Below is the uncorrected machine-read text of this chapter, intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text of each book. Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.
3 The Research Environment and Its Impact on Integrity in Research To provide a scientific basis for describing and defining the research environment and its impact on integrity in research, it is necessary to articulate a conceptual framework that delineates the various compo- nents of this environment and the relationships between these factors. In this chapter, the committee proposes such a framework based on an open- systems model, which is often used to describe social organizations and the interrelationships between and among the component parts. This model offers a general framework that can be used to guide the specifica- tion of factors both internal and external to the research organization that is relevant to understanding integrity in research. After its review of the literature, the committee found that there is little empirical research to guide the development of hypotheses regard- ing the relationships between environmental factors and the responsible conduct of research. Thus, the committee drew on more general theoreti- cal and research literature to inform its discussion. Relevant literature was found in the areas of organizational behavior and processes, ethical cultures and climates, moral development, adult learning and educational practices, and professional socialization.1 1For general references on organizational behavior and processes, see Donabedian (1980), Hamner and Organ (1978), Harrison (1994), Katz (1980), Katz and Kahn (1978), Peters (1978), Peters and Waterman (1982), and Pfeffer (1981). For general references on ethical cultures and climate see Ashforth (1985), Schneider and Reichers (1983), and Victor and Cullen 49
50 INTEGRITY IN SCIENTIFIC RESEARCH THE OPEN-SYSTEMS MODEL The open-systems model depicts the various elements of a social or- ganization; these elements include the external environment, the organi- zational divisions or departments, the individuals comprising those divi- sions, and the reciprocal influences between the various organizational elements and the external environment (Ashforth, 1985; Beer, 1980; Daft, 1992; Harrison, 1994; Katz and Kahn, 1978; Schneider and Reichers, 1983). The underlying assumptions of the open-systems model and its various elements are as follows (Harrison, 1994): 1. External conditions influence the inputs into an organization, af- fect the reception of outputs from an organizationâs activities, and di- rectly affect an organizationâs internal operations. 2. All system elements and their subcomponent parts are interrelated and influence one another in a multidirectional fashion (rather than through simple linear relationships). 3. Any element or part of an organization can be viewed as a system in and of itself. 4. There is a feedback loop whereby the system outputs and out- comes are used as system inputs over time, with continual change occur- ring in the organization. 5. Organizational structure and processes are in part determined by the external environment and are influenced by the dynamics between and among organizational members. 6. An organizationâs success depends on its ability to adapt to its environment, to tie individual members to their roles and responsibilities within the organization, to conduct its processes, and to manage its op- erations over time. THE OPEN-SYSTEMS MODEL OF RESEARCH ORGANIZATIONS Figure 3-1 shows the application of the open-systems model to the research environment, which can include public and private institutions, such as research universities, medical schools, and independent research organizations. As noted above, any element or part of an organization can (1988). For general references on moral development, see Kohlberg (1984), Rest (1983), and Rest et al. (1999). For general references on adult learning and educational practices, see Brookfield (1986), Cross (1981), and Knowles (1970). For general references on professional socialization, see Schein (1968), Siehl and Martin (1984), Van Maanen and Schein (1979), and Wanous (1980).
External Environment Resear ch Or ganizat ion Or ganizat ional St r uct ur e -Policies, procedures, codes -Roles and responsibilities Out put s/ Out com es I nput s/ Resour ces -Decision-making practices -Missions and goals, objectives, strategies Funding -Technology Resear ch-Relat ed Act ivit ies -Level and source -Quality/quantity of activity Hum an Resour ces Or ganizat ional Pr ocesses -Leadership Resear ch I nt egr it y -Training and experience -Competition -Knowledge of and attitudes toward -Sociocultural and -Supervision ethical standards psychological background -Communication -Behavioral adherence to standards -Socialization -Organizational learning Et hical Cult ur e and Clim at e Feedback FIGURE 3-1 Open-systems model of the research organization. This model depicts the internal environmental elements of a research organization (white oval), showing the relationships among the inputs that provide resources for organizational func- tions, the structures and processes that define an organizationâs operation, and the outputs and outcomes of an organizationâs activities that are carried out by individual scientists, research groups or teams, and other research-related programs. All of these elements function within the context of an organizationâs culture and climate. The internal environment is affected by the external environment (shaded area; see Figure 3-2 for further detail). The system is dynamic, and, as indicated by the feedback arrow, outputs and outcomes affect future inputs and resources. 51
52 INTEGRITY IN SCIENTIFIC RESEARCH be viewed as a system in and of itself. For research organizations, then, this includes not only the institution itself, but also any of its departments, divisions, research groups, and so on. Figure 3-1 illustrates the research environment as a system that functions within an external environment, whereas Figure 3-2 depicts the specific factors within the external envi- ronment and their influence on the research organization. These factors within the external environment are discussed later in this section. An organizationâs internal environment consists of a number of key elementsâspecifically, the inputs that provide resources for organizational functions, the organizational structure and processes that define an organi- zationâs setup and operations, and the outputs and outcomes that are the results of an organizationâs activities. The system is dynamic, and, as indicated by the feedback arrow in Figure 3-1, outputs and outcomes affect future inputs and resources. However, all of these components exist within the context of an organizationâs culture and specific climate dimen- sionsâthat is, the prevailing norms and values that inform individuals within the organization about acceptable and unacceptable behaviors. With respect to the committeeâs focus on integrity in research, the ethical dimension of the organizational culture and climate is very important. Structurally, organizations are compartmentalized into various sub- units, including work groups or divisions (the research group or team), along with other defined sets of organizational activities and responsibili- ties (e.g., programs that educate members about the responsible conduct of research, institutional review boards [IRBs], and mechanisms for dis- closing and managing conflicts of interest). The operation of these pro- grams and their overall effectiveness influence researchersâ perceptions of the organizationâs ethical climate. Individuals within an organization exist both within and across these defined groups and sets of activities. Given this, it is important to differentiate between an organizational level of analysis (e.g., the research university, medical school, and independent research organization) vis-Ã -vis the group level of analysis (e.g., the re- search group or team) and the individual level of analysis (e.g., the indi- vidual scientist or researcher). Inputs and Resources In its examination of research environments, the committee focused on two input and resource factors of importance: the levels and sources of funding for scientific research, and the characteristics of human resources. These inputs and resources are obtained from an organizationâs external environment and are used in the production of an organizationâs outputs.
THE RESEARCH ENVIRONMENT AND ITS IMPACT 53 Funding The research funding that an organization receives is distributed to research groups or teams and to individual scientists. Funding levels may increase and decrease over the years, both for the organization as a whole and for individual research groups. Just as the overall level of funding available for research within society affects the scientific enterprise as a whole, the level of funding coming into a particular research organization or research team also affects behavior. The impacts that the level of funding and the competition over fund- ing have on the responsible conduct of research are not clearly under- stood. There is some limited evidence that in highly competitive environ- ments, individuals with a high âcompetitive achievement strivingâ are at risk for engaging in misconduct, particularly when they are faced with situations in which their expectations for success cannot be reached by exerting additional effort (Heitman, 2000; Perry et al., 1990). Encouraging a high level of individual integrity in research, despite vigorous competi- tion for funding, presents a significant challenge for research organiza- tions. Human Resources The human resources available to a research organization are also important to the analysis of integrity in research. The background charac- teristics of scientists coming into a research organization influence its structure and processes as well as its overall culture and climate, and these factors, in turn, influence the responsible conduct of research by individual scientists. Scientists (whether they are trainees, junior research- ers, or senior researchers) entering into a research organization will have competing professional demands (e.g., research, teaching, practice, and professional service), and thus there are likely to be conflicting commit- ments. The dynamics of these competing demands and conflicting com- mitments change as individual scientists become integrated into the re- search organization, taking on specific roles and responsibilities. Also, scientists enter into an organization with various educational and cultural backgrounds. They have different conceptions of the collabo- rative and competitive roles of the scientist, different abilities to interpret the moral dimensions of problems, and different capacities to reason about and effectively resolve ethical problems. These individual differences will influence organizational behavior, in general, and research conduct, in particular, in complex and dynamic ways. Given this variation in human resource input into the research orga- nization, it is particularly important for institutions to socialize newcom-
54 INTEGRITY IN SCIENTIFIC RESEARCH ers and provide them with an understanding of the organization and how to act within it. As in any organization, newcomers must learn the logis- tics of their organization, the general expectations of their roles by peers, the formal and informal norms governing behavior, the status and power structures, the reward and communication systems, various organiza- tional policies, and so on (Katz, 1980). Within research organizations, individual differences are complicated by the international nature of the scientific workforce and the corresponding sociocultural differences. Therefore, it is particularly important for research institutions to create an environment in which scientists are able to gain an awareness of the responsible conduct of research as it is defined within the culture, to understand the importance of professional norms, to acquire the capacity to resolve ethical dilemmas, and to recognize and be able to address con- flicting standards of research conduct. Organizational Structure and Processes Structure To better understand the impact of the research environment on in- tegrity in research, it is important to focus on the organizational elements that characterize its structureâthose elements that are more enduring and less prone to change on a day-to-day basis. These elements include an organizationâs policies and procedures; the roles and responsibilities of members of the organization; decision-making practices; mission, goals and objectives, including the strategies and plans of the organization; and technology. Policies, Procedures, and Codes The formalization of policies and prac- tices to support the responsible conduct of research is important in the analysis of research environments and their influence on integrity in re- search. Chapter 2 identified a number of the practices that are essential to the research environment. Specifically, a research organization should have explicit (versus implicit or nonexistent) procedures and systems in place to fairly (1) monitor and evaluate research performance, (2) distrib- ute the resources needed for research, and (3) reward achievement. These policies and procedures should include criteria related to the responsible conduct of research that are applied consistently. Furthermore, research organizations support integrity in research when they have efficient and effective systems in place to review research involving humans and ani- mals, manage conflicts of interest, respond to misconduct, and socialize trainees and other scientists into responsible research practices. The speci-
THE RESEARCH ENVIRONMENT AND ITS IMPACT 55 fication of these policies and procedures helps to regulate and maintain group control and reduce uncertainty about acceptable and unacceptable behaviors (Hamner and Organ, 1978). Research has shown that strongly implemented and embedded ethi- cal codes of conduct within organizations are associated with ethical be- havior in the workplace. McCabe and Pavela (1998) describe the Univer- sity of Maryland at College Park as one example where implementation of a strong âmodifiedâ2 honor code has proven to be a successful strategy for creating a culture where cheating is viewed as socially unacceptable. Major elements of the Maryland model include (1) involving students in educating their peers and resolving academic dishonesty allegations, (2) treating academic integrity as a moral issue, and (3) promoting enhanced student-faculty contact and better teaching. The mere presence of an honor code, however, is generally not sufficient. Rather, the honor code is used as a vehicle to create a shared understanding and acceptance of the poli- cies on academic integrity among both faculty and students (McCabe and Trevino, 1993). Corporate codes have a similar effect in the workplace. An original study by McCabe demonstrated that self-reported unethical behavior was lower for survey respondents who worked in a company with a corporate code of conduct (McCabe et al., 1996). Self-reported unethical behavior was inversely correlated with the degree to which the codes were embed- ded in corporate philosophy and the strength with which the code was implemented (determined by survey questionnaire of employee percep- tions). Roles and Responsibilities The specification of roles and responsibili- ties within various research groups and teams and relevant research pro- grams (e.g., education in the responsible conduct of research, IRBs, and conflict-of-interest review committees) provides a blueprint for researcher behavior. It is particularly important to clearly define researchersâ respon- sibilities related to the responsible conduct of research. Furthermore, the 2Traditional honor codes generally include a pledge that students sign attesting to the integrity of their work, a strong, often exclusive role for students in the judicial process that addresses dishonesty allegations, and provisions such as unproctored exams. Some also require students to report any cheating observed. Modified honor codes generally include a strong or exclusive role for students in the academic judicial system, but do not usually require unproctored exams or that students sign a pledge. Modified codes do place a strong campus focus on the issue of academic integrity and students are reminded frequently that their institution places a high value on integrity (McCabe, 2000).
56 INTEGRITY IN SCIENTIFIC RESEARCH relative positions of these responsibilities within the organizational hier- archy and the status of persons who operate them will send a clear mes- sage to the research community about the importance of such endeavors. For example, if a highly respected scientist with high status spearheads the program of education in the responsible conduct of research, and sufficient resources (in terms of both staff and financial resources) are available to carry out the programâs work, then there is a greater likeli- hood that its efforts will be taken seriously. Again, these factors have great symbolic value within the organization and provide compelling images of the organizationâs ethical culture, which affects the degree to which members of the organization will internalize the norms associated with the responsible conduct of research (Pfeffer, 1981; Siehl and Martin, 1984). Decision-Making Practices How an organization reaches decisions and formulates policies will affect individualsâ perceptions of these policies and their behavioral compliance with them. Individuals are more likely to accept and adhere to policies and practices when they have played a role in their development and implementation. Hence, scientists are more likely to buy into various research policy decisions that are reached through a collaborative process among key stakeholder groups, rather than being imposed by a top-level centralized authority (Anderson et al., 1995, Saraph et al., 1989). Organizational research that focuses on the pursuit of quality and that explicitly values cooperation and collaboration to achieve maximum effectiveness leads to better decisions, higher qual- ity, and higher morale within an organization (NIST, 1999). Classically, faculty and administrators both have governing roles in academic institu- tions, and this shared responsibility facilitates the bottom-up establish- ment of rules of research behavior. Missions, Goals and Objectives, and Strategies and Plans The mission and goals of an organization specify its desired end states (e.g., becoming a âbest-practiceâ site in terms of the protection of human research sub- jects). Objectives are the specific targets and indicators of goal attainment (e.g., becoming an accredited program and receiving recognitions and awards through scientific associations). Strategies and plans are the over- all routes and specific courses of action (e.g., allocating the resources to comply with the standards for accreditation and ensuring that the pro- gram has leadership support) to the achievement of goals. If the respon- sible conduct of research is a prominent part of the mission and goals of a research organization, along with associated objectives, strategies, and plans, then the prominence of this issue sets the tone for the organizationâs
THE RESEARCH ENVIRONMENT AND ITS IMPACT 57 ethical climate and sends a message to scientists that the responsible con- duct of research is important. Research has shown that the most success- ful organizations are those that have a vision and goals that are clearly defined, consistent, and shared among their members (Anderson et al., 1995; Deming, 1986; Freuberg, 1986; Hackman and Wageman, 1995). Technology An organizationâs technology offers the methods for trans- forming system resources into system outputs. It consists of such aspects of an organizationâs infrastructure as facilities, tools and equipment, and techniques. These aspects can be mental and social, mechanical, chemical, physical, or electronic. Research environments not only need the neces- sary tools and equipment for their respective types of scientific research, but they must also establish technologies (e.g., accounting systems and library and information retrieval systems) within the organization for the effective and efficient operation of the research. There may be competi- tion within an organization to acquire the various forms of technology that are of sufficient quantity and quality to facilitate research production. The availability of this technology may, in turn, attract highly skilled scientists who hope to carry out research at the cutting edge of technol- ogy. As already mentioned, the effective management of competitionâin this case, for technologiesâis an important element of promoting the responsible conduct of research. Processes Organizational processes, as opposed to an organizationâs more stable and enduring structural elements, are the patterned forms of interaction between and among groups or individuals within an organization. Pro- cesses represent the dynamic aspects of an organization. The processes that characterize organizational dynamics are too numerous to mention here. However, in the committeeâs examination of research organizations, the processes of most interest consist of (1) leadership, (2) competition, (3) supervision, (4) communication, (5) socialization, and (6) organizational learning. Leadership The level of support for high ethical standards by the lead- ership of an organization or research group can vary; leaders can be ex- tremely supportive, can show ambivalence, or can be nonsupportive. Leaders at every level serve as role models for organizational members and set the tone for an organizationâs ethical climate (Ashforth, 1985; OGE, 2000; TreviÃ±o et al., 1996). Therefore, when leaders support high ethical standards, pay attention to responsible conduct of research, and
58 INTEGRITY IN SCIENTIFIC RESEARCH are openly and strongly committed to integrity in research, they send a clear message about the importance of adhering to responsible research practices (Wimbush and Shepard, 1994). Considerable evidence from the organizational research literature supports the relationship between su- pervisor behavior and the ethical conduct of the members of an organiza- tion (Posner and Schmidt, 1982, 1984; Walker et al., 1979). Supervisors provide a model for how subordinates should act in an organization. Furthermore, supervisors have a primary influence over their subordi- nates, an influence that is greater than that of an ethics policy. Even if a company or profession has an ethics policy or code of conduct, subordi- nates follow the leads of their supervisors (Andrews, 1989). Competition The extent to which the organization is highly competi- tive, along with the extent to which its rewards (e.g., funding, recognition, access to quality trainees, and power and influence over others) are based on extramural funding and short-term research production, may have negative impacts on integrity in research. Evidence from organizational research indicates that reward systems based on self-interest and commit- ment only to self rather than to coworkers and the organization are nega- tively associated with ethical conduct (Kurland, 1996; TreviÃ±o et al., 1996). In addition, the level of unethical behavior increases in organizations where there is a high degree of competitiveness among workers (Hegarty and Sims, 1978, 1979). Given these facts, one might expect that a research environment in which competition for resources is fierce and rewards accrue to those who produce the most over the short term sends a wrong message, a message that says âproduce at all costs.â Creating a reward system and policies that promote being the âbestâ within the scientific enterprise, and within a context that encourages the responsible conduct of research, represents a challenge in research envi- ronments. Supervision The extent to which research behavior is monitored and quality control systems are operational will affect the level of adherence to ethical standards. Scientists need to see that policies about responsible research behavior are not just window dressing and that the organization has implemented practices that follow up stated policies. Consistency between words and deeds encourages the members of an organization to take policies seriously. Organizations vary widely in terms of their efforts to communicate codes of conduct to members, as well as to implement mechanisms to ensure compliance. When implementation is forceful and the policies and practices become deeply embedded in an organizationâs culture, there is a greater likelihood that they will be effective in prevent-
THE RESEARCH ENVIRONMENT AND ITS IMPACT 59 ing unethical behavior (McCabe and TreviÃ±o, 1993; TreviÃ±o, 1990; OGE, 2000). Communication Communication among members of a research organi- zation or research group that is frequent and open, versus infrequent and closed, should have a positive influence on integrity in research. A posi- tive ethical climate is supported by open discussions about ethical issues (Jendrek, 1992; OGE, 2000). Frequent and open communication enhances awareness of issues, encourages individuals to seek advice when faced with ethical dilemmas, and establishes the importance of resolving issues before they become something to be hidden. Socialization Mentoring relationships between research trainees and their advisers are important in the socialization of young scientists (Anderson et al., 2001; Swazey and Anderson, 1998). These relationships can be characterized by a variety of factors, including the level of trust, communication patterns, and the fulfillment of responsibilities as a men- tor or trainee. In addition to mentoring relationships, education in re- search and professional ethics is an aspect of socialization (Anderson, 1996; Anderson and Louis, 1994; Anderson et al., 1994; Louis et al., 1995; Swazey et al., 1993). Socialization practices can be formal or informal, but they are essential to helping individuals internalize the norms and values associated with the responsible conduct of research. Research that exam- ines the effect of more formalized methods of socializationâfor example, educationâreveals that interactive techniques (e.g., case discussion, role- playing, and hands-on practice sessions) are generally more effective in producing behavioral change than are activities with minimal participant interaction or discussion (e.g., lectures or presentations [Davis et al., 1999]). Furthermore, sequenced education has a greater impact than single educational sessions (Davis et al., 1999; OGE, 2000). These findings sub- stantiate the principles of adult education; these principles describe suc- cessful practices as being learner-centered, active rather than passive, rel- evant to the learnerâs needs, engaging, and reinforcing (Brookfield, 1986; Cross, 1981; Knowles, 1970) (Chapter 5). Organizational Learning Organizations that learn from their operations and that continuously seek to improve their performance are better able to adapt to a changing environment (Anderson et al., 1994; Deming, 1986; Hackman and Wageman, 1995; SchÃ¶n, 1983). All organizations change over time, but for some this can be an excruciating and painful process if it comes about through reaction to a crisis situation. For example, when a research subject dies or a researcher is accused of data fabrication, the
60 INTEGRITY IN SCIENTIFIC RESEARCH organization should respond immediately. However, this response is fo- cused on crisis intervention rather than prevention. On the other hand, organizations that have mechanisms in place to continuously evaluate the efficiency and effectiveness of their programs and activities are more likely to build a preventive maintenance system (Fiol and Lyles, 1985; SchÃ¶n, 1983). Furthermore, if the members of an organization have a voice in the design and implementation of such systems, then they are more likely to accept and be cooperative with the continual evaluative processes. Culture and Climate All of the enduring elements and features of an organizationâs struc- ture and its more dynamic processes exist within the context of an organizationâs culture and climate. In fact, an organizationâs structure and processes help to create the culture and climate inasmuch as they are shaped by them (Ashforth, 1985). An organizationâs culture consists of the set of shared norms, values, beliefs, and assumptions, along with the behavior and other artifacts (e.g., symbols, rituals, stories, and language) that express these orientations.. Culture and climate factors are character- istics of an organization that guide membersâ thoughts and actions (Schneider, 1975). The ethical (or moral) climate is one component of an organizationâs culture and is particularly relevant in the analysis of integrity in research (Victor and Cullen, 1988). This climate is defined as the prevailing moral beliefs (i.e., the prescribed behaviors, beliefs, and attitudes within the community and the sanctions expressed) that provide the context for con- duct. The stable, psychologically meaningful, and shared perceptions of the members of an organization are used as indicators of ethical climate, which may exist both at the organizational level and at the research group or team level (Schneider, 1975; Schneider and Reichers, 1983). An ethical climate that supports the responsible conduct of research is created when scientists perceive that adherence to ethical standards takes precedence and that sanctions for ethical violation are consistently applied. Research in this area has established that the factors within an organization that are most strongly related to ethical behavior are atten- tion to ethics by supervisors and organizational leadership, consistency between policies and practices, open discussions about ethics, and follow- up of reports of ethics concerns (OGE, 2000). These features of an organi- zation can help establish an ethical climate in which organizational mem- bers perceive that the responsible conduct of research is central to the organizationâs practice and that it is not something to be worked around. It creates an environment in which a code of conduct is strongly imple- mented and deeply embedded in the communityâs culture (TreviÃ±o, 1990).
THE RESEARCH ENVIRONMENT AND ITS IMPACT 61 Outputs and Outcomes Outputs The outputs of research organizations are produced at all levelsâthe organizational level, the research group or team level, and the individual scientist level. The outputs are the products produced, the services deliv- ered, and the ideas developed and tested. The most obvious outputs are the number and quality of research projects completed, reports written, publications produced, patents filed, and students graduated. For the committeeâs purposes, however, it is important to focus on the outputs of activities or programs related to integrity in researchâfor ex- ample, institutional review boards, conflict-of-interest review commit- tees, and programs that provide education in the responsible conduct of research. Outputs from these programs are generally measured in terms of the quantity and the quality of activitiesâfor example, the number of workshops and seminars offered, the number of scientists who partici- pate, and the number of research proposals reviewed by IRBs and the dispositions of those proposals. Research organizations that design and implement high-quality activities related to integrity in researchâand in a quantity that is sufficient to meet their needsâare more likely to achieve the outcomes that they seek (e.g., adherence to responsible research prac- tices). Although these activities will not be the sole factors that determine the responsible conduct of research, their implementation becomes a sym- bol for the members of an organization, serving as an indicator of the leadershipâs commitment to the establishment of a culture and a climate that supports the responsible conduct of research. Outcomes The outcomes of organizational activities refer to the specific results that reflect the achievement of goals and objectives. As with organiza- tional outputs, outcomes can be associated with the organization as a whole, the research group, or the individual scientist. However, the committeeâs primary interest is in the individual scientistâs level of integ- rity in research. As discussed in Chapter 2, the committee defines integ- rity in research as the individual scientistâs adherence to a number of normative practices for the responsible conduct of research. Adherence to these practices provides a set of behavioral indicators of an individualâs integrity in research. However, behavioral compliance is assumed to be associated with an understanding of the norms, rules, and practices of science. In addition, judgments about an individualâs integ- rity are based on the extent to which intellectual honesty, accuracy, fair-
62 INTEGRITY IN SCIENTIFIC RESEARCH ness, and collegiality consistently characterize the dispositions and atti- tudes reflected in a researcherâs practice. Judgments about a personâs integrity are less about strict adherence to the rules of practice and are more about the disposition to be intellectually honest, accurate, and fair in the practice of science (i.e., in the willingness to admit and correct oneâs errors and shortcomings). The committee resisted defining integrity in terms of (1) adherence to the normative practices listed in Chapter 2, (2) the knowledge and aware- ness of the practices of responsible research, and (3) the attitudes and orientation toward the practices of responsible research (i.e., the degree to which individuals agree with the practices, the level of importance that they attach to them, and the extent to which they are subject to conflicting sets of practices), as has been common in the social sciences.3 These three conceptually distinct categories of outcomes fail to capture the complex- ity of the process through which individuals interact with their environ- ment and make ethical decisions. One simply cannot assume that as scien- tists gain awareness of standards of practice, they will be positively oriented to them or will be more likely to adhere to the behavioral re- quirements. The committee recognizes that although researchers might be well intentioned, there is truth in what psychologists (Rest, 1983) have observed: that everyone is capable of missing a moral issue (moral blind- ness); developing elaborate and internally persuasive arguments to jus- tify questionable actions (defective reasoning); failing to prioritize a moral value over a personal one (lack of motivation or commitment); being ineffectual, devious, or careless (character or personality defects, often implied when someone is referred to as âa jerkâ); or having ineffectual skills at problem solving or interpersonal communication (incompetence). For this reason, focusing on the processes that give rise to the respon- sible conduct of research are important individual-level outcomes of or- ganizational activities within the research environment. Components of the process of ethical decision making include ethical sensitivity, reason- 3A recent review of approaches to the study of morality (Bebeau et al., 1999) has chal- lenged the usefulness of the usual tripartite view that assumes that the elements to be studied and assessed are attitudes, knowledge, and behavior. When researchers have stud- ied the connections among these elements, they usually do not find significant connections and are left with the conclusion that attitudes do not have much to do with knowing and behavior is often devoid of feeling and thinking. A more profitable approach is to assume that many types of cognitions, many types of affects, and many kinds of observable behav- iors are involved in morality or integrity. All behavior is the result of cognitive-affective processes. Instead of studying cognitions, affects, and behaviors as separate elements, psy- chologists suggest that researchers study functional processes that must arise to produce moral behavior (Rest, 1983).
THE RESEARCH ENVIRONMENT AND ITS IMPACT 63 ing, moral motivation and commitment, and character and competence (Bebeau, 2001). Educational programs that train scientists in the respon- sible conduct of research are often premised on the assumption that these essential capacities for ethical decision making are well developed by the time individuals begin their research education, and that one simply needs to teach the rules of the responsible conduct of research. Research on ethical development in the professions demonstrates that even mature professionals show considerable variability on performance assessments that measure ethical sensitivity, moral reasoning and judgment, profes- sional role orientation, and appropriate character and competence to implement action plans effectively. Therefore, if a research environment implements educational pro- grams to foster integrity in research, then these programs should promote sensitivity to issues that are likely to arise in the research setting by build- ing a capacity for reasoning carefully about conflicts inherent in propos- ing, conducting, and reporting research; by developing a sense of per- sonal identity that incorporates the norms and values of the research culture; and by building competence in problem solving and interper- sonal communication (see Chapter 5 for further discussion). External Environment The external environment of a research organization consists of both an external-task environment and a general environment (Figure 3-2). The external-task environment includes all the organizations and condi- tions that are directly related to an organizationâs main operations and its technologies. The systems and subsystems of the external-task environ- ment are embedded within the larger sociocultural, political, and eco- nomic environment and have a more indirect impact on an organization. It is important to recognize that relationships also exist between and among all elements within the external environment. For example, gov- ernment policies and regulations can affect the areas and levels of fund- ing. Journal policies can be affected by decisions made within scientific associations, and these decisions can be driven by government regulation (or pending regulation). External-Task Environment A number of factors within the external-task environment have a significant impact on scientistsâ responsible conduct of research. These factors include government regulation, funding for scientific work, job opportunities for trainees and researchers, journal policies and practices, and the policies and practices of scientific societies.
64 General Sociocultural, Political, and Economic Environment Funding Government for regulation scientific work Research Organizations Journal policies and Human practices resources/ job market Policies and practices of scientific societies FIGURE 3-2 Environmental influences on integrity in research that are external to research organizations. The external-task environment includes all of the organizations and conditions that are directly related to an organizationâs main operations and technologies. The double arrows depict the interrelatedness between the research organization and the various external influenc- es (unshaded circles) that are hypothesized to have an impact on integrity in research. The general environment has a more indirect impact on an organization. The systems and subsystems of the external-task environment are embedded within the larger, general sociocultural, political, and economic environment (shaded area). Although not specifically shown in this figure, it is important to recognize that relationships exist between and among the elements within the external environment.
THE RESEARCH ENVIRONMENT AND ITS IMPACT 65 Government Regulation Governmental bodies, particularly at the fed- eral level, have been promulgating regulations concerning the conduct of research for many years. Most widely known and recognized are the regulations regarding the protection of human research subjects (45 C.F.R. Â§ 46, 1999; 21 C.F.R. Â§ 50 and 56, 1998) and the protection of animals in research (7 U.S.C. Â§Â§ 2131, 1966, et seq.). Furthermore, regulations have been promulgated regarding the evaluation of allegations and the report- ing of scientific misconduct (42 C.F.R. Â§ 50, Â§Â§A, 1989; Federal Register, 2000) and the handling and disposal of hazardous chemicals in the labo- ratory (29 C.F.R. Â§ 1910.1450, 1996), to name just two. As these govern- ment regulations come into force, they have direct impacts on a research organization and individual scientists. Specifically, organizations and in- dividuals must be in compliance with the regulations or face sanctions. Funding for Scientific Work Research organizations are directly af- fected by both the level and the source of funding that is available for scientific work (e.g., they are affected by the balances between govern- ment and corporate support and between industry and foundation sup- port). Most funding sources provide support for specific research propos- als rather than particular investigators. Although proposals are usually ranked on a relative scale, more typically they are funded in an all-or- none fashion. At the same time, funding needs always outpace funding opportunities. For instance, only one in three investigator-initiated grant proposals (see http://silk.nih.gov/public/cbz2zoz.@www.com.rpg.act. dsncc) to the National Institutes of Health is successful. In this situation, even investigators who succeed in their research sometimes lose funding, a fate that threatens the very existence of their projects and often threatens their personal incomes. The task for research organizations is to develop structures that help their scientists deal with this competitive research situation while main- taining the responsible conduct of research. Similarly, when corporate or industry funds are involved, research organizations should require strat- egies for the management and disclosure of conflicts of interest to reduce problems related to publication rights, ownership of intellectual prop- erty, and research involving human subjects. Job Opportunities When the job market is tight and there is more com- petition for every research position, researchers will be pressured to achieve higher levels of productivity and recognition. This situation chal- lenges scientists to be the best while maintaining the highest levels of integrity in research. Similarly, research programs must compete for stu- dents and postdoctoral fellows, who, in turn, enhance a programâs ac- complishments and overall status. The ability of researchers to gain rec-
66 INTEGRITY IN SCIENTIFIC RESEARCH ognition often is believed to be the best path to attracting high-quality trainees to a program. The organizational challenge is to help researchers develop competitive programs while maintaining a high level of commit- ment to integrity in research. Journal Policies and Practices Journal editors can be more or less rigor- ous in their implementation of the review process and the extent to which they insist on high levels of adherence to scientific standards. Further- more, journals may have specific policies in such areas as authorship practices, disclosure of conflicts of interest, duplicate publication, and reporting of research methodologies. The scientific community receives an important message about integrity in research when journal policies and practices regarding these practices are clear and are required as a condition of publicationâand when the most prestigious journals adopt such practices. For example, members of the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors recently revised their submission policies related to industry-sponsored research. Authors are now required to sign a state- ment accepting full responsibility for the conduct of a clinical trial, and they must confirm that they had access to the original data and had full control over the decision to publish (Davidoff et al., 2001). Policies and Practices of Scientific Societies Scientific societies are in a position to influence the behaviors of their members in ways that could promote integrity in research4 (AAAS, 2000). The societies vary exten- sively, however, in their development of codes of conduct, their enforce- ment of such codes, and their socialization of members with regard to these standards of behavior. To aid in this process, the Association of American Medical Colleges has published a guide to help societies in the development of ethical codes (AAMC, 1997). Other associations develop standards for accreditationâfor example, standards for science education programs, research laboratories, and programs for the protection of hu- man and animal research subjects. These accreditation standards gener- ally have specific statements regarding the responsible conduct of re- search and stipulate the structures within the organization that must be in place to ensure compliance with the standards. Scientists who are part of such accredited programs will be subject to the influences of these exter- nal controls. 4See Chapter 6 for further discussion of the role professional and scientific societies can play in fostering an environment that promotes integrity in research.
THE RESEARCH ENVIRONMENT AND ITS IMPACT 67 General Environment The general environment has an indirect impact on an organization. This environment includes all of the conditions and institutions that have sustained or infrequent impacts on the organization and its functions (Harrison, 1994). Included are the state or conditions of major social insti- tutions (e.g., the economy, political system, educational system, science and technology system, and legal system) as well as the local, national, and international cultures within which an organization operates. The general public, and more specifically the effects of public trust in the research enterprise, are also important components of the general envi- ronment. As reflected in Figure 3-2, the organizations and conditions of the external-task environment (unshaded circles) are embedded within this larger environment (shaded area). An example of how the broader environment can affect the conduct of research is the recent national debate over embryonic stem cell re- search; this debate reflects a clash of values that affect the characterization of ethical or unethical research (NAS, 2001; National Bioethics Advisory Commission, 1999). In another instance, the new rules governing the pri- vacy of health records that are part of the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act are being challenged by scientists as too restric- tive in providing access to identifiable data for research (AAMC, 2001; Annas, 2002). Also, society places a high premium on human rights and the protection of vulnerable persons, values that have been translated into federal regulations for the protection of human research subjects (45 C.F.R. Â§ 46, 1993, and 21 C.F.R. Â§ 50 and 56, 1981). Other social institutions also have an indirect impact on research en- vironments. Educational systems produce scientists, and these systems affect not only their quantity but also their quality and how well they have been socialized into professional standards of conduct. The technol- ogy systems determine the availability of equipment and the methods used to carry out various types of research, factors that may raise ques- tions about the propriety of certain research endeavors. Ethical conflicts are often created when the development of new technologies requires an answer to the question of whether what can be done should be done. Finally, the legal system and the propensity in the United States to resort to litigation may bring about situations in which scientists are caught between the responsible conduct of research and subpoenas for confiden- tial data. These examples are by no means exhaustive, but they reflect the ways in which major social institutions and cultural values can affect research organizations and a scientistâs practice of research.
68 INTEGRITY IN SCIENTIFIC RESEARCH SUMMARY The committee found no comprehensive body of research or writing that can guide the development of hypotheses regarding the relationships between the research environment and the responsible conduct of re- search. However, viewing the research environment as an open-systems model, which is often used in general organizational and administrative theory, makes it possible to hypothesize how various components affect integrity in research. Inputs of funds and other resources can influence behavior both positively and negatively. The organizational structure and processes that typify the mission and activities of an organization can either promote or detract from the responsible conduct of research. The culture and climate that are unique to an organization both promote and perpetuate certain behaviors. Finally, the external environment, over which individuals and, often, institutions have little control, can affect behavior and alter institutional integrity for better or for worse. REFERENCES AAAS (American Association for the Advancement of Science). 2000. The Role and Activities of Scientific Societies in Promoting Research Integrity. A report of a conference, April 10, 2000, Washington, DC. [Online]. Available: http://www.aaas.org/spp/dspp/sfrl/ projects/integrity.htm [Accessed January 7, 2002]. AAMC (Association of American Medical Colleges). 1997. Developing a Code of Ethics in Research: A Guide for Scientific Societies. Washington, DC: AAMC. AAMC. 2001. Letter to Secretary Thompson on Impact of Medical Privacy Rule on Research. [Online]. Available: http://www.aamc.org/advocacy/corres/research/thompson. htm [Accessed February 1, 2002]. Anderson J, Rungtusanatham M, Schroeder R, Devaraj S. 1995. A path analytic model of a theory of quality management underlying the Deming management method: Prelimi- nary empirical findings. Decision Sciences 26:637â658. Anderson MS. 1996. Misconduct and departmental context: Evidence from the Acadia Insti- tuteâs Graduate Education Project. Journal of Information Ethics 5(1):15â33. Anderson MS, Louis KS. 1994. The graduate student experience and subscription to the norms of science. Research in Higher Education 35:273â299. Anderson MS, Louis KS, Earle J. 1994. Disciplinary and departmental effects on observa- tions of faculty and graduate student misconduct. Journal of Higher Education 65:331â 350. Anderson MS, Oju EC, Falkner TMR. 2001. Help from faculty: Findings from the Acadia Institute Graduate Education Study. Science and Engineering Ethics 7:487â503. Andrews KR. 1989. Ethics in practice. Harvard Business Review Sept-Oct:99â104. Annas GJ. 2002. Medical privacy and medical researchâjudging the new federal regula- tions. New England Journal of Medicine 346:216â220. Ashforth BE. 1985. Climate formation: Issues and extensions. Academy of Management Re- view 10:837â847. Bebeau MJ. 2001. Influencing the moral dimensions of professional practice: Implications for teaching and assessing for research integrity. In: Steneck NH, Scheetz MD, eds. . Investigating Research Integrity: Proceedings of the First ORI Research Conference on
THE RESEARCH ENVIRONMENT AND ITS IMPACT 69 Research Integrity. Washington, DC: Office of Research Integrity, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. Pp. 179-188. Bebeau MJ, Rest JR, Narvaez D. 1999. Beyond the promise: A perspective on research in moral education. Educational Researcher 28(4):18â26. Beer M. 1980. Organizational Change and DevelopmentâA Systems View. Santa Monica, CA: Goodyear. Brookfield SD. 1986. Understanding and Facilitating Adult Learning: A Comprehensive Analysis of Principles and Effective Practices. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Cross KP. 1981. Adults as Learners: Increasing Participation and Facilitating Learning. San Fran- cisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Daft R. 1992. Organizations: Theory and Design, 4th ed. St. Paul, MN: West Publishing. Davidoff F, DeAngelis CD, Drazen JM, Nicholls MG, Hoey J, Hojgaard L, Horton R, Kotzin S, Nylenna M, Overbeke AJPM, Sox HC, Van Der Weyden MB, Wilkes MS. 2001. Sponsorship, authorship and accountability. Canadian Medical Association Journal 165:786â788. Davis D, OâBrien MAT, Freemantle N, Wolf FM, Mazmanian P, Taylor-Vaisey A. 1999. Impact of formal continuing medical education: Do conferences, workshops, rounds, and other traditional continuing education activities change physician behavior or health care outcomes? Journal of American Medical Association 282:867â874. Deming WE. 1986. Out of Crisis. Cambridge, MA: Center for Advanced Engineering Study, Massachusetts Institute of Technology. Donabedian A. 1980. Explorations in Quality Assessment and Monitoring: The Definition of Quality and Approaches to Its Assessment. Vol. 1. Ann Arbor, MI: Health Administration Press. Federal Register. 2000. Public Health Service Standards for the Protection of Research. [Online]. Available: http://frwebgate4.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/waisgate.cgi?WAISdocID= 47426132664+0+2+0&WAISaction=retrieve [Accessed March 18, 2002]. Fiol DC, Lyles MA. 1985. Organizational learning. Academy of Management Review 10:803â 813. Freuberg D. 1986. The Corporate Conscience: Money, Power, and Responsible Business. New York, NY: American Management Association. Hackman JR, Wageman R. 1995. Total quality management: Empirical, conceptual, and practical issues. Administrative Science Quarterly 40:309â342. Hamner WC, Organ DW. 1978. Organizational Behavior: An Applied Psychological Approach. Dallas, TX: Business Publications. Harrison MI. 1994. Diagnosing Organizations: Methods, Models, and Processes, 2nd ed. Thou- sand Oaks, CA: Sage. Hegarty WH, Sims HP. 1978. Some determinants of unethical decision behavior: An experi- ment. Journal of Applied Psychology 63:451â457. Hegarty WH, Sims HP. 1979. Organizational philosophy, policies, and objectives related to unethical decision behavior: A laboratory experiment. Journal of Applied Psychology 64:331â338. Heitman E. 2000. Ethical values in the education of biomedical researchers. Hastings Center Report 30:S40âS44. Jendrek MP. 1992. Studentsâ reactions to academic dishonesty. Journal of College Student Development 33:260â273. Katz D, Kahn R. 1978. The Social Psychology of Organizations, 2nd ed. New York, NY: Wiley. Katz R. 1980. Time and work: Toward an integrative perspective. In: Staw BM, Cummings LL, eds. Research in Organizational Behavior, Vol. 2. Greenwich, CT: JAI Press. Pp. 81â 127.
70 INTEGRITY IN SCIENTIFIC RESEARCH Knowles MS. 1970. The Modern Practice of Adult Education: Andragagy Versus Pedagogy. New York, NY: New York Association Press. Kohlberg L. 1984. The Psychology of Moral Development: The Nature and Validity of Moral Stages. San Francisco: Harper & Row. Essays on Moral Development Vol. 2. Kurland N. 1996. Trust, accountability, and sales agentsâ dueling loyalties. Business Ethics Quarterly 6:289â310. Louis KS, Anderson MS, Rosenberg L. 1995. Academic misconduct and values: The depart- mentâs influence. The Review of Higher Education 18:393â422. McCabe DL. 2000. New research on academic integrity: the success of âmodifiedâ honor codes. Synfax Weekly Report [Online]. Available: http://www.collegepubs.com/ref/ SFX000515.shtml [Accessed July 25, 2001]. McCabe DL, Pavela GM. 1998. The effect of institutional policies and procedures on aca- demic integrity. In: Burnett DD, Rudolph L, Clifford KO, eds. Academic Integrity Mat- ters. Washington, DC: National Association of Student Personnel Administrators, Inc. Pp. 93â108. McCabe DL, TreviÃ±o LK. 1993. Academic dishonesty: Honor codes and other contextual influences. Journal of Higher Education 64:522â538. McCabe DL, TreviÃ±o LK, Butterfield KD. 1996. The influence of collegiate and corporate codes of conduct on ethics-related behavior in the workplace. Business Ethics Quarterly 6:461â476. NAS (National Academy of Sciences). 2001. Biological and Biomedical Applications of Stem Cell Research. Washington, DC: National Academy Press. National Bioethics Advisory Commission. 1999. Ethical Issues in Human Stem Cell Research, Vol. I to III. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office. NIST (National Institute of Standards and Technology). 1999. Malcolm Baldrige National Qual- ity Award 1998 Education Criteria for Performance Excellence. Washington, DC: U.S. De- partment of Commerce. OGE (U.S. Office of Government Ethics). 2000. Executive Branch Employee Ethics: Survey 2000. Washington, DC: OGE. Perry A, Kane K, Bernesser K, Spicker P. 1990. Type A behavior, competitive achievement- striving, and cheating among college students. Psychological Reports 66:459â465. Peters TJ. 1978. Symbols, patterns, and settings: An optimistic case for getting things done. Organizational Dynamics 7(2):3â23. Peters TJ, Waterman RH, Jr. 1982. In Search of Excellence: Lessons from Americaâs Best-Run Companies. New York, NY: Harper & Row. Pfeffer J. 1981. Management as symbolic action: The creation and maintenance of organiza- tional paradigms. In: Cummings LL, Staw BM eds. Research in Organizational Behavior, Vol. 3. Greenwich, CT: JAI Press. Pp. 1â52. Posner B, Schmidt W. 1982. What kind of people enter the public and private sectors? An undated comparison of perceptions, stereotypes, and values. Human Resource Manage- ment 21:35â43. Posner B, Schmidt W. 1984. Values and the American manager: An update. California Man- agement Review 26(3):202â216. Rest, J. 1983. Morality. In: Mussen PH (series ed.) and Flavell J, Markman E (vol. eds.), Handbook of Child Psychology, Vol. 3, Cognitive Development, 4th ed. New York, NY: Wiley. Pp. 556â629. Rest J, Narvaez D, Bebeau MJ, Thoma SJ. 1999. Postconventional Moral Thinking: A Neo- Kohlbergian Approach. Hillsdale, NJ: L. Erlbaum Associates. Saraph JV, Benson PG, Schroeder RG. 1989. An instrument for measuring the critical factors of quality management. Decision Sciences 20:810â829. Schein EH. 1968. Organizational socialization and the profession of management. Industrial Management Review 9:1-15.
THE RESEARCH ENVIRONMENT AND ITS IMPACT 71 Schneider B. 1975. Organizational climates: An essay. Personnel Psychology 28:447â479. Schneider B, Reichers AE. 1983. On the etiology of climates. Personnel Psychology 36:19â39. SchÃ¶n DA. 1983. Organizational learning. In: Morgan G, ed. Beyond Method: Strategies for Social Research. Newbury Park, CA: Sage. Pp. 114â128. Siehl C, Martin J. 1984. The role of symbolic management: How can managers effectively transmit organizational culture? In: Hunt JG, Hosking DM, Schriesheim CA, Stewart R, eds. Leaders and Managers: International Perspectives on Managerial Behavior and Leader- ship. Elmsford, NY: Pergamon. Pp. 227â239. Swazey JP, Anderson MS. 1998. Mentors, advisors, and role models in graduate and profes- sional education. In: Rubin ER, ed. Mission Management: A New Synthesis, Vol. 2. Wash- ington, DC: Association of Academic Health Centers. Pp. 165â185. Swazey JP, Anderson MS, Louis KS. 1993. Ethical problems in academic research. American Scientist 81:542â553. TreviÃ±o LK. 1990. A cultural perspective on changing and developing organizational ethics. Research in Organizational Change and Development 4:195â230. TreviÃ±o LK, Butterfield KD, McCabe DL. 1996. The ethical context in organizations: Influ- ences on employee attitudes and behaviors. Business Ethics Quarterly 8(3):447â476. Van Maanen J, Schein EH. 1979. Toward a theory of organizational socialization. In: Staw BM, ed. Research in Organizational Behavior, Vol. 1. Greenwich, CT: JAI Press. Pp. 209â 264. Victor B, Cullen JB. 1988. The organizational bases of ethical work climates. Administrative Science Quarterly 33:101â125. Walker OC, Churchill GA, Ford NM. 1979. Where do we go from here? Selected conceptual and empirical issues concerning the motivation and performance of the industrial sales force. In: Albuam G, Churchill GA, eds. Critical Issues in Sales Management State of the Art and Future Research Needs. Eugene, OR: University of Oregon Press. Pp. 10â75. Wanous JP. 1980. Organizational Entry: Recruitment, Selection, and Socialization of Newcomers. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley. Wimbush JC, Shepard JM. 1994. Toward an understanding of ethical climate: Its relation- ship to ethical behavior and supervisory influence. Journal of Business Ethics 13:637â 647.