127,99 €
Mehr erfahren.
- Herausgeber: John Wiley & Sons
- Kategorie: Geisteswissenschaft
- Sprache: Englisch
It is the continuous reports of unethical behavior in the form of data manipulation, cheating, plagiarism, and other forms of unacceptable behavior that draw attention to the issues of misconduct. The causes of misconduct are manifold whether it is the need to advance in a chosen discipline or to compete successfully for and obtain research funding. Disappointingly, individuals who are oriented to any form of dishonesty are individuals who had previously displayed little or no consideration for the feelings of others and are therefore more interested in themselves, at the expense of the students, and others recognizing them by any means necessary. This ground-breaking and honest examination of ethics in the university setting is unabashed in its descriptions of misconduct in the academic world. The text is well furbished with numerous citations that point to academic misconduct and the final chapter deals with the means by which misconduct can be mitigated, a strong reminder to everyone in the academic community that above board conduct must be part of our overall message of learning and part of the whole point of education in the first place. A must-have for academics and non-academics alike, this text is the second in a series of books on ethics by James G. Speight, and it is useful to anyone, in any industry, who is interested in ethical behavior and how to navigate the sometimes murky depths of our professional lives.
Sie lesen das E-Book in den Legimi-Apps auf:
Seitenzahl: 597
Veröffentlichungsjahr: 2016
Ähnliche
Contents
Cover
Title page
Copyright page
Preface
Chapter 1: The Concept of Ethics
1.1 Introduction
1.2 Professionalism and Ethics
1.3 Morals and Values
1.4 Codes of Ethics and Ethical Standards
1.5 Academic Freedom
References
Chapter 2: Codes of Ethics
2.1 Introduction
2.2 Codes of Ethics
2.3 Ethics in the University
2.4 Ethics and Research
References
Chapter 3: Academia
3.1 Introduction
3.2 Definitions
3.3 The Faculty
3.4 Faculty Leave
3.5 Nonacademic Staff
3.6 Tenure and Tenure Track
3.7 The Student
3.8 Research Funding
References
Chapter 4: Integrity in Academia
4.1 Introduction
4.2 Faculty Evaluation
4.3 Faculty Conduct and Misconduct
4.4 Faculty Relationships
4.5 A Matter of Control
References
Chapter 5: Integrity in Teaching
5.1 Introduction
5.2 The Learning Path
5.3 The Impact of the Professor
5.4 Professionalism
5.5 Morals and Values
References
Chapter 6: Integrity in Research
6.1 Introduction
6.2 The Nature and Conduct of Research
6.3 Collecting Research Data
6.4 Controls
6.5 Intellectual Property
References
Chapter 7: Publication and Communication
7.2 The Literature
7.3 The Journals
7.4 Data for Publication
7.5 Peer Reviewers and Their Duties
References
Chapter 8: Data Manipulation
8.1 Introduction
8.2 Misuse of Data
8.3 Misuse of Research Funds
References
Chapter 9: Harassment: Sexual and Otherwise
9.1 Introduction
9.2 Title IX
9.3 Harassment Situations
9.4 Effect on the Victim
9.5 Effect on the University
References
Chapter 10: The Sporting Megalopolis
10.1 Introduction
10.2 Why University Sports?
10.3 Athletes and Scholarships
10.4 To be Paid or Not to be Paid
10.5 Passing Grades of Athletes
10.6 Sports After the University
References
Chapter 11: Enforcement of Codes of Ethics
11.1 Introduction
11.2 Following a Code of Ethics
11.3 Reporting Misconduct
11.4 Enforcing a Code of Ethics
11.5 Necessary Actions
References
Glossary
Index
About the Author
End User License Agreement
Guide
Cover
Copyright
Contents
Begin Reading
List of Tables
Chapter 1
Table 1.1
Forms of student misconduct.
Chapter 4
Table 4.1
Comments on various campus relationships.*
Chapter 6
Table 6.1
Typical types of misconduct in research.
Table 6.2
A checklist of sample questions that can be used to mitigate the potential for misconduct in research.
Chapter 8
Table 8.1
Common issues to avoid when designing a research study.
Chapter 9
Table 9.1
Some of the effects a victim may experience after filing a complaint.*
Chapter 10
Table 10.1
The five myths of university sports programs (Sperber, 2015).
Pages
ii
iii
iv
ix
x
xi
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
133
134
135
136
137
138
139
140
141
142
143
144
145
146
147
148
149
150
151
152
153
154
155
156
157
158
159
160
161
162
163
164
165
166
167
168
169
170
171
172
173
174
175
176
177
178
179
180
181
182
183
184
185
186
187
188
189
190
191
192
193
194
195
196
197
198
199
200
201
202
203
204
205
206
207
208
209
210
211
212
213
214
215
216
217
218
219
220
221
222
223
224
225
226
227
228
229
230
231
232
233
234
235
236
237
238
239
240
241
242
243
244
245
246
247
248
249
250
251
252
253
254
255
256
257
258
259
260
261
262
263
264
265
266
267
268
269
270
271
272
273
274
275
276
277
278
279
280
281
282
283
284
285
286
287
288
289
290
291
292
293
294
295
296
297
Scrivener Publishing 100 Cummings Center, Suite 541J Beverly, MA 01915-6106
Publishers at Scrivener Martin Scrivener ([email protected]) Phillip Carmical ([email protected])
Ethics in the University
James G. Speight
Copyright © 2016 by Scrivener Publishing LLC. All rights reserved.
Co-published by John Wiley & Sons, Inc. Hoboken, New Jersey, and Scrivener Publishing LLC, Beverly, Massachusetts. Published simultaneously in Canada.
No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording, scanning, or otherwise, except as permitted under Section 107 or 108 of the 1976 United States Copyright Act, without either the prior written permission of the Publisher, or authorization through payment of the appropriate per-copy fee to the Copyright Clearance Center, Inc., 222 Rosewood Drive, Danvers, MA 01923, (978) 750-8400, fax (978) 750-4470, or on the web at www.copyright.com. Requests to the Publisher for permission should be addressed to the Permissions Department, John Wiley & Sons, Inc., 111 River Street, Hoboken, NJ 07030, (201) 748-6011, fax (201) 748-6008, or online at http://www.wiley.com/go/permission.
Limit of Liability/Disclaimer of Warranty: While the publisher and author have used their best efforts in preparing this book, they make no representations or warranties with respect to the accuracy or completeness of the contents of this book and specifically disclaim any implied warranties of merchantability or fitness for a particular purpose. No warranty may be created or extended by sales representatives or written sales materials. The advice and strategies contained herein may not be suitable for your situation. You should consult with a professional where appropriate. Neither the publisher nor author shall be liable for any loss of profit or any other commercial damages, including but not limited to special, incidental, consequential, or other damages.
For general information on our other products and services or for technical support, please contact our Customer Care Department within the United States at (800) 762-2974, outside the United States at (317) 572-3993 or fax (317) 572-4002.
Wiley also publishes its books in a variety of electronic formats. Some content that appears in print may not be available in electronic formats. For more information about Wiley products, visit our web site at www.wiley.com.
For more information about Scrivener products please visit www.scrivenerpublishing.com.
Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data:
ISBN 978-1-118-87213-0
Preface
For the most part, universities are a way of life in many countries. Faculty members collect factual data and assess new areas of knowledge. However, no one can foresee the tortuous path that the faculty endures to determine where experimentation and observation may lead. Then there is always the mode of data interpretation, data manipulation, and data reporting in various learned journals. The university requires that the faculty follow the path of freedom of thought and, in the academic sense, unrestricted communication. In many cases, it is through the ethical professionalism of the faculty members that world knowledge and technology advances. Yet there are continuous reports of unethical behavior in the form of misrepresentation of data, cheating, and plagiarism at the highest levels university faculty. The causes are manifold, whether they are (1) the need to advance from the lower to the higher faculty ranks, (2) to compete successfully for and obtain research funding, or (3) recognition by one’s peers.
The pursuit of a career in academia requires (1) the ability to teach and impart knowledge to the students, (2) freedom of thought and, in the academic sense, (3) unrestricted communication. It is through the professionalism of the members of the worldwide academic community that world knowledge and technology advances. Yet the individuals in academia are hired to impart their knowledge to members of the younger generation aged (approximately) eighteen to twenty-two years. It is during this impressionable time that the younger generation become exposed to the vagaries of higher education as well as the vagaries of ethical behavior.
Of course, in spite of the examples presented in this book, not all academic faculty and staff are involved in misconduct. The overwhelming majority of faculty are extremely hardworking, and their workloads in these current budgetary circumstances are only increasing. In fact, faculty members and staff members with a high level of honesty would feel a high level of guilt if they were guilty of misconduct. However, it is the responsibility of the professor, staff member, or student to confront cheating and misconduct head-on. It is these persons who should recognize cheating and misconduct and who must offer suitable punishment as a deterrent. There appears to be a general consensus between students and professors as to reasons for ignoring cheating, which suggests a general impression of denial. This attitude of nonreporting is, in itself, a form of cheating and it is pitiful. In the adage of the Old West, circling the wagons to protect all involved is not the way to deal with dishonest behavior.
However, it is the continuous reports of unethical behavior in the form of data manipulation, cheating, plagiarism, and other forms of unacceptable behavior that draw attention to the issues of misconduct. The causes of misconduct are manifold, including the need to advance in one of the chosen disciplines or to compete successfully for and obtain research funding. Disappointingly, individuals who are oriented to any form of dishonesty are those who had previously displayed little or no consideration for the feelings of others and are therefore more interested in themselves (at the expense of the students) and in getting others to recognize them by any means necessary.
Like a previous book (Ethics in Science and Engineering, J. G. Speight and R. Foote, Scrivener-Wiley, 2011), this project was triggered by a combination of factors – (1) awareness by the author of the increasing frequency of unethical practices in the realm of education, (2) recognition of the focus of the literature on ethical behavior, and (3) the realization that ethical/unethical behavior is the outcome of choice and is not due to chance.
There is no attempt to be judgmental but rather to encourage everyone to reflect on themselves philosophically (that is, in terms of individual values and beliefs) since it was absolutely clear that personal motivations and preferences can override any other contributory factor.
In fact, in recent years, as the external regulatory environment has expanded and ethical issues have become more prevalent, it became apparent that it was time for a careful review of existing policies and guidelines within the university systems. Thus, it is important for any university to clearly state the expected standards for ethical behavior. There must also be a systematic and realistic review of the wide variety of conflicts of interest faced by the university and there must be the appropriate means to monitor the potential for ethical conflicts and to be alert to the need to seek guidance from nonacademic experts.
On the basis of the observations and research by the author, this publication seeks to advance basic requirements for the application of ethical behavior, to mitigate the frequent occurrences of misconduct, which currently and frequently appear in academic institutions. Of course, the only way to stamp out unethical behavior by academic faculty and staff is for a university to first recognize that it does indeed occur and that such behavior must be dealt with seriously and not by a mere slap on the wrist for the miscreants. This is more difficult than it may seem.
This book examines the potential for unethical behavior by all academic staff – professionals and nonprofessionals. Documented examples are presented to show where the matter could have been halted before it became an ethical issue. The author also looks to the future to see what is in store for young people as they enter the academic world to further their education and even to seek job opportunities.
It is not the purpose of this book to determine causality or simply dependency or to comment on the reason for using mathematical modeling (or computer simulation) in the absence of data and the acceptance of untested assumptions. Nor is it the purpose of the book to comment on the use of incorrect analyses which can involve correct answers to incorrect questions or incorrect answers to correct questions. Data manipulation, the outcome of which is misconduct in research (or cheating in research), usually results when there has been a lack of appropriate controls (comparisons), collapsing data to provide simpler interpretations, invalid measurements, invalid analyses, as well as invalid assumptions.
Furthermore, this book is not meant to be judgmental but to encourage every faculty and staff member as well as student to reflect on their actions (that is, in terms of individual values and beliefs) since it is clear that personal motivations and preferences can override any other ethical and contributory factor. The potential for unethical behavior within the university system is examined, and documented examples are presented to show where the incident occurred. The author also looks to the future to see what is in store for faculty members and how (or if) the potential for unethical behavior can be negated.
Finally, it is not possible to claim completeness in a project of this nature but it is hoped that this preliminary treatment will stimulate discussions about ethics among students and faculty members within universities and other educational institutions. There is a further hope that such internal and external examination will encourage students and faculty to raise their own standards of ethical conduct without having to be forced to do so. Also, it is not the intent of the author to act as judge and jury but merely to report what has been found and presented elsewhere. Readers can then decide for themselves whether or not they require more details of each cited incident.
James G. Speight, PhD, DSc Laramie Wyoming, USA
Chapter 1The Concept of Ethics
1.1 Introduction
For the purposes of this book, the definition of ethics involves defending and recommending concepts of right and wrong conduct. In practice, ethics is an aid to resolving the various aspects of human behavior (conduct and misconduct) by defining the concepts of right and wrong. The purpose of this book is to apply the concept of ethics to behavior within the various universities and the recognition of unethical behavior or, as it is frequently referred to in the text, misconduct by faculty members, staff members, and by students. However, the purpose is not to be judgmental but to encourage every faculty member, staff member, and student to reflect on their actions (that is, in terms of individual values and beliefs) since it is clear that personal motivations and preferences can override any other ethical and contributory factor. In the book, the potential and occurrence of misconduct within the university system is examined and the means by which, or if, the potential for unethical behavior can be negated.
At this point, however, it is essential to define the terms university and college as used in this book.
In a general context, the words college and university have been used interchangeably but can cause confusion. In the context of this book, a university is an institution that offers undergraduate programs and graduate programs. The undergraduate programs lead to a baccalaureate degree while the graduate programs lead to a master’s degree or to a doctorate. Universities may have medical programs and/or law programs leading to the respective professional degrees. Generally, universities have a diverse offering of classes and programs leading to a variety of degrees. On the other hand, again in the context of this book, a college is a part of the university in which specific departments exist to forward the educational aims of the college, such as a College of Science, a College of Engineering, a College of Law, and a College of Medicine. The term university college is used to denote such a college.
The state university system in the United States is a group of public universities supported by an individual state. These systems constitute the majority of public-funded universities and each state supports at least one such system. The amount of the financial subsidy from the state varies from university to university and state to state, but the effect is to lower tuition costs below that of private universities for students from that state or district. On the other hand, a private university is not operated by a (state) government, although many receive favorable tax credits, public student loans, and grants. Depending on their location, private universities may be subject to government regulation.
The head of a university is given the title president or chancellor. In the United States, the head of a university is most commonly a university president. If the occupant of either title (president or chancellor) is titular (i.e., the person is a ceremonial figurehead), the chief executive (equivalent to the private industry chief operating officer) of a university is the provost or vice-chancellor, respectively. The president or chancellor may serve as chairman of the governing body (the board of governors, the board of trustees, the board of regents) or, if not, this duty is often held by a chairman who has been appointed or elected to the board as an external (nonuniversity) member.
Thus, a university is a multidisciplinary organization with a strong mandate to teach using research (that is funded by organizations external to the university) as a means of gaining knowledge and imparting knowledge to the students. It is in the best interests of all universities to maintain a high ethical and sustainable performance, although there are many plausible-sounding rules for defining ethical (and unethical) conduct which may add confusion (and a defensible position by a perpetrator) to the issue of misconduct (Woodward and Goodstein, 1996; Schulz, 2000; Cahn, 2011). There is also the suggestion, perhaps plausible, perhaps not, that definitions of misconduct should include turning to the news media with a story of misconduct that may or may not be reported correctly (Roy, 1999). The default positions for the definitions of unethical behavior or misconduct are the definitions as presented in a code of ethics (sometimes referred to as a code of conduct) which should be available to, and understood by, all faculty, staff, and students. Even when universities find misconduct investigations difficult because of evidence confidentiality problems, the case must be taken to its conclusion by ensuring that the correct procedures are employed throughout the investigation (Hileman, 1997), and once the decision has been reached it is essential that no upper-level administrator should be allowed to make a unilateral decision to overturn the decision of the investigators.
By example and in classrooms, higher education must function as an important determiner of the ethical culture of the present and future (Davies et al., 2009). The professionals who teach at universities are considered to be (or should be) highly ethical people who exhibit behavior that is of the highest ethical and moral standards and is beyond reproach. For many academic professionals this is a credo that is followed throughout their careers and they never move out of the lines that border the straight and narrow path of honesty and integrity. Unfortunately, there are those who perhaps do not even know how to define ethics and who fail to practice any form of honest behavior.
Ethics is “the normative science of conduct, and conduct is a collective name for voluntary actions” (Lillie, 2001). In this regard voluntary actions are those actions that could have been done differently, and such actions may be good or bad, right or wrong, moral or immoral. Ethics focuses not on what people think but what they ought to think and do. An ethical science is an in-depth systematic study of the standards for judging right and wrong, good and bad principles, guiding means, and how far we will or should go (Lillie, 2001; Howard and Korver 2008).
Whatever the definition, ethics is one of the pillars of any university community where higher education requires teaching and high standards of behavior and is assuredly one of the criteria for evaluating the quality of higher education. Despite the range of factors that contribute to ethical or unethical behavior, the central determinant is the personal thoughts (and behavior) of the faculty and staff members, which determines the meaning that the faculty and staff attach to ethics in respect of their profession and position within the university. Indeed, personal thoughts and behavior can override the influence of any other factor, including the code of ethics of a university or even the professional society of which the academic professional may hold membership (Adams et al., 2001).
The ability to manage emotions during the processes of academic research orients many individuals to act on feelings and engage in unethical practices. This is reflected in the (increasing) frequency of reports of misconduct in various disciplines (Cahn, 2011; Speight and Foote, 2011). Briefly, research misconduct is “fabrication, i.e., making up results and recording or reporting them, falsification, i.e., manipulation of research materials, equipment, or processes, or changing or omitting data or results such that the research is not accurately represented in the research record, and plagiarism, i.e., the appropriation of another person’s ideas, processes results, or words without giving appropriate credit” (OSTP, 1999). However, no matter what excuses are made for questionable behavior by academic faculty, academic integrity is critical to higher education, especially where research and learning are manifested. However, faculty consensus is limited on what forms of behavior constitute dishonesty, even though a code of ethics or a code of conduct are available (Kibler, 1994; Rezaee et al., 2001; Verschoor, 2002; Wood and Rimmer, 2003: McKay et al., 2007; Papp and Wertz, 2009).
Indeed, ethical issues have come to and will remain at the fore because of the prioritization of differences by faculty as they seek a more privileged position in academia. This requirement has been compounded further by the emergence of procedural inconsistencies in several major research projects (Kitchener and Kitchener, 2009). Honesty has to be practiced at all times and must be evaluated on the basis of intentions and not outcomes, unlike some occupations. However, “intentions will stop being regarded as good, if they repeatedly produce bad results or no results at all” (Lillie, 2001). Moreover, the correctness of an action depends on the action as a whole and not on the past, and whether or not a faculty member’s conduct is good or bad may be: (1) instinctive and discernible through one’s actions, (2) intentional, which may be direct and motivating or indirect, (3) rooted in desire which is a consciousness to act in a particular manner, or (4) a matter of calculated choice (Lillie, 2001). Furthermore, the actions of one person can impact the actions of others and, as such, the general nature and direction of actions in a university may affect the choices of others and their level of consideration for moral standards. Such actions impact concerns for the common good, levels of egoism and altruism, and the eventual emergence of rights, duties, and entitlements.
Consequently, it must be recognized that (1) the end does not justify the means, (2) a rational basis must be established for dealing with uncertainty in any type of research, (3) some types of research may not be ethically justifiable, and (4) while researchers prefer to minimize errors, there are those who prefer false positives over false negatives (Shrader-Frechette, 1994). If the act that the individual performs is in his or her power not to perform, then he or she is responsible for that act and must face the consequences (Chisholm, 2008). This would establish the morality of the action but the orientation to autonomous or independent individual-level action is shaped and reshaped by the academic climate.
One of the hurdles of applying ethics to academia is to find the correct place to start. For example, one of the most vital areas of debate concerns the hands-on practice of the treatment of the experimental (research) data. If faculty members accept the premise that their actions are always moral, they will always conclude that their actions were correct. Whatever was written on paper cannot be faulted as it was the rationale for the additional ten experiments to produce a possible-maybe answer to the problem. Such attitudes are, in fact, the starting point of much of the traditional moral philosophy as applied to faculty behavior and are at the heart of the distinction between what is right and what is wrong with many faculty members. For example, faculty members may have burned the midnight oil to bring their model to a conclusion but they may have forgotten that many of their assumptions were invalid. Similarly, a scientific faculty member may have toiled in the laboratory (or had students toil in the laboratory) to complete the additional experiments that were invariable designed to prove a theory without even acknowledging that the theory could be irrational. Thus, there is a strong need for the faculty member to (1) clarify his or her perception of the issue, (2) take an alternative course of action, (3) choose from the options available, (4) decide the consequences and compare with his or her values, and (5) discuss with others in an attempt to gain further guidance in decision making (Smith, 1990). Another perspective that is applicable to ethical or unethical decision making and actions is the Theory of Planned Behavior, which emphasizes that intentions influence volitional behavior by exerting a motivational effect on the individual(s) (Kraft et al., 2005; Kiriakidis, 2008).
The goal now is to make faculty members more sensitive to the ethical implications of their work. This requires a start from the basics of the education system where cheating and misconduct occur frequently, due to a variety of factors including the moral development of students and student-faculty interactions (i.e., professorial behavior) (Thweatt and McCroskey. 1996; Whitley, 1998; Kearney et al., 2002; Banfield et al., 2006; Nadelson, 2007; Young, 2010). Since cheating and misconduct occurs as early as the middle school years of a student, it is appropriate to discuss ethical questions in the schools, followed by the universities, and from there at the annual meetings of professional societies – if by then it is not too late (Smaglik and MacIlwain, 2001; Speight and Foote, 2011).
Teachers and professors need to make themselves more aware of the unethical and immoral implications of cheating and misconduct and they need to be more prepared to inform their students about ethical and unethical issues. Subsequently, it will be possible to come to a more general conclusion at national and international levels. The ethics of university faculty and staff are not only an issue of an individual university but also a collective problem that involves all universities. Indeed, the occurrence of unethical practices in academia and elsewhere brings to the front-stage not only the issue of ethics but also the need for recognition of the nature of ethics in the age of personal image, being the top dog of the group, and the recipients of copious awards (Madison and Fairbairn, 1999).
Making good ethical decisions requires that the faculty member has been made sensitive to ethical issues and a practiced method for exploring the ethical aspects of a decision and the ability to weigh the considerations that should impact the choice of a course of action. When a method for ethical decision making in the university is used regularly, it becomes second nature, and the faculty member can work through it automatically without consulting the specific steps (Markkula, 2010).
1.2 Professionalism and Ethics
The disciplines of faculty members in a university are composed of educated professionals who have the ability to apply themselves to the problems at hand through either theoretical studies or experimentation. To the academic professional, the outcome of this work that offers some form of gratification is (1) completion of a project and (2) publication of the data in a journal or similar medium for distribution to one’s peers. This provides the faculty member with recognition for his or her work. However, no one can foresee the tortuous path of a university-based research investigation and know where experimentation and observation may lead. Then there is always the mode of data interpretation, and such interpretation must be made at the highest ethical level (Alcorn, 2001). In fact, research in any academic discipline can entail frustration and disappointment as well as satisfaction even when an experiment fails or a hypothesis turns out to be incorrect.
The individual qualifications of each faculty member will determine which academic career is most appropriate. Many baccalaureate graduates find satisfying careers in a variety of positions after the bachelor’s degree. Other baccalaureate graduates find that a master’s degree equips them well for professional careers. For those who hope for careers conducting research and/or teaching at the higher level, a doctoral degree (typically a PhD) is required. However, no degree guarantees lifetime employment and, like professionals in other fields, the faculty member may still have to change jobs and even careers during a professional lifetime – perhaps even more than once. The path to an academic career can be demanding – mentally, physically, and emotionally – and not everyone has the perseverance to complete years of concentrated study. But the experience of doing post-baccalaureate work is exhilarating for those with sufficient interest and determination. There may be many teachers, mentors, or colleagues who are willing to help the emerging faculty member and assist with overcoming difficult hurdles that are needed to gain confidence and the ability to think and work independently. However, no one can foresee the winding of the path along which adventurous observation and experiment may lead and what boundaries can be set to the possibilities of interpretation.
It is the purpose of this chapter to lay the foundation for the journey into the hallowed halls of academia, no matter how many turns the path to academia may take.
Education is basic to achieving national goals in two ways. First, schools and universities are responsible for producing the teachers and researchers. Investigators in academia and industry lay the groundwork for the innovations of the future. Furthermore, by attracting outstanding students and faculty members (hopefully, who have some understanding of the nonacademic world), national systems have, to some extent, benefited from an infusion of both talent and ideas. A cohesive system of education is therefore important both as a source of future professionals and as a source of new ideas.
Thus, a profession is any occupation that provides a means by which to earn a living. In the sense intended here, the faculty-based professions are those forms of work involving advanced expertise, self-regulation, and honesty (Martin and Schinzinger, 2005). Faculty members play a major role in setting standards for admission to the profession, drafting codes of ethics, enforcing standards of conduct, and representing the profession to others. Briefly, a code of ethics provides a framework for ethical judgment (the incentive to do the right thing) by a professional (Adams et al., 2001; Martin and Schinzinger, 2005; Fleddermann, 2008; Davies et al., 2009) although there are thoughts (not necessarily agreeable) that many plausible-sounding rules for defining ethical conduct might be destructive to the aims of scientific enquiry (Woodward and Goodstein, 1996).
Professionals should maintain high ethical standards and to do so brings with it the recognition traditionally associated with the word profession. Professionalism entails a multiplicity of tasks and a variety of new roles; not all individuals occupying these roles of trust have been adequately prepared for and socialized to them. Actions are often collective, i.e., via team approaches to problem posing and problem solving, which can undermine individual responsibility. Indeed, the importance of recognizing the role of the university in contributing to incidences of research misconduct was noted during conference discussions (Chalk et al., 1980; Chalk, 2005). All of these potentially conflicting factors may make it difficult for a researcher to know with confidence what is ethically expected of him or her (Gorlin, 1986; Davis, 2002).
In general, the faculty members who are biased toward theory tend to produce data that are often abstract, and the intellectual contribution is expressed in the form of theories with proof. As a result, publication of the proceedings of a conference may be the only outlet for their efforts, after which publication in a reputable journal may be possible but only with considerable efforts or, for various reasons, may not be possible at all. But the importance of the work to the young faculty member or staff member can, again, be diminished when the names of a supervisor and any other persons higher up the academic food chain are included as coauthors.
For faculty members, publication of data in the proceedings from a conference often results in a shorter time to print. This follows from the opportunity to describe completed or partly completed work before peer faculty members and to receive a more complete review than the type of review that is typical for a journal. At a conference, the audience asks general and specific questions to the presenter that often provide recommendations for further work or a new line of investigation. Overall, this will help the presenter to finalize the document for publication in the proceedings (where the proceedings are published postconference). On the other hand, one has to wonder if journal reviewers really pay attention to the salient points of the potential publication or merely look for errors in style and grammar. An answer that several readers may relate to is all of the above. However, in many academic reviews, statements are made that publication in the proceedings of a prestige conference is inferior to publication in a prestige journal without realizing or being willing to admit that in relation to data presentation and publication, many conferences are superior to an established journal.
In academia, the young professional enters a department at the assistant professor grade (Chapter 2). At this level, the assistant professor has little choice in terms of teaching assignments and has administrative work thrust upon his or her shoulders while the older, tenured members of staff have the right to refuse such work without fear of reprisal. And yet, this is not the reason behind tenure.
Tenure (Chapter 2) was introduced to protect academic freedom in educational settings from the whims of politics – whether this is in the form of meddling from the outside of from the inside. Tenure was thus introduced to preserve academic autonomy and integrity because it was recognized that this was beneficial for academia. Tenure was not designed to allow faculty to refuse work! Professors who hold tenure are virtually impregnable fortresses and cannot (without considerable effort and expense) be dismissed from their appointment – the appointment, essentially, is for life. Tenure has come under attack over the past three to four decades by those who want a more businesslike approach to universities, including ending tenure and introducing accountability, performance review, audits, and performance-based salaries (Hacker and Dreifus, 2010; Taylor, 2010).
In addition, young assistant professors also have to acquire research funding and may even have to pass their reports and papers through a review committee prior to publication. This review committee will be made up of senior members of staff who, for many reasons that are often difficult to follow, can give a young professor a glowing performance report or a report that is somewhat less than glowing. It is at this time, if the latter is the case, that young professors can feel that they are suffering rejection by their colleagues. In fact, young professors may wonder if they are merely a pair of hands (for an overbearing supervisor or an overbearing department head or jealous colleagues) and not supposed to be given credit for the ability to think and solve a problem. Performance suffers and, with repeated negativism toward publication, the young academic professional starts to lose interest in the university.
1.3 Morals and Values
Teaching morals and ethical values to students should begin at the home of the student where parental influence is of paramount importance. In the education system it begins in schools where, unfortunately, cheating is not unknown. If the tendency for students to cheat is not curbed, the concept of cheating become ingrained in the students’ psyche as a natural phenomenon and continues at university and thence unto adult life. Therefore, it is necessary for faculty members to promote moral and ethical values to the students and to ensure that these morals and values fit the needs of the modern world industries. The main objective in promoting morals and values education for students is to encourage universities to implement academic and other activities related to teaching, research and extension programs embracing values and culture, such as seminars, conferences, workshops and orientation programs for faculty members and their students which can introduce concepts and ideals related to morals and values education.
However, universities themselves are rife with dishonesty and misconduct (Sykes, 1988) and in many universities students admit to having engaged in academic dishonesty at least once during their college career (McCabe and Trevino, 1993). Academic misconduct among students takes several forms (Table 1.1) (Martin and Schinzinger, 2005), all of which should warrant some form of punishment. No matter how well the causes of such misconduct are explained or even covered up, there is no justification or rationalization for any such behavior. Misconduct in any form violates all procedures codes (codes of ethics and codes of conduct) by giving some students an unfair advantage.
Table 1.1 Forms of student misconduct.
Misconduct
General description
Cheating
The student deliberately violates the codes of ethics and conduct – such as copying from another student during a test.
Fabrication
The student intentionally falsifies available information or invents new information – such as faking and/or false manipulation the results of an experiment.
Plagiarism
The student intentionally or negligently submits work by another person as his or her own work – such as quoting the work of others without using quotation marks and citing the source; also falls under category of
cheating.
Dishonesty
The student helps another student to engage in a dishonest practice – such as loaning work for copying; more often referred to as facilitating dishonesty.
Misrepresentation
The student gives false information to a faculty member – such as fabricating a reason (lying) for missing a test; also, failure to contribute to a collaborative project, but the student claims credit for doing so.
Sabotage
The student prevents others from doing their work – such as interfering with a laboratory experiment and causing the experiment to fail.
Theft
The student steals (1) library books or (2) the property of others or (3) the property of the university.
Universities need to create and maintain a culture of honesty through their codes which must set forth standards and punitive actions for those who do not stick by the codes, even though they may not be sufficient to curb cheating (Martin and Schinzinger, 2005). In addition, a university must support professors and students who report cheating and refuse to bend before the university administrators who may be concerned about losing a fee-paying student (or more likely, the parents of the student) by merely giving the miscreant a do-not-be-a-naughty-boy talk (or in these days of equality, a do-not-be-a-naughty-girl talk) or a slap on the wrist with a note to run along and behave. By doing this, the morals and ethics values, if they existed at the university, were thrown out of the window. To combat such behavior, universities need to maintain a climate of respect, fairness, and concern for students (universities are not rest homes for those who could not hold down a job in the outside world) and honor codes need to be explained clearly (Martin and Schinzinger, 2005). Opportunities to cheat should be minimized with firm and enforced disciplinary procedures applied to those caught cheating. Ready access to the Internet has made cheating easier but detecting plagiarism has also been made easier (Decoo, 2002). Furthermore, inclusion of classes related to academic integrity can be a valuable way to integrate an ethics component into courses (Martin and Schinzinger, 2005).
Academic integrity is much more important than simply guaranteeing that students adhere to rules of test taking and plagiarism avoidance and is linked inextricably to transmitting general ethical values to students (Bornstein, 2007). Universities must show that they are concerned that students not cheat on exams or engage in plagiarism. Frequently students perceive what faculty and college administrators say about academic integrity and plagiarism as unrealistic and generally unnecessary moralizing. This cynical view indicates that cheating is an acceptable way of university life (Callahan, 2004).
A recommendation worthy of consideration is the implementation of a foundation course for faculty members and staff members which can also be designed for students to gain conceptual clarity and respect for ethical behavior. Students can become engaged in presentations and discussions on pertinent themes such as spiritual, moral, cultural and environmental values, as well as values of democracy, scientific temper and communication skills in the skills in the workplace. This foundation course may serve the needs of faculty members and staff members who battle with serious work issues.
A university is a community of students and teachers committed to the pursuit of learning, accumulation of knowledge, the transmission of this knowledge to succeeding generations, and the development of new knowledge. In addition, a university combines teaching, research, and discovery as well as community service. In this combination lies a community of scholarly faculty members which can give a university unique strength.
1.4 Codes of Ethics and Ethical Standards
Codes of ethics are intended to legally reinforce the need for respect for personal and experimental behavior and should remain at the forefront of faculty prioritization of differences as faculty members seek to attain a more privileged position in the world of academia. This requirement can be further compounded by procedural inconsistencies in any research project, and the absence of a philosophical basis for discussions of ethics dictates the need for a more comprehensive theory to guide future research (Kitchener and Kitchener 2009).
Many universities have developed codes of ethics that encompass a broad range of behavior and practice as a means of fostering research integrity. Colleges and universities are built on moral obligations, ethical responsibilities and principles and codes of behavior (Baca and Stein, 1983). Furthermore, there is a direct correlation between levels of moral outrage expressed and the importance of what is expected (the norm – an indicator of professionalism) from ethical standards (Braxton and Bayer, 1999). In the realm of higher education, norms specify the desired practices with respect to teaching, research, and service. Without norms, faculty members would be free to follow their own unconstrained preferences in teaching and research. Norms also represent what is considered important by a group articulating how professional choices mesh with service (Braxton and Brayer 2002).
The role of a code of ethics is characterized by both descriptive and prescriptive aspects, particularly (in the current context) for a faculty member when it might be expected that the requisite knowledge and skills demanded in such as position would be sufficient to guarantee research integrity, except in a few extraordinary cases. It might be argued (unsuccessfully one hopes) that it is difficult to establish unambiguous ethical standards in academia and this leads to a range of judgment calls (Whicker and Kronenfeld, 1994). In the academic world, as in many other professional worlds, most (if not all) faculty members believe that they are honest, capable of acting not from instinct but rather from a reasoned set of rules that are defined under various relevant codes of ethics.
These codes presumably represent the ideals and core values of a profession, and can be used to transmit those values and more detailed ethical prescriptions. They also provide standards for reviewing claims of misconduct and for sanctioning improper behavior. In fact, all universities should have a code of ethics that should be developed by professional disciplines, with the process of development offering ample opportunity for contributions from all sectors of a university. If a university decides to enforce its standards with review and disciplinary procedures, it should be prepared to devote adequate resources to do so effectively. Enforcement procedures should accord due process, and ways to initiate a grievance should be commonly known. However, when misconduct allegations are reviewed by university administrators, the results may not be made public, thereby diminishing the potential deterrent effect. A university should, therefore, consider making public the outcome of a misconduct review.
One of the pivotal questions faced by a university is whether to institute measures to enforce its code of ethics with disciplinary proceedings and sanctions. Many universities choose not to engage in enforcement, issuing a mere slap on the wrist instead, but enforcement of an ethics code allows the university to demonstrate willingness to hold the faculty and staff accountable for individual or collective misbehavior, and any form of teacher misconduct or professorial misconduct can and will result in a loss of teacher or professorial credibility, which will have an effect on student behavior and performance (Kowalski, 1997; Kearney et al., 2002; Banfield et al., 2006; Prohaska, 2012; Rich 2014). Another option adopted by many universities is referral of a claim of misbehavior on the part of a faculty member to an investigative committee to conduct an investigation, with the university reserving the right to publicize (or not to publicize) the findings of that investigation.
There are several considerations for any university regarding enforcement. Due process considerations are essential in a review of misconduct if expulsion from the university is a possible outcome. In addition, reviewers of misconduct allegations must have the right to access all sources of relevant information. There should also be in place a plan for transmitting a finding of misconduct to appropriate persons or organizations to protect the integrity of the research record. All parties involved in the review of misconduct are vulnerable to being sued and junior faculty and staff may be reluctant to participate in disciplinary proceedings out of fear of professional vulnerability through some form of retribution.
Enforcement of a code of ethics is not an easy task and a university must be willing to expend sufficient resources to do it well. The question of whether enforcement will serve as a real deterrent to misconduct is by no means settled. Therefore, careful drafting or redrafting of a university code of ethics may permit enforcement while addressing some of these concerns. However, the potential for and the limitations of codes of ethics to ensure research integrity provoke varying points of view. While a code of ethics is intended to codify standards of behavior within the faculty (and staff), its limitations are such that conduct cannot be guaranteed and, in some instances, cannot be predicted. The contexts of scientific research can present unique circumstances that create difficulty in describing behavior that is uniformly right or wrong. Any decision or dilemma requires an examination of competing values as well as good judgment and common sense, and the individual value systems of each member must also be factored into decision making.
In the context of many university faculty disciplines, the most important factors are related to (1) authorship determination, (2) reporting misconduct procedures, (3) plagiarism, (4) duplicate publication, (5) obligation to report misconduct, (6) data retention, (7) mentoring/supervising roles, (8) responsibility of authors, (9) timely reporting of data, (10) complete reporting of data, and (11) order of authors. However, this list does not reveal how these provisions are interpreted by university faculty and the impact that the individual categories of the list has on faculty behavior.
All codes encourage general good conduct, summarized as: (1) perform research and consultation honestly, (2) work within the boundaries of competence, by following all applicable regulations and procedures, and (3) do no harm to the university, which may decide to deny any liability for the behavior of the faculty. This leads to the substantial commonalities that all the codes will contain: (1) honesty in conducting and reporting research, and (2) integrity in intellectual ownership and authorship. However, differences among a selection of codes of ethics will, undoubtedly, be found to be in the breadth and the level of specificity (i.e., articulated more abstractly as principles or as detailed expected behaviors) as well as the implied purpose (i.e., primarily to educate, to sanction, or to protect the public). In summary, the premise behind a code of ethics is to assist the university, when it is called upon to make a decision, to ensure that (usually most, if not all) understand the difference between correct actions and incorrect actions and to apply this understanding to its decision (Annas, 2006). It is at this stage that the intent of the university administration in enforcing the code of ethics can come under serious question.
In summary, the effectiveness of a code of ethics or a code of conduct is a function of the design, distribution, and implementation of the code (Yahr et al., 2009). It should not be assumed or expected that a code covers all intended practices and behaviors; codes evolve, and, as living documents, must be redesigned and implemented. Codes that are not assessed for effectiveness may be merely window dressing, but a professional audit of a code of ethics (code of conduct) may shed light on the issue of code effectiveness. A code of ethics or a code of conduct does not guarantee a desired outcome and cannot be effective, and successful implementation can be improved through mentoring, live educational sessions, or tutorials. Recalling or being reminded of a code of ethics may help. Reminders of ethical standards and standards of conduct can promote the practice of honesty to the detriment of the practice of dishonesty (Ariely, 2008).
1.5 Academic Freedom
Because there are references to academic freedom elsewhere in this book, it is appropriate at this point to delve briefly into the realms of academia and the meaning of the term academic freedom since professorial behavior, as part of academic freedom, falls under the umbrella of conduct and misconduct.
The academic tradition emphasizes “intellectual honesty and critical self-discipline … with respect to … the scholarship of discovery; the scholarship of integration; the scholarship of application; and the scholarships of teaching” (Hamilton 2002). Furthermore, academic freedom has been defined as “a condition of work, designed to enable academics without suffering adverse consequences in their employment” (Tight, 1988). This allows for expanding the current horizons of knowledge. Academic freedom also exists in the ethical space between “the autonomous pursuit of understanding and the specific historical, institutional and political realities that limit such pursuits” (Scott, 1996). Such freedom allows researchers to uncover and discover contradictions, discrepancies, and information that has not been formerly revealed (Robinson, 2001). However, the nature and status of a university depend on the extent to which academic staff appreciate, understand, and behave in an ethical fashion while enjoying their academic freedom (Steneck, 1984). Furthermore, external pressures that force universities to be more competitive in the expanding marketplace can be and have been “corrupting both of the spirit of the university and academic freedom” (O’Hear, 1988). In addition, there is the thought that the accumulation of knowledge has been due to academic freedom but this is only partly true – the accumulation of knowledge that occurs outside of academia in governmental organizations and other nonacademic (commercial) organizations must not be forgotten or ignored.
In some instances, and in a different realm of their operations, mainly because of the autonomy that they have been allowed – including the lack of a well-defined peer review system and the overall lack of accountability of the professors – universities may knowingly or unknowingly engage in unethical practices (Swazey et al., 1993). Issues of ethics generally occur on the boundaries of academic freedom and therefore raise questions about the need for discussion and consensus about the limits of academic freedom and, by extension, whether or not there should be limits to autonomy bestowed upon universities (Neave, 1988). These issues have to be addressed within the notion relating to the definition of a university and focus on views of university functions, such as the development of critical thinking and participation in and improvement of the quality of life while promoting self-reflection (Metz, 2009).
The modern university is an institution for teaching, learning, protection of the culture, contributor to economic growth and a knowledge factory, which is a shift from the university as “a simple community of scholars and students united by a search for a deeper understanding of nature of nature and humankind” (Pocklington and Tupper 2002). Moreover, the university has become “a series of specialized factions, disciplines, students and research activities united only by occupancy of a common territory…. factions though, independent, broker deals with each other, undertake research that the public does not understand and utilize a language that the public cannot understand” (Pocklington and Tupper, 2002) while professors establish academic tribes and territories. In such a context, academic freedom is synonymous with academic subjectivity as individuals utilize disciplinary jargon to justify their actions and guard their respective territories. The university has also been viewed as radical when “in fact, it is most conservative in its institutional conduct” (Kerr, 2001). It is also seen as “a law unto itself; the external reality is that it is governed by history” (Kerr, 2001).
To mitigate these issues (recalling that the prime mandate of a university is to teach and foster leaning in the students), universities today have to adjust in three major areas: (1) growth, (2) shifting academic emphases, and (3) participation in a wide variety of university activities (Kerr, 2001). This requires that universities contribute to the creation of an environment that explores: (1) a more complete understanding of education, and (2) a culture and practice that take education to higher levels of ethics and morals. Furthermore, since academic freedom is “socially engineered spaces in which parties engaged in specific pursuits enjoy protection from parties who would otherwise naturally seek to interfere in those pursuits” (Menand, 1996) the accountability for such freedom has to be persistently monitored, which becomes conducive to self-regulation within the university. In an era of increasing demands for accountability, universities must make an ethical commitment to justify their claims for university autonomy and academic freedom not only to those within their walls but also to those outside. As a result of the inclination to defer to academic authority in earlier times (Haskell, 1996), those with academic authority were (or, at least, should be) simultaneously obligated to preserve their integrity and disciplinary recognition.
Academic freedom evolved through several phases. In the early years, such freedom was constrained because of a combination of financial, political, moral, and religious concerns. Intellectual exchanges were only supposed to occur between competent academics who would clarify differences between error and incompetence (Hamilton, 2002). Academic freedom is rendered special because of self-examination by the faculty in peer review (Hamilton 2002). However, one must ask if the peer review system within a university actually exists as a formal means of evaluating the performance of all of the faculty members as well as the review of all academic treatises prior to publication.
To many – both inside and outside of the university system – the concept of academic freedom implies opportunities to choose what topics one wants to investigate and how far one wants to go in that regard. Choice involves acting on and sorting out whatever one wants by examining the consequences of each choice, which requires making decisions about means and ends (Stehr, 2008). In the determination of means and ends, ethical factors must be considered.
Statements about academic ethics, as reflected in the codes of ethics of disciplinary bodies, usually establish parameters to guide the actions of professors but, in general, faculty members (especially faculty members at the top of the professorial rank) are really free if they are the ones who decide on courses of action. This means that such professors are free to present any material (objectionable or not) they choose to students in whatever manner they wish. This is where responsibility and accountability come into play, and such accountability must be manifested in the behavior of the professor, which is related to ethical conduct. Every academic becomes obligated or it is the duty of academics to provide undergraduate and graduate students with certain assurances of ethical and moral behavior – hence, accountability – even though the concept of academic freedom implies that there are no boundaries to thoughts, words, and deeds as stated before. In fact, this might be at least one reason why the credibility of universities is being questioned, especially when individuality in a university begins to override the requirements of social and ethical behavior (Downing, 2005).
In summary, academic freedom means that a faculty member has the autonomy to teach, to perform research, and publish the results of that research but (what is often not recognized) within the boundaries of ethical and moral behavior. Students are good imitators of professorial behavior – students see, students do. Indeed, the mere act of engaging in unethical practices (which is not always covert) is also evidence of the fact that faculty members are not always rational, although they may be able to rationalize their emotions and their subsequent actions for data manipulation (Chapter 8).
Academic freedom must be used in an ethically acceptable fashion in teaching or research or both. The code of ethics is, however, the means by which this freedom of choice (i.e., academic freedom) is followed and practiced.
One aspect of academic freedom is the freedom of academic faculty members to choose their area of scholarship and the area of research in which they will be engaged. Research, as defined for the purposes of this book, is the investigation or experimentation of a particular subject area that is aimed at (1) the discovery and interpretation of facts, (2) revision of accepted theories in the light of new facts, or (3) practical application of such new or revised theories or laws. Thus, research involves the collection of information about a particular subject by careful or diligent search, including studious inquiry or examination.
