Responsible Conduct of Research Training:

A Solution for Teaching Ethics in the 21st Century

Ethan Waples

University of Oklahoma

Researchers

• Professors

-Dr. Michael Mumford -Dr. Shane Connelly

-Dr. Lynn Devenport -Dr. Ryan Brown

• Graduate Students

-Stephen Murphy -Alison Antes

-Jason Hill

Training in Research Ethics

• Variety of Approaches– Moral Reasoning– Field Practices– Case Analysis

• Effectiveness mixed– Inconsistent findings

– Why?

Training Effectiveness

• Possibly presentation • Ambiguous• High Stakes• Emotionally loaded• Real

• People think they “know”– Do the “right thing”– Go with their instinct– Simplistic

• “Here is the problem”…….• Sensemaking

Sensemaking Model

•Affective Framing

•Prior Personal Experiences

•Causes

•EDM Principles

•Professional Goals

•Analytical Framing

•Prior Professional Experiences

Situation

Crisis

Self-reflection

Sensemaking

Decisions & Actions

•Personal Values

•Personal Goals

Professional Personal

Present Study

• Develop and test new curriculum designed specifically for Research Integrity– Biological, Health, and Social Sciences

• Sensemaking Foundation– Generation– Application

• Two pronged delivery– Case Method

• Exemplars providing experiential knowledge• Use of own case knowledge encouraged

– Strategy Training• Effectively dealing with ethical events

Method

• Training Participants– 43 Ph.D. students

• 2 Day Training Course– Offered in “intersession” format

• Pre-Post with 6 month follow-up (alternative forms)

Course Content: Day 1

• Critical Rules, Principles, Guidelines

• Self-Reflection

• Ethical Decision-Making (EDM) Pre-Test

• Social Psychological Approach– Personal Biases

• Identify and Generate Problems– Cases

• Deal with these problems– Strategies

Course Content: Strategies

• Recognizing Circumstances

• Asking for Help

• Questioning Judgment

• Dealing with Emotions

• Anticipating Consequences

• Self-Reflection

• Considering Others

Course Content: Day 2• Introduction to Sensemaking

– Integration– Role Play activity

• Field Specific Differences– Resolving Professional Orientation

• Viewpoint Activity– Examining ethical issuesvarying perspectives

• Training Summary

• Ethical Decision-Making (EDM) Post-Test

Ethical Decision-Making Measure

– Data Management– Study Conduct

– Professional Practices– Business Practices

• Low-Fidelity Simulation• 4 Domains of Ethical Conduct (Helton-Fauth et al., 2003)

• Ethical Scoring– “High” (3), “Moderate” (2), and “Low” (1)

• Strategy Scoring– Extent to which (7 pt. Likert) response reflects strategy

Ethical Decision-Making MeasureDuring graduate school, Langston developed a new methodological approach for analyzing data, with guidance from his advisor. He trained several graduate students on the use of this approach before he graduated. At a recent professional conference, Langston heard a student present preliminary results from her Master’s thesis in which she used the data analytic approach. He noticed a potentially serious error in the interpretation of the data, attributable to improper use of the approach. He mentions this possibility after the presentation.

Ethical Decision-Making Measure

A month after the conference, one of Langston’s colleagues shows him a manuscript written by the student and Langston’s former advisor. It has been submitted for publication and contains the same information and errors he observed at the conference. He tells his former advisor that he’s sure the analytic approach was applied improperly and can demonstrate this. What should Langston’s former advisor do? Choose two from the following:

(H) Retract the submitted manuscript(M) Submit new analyses and interpretations indicating that the

wrong version of the manuscript was submitted(L) Wait for reviews and do additional analyses if indicated

Pre-Post Differences:Ethical Decision-Making

Ethical Domain Mpre SDpre Mpost SDpost d

Data Management** 2.09 .37 2.30 .30 .63

Study Conduct** 1.95 .31 2.35 .29 1.33

Professional Practices** 2.14 .25 2.31 .17 .78

Business Practices* 2.07 .32 2.24 .28 .56

Note. Paired samples t-test; *p < .05; ** p < .01

Pre-Post Differences: Strategies

Domain / Strategy Mpre SDpre Mpost SDpost dDM: Recognizing Circumstances** 2.99 .77 3.91 .52 1.40

SC: Asking for Help** .16 .17 1.58 .56 3.47

PP: Question Judgment** 2.92 .68 3.48 .44 .95

SC: Deal with Emotions** 2.78 .74 3.48 .74 .93

DM: Anticipate Consequences** 2.91 .81 3.41 .54 .72

BP: Self-Reflection** 2.65 .98 3.46 .41 1.05

BP: Consider Others** 2.95 .92 3.60 .54 .86

Note. Paired samples t-test; *p < .05; ** p < .01

Preliminary Follow-Up: Ethical Decision-Making

Ethical Domain Mpost SDpost Mfol SDfol

Data Management 2.30 .30 2.31 .24

Study Conduct 2.35 .29 2.43 .28

Professional Practices 2.31 .17 2.34 .05

Business Practices 2.24 .28 2.36 .09

Trainee Reactions

• Affective Reactions are important• Positive Trickle-down effects

• Reactions using 7-pt. Likert (7 is high)• Was training effective/useful?

– Day One: M = 5.94• Case Discussion• Problems Discussion

– Day Two: M = 5.74• Role Play• Viewpoint Activity

Summary

• Sizeable effects for training– Enhancement of Ethical Decision-Making

• Across all 4 Dimensions

– Increased usage of Strategies• Aid in ethical decision-making

• Effects hold over time– Across all 4 Dimensions

• Positive trainee reactions• Effectiveness• Utility

Discussion

• Why did this training work—and work well?

• Presentation of Ethical Issues– Not Black and White

• Sensemaking Basis– Rules and Guidelines– Constructing Knowledge Frameworks

• Use of Case Knowledge

• Exercises– Generation of Problems and Strategies– Application of Strategies– Ethical Decision-Making

Implications

• General RCR training effectiveness– Inconclusive evidence

• Sensemaking Approach– Very effective

• Shift from training to rules

• Help people reason