Reactively, Proactively, Implicitly, Explicitly? Academics’ Pedagogical Conceptions of how to Promote Research Ethics and Integrity

Abstract

This article focuses on academics' conceptions of teaching research ethics and integrity. Seventeen academics from a Finnish research intensive university participated in this qualitative study. The data were collected using a qualitative multi-method approach, including think-aloud and interview data. The material was scrutinized using thematic analysis, with both deductive and inductive approaches. The results revealed variation in academics' views on the responsibility for teaching research integrity, the methods employed to teach it and the necessity of intervening when misconduct occurs. The academics emphasized the responsibility of the individual teacher and the student to foster integrity as well as the shared responsibility of all members of the academic community. However, many academics felt that they themselves needed pedagogical training. Most shared the view that practices of responsible conduct in research can be explicitly and intentionally taught through demonstration, explanation, and practice. However, the academics also noted that learning research integrity and ethics takes place implicitly. A few questioned the need for and the utility of training in the form of courses or through an explicitly addressed topic included in, for instance, methods courses. Their views on the question of how to deal with alleged cases of misconduct varied. While many academics considered a proactive approach the best way to prevent misconduct, some trusted more in a reactive approach. The results show that, while in general academics agree on the importance of research ethics, their conceptions of teaching it vary. The teaching conception bears consequences for the teaching methods chosen, assignment of responsibility for both teaching and students learning, and for the way in which teachers believe that misconduct should be responded to.

Academic integrity at doctoral level: the influence of the imposter phenomenon and cultural differences on academic writing

“…By allowing reflection on professional practice, educators and supervisors will provide a space for doctoral students to discover and apply appropriate integrity practices. It is also important to note that, as Hyytinen and Löfström (2017) highlight, academic staff may also require pedagogical training on how to effectively teach research integrity and ethics. Targeting these interventions at both institutional and individual levels could help to create an institution which supports, facilitates, and provides a conducive environment for academic integrity where reflexive and responsible researchers can flourish.…”

Designing integrated research integrity training: authorship, publication, and peer review

“…Research integrity training at academic institutions is important, but there is little consensus about how it should be designed or conducted [1][2][3][4][5]. It is vital that institutions share learnings, and the experience we have outlined in this paper may serve as a starting point for institutions looking to begin developing, or to expand, their research integrity training.…”

“…The idea that institutions ought to provide researchers with formal training in research integrity is now generally accepted. How best to conduct research integrity training, however, is a contested issue [1][2][3][4][5].…”

Codifying an Approach to Remote Practicals

“…Implicit learning outcomes have been touched upon in the literature, but principally from the perspective of how to make them explicit (Hyytinen and Löfström, 2017). In a practical context, awareness of the implicit learning outcomes should be maintained by staff, for mapping and audit purposes.…”