Are Ethics Training Programs Improving? A Meta-Analytic Review of Past and Present Ethics Instruction in the Sciences

Abstract

Given the growing public concern and attention placed on cases of research misconduct, government agencies and research institutions have increased their efforts to develop and improve ethics education programs for scientists. The present study sought to assess the impact of these increased efforts by sampling empirical studies published since the year 2000. Studies published prior to 2000 examined in other meta-analytic work were also included to provide a baseline for assessing gains in ethics training effectiveness over time. In total,this quantitative review consisted of 66 empirical studies, 106 ethics courses, 150 effect sizes, and 10,069 training participants. Overall, the findings indicated that ethics instruction resulted in sizable benefits to participants and has improved considerably within the last decade. A number of specific findings also emerged regarding moderators of instructional effectiveness. Recommendations are discussed for improving the development, delivery, and evaluation of ethics instruction in the sciences.

Business Ethics as a Sustainability Challenge: Higher Education Implications

“…Deepening into the above considerations, may we note that our findings are consistent with prior research, insofar characteristics of the students themselves influence the effectiveness of instruction of ethics courses [71]. Notably, student's gender influences course effectiveness: men tend to have a lower start level of ethical awareness; they can be expected to have larger gains from these courses than women [71].…”

“…More specific practical implications suggest the delivery of ethics/CSR instructional content using multiple expert trainers, integrated cases, and practice activities that encourage active trainee participation, thus benefiting student learning, ideas consistent with the extant literature, as e.g., Watts et al [71] found out in their meta-analysis of ethics programmes in science disciplines. Moreover, regarding the importance of students' active participation in business ethics/CSR programmes, courses should have a clear focus and avoid dispersion, including a diversity of relatively short and frequent-both individual and group-based-practice activities.…”

“…Notably, student's gender influences course effectiveness: men tend to have a lower start level of ethical awareness; they can be expected to have larger gains from these courses than women [71]. In this sense, men and women react to situations differently due to socialization.…”

“…These ideas are consistent with the suggestions by Medeiros et al [74], who state that business ethics courses should narrow their focus and choose just between one and three main goals: in general, providing short, focused training may be the most beneficial approach for improving ethical decision making and ethical behaviour. However, caution is advised regarding business ethics instruction programme development, as participants with prior exposure to instruction in ethics may not show the same gains as those who are exposed to such material for the first time [71]. Last, but not least, it is worthwhile to stress the importance of considering three interdependent levels of programme design and implementation, namely institutional, curricular, and instrumental/methodological levels, thus building a multi-level framework, which is also integrative of ethics, CSR and sustainability in management education [2].…”

Main outcomes of an RCT to pilot test reporting and feedback to foster research integrity climates in the VA

“…Historically, most efforts at improving research integrity have focused on either the education or socialization of individual, typically junior, researchers through courses in ethics or the “responsible conduct of research,” (National Academies 2009; Watts et al 2016) on the one hand, and a reliance on organizational “whistle-blowers,” on the other hand (Devine 1995; Redman and Caplan 2015; Mecca et al 2014). Yet, there is an increasing recognition among those concerned with fostering and sustaining research activity that these remedies, though important and necessary, are not sufficient to attain the objective.…”