al 2004), the Rest's four steps for making ethical decisions (Rest 1986), the ABET's criteria (Besterfield-Sacre et al 2000), the strategy-based learning proposed by Mumford et al (2008) and the stages of the ETICA approach (Brey 2012; Stahl2011).…”

“…The discussion of ethical dilemmas familiarizes the person with the most significant ethical questions, both social and professional (Lozano et al 2006). Working with cases is a useful method to understand moral theory, the application of different ethical perspectives or the introduction of professional deontological codes in order to analyze, and créate a solution to, an ethical dilemma (Colby and Sullivan 2008;Mumford et al 2008;Rathje et al 2008;Yau et al 2013). Dealing with cases involves reasoning and judgment, but also is very useful to develop other important skills.…”

“…The communication and dialogic skills can be enhanced by taking advantage of the group's interactions and dialogic methodology (Bowden and Smythe 2008;Lozano et al 2006;Rudnicka et al 2013). The strategy-based learning that Mumford et al (2008) propose uses the analysis of cases to develop emotional and self-reflection skills, and other useful strategies for ethical decisión making: recognizing complexity, anticipating the consequences of actions on others, seeking outside help or considering different perspectives.…”

A Theoretical Comparison of the Models of Prevention of Research Misconduct

“…Person approach type of primary prevention has problems of its own in the present form of RCR education. Better modalities of education aimed at improving the ethical decision making faculties of researchers as well as validated measures to assess the outcome of education might make this approach more effective (Rest et al, 1999;Mumford et al, 2008). System centered models have better theoretical appeal but their actual effectiveness will be known only with further research.…”

Supporting Students in the Analysis of Case Studies for Professional Ethics Education

“…Many students, especially novice learners, provide a naive resolution to a given case and simple justification of their resolution, they don't consider and assess alternatives, their justification is largely based on general moral principles or simple consequences rather than on role-specific obligations [41]. Common ways to assist these kind of learners are through peer interactions and training of metacognitive strategies that will develop the learners' ethical reasoning and broaden their perspectives [41,68,69]. Well-designed computer-learning environments have a potential to play a crucial rule in this assistance: not only can they help students to structure their case analysis, but they can also provide personalized suggestions, foster the development of students' metacognitive skills, and organize collaboration among students that will challenge and develop their reasoning.…”