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.
5 Promoting Integrity in Research through Education For many institutions, the impetus for the development of educa- tional programs in the responsible conduct of research came from the 1989 mandate of the National Institutes of Health (NIH) to provide such education to all graduate students and postdoctoral fellows supported by National Research Service Awards (NIH, 1989). However, in this chapter, the committee argues that the provision of instruction in the responsible conduct of research derives from a premise fundamental to doing science: the responsible conduct of research is not distinct from research; on the contrary, competency in research entails responsible conduct and the ca- pacity for ethical decision making. Indeed, the committee argues that integrity in research should be developed in the context of an overall research education program. The committee believes that doing so will be the best way to accomplish the following five objectives: 1. emphasize that responsible conduct is central to conducting good science; 2. maximize the likelihood that education in the responsible conduct of research influences individuals and institutions rather than merely sat- isfies an item on a âcheck-offâ list for that institution; 3. impart essential standards and guidelines regarding responsible conduct in oneâs discipline; 84
PROMOTING INTEGRITY IN RESEARCH THROUGH EDUCATION 85 4. enable participants in the educational programs to develop abili- ties1 that will help them to effectively manage concerns related to respon- sible conduct of research as they arise in the future; and 5. verify that the first four objectives have been met. The committee believes that useful insight into the best practice for education in the responsible conduct of research comes by analogy to the education of students in the critical analysis of the research literature in their fields. How is critical reading taught? First, students are introduced to the primary literature as soon as they enter an educational program. Second, the complexity of the readings and the depth of the analysis are gradually increased. Third, critical reading of journal articles, under the guidance of a mentor, is integrated into all aspects of the curriculum: core courses, seminars, the design of research projects, and the preparation of research manuscripts. Fourth, critical reading is taught by the very scien- tists who provide instruction in other aspects of research and who serve as primary role models. Finally, student competence is tested whenever students are asked to provide support for their ideas and conclusions. Consistent with the principles of effective instruction, assessment and feedback are continually provided from a studentâs first seminar presen- tation to the final thesis defense and submission of manuscripts for publi- cation. Education in the responsible conduct of research should be no less integral to the education of a researcher (Fischer and Zigmond, 1996; Gifford, 1994; Hensel, 1991). This principle was adopted by the National Academy of Sciences in 1992: âScientists and research institutes should integrate into their curricula educational programs that foster faculty and student awareness of concerns related to the integrity of the research processâ (emphasis added) (NAS, 1992). Moreover, when this committee advocates the promotion of integrity in the institutional research environ- ment, it is advocating the creation of a climate in the institution, the de- partment, and the research group that promotes integrity in research. The committee recommends a model for education in the responsible conduct of research that includes the following principles: 1Abilities are complex combinations of motivations, dispositions, attitudes, values, knowl- edge of concepts and procedures, skills, strategies, and behaviors. These combinations are dynamic and interactive, and they can be acquired and developed through both education and experience (Mentkowski, 2000).
86 INTEGRITY IN SCIENTIFIC RESEARCH 1. The educational program should be built around the development of abilities that give rise to responsible conduct. These include the ability to (a) identify the ethical dimensions of situations that arise in the re- search setting and the laws, regulations, and guidelines governing oneâs field that apply to those situations (ethical sensitivity); (b) develop defen- sible rationales for a choice of action (ethical reasoning); (c) integrate the values of oneâs professional discipline with oneâs own personal values (identity formation) and appropriately prioritize professional values over personal ones (showing moral motivation and commitment); and (d) perform with integrity the complex tasks (e.g., communicate ideas and results, obtain funding, teach, and supervise) that are essential to oneâs career (survival skills2). 2. The program should be designed in accordance with basic prin- ciples of adult learning. In particular, education in the responsible con- duct of research should (a) be provided within the context of the overall education program, including adviser-trainee interactions, the core disci- pline-specific curriculum, and explicit education in professional skills; (b) take place over an extended period of time, preferably the entire educa- tional program, and include review, practice, and assessment; and (c) involve active learning, including interactions among the instructors and the trainees. 3. The instruction should be provided as much as possible by faculty who are actively engaged in research related to that of the trainees. This chapter is divided into four sections. It begins by briefly discuss- ing abilities that should form the basis of education in the responsible conduct of research. It then outlines some of the emerging principles of adult learning. Next, it discusses how one might develop an effective curriculum, including how best to make use of the approaches now being used at many institutions. The final section summarizes the committeeâs findings. Educational efforts on the responsible conduct of research should be designed to reach everyone involved in scientific research. As noted in Chapter 2, institutional leaders (e.g., chancellors, presidents, deans, chief executive officers) set the tone for the institutions with their own actions. Similarly, research leaders set an example with their own research prac- tices. As discussed in Chapter 3, evidence from the organizational re- search literature demonstrates a relationship between supervisor behav- ior and the ethical conduct of the members of an organization (Posner and Schmidt, 1982, 1984; Walker et al., 1979). Continuing education of senior 2Here the term skills is not used in the narrow sense that suggests a dichotomy between knowing and doing.
PROMOTING INTEGRITY IN RESEARCH THROUGH EDUCATION 87 researchers and administrators demonstrates a commitment of leadership to integrity in research and may help close the gap between what is taught and what trainees and junior staff see in practice (Hafferty and Franks, 1994; Hundert, 1996). Without formal training for all existing researchers and an instructional program for new staff and researchers, an institution will not be able to develop a consistent message to trainees and students. CREATING A LEARNING ENVIRONMENT THAT FOSTERS INTEGRITY IN RESEARCH To create a learning environment that fosters integrity in research, educators need to consider what is known about the development of integrity in other professional contexts and what that information sug- gests about the abilities that enable responsible conduct. A substantial body of literature drawn from a variety of research traditions (Rest, 1983) indicates that whether professionals engage in responsible professional conduct depends on the developmental abilities briefly described in point 1 above and explained more fully in the sections that follow. Research also demonstrates that individuals participating in a formal educational program and seasoned professionals can be influenced by an educational environment that provides opportunities to develop the four abilities mentioned in point 1 above (Bebeau, 2001). (For operational defi- nitions of each of the psychological processes from which the abilities are defined, see the Four-Component Model of Morality in Box 5-1.) The processes related to ethical decision making consider that each of the four components is a mix of affective and cognitive processes that contribute to the componentâs primary function (Bebeau et al., 1999; Rest, 1983) (see Chapter 3). The implication, then, is to teach the abilities (derived from these psychological processes) in context, as proposed in the sections that follow. Interpreting the Ethical Dimensions of Problems in the Research Setting Ethical sensitivity involves the awareness by researchers of how their actions affect others. In addition to the ability to anticipate the reactions and feelings of colleagues, supervisors, research participants, and others, ethical sensitivity involves being aware of alternative courses of action and how each could affect the parties concerned. It also involves the ability to construct possible scenarios with knowledge of cause-conse- quence chains of events in the research environment. Ethical sensitivity requires empathy and role-taking skills. For individuals being socialized to the research setting, ethical sensitivity involves the ability to see things
88 INTEGRITY IN SCIENTIFIC RESEARCH BOX 5-1 The Four-Component Model of Morality Starting from the question âHow does moral behavior come about?â Rest (1983) suggested that the literature supports at least four component processes, all of which must be activated for moral behavior to occur. These four components are: Moral sensitivity. Moral sensitivity (interpreting the situation as moral) is the awareness of how oneâs actions affect other people. It involves being aware of the different possible lines of action and how each line of action could affect the parties concerned (including oneself). Moral sensitivity involves imaginatively constructing possible scenarios (often from limited cues and partial information), knowing cause-consequence chains of events in the real world, and having empathy and role-taking skills. Moral sensitivity is necessary to become aware that a moral is- sue is involved in a situation. Moral judgment. Once a person is aware that various lines of action are pos- sible, one must ask which line of action is more justified morally. This is the pro- cess emphasized in the work of Piaget (1932) and Kohlberg (1984). Even at an early stage in life, people have intuitions about what is fair and moral and make moral judgments about even the most complex of human activities. Moral motivation and commitment. Moral motivation and commitment in- volves prioritization of moral values over other personal values. People have many values (e.g., values related to their careers, affectional relationships, aesthetic pref- erences, institutional loyalties, hedonistic pleasures, and things that excite them). Moral motivation and moral character and competence. Moral character and competence is having the strength of your convictions, having courage, per- sisting, overcoming distractions and obstacles, having implementing skills, and having ego strength. A person may be sensitive to moral issues, have good judg- ment, and prioritize moral values; but if he or she is lacking in moral character and competence, he or she may wilt under pressure or fatigue, may not follow through, and may be distracted or discouraged, and moral behavior will fail. This compo- nent presupposes that one has set goals, has self-discipline and controls impuls- es, and has the strength and skill to act in accord with oneâs goals. It is noteworthy that the model is not conceived as a linear problem-solving model. For example, moral motivation may affect moral sensitivity, and moral char- acter may constrain moral motivation. In fact, Rest (1983) makes clear the interac- tive nature of the components. Furthermore, and in contrast to other models of moral function that focus on the traditional three domainsâcognitions, affect, and behavior (Eisenberg, 1986; Lickona, 1991)âthe Four-Component Model of Moral- ity assumes that cognition and affect co-occur in all areas of moral functioning. Thus, moral action is not simply the result of separate affective and cognitive pro- cesses operating as part of an interaction. Instead, each of the four components is a mix of affective and cognitive processes that contribute to the componentâs pri- mary function (e.g., identifying a situation as moral). Bebeau and colleagues (1999) suggest that researchers focus attention on identifying processes as they contrib- ute to moral action rather than attempting to understand moral actions from a starting point defined by arbitrarily dividing moral functioning into cognitions, affect, and behavior. SOURCE: Adapted from Bebeau et al. (1999).
PROMOTING INTEGRITY IN RESEARCH THROUGH EDUCATION 89 from the perspective of other individuals and groups (including other cultural and socioeconomic groups), and, more abstractly, from legal, institutional, and national perspectives. Thus, it includes learning the laws, regulations, guidelines, and norms of oneâs profession and recog- nizing when they apply. In professional settings, the focus is on ethical sensitivity, rather than the more general âmoral sensitivityâ described in the operational definition (Box 5-1), to signal the distinctive expectations of the researcher that derive from the norms and rules that govern re- search practice. Research on ethical sensitivity in professional settings indicates that (1) ethical sensitivity can be reliably assessed, (2) students and profession- als vary in their sensitivities to ethical issues, (3) ethical sensitivity can be enhanced through instruction, and (4) the sensitivity to issues is distinct from the ability to reason about issues (Bebeau, 2001). See Appendix B for a more extensive discussion of the findings from several professions that have studied ethical sensitivity in relationship to professional perfor- mance. Teaching Strategies Many educators are familiar with sensitivity training that addresses such topics as affirmative action, gender equity, multiculturalism, aware- ness of diversity, and sexual harassment; and each of these topics has an appropriate place in the research setting. However, to promote training in ethical sensitivity in the responsible conduct of research, one also needs to focus on essential policies and practices related to the conduct of research. Such issues include the use of humans and animals in research; rules and codes governing environmental health and safety; processes and proce- dures for dealing with allegations of misconduct; authorship policies and practices; the acquisition, management, sharing, and ownership of data; conflicts of interest and commitment; and the responsible management of grant funds (see Chapter 2). It is not that learners need to memorize policy documents and pass multiple-choice tests to demonstrate the acquisition of knowledge about details related to each of the content areas. Indeed, focusing on such details is often what learners view as demeaning. However, students need to know that such policies and guides exist and why they exist. In instruc- tional settings they should be referred to often enough that students be- come familiar with them and references to them become habitual. To engage students in familiarizing themselves with the policies and prac- tices, educators can rely on the techniques advocated in problem-based learning.
90 INTEGRITY IN SCIENTIFIC RESEARCH Designing Cases Educators can design real or hypothetical situations that require learn- ers to refer to policy guides as they identify stakeholders, consider conse- quences, and engage in probabilistic reasoning. What distinguishes sensi- tivity training from other kinds of case analysis is the way in which the instructor presents the material used to promote discussion. Distinct from the cases typically used in ethics courses, the information used in cases designed to foster ethical sensitivity is not predigested or interpreted. Instead, the case merely presents clues to a problem without signaling the particular violation of interpersonal, cultural, or normative practices that is being exhibited in the material. Through the use of such cases, learners can be directed to institutional policies and professional guidelines that set forth appropriate behavior. The challenge in a sensitivity assessment often is to distinguish the relevant information from the irrelevant infor- mation, to recognize the norms and values that should be considered, and even to recognize when these norms, rules, and values have been vio- lated. Assessment Methods Tests of ethical sensitivity have been developed in a variety of profes- sional settings (see Appendix B). These tests often involve the same types of cases that are used for instructional purposes and might require a student to witness on either videotape or audiotape an interaction that replicates professional interactions and that provides clues to a profes- sional ethical dilemma (Bebeau and Rest, 1990). For example, the Racial Ethical Sensitivity Test (Brabeck, 1998) consists of five videotaped sce- narios that portray acts of intolerance exhibited by professionals in school settings. Each scenario includes five to nine acts of intolerance that violate one or more of the common principles specified in codes of ethics. Developing Competence in Reasoning About the Complex Problems That Arise in the Research Setting Ethical reasoning implies that professionals be able to critically ana- lyze their own moral arguments and develop defensible points of view for new problems that are likely to emerge during the course of profes- sional life. Studies of the reasoning development of individuals in a vari- ety of professions (Rest and NarvÃ¡ez, 1994), including students in re- search training (Heitman et al., 2000), indicate that persons entering a profession are not equally able to apply moral ideals to the resolution of complex moral issues. In fact, some novices and even some experienced
PROMOTING INTEGRITY IN RESEARCH THROUGH EDUCATION 91 professionals are unable to reliably distinguish simplistic moral argu- ments that appeal to self-interest and the maintenance of interpersonal affiliations as guides for moral action (referred to as a âpersonal interest moral schemaâ) from arguments that appeal to societal laws and rules as a basis for deciding what should be done (a âmaintaining norms moral schemaâ). In contrast, some professional students and research trainees are as able as persons with training in moral philosophy to work out what should be done in circumstances in which conflicts of interests exist. The mark of mature moral reasoning is the ability to figure out how to fairly modify existing rules or laws to accommodate the new moral problem that has emerged (referred to as âpostconventional moral thinkingâ) (Rest et al., 1999). The effects of ethics instruction on a professionalâs moral reasoning has been extensively studied (Rest and NarvÃ¡ez, 1994). In medicine, for example, Self and Baldwin (1994) have reviewed a wide range of studies that have used the Defining Issues Test (DIT) or other measures of moral judgment to assess reasoning development. They concluded that (1) a medical curriculum without an ethics curriculum tends not to enhance moral reasoning; (2) instruction can be effective, although not all inter- ventions produce significant gains; (3) the effects of at least some inter- ventions can be attributed to an intervention based on comparisons with control groups; (4) strategies other than discussion of a dilemma can pro- duce change; and (5) there is a relationship between reasoning and a range of indicators of physician performance. Although other intervention strategies can produce a change in rea- soning, the most consistent effects in professional education have been achieved with a teaching and assessment strategy that incorporates the dilemma discussion technique (for example, significant change for 14 of 15 cohorts of dental students [Bebeau, 2001]). Over a 10-year period (1983 to 1993), Bebeau and colleagues tested the strategy, incrementally adding instructional elements to improve studentsâ ability to develop well-rea- soned written arguments for addressing solutions to problems that stu- dents commonly encounter. The greatest improvements were achieved when students were provided with criteria for judging the adequacy of arguments and multiple opportunities to develop well-written arguments both before and after case discussions and when they received feedback on the strengths and shortcomings of their arguments from peers as well as from the instructor (Bebeau, 1994). In a reexamination of intervention effects, Rest and colleagues (1997) found two different effects of an intervention. One was the acquisition of new thinking (increases in preferences for postconventional argumentsâ the effect that researchers have typically reported); the second effect was systematic rejection of simplistic thinking (decreases in preferences for
92 INTEGRITY IN SCIENTIFIC RESEARCH personal-interest arguments). Rest and colleagues concluded: âFrom a practical educational point of view, both kinds of developmental progress are desirable: gaining more sophisticated moral thinking and also becom- ing clearer about what ideas should be totally rejected for their simplistic and biased solutionsâ (Rest et al., 1997, p. 500). As a consequence, re- searchers using DIT are encouraged to assess interventions in terms of moral judgment profiles (i.e., the proportion of arguments that appeal to each of the moral schemas) rather than just in terms of advances in post- conventional thinking (Bebeau, 2001). In the early 1990s, researchers at the Poynter Center designed Moral Reasoning in Scientific Research: Cases for Teaching and Assessment (described below), a series of cases for teaching and assessment that incorporated the instructional techniques first tested in dentistry. When experienced re- searchers review these types of cases, as well as others included in avail- able casebooks, they may judge the cases as too simplistic and be tempted to discard them in favor of discussions around contemporary issues that present highly challenging dilemmas. A danger in limiting teaching of responsible conduct to a discussion of contemporary cases is that stu- dents may learn the rules for specific situations but not be able to general- ize to other issues of immediate relevance. Moreover, by focusing entirely on contemporary cases, students may not acquire the skills needed to identify the fallacies in their own arguments or to deal with many of the future unanticipated issues. Thus, the committee encourages faculty to develop a curriculum that provides opportunities to apply the more gen- eral moral reasoning ability that develops as a result of higher education to the specific problems that arise in the research setting (i.e., to develop âethical reasoningâ). On the basis of the original work of Kohlberg (1984) that was expanded by Rest, Bebeau, and colleagues (Bebeau, 1994; Bebeau et al., 1995; Rest et al., 1986), the committee defines ethical or moral rea- soning as the ability to systematically examine a situation and then choose and defend a position on the issue (Bebeau et al., 1995). Arguments are evaluated in terms of the respondentâs ability to describe the following: â¢ ethical issues and points of conflict, including precedents, prin- ciples, rules, or values that support prioritizing one interest over another; â¢ the stakeholders or parties that have a vested interest in the out- come of the situation; â¢ the probable consequences of possible courses of actions; and â¢ the ethical obligations of the central characters. There is an important distinction between the focus in the develop- ment of cases designed to promote the sensitivity just discussed and those
PROMOTING INTEGRITY IN RESEARCH THROUGH EDUCATION 93 designed to promote ethical reasoning. Unlike cases for ethical sensitiv- ityâin which finding and understanding the conflict (i.e., becoming sen- sitive to the conflict) is the focusâwith ethical reasoning one is presenting a conflict that is relatively easily identified and interpreted. It has been shown that instruction in ethical reasoning is effective in increasing the ability of emerging professionals to engage in such tasks (Bebeau, 2001). Teaching Strategies To ensure that learners engage in reasoning about moral issues rather than in problem solving, a case description is followed by the question âShould the protagonist ___?â (e.g., take the data from the research set- ting or add an author to a manuscript) rather than âWhat should the protagonist do?â Learners are asked to take a tentative position either in favor or against the proposed action and to develop the best argument possible. To ensure that discussions are not just windy exchanges of opin- ion, the course facilitator is encouraged to have students explore the crite- ria for judging moral arguments before engaging in discussion and then use the criteria to critique each otherâs verbal or written arguments. Assessment Methods Tools that can be used to assess competence in ethical reasoning are available. Two that are well validated and suitable for adults have al- ready been mentioned: Moral Reasoning in Scientific Research: Cases for Teaching and Assessment (Bebeau et al., 1995) and the Defining Issues Test (DIT) (Rest, 1979; Rest et al., 1999). In the former, the case studies are designed to facilitate improvements in reasoning as well as to assess such improvements. Each case is accompanied by extensive notes and check- lists to help the evaluator achieve reliable judgments. The latter (Rest, 1979; Rest et al., 1999) is a paper-and-pencil measure of moral judgment based on Kohlbergâs (1984) pioneering work on the development of life- span moral judgment. DIT measures the reasoning strategies (moral schemas) that an individual uses when confronted with complex moral problems, as well as the consistency between reasoning and judgment. More extensive descriptions of these tools, including data on their validity, are included in Appendix B. Many other collections of case stud- ies also exist that could be used directly or modified slightly to serve as cases for teaching and assessment of ethical reasoning (see the section Responsible Scientific Conduct in Appendix D).
94 INTEGRITY IN SCIENTIFIC RESEARCH Moral Motivation and Identity Formation The third component in the Four-Component Model of Morality (Box 5-1) acknowledges that individuals have a number of legitimate concerns that may not be compatible with the moral choice. Financial and career pressures, established relationships, and idiosyncratic personal concerns, among many others, compete for the researcherâs attention. Blasi (1985) notes that people differ in how deeply moral notions penetrate their self- understanding and in the kinds of moral considerations that are judged to be constitutive of the self. In other words, moral motivation varies. This requires the attention of educators. Understanding that one is responsible provides the bridge between knowing the right thing to do and doing it. Blasi (1985) and Kegan (1982) see identity formation as a lifelong devel- opmental process. Recent work on identity formation based on Keganâs developmental theory (Forsythe et al., in press) suggests that at least 30 percent of graduates from West Point have not achieved key transitions in identity formation that would enable them to have the broad, internalized understanding of and commitment to codes in the responsible conduct of research and other professional standards. Whereas such individuals may see codes and professional standards as guides for behavior, they are likely to conform to the guides simply to garner rewards and avoid nega- tive consequences, without achieving an understanding of their personal responsibility. Forsythe and colleagues concluded that â[professional] development programs will not be successful in instilling desired values in less mature [preprofessionals] unless the broad educational environ- ment in which they operate promotes identity development toward a shared perspective on professionalismâ (Forsythe et al., in press). Evi- dence from studies of role concept development in dentistry (Bebeau, 1994) support these observations. Recent work on integrity in research is directing attention to the need for more formal efforts to socialize trainees and beginning researchers to professional expectations and values. For example, Braxton and Baird highlight the need to socialize researchers to the role of self-regulation, arguing that âdoctoral study can be configured so that future scientists are prepared to participate in the deterrence, detection, and sanctioning of scientific wrongdoingâ (Braxton and Baird, 2001, p. 593). The responsi- bility for self-regulation would be addressed as part of identity formation, whereas the actual skills would be taught as part of survival skill educa- tion (see below). The need for such socialization is further confirmed by Andersonâs (2001) study of doctoral studentsâ conceptions of science and its norms. She concludes: âThe theme of individual, independent work that runs through these interviews suggests that students might not be subject to as much osmotic group socialization as many faculty assume. It
PROMOTING INTEGRITY IN RESEARCH THROUGH EDUCATION 95 is also clear that the channels by which socialization to the normative aspects of academic life are communicated are primarily informal. Calls for more formal, more deliberate approaches to normative socialization find support in the vagueness with which students conceptualize the norms that underlie academic researchâ (Anderson, 2001, p. 6). Andersonâs study is continuing and is expected to demonstrate the extent to which these norms develop in a academic setting. Teaching Strategies One of the chief objectives of On Being a Scientist (NAS, 1989, 1995a) and Honor in Science (Sigma Xi, 1986) is to convey the central values of the scientific enterprise. In an earlier era, such values were typically con- veyed informally, through mentors and research advisers. Today, stu- dents can be reached in more formal ways. They can be exposed to lectures on the norms and values of science, such as Mertonâs norms, buttressed by discussions of the philosophy of science and such books as Grinnellâs The Scientific Attitude (1992). They also can be encouraged to read stories about exemplary scientists to gain a sense of how such individuals have conceptualized their role and responsibilities as a scientist, a mentor, and a member of the larger society. Such a story, together with commentary, has been developed for an outstanding scientist in dentistry (Rule and Bebeau, 2001). Other examples, such as that portrayed in Djerassiâs novel Canterâs Dilemma (1989), can be effective tools for helping students de- velop their personal identities as scientists. In addition to lectures and discussions about the general norms of science, educators in particular disciplines will want to introduce learners to the code of professional conduct for the discipline. Assessment Methods Two assessment methods can be used to evaluate role concept devel- opment. One is to ask students at various stages of their education to write a short essay entitled âWhat does it mean to become a scientist?â Such an essay can be critiqued on the basis of the extent to which the norms and values that undergird the scientific enterprise are described. Each educator can develop his or her own criteria for assessment of the essay, based on the instruction provided on the topic and the disciplineâs ethical code (see Bebeau  for an example). A second method, devel- oped in other professional settings, is the use of a norm-referenced mea- sure of role concept; that is, the extent to which the individual incorpo- rates the norms and values of the profession into his or her identity.
96 INTEGRITY IN SCIENTIFIC RESEARCH Appendix B includes descriptions of such measures and their value in assessing outcomes of the effort to promote role concept development. Developing Self-Regulation, Self-Efficacy, and Implementation Abilities Necessary for Effective and Responsible Research Practice Fundamental to responsible conduct in any profession is the ability to perform the complex tasks of the discipline with integrity, i.e., to have acquired survival skills. When the committee defined integrity in research (Chapter 2), it defined an aspect of moral character and experience. The fourth component in the Four-Component Model of Morality (Box 5-1) attends to the importance of character to the effective and responsible conduct of research. Integrity, ego strength, perseverance, backbone, toughness, strength of conviction, and courage are also qualities required for effectiveness as a researcher. A researcher may be ethically sensitive, may make good ethical judgments, and may place a high priority on professional values; but if he or she wilts under pressure, is easily dis- tracted or discouraged, or is weak willed, a moral failure may occur be- cause of a deficiency in character and competence. Professional educational programs assist individuals in understand- ing the broad fundamentals of their disciplines; gaining some depth in the details of a particular subarea; and obtaining practical experience in re- search, including experimental design, methodology, data analysis, and other practices detailed in the definition of integrity in research. Fischer and Zigmond (1998) point out that although graduate education has as its purpose the development of a range of practices relevant to the specialty, such programs often lack an essential dimension (Bloom, 1992; Widnall, 1991), the development of a set of general professional skills (Fischer and Zigmond, 1998; Magner, 2000; NAS, 1995b). For example, scientists should be able to present their results at scientific meetings, defend their chosen methodologies and interpretations of data, and prepare written reports. They need to be able to learn from critical comments and suggestions from their professional peers both at oral presentations and through peer review of manuscripts. They may need to obtain grants to fund their research, hire and supervise technical staff, and teach classes and advise individual students. Moreover, with the decrease in tenured positions in academia, science apprentices should learn how to find information on and prepare themselves for other types of careers (NAS, 1995b; Varmus, 1995). Morever, within this broader range of careers, skills other than those specific to the collection and analysis of data may become all the more essential (Cordes, 1997; Greenwood and Kovacs-North, 1999; NAS, 1995b).
PROMOTING INTEGRITY IN RESEARCH THROUGH EDUCATION 97 Teaching Strategies Individuals traditionally learn such professional skills in one of three alternate ways: through trial and error, from the teachings of their advis- ers, or through courses taught by faculty in the discipline from which the skill derives. However, each of these methods has its limitations. Trial and error can lead to professional fatalities, particularly among individu- als without a great deal of experience with the culture of science. Educa- tion by individual advisersâimportant as it is (see below)âmay be lim- ited by the adviserâs own education and resources. Courses devoted to a given skill (e.g., writing or oral presentations) may not be sufficiently relevant to the needs of a researcher or may require more time than is available in an already crowded curriculum. (For more discussion on these points, see Fischer and Zigmond [2001b].) If one cannot count on these routes for gaining necessary skills, what other options are available? The University of Pittsburgh is one institu- tion that has developed an educational model that provides science ap- prentices with an introduction to specific âsurvival skills.â In that model, series of daylong workshops are run throughout the year, one per month for eight months, with each workshop being devoted to a specific topic (Fischer and Zigmond, 2001b). Many other models could be used, includ- ing an intensive minicourse on professional skills and a more traditional course meeting one to three times per week over one or more semesters. Assessment Methods Some aspects of survival skills might be assessed by simple tests; for example, trainees might be asked to edit a description of an experiment, evaluate a research article for possible publication, comment on a rÃ©sumÃ©, or communicate written feedback about some offense to a colleague. In each of these tests, the task should include something that requires atten- tion to the ethical dimensions (e.g., a possible misrepresentation). In addi- tion, whenever possible instructors should include a realistic, perfor- mance-based assessment. Trainees might be asked to assemble a portfolio that includes work that applies specific skills. Such work might include a manuscript, a videotape of a research seminar or class lecture, a poster, a grant application, or a plan for career development. Peers, faculty, or representatives of nonacademic careers could evaluate the portfolios (see Gilmer [1995, 2002] for examples of the use of portfolios). Faculty could use the definition of integrity in research (Chapter 2) to construct the criteria used to judge the contributions in the portfolio. Such an exercise would have the added benefit of subjecting trainees to the type of evalu- ation that many will experience as they move up the career ladder.
98 INTEGRITY IN SCIENTIFIC RESEARCH HOW DO ADULTS LEARN? Having outlined four abilities that should be addressed in a program on the responsible conduct of research, it is also important to examine whether the methods proposed for teaching and assessing these abilities reflect an understanding of how people learn. Principles of Adult Learning This section briefly describes six learning principles that should be considered when developing an educational program on the responsible conduct of research. 1. Education is best provided by individuals who have a deep understanding of their subject matter and whose teaching reflects that they care about and value the material being taught (Wlodkowski, 1999). Teaching of the responsible conduct in research presents a special challenge because it requires a synthesis of ethics and science. When scientists and ethicists collaborate in the design and implementation of learning experiences, students come to appreciate the complexity of problems that arise in the practice of science. Furthermore, when instruction requires the application of norms (and the ethical theories that support them), values, and rules and regula- tions to the practical problems that arise in the day-to-day practice of science, learning is more likely to last and to transfer to new situations. It follows, then, that instruction in the responsible conduct of research by a team of facultyâor by a faculty member with expertise in both ethics and scienceâis optimal. When faculty take time from their scholarly work to provide practical instruction that draws on expertise from related fields, they demonstrate the importance of this educational task and its relevance to the practice of science. Only faculty with a deep understanding of the complexities of the related disciplines can answer questions with concrete examples, avoid- ing the mistake that many so-called experts make in instructing adults: that simply knowing something is enough to teach it effectively (Wlod- kowski, 1999). Turning over a course in the responsible conduct of re- search either to an ethicist with no understanding of the current practice of science or to a scientist who has not taken the time to educate himself or herself about the various processes involved in ethical decision making conveys to students that the subject matter under discussion is peripheral to the current realities in the field. 2. Educational programs in responsible conduct of research should occur over an extended period; indeed, they should occur throughout a traineeâs tenure
PROMOTING INTEGRITY IN RESEARCH THROUGH EDUCATION 99 at an institution. It is clear from educational research that âspaced review and practiceâ (learning that occurs over an extended period, with fre- quent opportunities for practice and feedback) leads to greater retention of information and longer-term behavior change than âmassed learningâ (learning that occurs intensively during a brief period). Furthermore, some learners take a great deal more time to learn something than others do. Academic learning timeâthat is, time spent actively and successfully in- volved in learningâis strongly related to achievement (Fisher et al., 1980). Such findings suggest that programs limited to several hours of instruc- tion during a single day, or even spread over a few weeks, are unlikely to have much of a long-term impact. 3. Active participation in problem-oriented learning is an important compo- nent of effective educational programs. This principle argues for learning that is experiential and contextual. The teaching of rules and regulations and the testing of knowledge outside of the context in which they are applied not only violates this principle but also is devalued by self-directed learn- ers who are well aware of the limits of learning that is disconnected from its application. Experiential learning enables participants to immediately apply and test their new skills, resulting in a more rewarding and effec- tive learning experience (Darkenwald and Merriam, 1982; Dickenson and Clarke, 1975; Knowles, 1970; Tight, 1996). Researchers have also found that adults are self-directed in their edu- cational objectives (Cross, 1979; Even, 1981) and seek learning experi- ences that are directly applicable to their lives (Burgess, 1971; Carp et al., 1974). Moreover, giving students an opportunity to use language, orally and in writing, facilitates learning, both because of the active involvement inherent in such assignments and because it helps learners link prior knowledge to the new information that they are learning (Lemke, 1995). This principle argues for teaching to take place in small, interactive groups, and it further suggests the importance of problem-oriented as- signments that require application of learning. 4. Programs will be more effective if educators help students assess their prior knowledge and integrate new material with familiar ideas. People bring different knowledge to the learning situation (von Glasersfeld, 1989), and individual learning involves transfer of that prior knowledge to the new situation (Tobin and Tippins, 1993). To encourage new learning, a teacher needs to help students assess their prior knowledge and integrate new material with familiar material. Teachers who learn what their students know, and who know how their students learn, are in a position to teach for conceptual change (Loucks-Horsley et al., 1998; Strike and Posner, 1992). Effective learning requires that trainees be knowledgeable about
100 INTEGRITY IN SCIENTIFIC RESEARCH themselves, and that they have frequent opportunities for assessment and feedback from instructors who are knowledgeable about their trainees.. This typically requires the use of small groups or, even better, individual conferences. In the context of the responsible conduct of research, it re- quires that trainees have opportunities to assess their strengths and short- comings with respect to the broad abilities that contribute to competence in ethical decision making. 5. Students should be encouraged to share their own experiences with others in the class. This not only seems to improve participant satisfaction but also provides a richer learning experience for all participants. Each stu- dent comes to the learning experience with factual knowledge as well as experiential learning connected with social roles, such as those associated with sex, race, class, and other affiliations. Course participants should be seen as de facto instructors as well as students. In this way, additional issues, information, and perspectives will be incorporated into the cur- riculum (Bruffee, 1993; Even, 1981; Merriam and Caffarella, 1999). This principle demands that some portion of a program of education in the responsible conduct of research involve interactions with and among the participants in a relatively small group. 6. Instructional programs that attend to developmental differences and indi- vidual learning preferences are more likely to be effective. Individuals entering graduate education differ in their levels of intellectual development (King and Kitchener, 1994), moral development (Kohlberg, 1984; Rest, 1983), and identity formation (Blasi, 1985; Kegan, 1982). Developmental psy- chologists have shown how to construct learning experiences that pro- mote developmental progress, and they have shown the negative conse- quences of learning and learner perceptions when instructional strategies are not appropriate to the learnersâ developmental levels. Although developmental differences are of prime importance for pro- moting the intellectual and moral dimensions of integrity in research, other individual differences also warrant consideration when designing educational programs. Furthermore, individuals vary in their preferred learning styles (Burgess, 1971; Dickenson and Clark, 1975; Knox, 1978). Many educators believe that learning is likely to be enhanced by accom- modating different learning styles and different levels of intelligence through the use of a variety of teaching formats, including lectures and discussions, individual as well as group exercises, and both oral and vi- sual stimuli (Parker and Rennie, 1998). Thus, a âone-size-fits-allâ approach to education in the responsible conduct of research is not likely to be adequate.
PROMOTING INTEGRITY IN RESEARCH THROUGH EDUCATION 101 Need for an Integrated Approach Learning relies on the interconnection of four learning environments: the learner-centered, knowledge-centered, assessment-centered, and com- munity-centered environments (Bransford et al., 1999; The Cognition and Technology Group at Vanderbilt, 2000). Learner-centered environments build on what the students bring to the classroom, their strengths, and their prior learning. Knowledge-centered environments help students construct new knowledge by providing organized disciplinary knowl- edge and the skills needed to use that knowledge. In assessment-centered environments, both students and teachers set goals, ask for feedback, and make revisions as needed. Community-centered environments establish the normative behaviors for individuals in the learning institutions and other aspects of their professional lives, as well as in the other communi- ties of which they are a part. Each of these learning environments influences the others (The Cog- nition and Technology Group at Vanderbilt, 2000; Mentkowski, 2000). Thus, an effective program of education in the responsible conduct of research requires a broad, multicomponent approach. The following sec- tion describes the key elements of this approach. Incorporating Current Practices in an Effective Curriculum The background section of this chapter outlined the committeeâs ra- tionale for recommending that education in the responsible conduct of research be taught in the context of the overall educational program. Formal education in the responsible conduct of research can be pro- vided in a wide variety of ways. Some of the most common approaches are discussed here. Adviser-Trainee Interactions The research adviser typically plays a central role in discussions of many aspects of responsible conduct of research. Indeed, until recently, this was the major, if not the only, mechanism through which most train- ees received such education. These discussions often include one-on-one meetings, research group meetings, and journal clubs that are led by the adviser. Interactions between a trainee and his or her adviser typically occur over a long period and can be individualized to the type of research being done, the regulations and guidelines that pertain to that research, and the specific needs of the trainee. Moreover, when the individuals who are principally responsible for instruction in research also play a key role in teaching about the responsible conduct of research, they indicateâby
102 INTEGRITY IN SCIENTIFIC RESEARCH deed as well as by word, it is hopedâthat they consider scientific integ- rity to be essential to doing good science. Adviser-based instruction in the responsible conduct of research might involve two or more hours per month and thus could occupy well over 100 hours while a trainee is part of a research group. Thus, this single component could (and probably should) constitute the largest amount of time devoted to education in the responsible conduct of research for a given trainee. As central and extensive as adviser-based education is, however, the committee does not consider this approach to be sufficient. First, if the instruction is limited to one-on-one instruction, the value of peer interac- tions may not be present. Second, some critical issues may not come up within a research group setting because they apply to considerations out- side of the area of research, such as classroom teaching. Third, the re- search adviser may have little experience in mentoring or limited under- standing of ways to promote integrity in research. Short Courses The short seminar seems to be the most common approach to formal education in the responsible conduct of research. Typically, a faculty member in philosophy or science will organize four to six sessions lasting 90 to 120 minutes each. The syllabus deals with what are deemed to be the essential issues for a given group of students (e.g., plagiarism, author- ship, and ownership of data). The sessions often include some didactic material, such as an explanation of current conventions and a discussion of a case. The cases may be presented as written vignettes, films, or plays that are acted out by the participants. The same individual may give all lectures, or guest speakers may present the lectures. If the group is large (more than 15 to 25 participants), the discussions usually occur in smaller breakout groups. There may or may not be outside reading, and if grades are given, they are most often given on the basis of a paper that the participants write. Such programs can provide a valuable component of education in the responsible conduct of research, provided the developers design them for purposes that relate to a comprehensive program. For example, a short course could be used to introduce new graduate students to the norms and values of the scientific enterprise. Alternatively, a course could be devoted to a particular topic, such as preparing an informed-consent pro- tocol for a study of human subjects to be submitted to an institutional review board. Although short course are, by necessity, limited in scope, they may be able to address key issues in the responsible conduct of research in a multidisciplinary setting.
PROMOTING INTEGRITY IN RESEARCH THROUGH EDUCATION 103 Full-Semester Courses The model for a full-semester course is fundamentally the same as that outlined above for a short seminar. There may be an introductory unit on ethical theory, and the number of topics is significantly expanded. There also may be more reading and written assignments, as well as some quizzes or examinations. Typically, a variety of lecturers and discussion leaders teach the course. Such a course will involve one to three hours of instruction each week over 12 to 15 weeksâfor a total of 12 to 45 hours. The full-semester course is a step in the right direction, although many members of the committee believe that even this is too limited a time for the task of providing education in this important area. Some committee members prefer short seminars, given over multiple years, that can be tailored to the curriculum and the maturation of the student. Single Workshops Some programs elect to have a single workshop that lasts several hours and that focuses on a set of related topics (e.g., publication of re- search results). Students may be asked to attend several such sessions during the course of their education. Sometimes, given the extended length of a given session, lectures and breakout groups are combined with panels to provide a greater diversity of input. In contrast to the short seminars and full-semester courses, which may each involve 5 to 30 par- ticipants, workshops are often open to a relatively large number of stu- dents in a given educational program and sometimes draw several hun- dred participants. As with short seminars, however, the typically large numbers of individuals who participate in workshops often limit the amount of active learning or instruction that takes into consideration the knowledge base of individual students. Computer-Based Instruction As institutions work to provide education in the responsible conduct of research to ever-larger numbers of individuals, there seems to be an emerging use of computer-based educational programs, either via a cen- tralized website or via diskettes or compact discs that are made available to individuals. These programs seem to focus most, if not all, of their attention on regulations and guidelines, and they often include an assess- ment of knowledge of that material. The programs may involve several different units, each of which takes one to three hours to complete, often at a single sitting. Such programs often provide the least costly way to provide instruc- tion to a large number of individuals. They also may be an effective way
104 INTEGRITY IN SCIENTIFIC RESEARCH to deal with certain kinds of education; for example, for providing famil- iarity with professional regulations and norms. On the other hand, they typically are brief, involve little or no individualized instruction, and do not provide researchers-instructors as visible role models. Furthermore, although there may be some semblance of âactive learning,â it is typically of a very primitive form. Integration of Relevant Ethical Issues within the Core Curriculum The committee believes that education in the responsible conduct of research should be provided within the core curriculum of a discipline, with ethics cases strategically selected to promote development of each of the abilities that will enable responsible conduct. There are two reasons for this. First, if responsible conduct is an integral part of conducting research, as argued above, then it should be infused through the educa- tional program for new researchers. Second, many topics do not fit logi- cally into a more general context of the responsible conduct of research but nevertheless deserve attention. Depending on the discipline, such topics might include informed consent (for the use of human subjects in research), the use of animals in research, data management, storage and retrieval of data, and ethical issues related to developing technologies (e.g., human cloning, gene therapy, and reproductive technologies). Issues related to the responsible conduct of research can be integrated into a core course in two complementary ways. First, individuals teaching the courses can include comments on the ethical dimensions of a subject as part of the lectures. Thus, a faculty member discussing genetic markers for disease might comment on the ethics of genetic testing, whereas a faculty member teaching a course in anthropology might mention the possible adverse impact of fieldwork on the lives of indigenous people. This can occur without any special fanfare but as a natural component of the discussion of a given topic. Second, time can be set aside to discuss an ethics case of particular relevance to the focus of the course. This discussion might be included as part of the series of breakout groups that are often organized for core courses to focus on a particular research article. Faculty teaching in one or the other formats can provide opportunities to learn to lead a discussion that promotes ethical reasoning or to lead a group activity that promotes ethical implementation (several texts with case studies are listed in Ap- pendix D in the section Responsible Scientific Conduct). Although the committee wholeheartedly supports the concept of in- tegrating education in the responsible conduct of research into the core curriculum, the committee also recognizes that accomplishing this is no simple matter. One or two faculty members can mount their own educa-
PROMOTING INTEGRITY IN RESEARCH THROUGH EDUCATION 105 tional program in the responsible conduct of research. But influencing the courses that other faculty members teach demands practical and time- consuming diplomacy. Moreover, it is an initiative that requires continual maintenance. There is often constant pressure on a course director to find time for new topics. In addition, the faculty and directors for a given course may change frequently. In both instances, issues of the responsible conduct of research can quickly disappear from the curriculum. Florida State University, for example, offers an interdisciplinary sci- ence course (for graduate or undergraduate credit) that integrates the responsible conduct of research in science into each of its sections (Gilmer, 1995, 1998; Gilmer and Rashotte, Dec. 1989/Jan. 1990). The course uses historical examples, including the development of the atomic bomb, the Tuskegee syphilis trials, and scientific freedom and responsibility, to high- light the importance of science and the profound influence that science has on society. Current examples of integrity in science are seen within such a historical context. Assessment is a critical aspect of such a course, and writing is highlighted, with students reviewing and critiquing each otherâs ideas on a course website. Students use electronic portfolios to document their learning in the course (Gilmer, 1995, 2002). Students are given the option of selecting for one of their collaborative group projects a service activity that fits into the goals of the course. This way of bringing the consideration of integrity in science into the curriculum incorporates the four learning environments: the knowledge-centered, student-cen- tered, assessment-centered, and community-centered environments (Bransford et al., 1999; The Cognition and Technology Group at Vanderbilt, 2000). Ethics in the Context of Education in Professional Survival Skills Earlier in this chapter, instruction in survival skills was described as one of the keys to the development of an environment that promotes integrity in research. The committee made this choice for three major reasons. First, virtually every aspect of any curriculum has an ethical dimension, and, as already noted, the committee believes that these issues are best identified and addressed in context. Professional skills, like more traditional aspects of a curriculum, have ethical dimensions. For example, when one is teaching about writing research articles, discussions might include issues of plagiarism, honorary authorship, data selection, and graphic design, while a workshop on grantsmanship might include a discussion of the importance of not overstating the sensitivities of meth- ods or the quality of pilot data, exaggerating the assistance that one ob- tains from colleagues, or promising more than can be accomplished. As in the case of education in the responsible conduct of research within the
106 INTEGRITY IN SCIENTIFIC RESEARCH core curriculum, the teaching of responsible conduct within a program of professional development can and should be done in two ways: through the inclusion of material in the lectures and through the active discussion of ethics cases. Second, many of the ethical issues discussed in survival skills work- shops are simply not likely to arise as topics either in the core curriculum or in traditional courses on the responsible conduct of research. Examples of such issues include the responsibility to publish worthwhile data in reports so that others may benefit from the work (particularly if the work was supported with public funds); the importance of acknowledging the contributions of others in oral presentations as well as in written work; and the responsibility to ensure that other researchers can replicate pub- lished results, by providing a complete and accurate presentation of meth- ods and by being willing to share all reagents not commercially available. The third reason stems from the fact that institutional climate appears to be an important determinant of responsible conduct in science (see Chapter 3). This may reflect, in part, the fact that most people are likely to learn less from what a faculty member or an institution offers as formal instruction than from the actual behavior that is observed. Offering in- struction in survival skills is a clear indication that the faculty and the institution accept some responsibility for the professional advancement of their students. However, programs in professional skills should not replace or reduce the efforts of individual advisers to provide individual mentoring. Other Venues This brief discussion has not exhausted the ways in which instruction on the responsible conduct of research can be made an integral part of conducting scientific research. For example, authors should include is- sues related to integrity in science (including cases) in the textbooks of scientific disciplines (e.g., see Kovac, 1995; Tobin and Dusheck, 2001; and Zigmond et al., 1999) education directors should make ethical issues a component of annual retreats. Responsible conduct of research also should be a subject for online forums in areas of research (e.g., Fischer and Zigmond, 2001a; Zigmond and Fischer, 1995), and discussions of issues related to the responsible conduct of research should appear as part of the programs of professional meetings (for example, they are standard fea- tures of the meetings of the Society for Neuroscience and the American Association for the Advancement of Science). The objective is straightfor- ward: to ensure that teaching of the responsible conduct of research exists side by side with discussions of all other aspects of science.
PROMOTING INTEGRITY IN RESEARCH THROUGH EDUCATION 107 SUMMARY In preparing science apprentices for success, curricula should address the broad range of skills that they will need as professionals. For example, they should be taught how to communicate their research data as well as how to collect them, how to teach as well as how to learn, and how to develop a career as well as how to develop a thesis. Moreover, the respon- sible conduct of research should be viewed as an integral part of good science and thus an integral part of education programs. It follows, there- fore, that the objectives and the methods for the teaching of the respon- sible conduct of research should be nothing less than those used for the teaching of other skills and abilities valued within a discipline. Thus, the model for providing instruction in the responsible conduct of research is taken from traditional programs for teaching students what is necessary for their performance as researchers: (1) start as soon as the students arrive; (2) make the instruction in the responsible conduct of research part of everything they do, placing the education in the context of the research instead of making it a separate entity; (3) move from the simple to the complex; and (4) assess student competency. In this way, there is no mis- taking the message: communicating well, obtaining employment and re- search grants, excelling in teaching, advising, and mentoring, engaging in ethical decision making, and behaving responsibly are at the core of being a researcher. The committee finds that programs of education in the responsible conduct of research should aim to have an effect and should not be in place merely to be able to check an item off a list. They also should be based on current understanding of the psychological processes that give rise to morality and on current understanding of how adults learn. Research advisers play a central role in the education of their trainees in the responsible conduct of research, not only by what they teach, but also by their own conduct. To facilitate this process, programs of adviser education and evaluation in this area are needed. Adviser-based education of trainees should be supplemented by a program of education in the responsible conduct of research that is inte- grated into the overall educational program to include (1) a core course, (2) other specific educational program elements (e.g., journal clubs and retreats), and (3) individual research group meetings (e.g., laboratory meetings). Education in the responsible conduct of research should be built around the development of abilities that give rise to responsible conduct. Finally, education in the responsible conduct of research should involve research practitioners and individuals with expertise in ethics. Although the field of assessment of the responsible conduct of re- search is still in a developmental stage, efforts to promote integrity in
108 INTEGRITY IN SCIENTIFIC RESEARCH research need to be evaluated. Such an evaluation not only will provide useful information in the determination of the level of competence in that area but also will signal that integrity in research is a valued aspect of the educational program. REFERENCES Anderson M. 2001. What Would Get You in Trouble: Doctoral Studentsâ Conceptions of Science and Its Norms. Proceedings of the ORI Conference on Research on Research Integrity. [Online]. Available: http://www-personal.umich.edu/~nsteneck/rcri/index.html [Accessed March 18, 2002]. Bebeau MJ. 1994. Influencing the moral dimensions of dental practice. In: Moral Develop- ment in the Professions: Psychology and Applied Ethics. Hillsdale, NJ: L. Erlbaum Associ- ates Pp. 121â146. Bebeau MJ. 2001. Influencing the Moral Dimensions of Professional Practice: Implications for Teaching and Assessing for Research Integrity. Proceedings of the ORI Conference on Research on Research Integrity. [Online] Available: http://www-personal.umich.edu/ ~nsteneck/rcri/index.html [Accessed March 18, 2002]. Bebeau MJ, Rest JR. 1990. The Dental Ethical Sensitivity Test. Minneapolis, MN: Division of Health Ecology, School of Dentistry, University of Minnesota. Bebeau MJ, Pimple KD, Muskavitch KMT, Borden SL, Smith DL. 1995. Moral Reasoning in Scientific Research: Cases for Teaching and Assessment. Bloomington: Indiana University. Bebeau MJ, Rest JR, Narvez DF. 1999. Beyond the promise: A perspective for research in moral education. Educational Researcher 28(4):18â26. Blasi A. 1985. The moral personality: Reflections for social science and education. In: Berkowitz MW, Oser F, eds. Moral Education: Theory and Application. Hillsdale, NJ: L. Erlbaum Associates. Bloom FE. 1992. Training neuroscientists for the 21st century. Trends in Neurosciences 15:383â 386. Brabeck MM. 1998. Racial ethical sensitivity test: REST videotapes. Chestnut Hill, MA: Lynch School Boston College. Bransford JD, Brown AL, Cocking RR. 1999. How People Learn: Brain, Mind, Experience, and School. Committee on Developments in Science of Learning and Commission on Be- havioral and Social Sciences and Education. Washington, DC: National Academy Press. Braxton J, Baird L. 2001. Preparation for professional self regulation. Science and Engineering Ethics 7:593â614. Bruffee KA. 1993. Collaborative Learning: Higher Education, Interdependence, and the Authority of Knowledge. Baltimore, MD: The Johns Hopkins University Press. Burgess P. 1971. Reasons for adult participation in group educational activities. Adult Edu- cation 22:3â29. Carp A, Peterson R, Roelfs P. 1974. Adult learning interest and experiences. In: Cross PK, Valley JR, eds. Planning Non-Traditional Programs. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. The Cognition and Technology Group at Vanderbilt. 2000. Adventures in anchored instruc- tion: Lessons from beyond the ivory tower. In: Glaser R, ed. Advances in Instructional Psychology 5 (Educational Design and Cognitive Science). Hillsdale, NJ: L. Erlbaum Asso- ciates. Cordes C. 1997, October 24. Science Board considers federal role in improving graduate education. Chronicle of Higher Education. P. A32. Cross P. 1979. Adult learners: Characteristics, needs, and interests. In: Peterson RE, ed. Lifelong Learning in America. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
PROMOTING INTEGRITY IN RESEARCH THROUGH EDUCATION 109 Darkenwald G, Merriam S. 1982. Adult Education: Foundations of Practice. New York, NY: Harper & Row. Dickenson G, Clark KM. 1975. Learning orientations and participation in self-education and continuing education. Adult Education 26:3â15. Djerassi C. 1989. Canterâs Dilemma. New York, NY: Penguin Books. Even MJ. 1981. The adult learning process. Perspectives in Adult Learning and Development 1:13â19. Fischer BA, Zigmond MJ. 1996. Teaching ethics: Resources for researchers. Trends in Neuro- sciences 19:523â524. Fischer BA, Zigmond MJ. 1998. Survival skills for graduate school and beyond. In: Ander- son M, ed. The Experience of Being in Graduate School: An Exploration (New Directions in Education Series, Number 101). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Pp. 29â40. Fischer BA, Zigmond MJ. 2001a. Map and Compass (an Electronic Column Sponsored by the International Brain Research Organization). [Online]. Available: www.ibro.org [Accessed March 18, 2002]. Fischer BA, Zigmond MJ. 2001b. Promoting responsible conduct in research through âsur- vival skillsâ workshops: Some mentoring is best done in a crowd. Science and Engineer- ing Ethics 7:563â587. Fisher C, Berliner D, Filby N, Marliave R, Cahen L, Dishaw, M. 1980. Teaching behaviors, academic learning time, and student achievement: An overview. In: Denham C, Lieberman A, eds. Time to Learn. Washington, DC: National Institute of Education. Forsythe GB, Snook S, Lewis P., Bartone P. In press. Making sense of officership: Develop- ing a professional identity for 21st century army officers. In: Snider D, Watkins G, eds. The Future of the Army Profession. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill. Gifford F. 1994. Teaching scientific integrity. The Centennial Review 38:297â314. Gilmer PJ. 1995. Teaching science at the university level: What about the ethics? Science and Engineering Ethics 1:173â180. Gilmer PJ. 1998. Sowing the seeds of responsible conduct on new ground: The academic perspective. In: The Responsible Conduct of Research: A Commitment for All Scientists, Proceedings of a conference sponsored by the Public Responsibility in Medicine and Research, the Association of American Medical Colleges, and the National Institutes of Health. Boston, MA: PRIM&R. Pp. 11â22. Gilmer PJ. 2002. Assessment and studentsâ interest: connecting to learning. In: Wallace J, Louden W, eds. Dilemmas of Science Teaching: Perspectives on Problems of Practice. New York, NY: Routledge Publishing. Pp. 48â55. Gilmer PJ, Rashotte ME. Dec. 1989/Jan. 1990. Marshalling the resources of a large state university for an interdisciplinary âScience, Technology and Societyâ course. Journal of College Science Teaching. Pp.150â156. Greenwood MRC, Kovacs-North K. 1999. Science through the looking glass: Winning the battle but losing the war (adapted from the address given by MRC Greenwood at the AAAS Annual Meeting, January 23, 1999). Science 286: 2072-2078. Grinnell F. 1992. The Scientific Attitude, 2nd ed. New York, NY: Guilford Press. Hafferty FW, Franks R. 1994. The hidden curriculum, ethics teaching, and the structure of medical education. Academic Medicine 69:861â871. Heitman E, Salis, P, Bulger, RE 2000. Teaching ethics in biomedical sciences: Effects on moral reasoning skills. Paper presented at the ORI Research Conference on Research Integrity, Washington, DC, November 2000. [Online]. Available: http://ori.dhhs.gov/ multimedia/acrobat/papers/heitman.pdf [Accessed March 15, 2002]. Hensel N. 1991. Realizing gender equality in higher education: The need to integrate work/ family issues. In: ASHE-ERIC Higher Education Report No. 2. Washington, DC: School of Education and Human Development, George Washington University.
110 INTEGRITY IN SCIENTIFIC RESEARCH Hundert EM. 1996. Characteristics of the informal curriculum and traineesâ ethical choices. Academic Medicine 71:624â633. Kegan R. 1982. The Evolving Self: Problems and Process in Human Development. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. King PM, Kitchener KS. 1994. Developing Reflective Judgment. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Knowles MS. 1970. The Modern Practice of Adult Education. New York, NY: Association Press. Knox AB. 1978. Helping adults to learn. In: Yearbook of Adult and Continuing Education. Chicago, IL: Marquis Academic Media. Kohlberg L. 1984. Essays on Moral Development: The Psychology of Moral Development: The Nature and Validity of Moral Stages. Vol. 2. San Francisco: Harper & Row. Kovac J. 1995. The Ethical Chemist: Case Studies in Scientific Ethics. Knoxville, TN: Depart- ment of Chemistry, University of Tennessee. Lemke JL. 1995. Textual Politics: Discourse and Social Dynamics. London, United Kingdom: Taylor & Francis. Loucks-Horsley S, Hewson PW, Love N, Stiles KE. 1998. Designing Professional Development for Teachers of Science and Mathematics Education. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press. Magner DK. 2000, April 28. Critics urge overhaul of Ph.D. training, but sharply disagree on how to do so. Chronicle of Higher Education. P. A19. Mentkowski M. 2000. Learning That Lasts. Integrating Learning, Development, and Performance in College and Beyond. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Merriam SB, Caffarella RS. 1999. Learning in Adulthood, San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. NAS (National Academy of Sciences). 1989. On Being a Scientist. Washington, DC: National Academy Press. NAS. 1992. Responsible Science: Ensuring the Integrity of the Research Process, Vol. 1. Washing- ton, DC: National Academy Press. NAS. 1995a. On Being a Scientist, 2nd ed. Washington, DC: National Academy Press. NAS 1995b. Reshaping the Graduate Education of Scientists and Engineers. Washington, DC: National Academy Press. NIH (National Institutes of Health). 1989. NIH Guide for Grants and Contracts, Vol. 18, No. 45. Rockville, MD: NIH. Parker LH, Rennie LJ. 1998. Equitable assessment strategies. In: Fraser B, Tobin KG, eds. International Handbook of Science Education, Part 2. Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers. Pp. 897â910. Piaget J. 1932. The moral judgement of the child. New York, NY: Free Press. 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 JR, NarvÃ¡ez DF, eds. 1994. Moral Development in the Professions: Psychology and Applied Ethics. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum Associates. Pp. 51â70. Rest J, Bebeau M, Volker J. 1986. An overview of the psychology of morality. In: Rest JR, ed. Moral Development: Advances in Research and Theory. New York, NY: Praeger. Pp. 1â27. Rest J, Thoma SJ, NarvÃ¡ez D, Bebeau MJ. 1997. Alchemy and beyond: Indexing the Defining Issues Test. Journal of Educational Psychology 89:498â507. Rest J, NarvÃ¡ez D, Bebeau MJ, Thoma SJ. 1999. Postconventional Moral Thinking: A Neo- Kohlbergian Approach. Hillsdale, NJ: L. Erlbaum Associates.
PROMOTING INTEGRITY IN RESEARCH THROUGH EDUCATION 111 Rest JR. 1979. Development in Judging Moral Issues. Minneapolis, MN: University of Minne- sota Press. Rule JT, Bebeau MJ. 2001. Integrity and mentoring in research: The story of Irwin D. Mandel. Quintessence International 32:61â75. Self DJ, Baldwin DC. 1994. Moral Reasoning in Medicine. In: Rest JR and NarvÃ¡ez, DF, eds. Moral Development in the Professions: Psychology and Applied Ethics. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum Associates. Pp. 147â162. Sigma Xi. 1986. Honor in Science. Research Triangle Park, NC: Sigma Xi, the Scientific Re- search Society. Strike K, Posner G. 1992. A revisionist theory of conceptual change. In: Duschl R, Hamilton R, eds. Philosophy of Science, Cognitive Psychology, and Educational Theory and Practice. Albany, NY: State University of New York. Pp. 211â231. Tight M. 1996. Key Concepts in Adult Education and Training. New York, NY: Routledge Publishing. Tobin AJ, Dusheck J. 2001. Asking About Life, 2nd ed. New York, NY: Harcourt College Publishing. Tobin K, Tippins D. 1993. Constructivism as a referent for teaching and learning. In: Tobin K., ed. The Practice of Constructivism in Science Education. Washington, DC: AAAS Press. Pp. 3â21. Varmus H. 1995. Statement at the July 13 hearing on the National Academy of Sciences Report Reshaping the Graduate Education of Scientists and Engineers of the Subcommittee in Basic Research, Committee on Science, U.S. House of Representatives. von Glasersfeld E. 1989. Cognition, construction of knowledge, and teaching. Synthese 80:121â140. 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. Widnall SE. 1991. AAAS Presidential Lecture: Voices from the pipeline. Science 19:404â419. Wlodkowski RJ. 1999. Enhancing Adult Motivation to Learn. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Zigmond MJ, Fischer, BA. 1995. A Suggestion of Fraud. In Science Conduct On-Line, Science: Beyond the Printed Page. [Online]. Available: http://sci.aaas.org/aas-bin/forum- user3.pl [Accessed June 23, 1999]. Zigmond MJ, Bloom FE, Landis SC, Roberts JL, Squire LR, eds. 1999. Fundamental Neuro- science. San Diego, CA: Academic Press.