Perspectives on Positive Academic Ethics: an Introduction

Journal of Academic Ethics -     

Promoting Ethics and Integrity in Management Academic Research: Retraction Initiative

Science and Engineering Ethics - In the management academic research, academic advancement, job security, and the securing of research funds at one’s university are judged mainly by...     

Characteristics of Online Pornography and Interventions Against its Negative Effects in Young People: Results from an International Delphi Panel

Journal of Rational-Emotive & Cognitive-Behavior Therapy - Online pornography represents a complex experience. The identification of determinant characteristics of this experience may allow to...     

Students as Members of University-based Academic Research Ethics Boards: A Natural Evolution

University based academic Research Ethics Boards (REB) face the particularly difficult challenge of trying to achieve representation from a variety of disciplines, methodologies and research interests. Additionally, many are currently facing another decision – whether to have students as REB members or not. At Ryerson University, we are uniquely situated. Without a medical school in which an awareness of the research ethics review process might be grounded, our mainly social science and humanities REB must also educate and foster awareness of the ethics review process throughout the academic community. Our Board has had and continues to have students as active members. While there are challenges to having students as Board members, these are clearly outweighed by the advantages, for both the academic community and the future of ethically sound research in the social sciences and humanities. Moreover, the challenges are often based on misconceptions and can be easily overcome through increased education and understanding of the research ethics review process by the academic community at large. The purpose of this paper is to describe and discuss the experiences, advantages and challenges of having students as REB members. The advantages of having students as REB members include the following: (1) Students are the proposed participants in many of our reviewed protocols and student members may illuminate unique issues of participation. (2) Students are active and highly engaged members of the REB. (3) Having students on the REB enhances awareness of research ethics within the University. (4) Student REB members have an opportunity to mentor other students and provide leadership for both undergraduate and graduate students. (5) Students are more vigorously recruited than faculty members and often apply for student positions with enthusiasm and preparation. (6) In creating an atmosphere of excellence in research, engaging students at the beginning of their research career will help in creating tomorrow’s leaders in research and research ethics. The challenges of having students as REB members include the following: (1) Faculty members may be uneasy regarding the prospect of students reviewing protocols. (2) Faculty members may be concerned about confidentiality and respect with students reviewing faculty research protocols. (3) There may be an increased burden for students who serve as members on an REB. (4) There is concern that students will offer less continuous service to the REB. (5) There is a common misconception that students do not have the experience to carry out ethical reviews. While there are challenges from faculty members and others regarding having students as REB members, these challenges are often based on misconceptions about the nature of the REB work and the ethics review process in general. These challenges are also often based on the misconception of the ethics review process as one of peer review and evaluation, instead of a community-based and inclusive process. Having student members is a long-term strategy for both overcoming the misconceptions of the REB as a “necessary evil” and for fostering an awareness of the imperative for ethically sound research in the social sciences and humanities.     

Methods for Practising Ethics in Research and Innovation: A Literature Review,Critical Analysis and Recommendations

This paper provides a systematic literature review, analysis and discussion of methods that are proposed to practise ethics in research and innovation (R&I). Ethical considerations concerning the impacts of R&I are increasingly important, due to the quickening pace of technological innovation and the ubiquitous use of the outcomes of R&I processes in society. For this reason, several methods for practising ethics have been developed in different fields of R&I. The paper first of all presents a systematic search of academic sources that present and discuss such methods. Secondly, it provides a categorisation of these methods according to three main kinds: (1) ex ante methods, dealing with emerging technologies, (2) intra methods, dealing with technology design, and (3) ex post methods, dealing with ethical analysis of existing technologies. Thirdly, it discusses the methods by considering problems in the way they deal with the uncertainty of technological change, ethical technology design, the identification, analysis and resolving of ethical impacts of technologies and stakeholder participation. The results and discussion of our literature review are valuable for gaining an overview of the state of the art and serve as an outline of a future research agenda of methods for practising ethics in R&I.     

Conceptual Clarification and the Task of Improving Research on Academic Ethics

What does the term academic ethics mean? How does this term relate to others in the academic integrity literature, such as research misconduct? Does conceptual confusion in the study of academic ethics complicate development of valid analyses of ethical behavior in an academic setting? The intended goal of many empirical projects on academic ethics is to draw causal conclusions about the factors that lead to faculty or students possessing or disregarding academic integrity. Yet, it is not clear that scholars using the concept academic ethics are measuring the same phenomenon when they use associated concepts, such as responsible conduct of research. The purpose of this paper is to develop a taxonomy of concepts for the empirical study of academic ethics. Based in research on comparative analysis of democracy, another normatively preferable but multifaceted concept, I argue for a taxonomy of concepts for the study of academic integrity that reduces problems of “conceptual stretching” and challenges to the validity of empirical research in this field.     

The Role of Philosophy in Academic Ethics

This paper seeks to provide some of the roles of philosophy in the field of academic ethics.     

Ethics and Changing Mental Health Care: Concerns and Recommendations for Practice

Recent developments in health care delivery in the United States have left many professionals baffled by the continuing changes in practice sparked by the relatively new managed care environment. Psychologists who practice in medical settings are struggling to balance the seemingly competing needs to deliver quality care to clients and patients, while meeting the demands of third-party payers and trying to remain true to their ethical responsibilities. Critical elements of managed care, which many suggest compromise the ethical provision of quality care, include utilization review, financial incentives, and threats to confidentiality. Recommendations are proposed so that mental health professionals may be proactive in protecting their ethical responsibilities in this changing environment.     

Experts in science: a view from the trenches

In this paper I analyze four so-called “principles of expertise”; that is, good epistemic practices that are normatively motivated by the epistemological literature on expert judgment. I highlight some of the problems that the four principles of expertise run into, when we try to implement them in concrete contexts of application (e.g. in science committees). I suggest some possible alternatives and adjustments to the principles, arguing in general that the epistemology of expertise should be informed both by case studies and by the literature on the use of experts in science practice.     

The Ethics of Virtual Reality Technology: Social Hazards and Public Policy Recommendations

This article explores four major areas of moral concern regarding virtual reality (VR) technologies. First, VR poses potential mental health risks, including Depersonalization/Derealization Disorder. Second, VR technology raises serious concerns related to personal neglect of users’ own actual bodies and real physical environments. Third, VR technologies may be used to record personal data which could be deployed in ways that threaten personal privacy and present a danger related to manipulation of users’ beliefs, emotions, and behaviors. Finally, there are other moral and social risks associated with the way VR blurs the distinction between the real and illusory. These concerns regarding VR naturally raise questions about public policy. The article makes several recommendations for legal regulations of VR that together address each of the above concerns. It is argued that these regulations would not seriously threaten personal liberty but rather would protect and enhance the autonomy of VR consumers.     

Academic Ethics at the Undergraduate Level: Case Study from the Formative Years of the Institute

Academic ethics among students at an undergraduate level are dictated by a variety of factors. Institutional cultures, personal preferences and notions of ethics, external factors, and peer-pressure are some of the factors that play an important role in the ethical behavior of an undergraduate student. The present study is an attempt to understand the student behavior in a three year old technical Institute in India. At a time when the higher technical education sector in India is rapidly expanding, the study presents trends in undergraduate students regarding academic ethics. The study highlights the factors that are most important in governing ethical behavior of students, and allow for corrective measures at a formative stage in the Institute’s life.     

Human Participants in Engineering Research: Notes from a Fledgling Ethics Committee

For the past half-century, issues relating to the ethical conduct of human research have focused largely on the domain of medical, and more recently social–psychological research. The modern regime of applied ethics, emerging as it has from the Nuremberg trials and certain other historical antecedents, applies the key principles of: autonomy, respect for persons, beneficence, non-maleficence, and justice to human beings who enter trials of experimental drugs and devices (Martensen in J Hist Med Allied Sci 56(2):168–175, 2001). Institutions such as Institutional Review Boards (in the U.S.) and Ethics Committees (in Europe and elsewhere) oversee most governmentally-funded medical research around the world, in more than a hundred nations that are signers of the Declaration of Helsinki (World Medical Association 2008). Increasingly, research outside of medicine has been recognized to pose potential risks to human subjects of experiments. Ethics committees now operate in the US, Canada, the U.K. and Australia to oversee all governmental-funded research, and in other jurisdictions, the range of research covered by such committees is expanding. Social science, anthropology, and other fields are falling under more clear directives to conduct a formal ethical review for basic research involving human participants (Federman et al. in Responsible research: a systems approach to protecting research participants. National Academies Press, Washington, 2003, p. 36). The legal and institutional response for protecting human subjects in the course of developing non-medical technologies, engineering, and design is currently vague, but some universities are establishing ethics committees to oversee their human subjects research even where the experiments involved are non-medical and not technically covered by the Declaration of Helsinki. In The Netherlands, as in most of Europe, Asia, Latin America, or Africa, no laws mandate an ethical review of non-medical research. Yet, nearly 2 years ago we launched a pilot ethics committee at our technical university and began soliciting our colleagues to submit their studies for review. In the past year, we have become officially recognized as a human subjects ethics committee for our university and we are beginning the process of requiring all studies using human subjects to apply for our approval. In this article, we consider some of the special problems relating to protecting human participants in a technology context, and discuss some of our experiences and insights about reviewing human subjects research at a technical university, concluding: that not less than in medical studies, human participants used in technology research benefit from ethical committees’ reviews, practical requirements for publications, grants, and avoiding legal liability are also served by such committees, and ethics committees in such contexts have many similarities to, but certain other special foci than medical ethics committees. We believe that this experience, and these observations, are helpful for those seeking to establish such committees in technology research contexts, and for framing the particular issues that may arise in such contexts for the benefit of researchers, and nascent committees seeking to establish their own procedures.     

Ethics in Research

Summary

This article presents an overview of the history of efforts to protect human subjects in research. It discusses the establishment of international, national, organizational, and institutional procedures designed to protect human participants. The article provides a detailed summary of the principal ethical codes for research and their origins. It includes discussions of the most frequently encountered ethical issues ranging from the initial decision to undertake the project, through the selection and application of the various research procedures, to the analysis and interpretation of the data.     

Ethics and Confidentiality for Psychologists in Academic Health Centers

Psychologists in academic health centers (AHC) face important ethical issues including confidentiality when working with a multidisciplinary team, sharing of information through the electronic health record, obtaining informed consent in a fast-paced healthcare environment, cultural competency in the medical setting, and issues related to supervision and training. The goal of this paper is to describe ethical issues for psychologists in AHCs in the context of case examples, and to consider ethical decision-making tools to enhance clinical care. Considerations for best practices in integrated care settings will be discussed, and the APA Ethical Standards will be referenced throughout.     

Looking from the Outside/In: Re-thinking Research Ethics Review

This paper shares my reflections on the research ethics review process, from the point of view of both a qualitative researcher and a member of an institutional research ethics review board. By considering research ethics review, first as practice, then as policy, as a relationship and, finally, as a performance, I attempt to outline a new vision of research ethics, one that engages seriously with the relationship between receiving ethics approval, and conducting ethical research.     

Publishing as an Indicator of Scientific Research Quality and Ethics: The Case of Law Journals from Moldova

Science and Engineering Ethics - This paper analyses the way articles are published in scientific journals in the field of law in the Republic of Moldova, including an experiment with a previously...     

The categorization effect in hedonic contrast: Experts differ from novices

Test stimuli are rated as less “good” when they follow very good context stimuli than when they are presented alone. This diminution in rating is called hedonic contrast. Contrast is attenuated if the context and the test stimuli are perceived as being in different categories. Because experts use as their basic-level categories what are the subordinate levels for novices, they will categorize when novices do not. Therefore, in the following studies, both experts and novices showed hedonic contrast when attractive context orchids preceded more neutral test orchids. However, only the novices showed hedonic contrast when attractive context irises preceded the test orchids. Novices viewed the irises and the orchids as “flowers” and therefore members of the same category, resulting in contrast. Experts, however, viewed the irises and the orchids as being in different categories; therefore, hedonic contrast did not occur.