FEATURE ARTICLE
Ethical Problems in Academic Research
A survey of doctoral candidates and faculty raises important questions about the ethical environment of graduate education and research
Judith Swazey, Melissa Anderson, Karen Louis
Dealing with Misconduct
The ways in which suspected misconduct and other ethical problems
are dealt with at the departmental or institutional level are
crucial to the integrity of research and scholarship, and they may
help shape the values, the attitudes and the behaviors of trainees.
Two sets of findings from our surveys bear on these matters: faculty
and student expectations of retaliation for reporting suspected
misconduct, and the extent to which faculty believe they should and
actually do exercise a collective responsibility for the
professional-ethical conduct of their colleagues and students.
To gauge expectations about the consequences of
"whistle-blowing," we asked students and faculty:
"Could you report cases of suspected misconduct (a) by a
faculty member [or] (b) by a graduate student in your department
without expecting retaliation?" Not surprisingly, given the
greater vulnerability of people in subordinate positions in
organizations, a much greater percentage of students than faculty
believe they would experience retaliation if they reported suspected
misconduct by either a faculty member or another student.
Fifty-three percent of the students compared to 26 percent of the
faculty said they probably or definitely could not report a faculty
member without expecting retaliation. Students feel less vulnerable
at the prospect of reporting another student, but a substantial
number (29 percent) believe this act, too, would likely result in
retaliation. Faculty clearly feel it is far safer to report
suspected misconduct by a graduate student than by a colleague.
Nonetheless, only 60 percent of the faculty believe they could
definitely report a graduate student suspected of misconduct without
experiencing retaliation, whereas just 35 percent believe that they
could definitely report another faculty member with impunity.
Differences in responses across disciplines are significant for
faculty and for students reporting misconduct by other students.
Chemistry faculty are more certain than faculty in other disciplines
that they could report suspected misconduct without retaliation,
whereas civil engineering faculty and students indicate the greatest
concern about sanctions.
We also looked at concerns about whistleblowing in relationship to a
respondent's citizenship and race. Faculty who are U.S. citizens and
also members of a minority group are more likely to expect
retaliation for reporting either a faculty member or a student than
are either white U.S. faculty or non-U.S. citizens. Among students,
a greater percentage of foreign nationals than of white or minority
U.S. citizens would expect retaliation for reporting either a
faculty member or a student.
We expected that junior faculty would be less confident than senior
faculty about reporting a colleague. This was confirmed by
cross-tabulations between faculty members' willingness to report
suspected misconduct by other faculty and their appointment status.
Forty-three percent of the full professors believed they definitely
could report suspected misconduct by colleagues without expecting
retaliation, whereas only 18 percent of assistant professors were
equally confident. The responses of the associate professors were
closer to those of the assistant professors than they were to those
of the full professors, suggesting that the sense of vulnerability
is not simply a question of tenure.
These findings about the relationship between academic appointment
status and expectations about sanctions for reporting suspected
misconduct have some sobering implications, because the current
demography of the academic profession is highly skewed toward senior
faculty. In our sample, for example, 61 percent of the respondents
are full professors. As demographics change—older professors
retire and are replaced with junior faculty who have learned to be
cautious about taking an active role in governing scholarly and
research standards and conduct—there may be an increase in
reluctance to confront misconduct. Unless promotion and higher
status alter faculty views and behavior, or there are changes in the
culture of the academy that make such confrontation less
threatening, willingness to report misconduct may decline.
We also looked at the relationship between faculty members' exposure
to misconduct and their confidence that they could report without
retaliation. Those who have been exposed to instances of scientific
misconduct or questionable research practices among their peers, and
thus have had a real opportunity to confront their obligations and
willingness to report suspected wrongdoing, are more likely to
believe that they would suffer retaliation.
The extent to which faculty accept a collective as well as an
individual professional responsibility for their colleagues' and
students' conduct is another aspect of a department’s ethical
climate that may affect how suspected wrongdoing or questionable
practices are handled. Respondents to the faculty survey were asked
to indicate the extent to which they believe that faculty in their
academic and research community should exercise a "collective
responsibility for the professional-ethical conduct" of their
peers and their graduate students, and the extent to which faculty
in their department actually manifest such behavior.
Faculty report striking differences between their espoused values
and the actual practice in their departments. In principle,
virtually all faculty (99 percent) believe they and their colleagues
should exercise at least some degree of collective responsibility
for the conduct of their graduate students. A smaller but still
substantial 74 percent believe they should exercise such a
responsibility to a great extent, but only 27 percent judge that
they and their departmental colleagues actually manifest to a great
extent their shared responsibility for their students’
professional-ethical conduct. Chemistry and microbiology faculty
feel more strongly than civil engineers and sociologists that they
have a collective responsibility for their students’ conduct,
whereas chemists judge that they actually exercise the greatest
amount of collective responsibility, and sociologists judge that
they exercise the least. Almost all faculty (94 percent) also
believe that they have some degree of responsibility for their
colleagues’ ethical conduct, but only 55 percent hold this
belief to a great extent. In terms of actual behavior, however, just
13 percent judge that faculty in their department exercise a great
deal of shared responsibility for their colleagues' conduct, whereas
30 percent hold that there is very little or no manifestation of
collegial responsibility. Looking at disciplinary differences, a
substantially smaller percentage of chemists than faculty in the
other three fields believe they have a strong degree of collective
responsibility for their peers' behavior.
Environments that foster expectations of retaliation, coupled with
low levels of exercised collective responsibility for the conduct of
colleagues and students, raise grave concerns about the willingness
and ability of members of academic research communities to govern
the conduct of their peers and students. Many observers of higher
education have affirmed the importance of both professional autonomy
and collective or group regulation of the academic enterprise.
Burton Clark has written that "the culture of the [academic]
profession everywhere emphasizes personal autonomy and collegial
self-government." Our survey data, and statements by faculty
and graduate students whom we have interviewed, challenge the idea
that faculty actually practice an ethic of collective governance.
» Post Comment