Ethical Academic Judgments and Behaviors: Applying a Multidimensional Ethics Scale to Measure the Ethical Academic Behavior of Graduate Students

Abstract

Using Reidenbach and Robin's Multidimensional Ethics Scale, this study investigated the relationships between background variables and students' ethical evaluations, judgments, and behavioral intentions using 3 scenarios involving dilemmas related to academic dishonesty. The sample included 436 master's students and 142 doctoral students. The study found that the participants used a combination of ethical philosophies to make ethical decisions. The respondents judged improper citations more harshly than acts of inappropriate authorship or the falsification of data. The doctoral students generally considered behaviors related to plagiarism and falsification to be more unethical than the master's students did, though no gender differences were found.

Using a Two-Tier Test to Examine Taiwanese Graduate Students’ Misunderstanding of Responsible Conduct of Research

“…This argument receives partial support from Taiwan-based studies conducted by Sun (2009) andYang (2012b). Most of the Taiwanese graduate students conduct thesis or dissertation using their native language (Chinese).…”

“…Sun's research called an attention that appropriate paraphrasing-skills training should be included in English as a foreign language writing instruction so that students will effectively apply these strategies and avoid potential plagiarism (Sun, 2009). In another study, Yang (2012b) used three dimensions (plagiarism, authorship fraud, and falsification) to explore Taiwanese graduate students' understanding of research misconduct. The particular results showed that the students did not realize the seriousness of data fabrication or falsification.…”

“…For example, they seemed to misunderstand the value of statistical significance and tended to believe that their research findings would be more valuable or publishable if their research hypotheses were supported. In general, the studies of Sun (2009) and Yang (2012b) provided clues pointing to the conclusion that Taiwanese graduate students may Downloaded by [University of Nebraska, Lincoln] at 05:35 30 September 2015 possess some misunderstandings of English paraphrasing strategies and research-data management. However, these studies did not cover other possible research (mis)conduct such as human subject protection (informed consent), plagiarism of ideas, copyright violation, and duplicate or piecemeal submissions or publications.…”

“…In addition, in Mumford et al's (2008) research, they also found that not only did doctoral students show dramatic improvements in ethical decision making after received sense-making trainings but also these students' training effects showed great retention. Therefore, as many researchers have suggested, educators should Downloaded by [University of Nebraska, Lincoln] at 05:35 30 September 2015 implement RCR-related training to foster good scientific practices in order to benefit all graduate students (e.g., Heitman et al, 2007;Rhodes, 2002;Yang, 2012b). Furthermore, in the present study, although we did not inquire into the specific characteristics of surveyed students' RCR-related training (e.g., format, content, hours, and duration), it seems that any such training might have strengthened not only participants' intuitive judgments regarding specific research dilemma but also the reasoning that participants used in support of such judgments.…”

“…In Yang's (2012a) study, some master's and doctoral students confessed that they had falsified some research results, double-submitted published articles, plagiarized others' work, failed to honestly order the authors, or cited inappropriate materials and references. Therefore, in her research on this topic, Yang (2012b) proposed that a possible reason for graduate students' violation of RCR is their misunderstandings of the values and real practices of conducting research.…”