Ethics and the responsible conduct of research for graduate education and beyond l.jpg
This presentation is the property of its rightful owner.
Sponsored Links
1 / 28

Ethics and the Responsible Conduct of Research for Graduate Education and Beyond PowerPoint PPT Presentation


  • 103 Views
  • Uploaded on
  • Presentation posted in: General

Ethics and the Responsible Conduct of Research for Graduate Education and Beyond. Kellina Craig-Henderson, Ph.D. Program Director and Human Subjects Research Protections Officer National Science Foundation. Responsible conduct in the research enterprise is a shared responsibility .

Download Presentation

Ethics and the Responsible Conduct of Research for Graduate Education and Beyond

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation

Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author.While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server.


- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - E N D - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Presentation Transcript


Ethics and the responsible conduct of research for graduate education and beyond l.jpg

Ethics and the Responsible Conduct of Research for Graduate Education and Beyond

Kellina Craig-Henderson, Ph.D.

Program Director

and Human Subjects Research

Protections Officer

National Science Foundation


Slide2 l.jpg

Responsible conduct in the research enterprise is a shared responsibility.

3/12/2014

2


Slide3 l.jpg

The Belmont Report

Ethical Principles and Guidelines for the Protection of Human Subjects of Research

45 CFR 690

(same as 45 CFR 46- HHS)

The Common Rule for the protection of human subjects

(www.bfa/dias/policy/docs/45cfr690.pdf)


Slide4 l.jpg

  • Respect for Persons

  • Beneficence

  • Justice


Slide5 l.jpg

Respect for persons

This principle has 2 separate moral requirements:

  • Respect individuals’ autonomy.

  • In the case of diminished autonomy,consult their legally authorized representative.


Slide6 l.jpg

Beneficence

Two general rules apply here:

  • Do not harm!

  • Maximize possible benefits, and minimize possible harms.


Slide7 l.jpg

Justice

  • “Who should receive the benefits of research and bear its burdens?”

  • To each person an equal share.

  • To each person according to individual need.

  • To each person according to individual effort.

  • To each person according to societal contribution.

  • To each person according to merit.


Slide8 l.jpg

Responsibility

Federal Regulations

  • The Sponsor

  • The Grantee

  • The Researcher

Federal Regulations

3/12/2014

8


National science foundation one sponsor s responsibility includes rcr requirement l.jpg

National Science FoundationOne sponsor’s responsibility includes:RCR requirement


Slide10 l.jpg

America Creating Opportunities to Meaningfully Promote Excellence in Technology, Education and Science Act: The America COMPETES Act

Legislative history: Introduced - May 10, 2007 Passed House - May 22, 2007 Passed Senate – July 19, 2007 Differences resolved – Aug 2, 2007 Signed by President – Aug 9, 2007


America competes act sec 7009 l.jpg

America COMPETES Act – SEC. 7009

“The Director shall require that each institution that applies for financial assistance from the Foundation for science and engineering research or education describe in its grant proposal a plan to provide appropriate training and oversight in the responsible and ethical conduct of research to undergraduate students, graduate students, and postdoctoral researchers participating in the proposed research project.”


Slide12 l.jpg

Responsibility

Federal Regulations

  • The Sponsor

  • The Grantee

  • The Researcher

Federal Regulations

3/12/2014

12


Ethics in research grantee s responsibility l.jpg

Ethics in ResearchGrantee’s responsibility…

  • Context-driven

  • Environment- dependent


Empirical study l.jpg

Empirical study

Martinson et al., 2006 provides support for the effect of the contexts of science on misconduct:

Perceptions of procedural injustice are associated with self reports of misbehaviors.

This relationship is strongest among early-career scientists, those in un-tenurable positions, female scientists in traditionally-male fields.


Slide15 l.jpg

Responsibility

Federal Regulations

  • The Sponsor

  • The Grantee

  • The Researcher

Federal Regulations

3/12/2014

15


Scientists behaving badly l.jpg

Scientists behaving badly


Top 10 misbehaviors l.jpg

Top 10 Misbehaviors

  • Falsifying or “cooking” research data

  • Ignoring major aspects of human subjects requirements

  • Not properly disclosing involvement in forms whose products are based on one’s own research

  • Relationships with students, research subjects or clients that may be interpreted as questionable

  • Using another’s ideas without obtaining permission or giving due credit


Top 10 misbehaviors cont d l.jpg

Top 10 misbehaviors cont’d:

  • Unauthorized use of confidential information in connection with one’s own research.

  • Failing to present data that contradict one’s own previous research.

  • Circumventing certain minor aspects of HS requirements (e.g., informed consent).

  • Overlooking others use of flawed data or questionable interpretation of data.

  • Changing the design, methodology or results of a study in response to pressure from a funding source.


Slide19 l.jpg

Empirical study

  • De Vries et al., 2006 provides evidence of everyday misbehaviors among researchers.

  • They conclude that many of these misbehaviors are “normal misbehaviors.”

  • Must direct attention to the social conditions, and context that lead to these unacceptable misbehaviors.

3/12/2014


Research misconduct is not rare l.jpg

Research misconduct is not rare

What is considered misconduct varies by

The Sponsor

The Grantee

The Researcher


When you observe potential misconduct what should you do l.jpg

When you observe potential misconduct, what should you do?

It depends….


1 constructive confrontation 2 conflict management 3 grievance processes 4 whistle blowing l.jpg

1. Constructive confrontation2. Conflict management3. Grievance processes4. Whistle-blowing


Reducing misconduct in research starts with l.jpg

Reducing misconduct in research starts with

TRAINING!!!


Case study 1 l.jpg

Case study 1

  • A graduate student is conducting a study to find out how bilingual English-Spanish speaking students navigate bi-cultural, bilingual identity in a rural high school setting. The study will take place in small town in Eastern Washington State that has one high school with approximately 400 students. The research methods include:  weekly interviews, and  in-depth classroom observation of four Spanish-English bilingual 14 – 17 year old students over one academic year.  The researcher will also conduct interviews with administration, teachers, parents, and other students about their thoughts on language and local identity.  What are some of ethical issues inherent in the design of this study?  What are some of the ethical issues that might unfold during the conduct of the study?


Case 2 who owns the field notes l.jpg

Case 2: Who Owns the Field Notes?

  • Jerry Vaughn contracted with a federal agency to conduct a social impact assessment of proposed topographic changes in an aboriginal habitat in a far north region of North America. The contract contained no stipulations regarding ownership of data. In order to determine the potential impacts on the culture of peoples living in that region, Vaughn engaged in participant observation (keeping a detailed field notebook of same); conducted in-depth personal interviews; and took over 1,000 photographs of people working, socializing, and enjoying other everyday and special activities.


Case 3 professor purloins student s work her recourse l.jpg

Case 3: Professor Purloins Student's Work: Her Recourse?

  • Joelle Smith wrote an elaborate research proposal that was to be submitted to the National Science Foundation (NSF) for her doctoral dissertation research. Her dissertation supervisor signed off on the proposal indicating his support of the project and his willingness to supervise Smith's work. The project was funded for a two-year period. Smith went into the field and at regular intervals sent copies of her field notes and other written data, along with preliminary analyses of her field problem, to her dissertation advisor.


Slide27 l.jpg

For more information, if you are a researcher please feel free to contact your Institutional Official (IO), or if you are an IO or member of the Sponsored Research Office, please contact your Funding Agency (i.e., program officer or human subjects protections officer), or the Office for Human Research Protections (OHRP) of HHS.


Slide28 l.jpg

Contact Information:

Kellina M. Craig-Henderson, PhD

(703) 292-7023

[email protected]

Social Psychology program

National Sceince Foundation

4201 Wilson Blvd., 995.45

Arlington, VA 22230


  • Login