Reactively,Proactively, Implicitly,Explicitly? Academics’ Pedagogical Conceptions of how to Promote Research Ethics and Integrity

This article focuses on academics’ conceptions of teaching research ethics and integrity. Seventeen academics from a Finnish research intensive university participated in this qualitative study. The data were collected using a qualitative multi-method approach, including think-aloud and interview data. The material was scrutinized using thematic analysis, with both deductive and inductive approaches. The results revealed variation in academics’ views on the responsibility for teaching research integrity, the methods employed to teach it and the necessity of intervening when misconduct occurs. The academics emphasized the responsibility of the individual teacher and the student to foster integrity as well as the shared responsibility of all members of the academic community. However, many academics felt that they themselves needed pedagogical training. Most shared the view that practices of responsible conduct in research can be explicitly and intentionally taught through demonstration, explanation, and practice. However, the academics also noted that learning research integrity and ethics takes place implicitly. A few questioned the need for and the utility of training in the form of courses or through an explicitly addressed topic included in, for instance, methods courses. Their views on the question of how to deal with alleged cases of misconduct varied. While many academics considered a proactive approach the best way to prevent misconduct, some trusted more in a reactive approach. The results show that, while in general academics agree on the importance of research ethics, their conceptions of teaching it vary. The teaching conception bears consequences for the teaching methods chosen, assignment of responsibility for both teaching and students learning, and for the way in which teachers believe that misconduct should be responded to.     

Scientific and lay communities: earning epistemic trust through knowledge sharing

Feminist philosophers of science have been prominent amongst social epistemologists who draw attention to communal aspects of knowing. As part of this work, I focus on the need to examine the relations between scientific communities and lay communities, particularly marginalized communities, for understanding the epistemic merit of scientific practices. I draw on Naomi Scheman’s argument (2001) that science earns epistemic merit by rationally grounding trust across social locations. Following this view, more turns out to be relevant to epistemic assessment than simply following the standards of “normal science”. On such an account, philosophers of science need to attend to the relations between scientific communities and various lay communities, especially marginalized communities, to understand how scientific practices can rationally ground trust and thus earn their status as “good ways of knowing”. Trust turns out to involve a wide set of expectations on behalf of lay communities. In this paper I focus on expectations of knowledge sharing, using examples of “knowledge-sharing whistleblowers” to illustrate how failures in knowledge sharing with lay communities can erode epistemic trust in scientific communities, particularly in the case of marginalized communities.     

At Arm’s Length? Applied Social Science and its Sponsors

The article deals with trust in applied social science research in the light of applied researchers’ increased dependence on project funding. Taking Norway as a case study it shows how the societal organization of research funding has implications for scientific freedom and ultimately for the confidence we have in research. The article gives an account of various ways the sponsors can influence on applied social science research and discusses the legitimacy of different limitations on scientific freedom. The article concludes with proposals for how the challenges to scientific freedom posed by the research funding framework can be addressed structurally, as well as on the level of the research community.     

Children's perceptions of intergroup and intragroup similarity and the role of social experience

Perceptions of intragroup and intergroup similarity were assessed in 1st grade (M = 6.78 years, SD = .42) and 4th grade (M = 9.79, SD = .51) boys and girls (N = 382) who attended either ethnically homogeneous or ethnically heterogeneous schools. Children's evaluations of same-race and cross-race friendships were also assessed. European-American children attending homogeneous and heterogeneous schools attributed greater homogeneity to the same-race Black dyads. European-American children attending homogeneous schools, furthermore, focused on skin color in their evaluations of similarity and friendship to a greater extent than did European-American and minority (i.e., African-American, Latin-American, Asian-American) children attending heterogeneous schools. Children attending heterogeneous schools were more positive about friendship in general than children attending homogeneous schools, suggesting that social experiences in school settings are an important context of children's intergroup contact experience. The findings indicate that children's intergroup contact influences their perceptions of similarity and reasoning about cross-race friendship.     

Solidarity and Difference: A Contemporary Reading of Paul's Ethics – David G. Horrell

Book reviewed:
Solidarity and Difference: A Contemporary Reading of Paul's Ethics , David G. Horrell, T&T Clark International 2005 (0-5670-4322-3), xvi + 338 pp., pb £49.95     

Affect Labeling to Facilitate Inhibitory Learning: Clinical Considerations

Exposure-based treatments known to be effective for a wide range of psychopathology are thought to work via inhibitory learning, where new learning acquired during exposure exercises inhibits previously learned fear and avoidance responses. One way in which this inhibitory learning may be enhanced is through affect labeling, during which clients verbalize their internal emotional experiences. Theoretically, affect labeling may be a subtle, implicit form of emotion regulation and may facilitate more explicit forms of extinction learning. Experimental research suggests that affect labeling may lead to attenuated fear responses to emotionally evocative stimuli in healthy samples and may be a helpful strategy in reducing physiological arousal experienced during exposure tasks, particularly for clients with inhibitory deficits. Research with clinical samples is limited and mixed, at best. Case examples illustrate how affective labeling may help get a client “unstuck” from unproductive processing loops, can contribute to shifts in perspective and meaning making, and may modulate distress and promote distress tolerance. We argue that routine use of affect labeling in clinical care is premature. When used, it should be employed strategically within a broader case conceptualization and may be of a limited benefit beyond what is already employed in quality exposure therapy.     

Constructing Nonagency at the Beginning of Psychotherapy: The 10DT model

This study examined how nine clients discursively constructed non-agency in their first session of individual psychotherapy. With open reading and linguistic analysis of the transcribed first sessions, combined with theory-based considerations, we created a model of discursive means for ascribing agentic and non-agentic positions, the 10 Discursive Tools model (10DT). There was large variability in how the tools functioned to create the impression of problematic agency, and the clients could not be classified according to their tool use patterns. The study shows the potential of the 10DT model for the detailed examination of presentations of “not-being-able” produced by psychotherapy clients.