Rational choice and moral intent in the responsible conduct of research

Academic misconduct among students has been the focus of a tremendous amount of literature for a number of decades (Crown & Spiller, 1998). However, academic misconduct among faculty has received much less empirical attention (Steneck, 2006). This research was designed to contribute to the literature by empirically examining the possible effects of rational and moral judgments on faculty research misconduct, with a focus on the social sciences. The purpose of the study was to explore the application of a particular theory of human behavior - Rational Choice Theory - to the phenomenon of misconduct in research and to do so in the context of the James Rest, et al., moral decision-making framework. A national survey was conducted involving 2,070 faculty members in sociology and psychology departments from a random sample of research-intensive universities, which resulted in a survey sample of 581 respondents. The relationship between moral assessments and rational choice measures of the perceived likelihood of detection and sanctions was explored using scenarios involving clear or ambiguous research misconduct. Participants rated the likelihood they themselves would take the action described in the scenario under the same circumstances while also rating the moral and rational choice features of the situation. Multiple regression was used to predict the effect of moral and rational choice assessments on the probability of engaging in misconduct. Results showed significant effects for moral judgment as well as potential shame and embarrassment on reducing misconduct, but not for likelihood of detection or external sanctions

Rational Choice and Moral Decision-Making in Research

University psychology and sociology researchers rated the likelihood they would engage in misconduct as described in 9 research scenarios, while also making moral judgments and rating the likelihood of discovery and sanctions. Multiple regression revealed significant effects across various scenarios for moral judgment as well as shame and embarrassment on reducing misconduct. The effects on misconduct of the perceived probability of sanctions were conditioned on moral judgments in some scenarios. The results have implications for how universities address the prevention, detection, and sanctioning of research misconduct

Rational and moral perceptions of research misconduct

Previous research has shown that a variety of factors may be implicated when researchers engage in misconduct, typically falling within three broad categories of personal background or disposition, immediate situational factors, and environmental variables related to peers, departments, fields, universities, or larger scientific systems. The goal of this project was to examine how faculty researchers elect to engage in more or less serious forms of misconduct, grounded in two theoretical frameworks: a) Rational Choice Theory, which posits that individuals are rational beings who select options that promise the greatest rewards and fewest drawbacks possible (Tittle, et.al., 2010); and b) the Rest, et.al., four-component model of moral decision-making which focuses on moral sensitivity, judgment, intention, and action (Rest, 1984)

University faculty perceptions of research practices and misconduct

This poster presentation shares preliminary results from a national survey, funded by the U.S. Office of Research Integrity, to investigate the perceptions of research misconduct by faculty researchers from four disciplinary areas (biology, social work, sociology, and psychology). About 4,500 faculty from 107 randomly selected researchintensive and master’s universities were invited to participate. Respondents assessed scenarios depicting more and less serious researcher misbehavior and reported how likely they would be to take those actions under the same circumstances. They also rated their perceptions of how wrong the actions were, how likely the actions were to become known to others, and what sanctions might be applied if the actions were to become known. In addition, respondents reported their perceptions of organizational justice in their own research environments and the level of funding they are expected to garner to support their own salaries

Perceptions of research misconduct: Pilot data from a national survey

Studies have shown that serious misconduct in academic research (e.g., data fabrication) is uncommon, whereas questionable research practices (e.g., courtesy authorship) occur on a fairly regular basis (Fanelli, 2009; John, Lowenstein, & Prelec, 2012). Yet limited research has been undertaken to understand why researchers engage in these behaviors (Martinson, Anderson, Crain, & DeVries, 2006; Mumford, Connelly, Murphy, Devenport, Antes, Brown, et al., 2009), in spite of the critical attention that misconduct cases bring from scientists, policymakers, and the public. As in other areas of human endeavor, understanding the complex causes of misbehavior is critical in formulating appropriate prevention structures or remedies. This study was designed to explore the influences that drive faculty investigators when making the challenging ethical decisions that arise in the course of their research activities. Researchers were invited to share their perceptions of what they would do in certain circumstances, including those that involve high pressure (e.g., when evaluation for tenure is looming and publications are needed to ensure success). Other factors, such as the role of perceptions of organizational justice and external funding expectations, were also explored. In this study, for the first time, masters/comprehensive universities were targeted to allow comparisons with research-intensive institutions on possible differences in research cultures and environments. The study focuses on four disciplinary fields: biology, psychology, sociology, and social work, the latter of whom have not previously been studied in regard to ethics in research. During the full phase of the survey, social work and sociology faculty will be over-sampled, as will faculty from the masters universities, to allow a more refined analysis of both individual and environmental factors that may drive questionable research behaviors

Using Functional Near Infrared Spectroscopy (fNIRS) to study dynamic stereoscopic depth perception

The parietal cortex has been widely implicated in the processing of depth perception by many neuroimaging studies, yet functional near infrared spectroscopy (fNIRS) has been an under-utilised tool to examine the relationship of oxy- ([HbO]) and de-oxyhaemoglobin ([HbR]) in perception. Here we examine the haemodynamic response (HDR) to the processing of induced depth stimulation using dynamic random-dot-stereograms (RDS). We used fNIRS to measure the HDR associated with depth perception in healthy young adults (n = 13, mean age 24). Using a blocked design, absolute values of [HbO] and [HbR] were recorded across parieto-occipital and occipital cortices, in response to dynamic RDS. Control and test images were identical except for the horizontal shift in pixels in the RDS that resulted in binocular disparity and induced the percept of a 3D sine wave that 'popped out' of the test stimulus. The control stimulus had zero disparity and induced a 'flat' percept. All participants had stereoacuity within normal clinical limits and successfully perceived the depth in the dynamic RDS. Results showed a significant effect of this complex visual stimulation in the right parieto-occipital cortex (p < 0.01, η(2) = 0.54). The test stimulus elicited a significant increase in [HbO] during depth perception compared to the control image (p < 0.001, 99.99 % CI [0.008-0.294]). The similarity between the two stimuli may have resulted in the HDR of the occipital cortex showing no significant increase or decrease of cerebral oxygenation levels during depth stimulation. Cerebral oxygenation measures of [HbO] confirmed the strong association of the right parieto-occipital cortex with processing depth perception. Our study demonstrates the validity of fNIRS to investigate [HbO] and [HbR] during high-level visual processing of complex stimuli

Perceptions and predictors of questionable research practices in the social sciences

Conclusions ■ As expected, moral judgment, anticipated shame, and perceptions of harm were the strongest and most consistent predictors of the perceived likelihood of misconduct. ■ Perceived likelihood of detection only predicted for one scenario, and sanctions had no overall effect (sanctions did affect how strongly moral judgment affected likelihoods). ■ There were no differences in perceived likelihood of misconduct by type of university. ■ Early career faculty reported higher likelihoods. ■ Organizational justice was not related to likelihoods

Perceptions and predictors of questionable research practices in the biological sciences

A nationally representative sample of 429 biology researchers (40% response rate) from 107 R1 and masters universities assessed the features of six research scenarios and reported the probability they would take the same (questionable) action as the actor in the scenario. Results suggest that individual factors such as moral judgment and perceived internal and external consequences may play a larger role in research misbehavior than perceptions of organizational justice or other features of the research environment

Faculty and student perceptions of cheating

Students and faculty at a mid-sized masters comprehensive university completed a survey regarding their perceptions of student cheating and other academic misbehavior. A total of 656 student surveys (22%) and 303 faculty surveys (35%) were analyzed to determine the perceived prevalence of cheating across campus, which behaviors are considered cheating, and how wrong they are perceived to be. Results demonstrated less consensus among faculty than expected on which misbehaviors violate the academic ethics policy as well as considerable variation in the perceived frequency that the policy violations occur, for both students and faculty. Increased education about plagiarism and cheating is needed across campus as well as potential policy revisions and greater awareness of normative academic behavior

Introduction

In a review of the top surveys on cheating in college by Donald McCabe and others from the last several decades, James Lang (2013) noted overall incidence rates in the range of 65% to 82%. Keeping in mind that these are based on self-report data, which rely on student honesty in the reporting, accurate memories, and a clear understanding of what constitutes cheating, these results suggest that academic integrity continues to be a challenging and yet critical issue for higher education. After graduation, research shows that there is a high correlation (66% for undergraduates, 61% for graduate students) between cheating in college and dishonest actions in the workplace (Nonis & Swift, 2001). Yet 40% of faculty in a multi-institutional study reported that they ignored student cheating on one or more occasions (Coren, 2011). Of the 83% of respondents in Coren’s study who did talk with a student they believed to be cheating, those who had a prior “bad” experience were more likely to ignore cheating in the future, less likely to believe the administration would back faculty who confront cheating, and more likely to feel that it was one of the most negative aspects of their job, compared to those who reported “good” experiences. Beyond student integrity, a meta-analysis of the studies investigating the prevalence of research misconduct among faculty found that between .3% and 4.9% of researchers admitted to having falsified or fabricated their data. A much higher percentage, 33.7%, have reportedly engaged in one or more of a wide range of Questionable Research Practices (Fanelli, 2009)