A Responsible C onduct of R esearch (RCR) T raining Program: Summary and Evidence

1. A Responsible Conduct of Research (RCR) Training Program: Summary and Evidence Zhanna Bagdasarov University of Oklahoma

2. Overview • Training rationale and background • Overview and summary of the training • Implementing the training at your institution: some basics and lessons learned • Evidence for training effectiveness

3. Training Background & Summary

4. The Broader Context • Major cases of research misconduct • Academic and professional misconduct a growing concern across fields • Research institutions developing own courses • Training effectiveness • Training evaluation • NIH and NSF mandates • COMPETES act-Creating Opportunities to Meaningfully Promote Excellence in Technology, Education, & Science

5. Course Summary • Two-day course • Approximately 14 hours of instruction • 10 “blocks” or training modules • 2 out-of-class blocks, 8 in-class blocks

6. Training Content • Knowledge of guidelines • Awareness of own biases and common errors • Model of ethical decision-making (EDM) • Situational analysis and interpretation • Strategies, or tools, for decision-making • Field differences • Topics covered • Mentor-mentee relationships, collaboration, interdisciplinary research, management practices, whistle-blowing, handling data, publication practices, conflict of interest, authorship

7. Overarching Objectives • Develop students’ understanding of the ambiguous, complex nature of the problems that they might encounter in their work • Teach strategies that help students to identify and think through complex problems to make ethical decisions

8. Conceptual Basis for Training • Decision-making strategies facilitate EDM • Decision-making errors and personal biases hinder EDM • Decisions involve social-emotional considerations and implications • Case-based reasoning facilitates development of knowledge to serve as foundation • Cooperative learning fosters social awareness and social reinforcement

9. Activities • Cases • Self-reflection questions • Role-play • Viewpoint activity • Generation of strategies • Generation of constraints • Group discussion

10. Uniqueness of the Course • Emphasis on decision-making and its complexity rather than rule-based guidelines • Recognition of the “gray areas” • Discussion of field differences • Emphasis on generation, practice, and application • Highly interactive (limited lecture) • Based on research and evaluation • Not a “check-the-box” training

11. Mini-Tutorial: Block-by-Block Synopsis

12. Rules & Principles Interpret & Apply Decision & Action Constraints Strategies The EDM Model

13. Regulations & Guidelines • Government regulations • Policies and legislation regulating research • Examples: 1966 Animal Welfare Act; 1974 National Research Act • Professional society guidelines • Length and specificity vary widely across fields • Example: American Psychological Association • Institutional guidelines • NIH, ORI, universities • Examples: Protection of Human Subjects; Data Management; Conflicts of Interest

14. Potential Constraints in EDM • Making closed-ended decisions • Neglecting to consider hidden motives or agendas • Engaging in black-and-white thinking • Making hasty decisions • Deceiving one-self and/or others • Avoiding personal responsibility • Overly simplistic application of research guidelines • Being overly subjective • Failure to consider other’s perspectives; being self-focused • Neglecting to consider long-term consequences • Failure to consider time and resource constraints

15. Decision-Making Strategies • Recognize your circumstances • Seek help • Question your judgment • Anticipate consequences • Manage emotions • Look within/consider personal motivations • Consider others’ perspectives

16. Sensemaking Interpret & Apply Decision & Action Rules & Principles Constraints Strategies • Integrate all relevant information • Understand and integrate multiple perspectives • Develop an overall understanding of the nature of the ethical problem • Basis of the EDM Model • An expanded, more complex version of EDM model • Sensemaking culminates in “Interpret & Apply” Stage

17. Field Differences • Approaches to problems generally • What is valued and rewarded • Guidelines • Established norms • “Appropriate” or “inappropriate” behavior

18. Differing Viewpoints • Different persons view the problem from different perspectives • Grad student vs. faculty vs. university vice-president • Different persons may use different approaches to decision-making

19. Training Implementation

20. Initial Planning • Determine initial scale • Determine budget • Determine timeline • Gain approval from university administration

21. Major Questions • Who will be required to take it? • How will it be required? • Who will provide the salary for instructors? • Who will provide ongoing training & training for new instructors? • How will updates be made to content? • Ongoing administration • Who will handle recruitment and enrollment? • Who will oversee updates? • Who will provide new and ongoing training to instructors?

22. Major Obstacles/Challenges • Some people/departments think they are exempt • Choosing good trainers • Organizational logistics

23. Instructors • University faculty or graduate students • 2 or more years experience in field • Training Instructors • 2 days • Instructor manual • Practice delivery of training modules • Feedback

24. Funding • OU Office of the Senior Vice President and Provost & Graduate College Funding • Administrative coordination • Training Coordinator & Assistant (tuition & stipend) • Trainer pay • Trainee certificates • Materials

25. Funding • Funded projects for development & refinement of RCR program • NIH: Organizational Influences on Scientific Integrity (1R01NS042397-01) • NIH: Environmental and Educational Influences on Scientists (5R01NS049535-02) • NIH: Development of Strategies for Improving Ethical Decision-Making in the Sciences (5R01NR010341-02) • NSF: Development and Evaluation of a Work Practices Approach for Ethics Education in Science and Engineering (SES 0529910) • CGS: Analysis of graduate students understanding of ethical issues (LTR090506) • NSF: Case Based Reasoning and Ethics Instruction: Content and Processing Exercises for Effective Education (SES 090436)

26. Ongoing Issues • Field-specific training • Trainees feel that the training does not apply to them • Refreshments for training • Training being mandatory • A requirement for all incoming, funded graduate students • Maintaining the same feel and not making it feel “required”

27. Lessons Learned • Organizational Logistics • Need to find appropriate office to handle training • Not all teachers can be trainers • Some departments are resistant • Want to be exempt, already “teach” ethics • Most students & instructors want this training • Strong evaluation data is critical

28. Lessons Learned • Systematic reports are necessary • Instructors • Funding office • Ongoing changes are necessary • Adapt to other fields • Must monitor training content • Key people in charge of ongoing planning

29. Lessons Learned • Instructors must have ongoing refreshers • Feedback from students • Prevent delivery drift • Resource intensive process • Research • Organizing and planning • Instructors, administrators, researchers, TAs

30. Training Evidence and Future Directions

31. Evaluation of Training • Pre-test and post-test EDM measures • Multiple answer selection • “Pick two” • Multiple “high-ethicality” responses • Real-world cases of ethical misconduct • Not transparent • Trainee Reactions • Ratings of training effectiveness

32. Evaluation Results

33. Evaluation Results • Training effects held over 6-month period • Training changed mental models • Trained individuals: represented ethical problems as complex – based on in-depth analysis • Untrained individuals: focused on outcomes • Trainee reactions to training favorable (M=6 out of 7)

34. Results for Student Reactions 2010-2011 Academic Year • High ratings of effectiveness (M = 5.24 on 7-point scale) • Trainee Comments: • “It was a great workshop; I loved it. It helped me a lot!” • “Very useful and more interesting than I anticipated” • “Overall, good information and the discussions with students outside of my field were great” • “The presenters did a fine job. I want to thank them for putting their efforts into this” • “This training made me think of a couple of misconducts I have done in the past and certainly won’t do again” • “Great workshop!”

35. Future Directions • Tailoring to specific disciplines • Engineering, Physical Sciences, Humanities, Arts • Evaluation instruments already tailored • Training adaptions: remedial ethical training • Decision-making focus • Mental-model focus • Faculty Instruction • No explicit regulations yet, but may be coming • In-coming & junior faculty

36. Thank You!