We wish to acknowledge

the indigenous custodians of the land upon which I am giving this presentation, the

O’odham, Maricopa, Yavapai, & Yaqui peoples, and their Elders present, and Hohokam Elders

past.

Acknowledgement of Country

16th International Conference on Ethics across the Curriculum

October 2-4, 2014 Scottsdale, Arizona

Session D1: Research on Ethics

Education and Research Integrity

#SEAC2014 #researchintegrity

*Exploration of University Members’ Perceptions of Institutional Research

Integrity Practices

Markie L. C. Blumer, Ph.D. Elizabeth A. Buchanan, Ph.D.

Jenny Klucarich, M.A.

University of Wisconsin-Stout

*Research grant-funded by the University of Wisconsin-Stout Center for Applied Ethics.

Abstract

• Although research integrity practices in institutional settings is not a new area of study, because of its foundational importance in university settings it remains a topic worthy of study. In addition, rarely are all members of the university community included as participants in studies focused upon research integrity and ethics. Thus, to add to the existent literature, and to address this particular gap, the authors investigated research integrity practices in a medium-sized Midwestern university setting, and included participants from across all divisions of the university community. This mixed data survey study was comprised of six sections; to be presented here is information for two sections--sample demographics and research integrity. The demographics appear reflective of those of the larger survey, as well as the university setting of study as a whole. In the research integrity section there were two parts—one qualitative and one quantitative. Implications with regard to research integrity and ethics in institutional settings will also be presented.

Introduction

• Not new area of study

• Foundationally important

• Rarely are all members of university community included as participants

• Add to existent literature, and address gap, research integrity practices in a medium-sized Midwestern university setting

Methods

• Institutional Review Board (IRB) approval obtained (Feb. 2014)

• Survey instrument housed via Qualtrics

• Recruitment occurred via university email

• Voluntary participation

• Informed consent before starting

• Given option to not answer any query or to exit at any time

• Survey open March-April, 2014

Instrument

• Six sections: sample demographics, research culture, research productivity, research collaboration, research dissemination, & research integrity

• Reported here: demographics & research integrity

• Queries based on literature (Blumer, Green, Murphy, & Palmanteer, 2007; Mumford et al., 2007; Thrush et al., 2007) & vetted by academic staff, administrators, students, & faculty in Research Services Office, Center for Applied Ethics, & Office of Planning, Assessment, Research & Quality

Instrument

• Items were quantitative & qualitative, making for mixed data survey (Blumer, Hertlein, & Haider, in review; Gambrel & Butler, 2013)

• Qualitative question, “provide your definition of research integrity”

• Quantitative section of 13 items; scale of 1-5 with 5 strongly agree, 3 neither agree nor disagree, & 1 strongly disagree focused upon research integrity practices

• Highly reliable (α = .995)

Sample Demographic Results

• 467 respondents for research integrity section

• Reflective of larger survey & university setting (Blumer, Buchanan, & Klucarich, 2014; Kwaterski, Burton, & Mans, 2011)

• 53% faculty/staff & 48% students

• 60.5% women, 38% men & 1.5% alternate gender identity/orientation (i.e., intersex, transgender, or another self-identified identity)

• European American or White (88%) & 12% as People of Color

• Heterosexual (88%) & 12% alternate sexual orientation (i.e., gay, lesbian, bisexual, questioning, or another self-identified orientation)

• Age range of 19-66; mean age of 37.49 years

• College divisional affiliation: 25% College of Education, Health, & Human Sciences, 24% College of Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics, 15% College of Arts, Humanities, & Social Sciences, 14% College of Management, 9% Administrative and Student Life Services, 5% Graduate School, 5% Academic and student affairs, and 3% Chancellor's Division

Research Integrity Descriptive Statistics

At this university,

students, on

average, engage in

responsible

research practices.

At this university,

there is an effective

research office in

place to assist

students in the

conducting of

scholarly activities.

Expectations

around research

integrity are

clearly

communicated to

students by

faculty/academic

staff members.

Min 1 1 1

Max 5 5 5

Mean 3.48 3.32 3.44

Variance .817 1.159 1.061

Standard

Deviation

.904 1.077 1.030

Research Integrity Descriptive Statistics

At this university,

conducting

research in an

ethical manner is

highly valued.

At this university,

numerous

opportunities exist

for receiving training

regarding research

integrity.

At this

university, there

is an effective

system in place

to respond to

violations of

research

integrity.

Min 1 1 1

Max 5 5 5

Mean 3.78 3.22 3.25

Variance 1.123 .980 .910

Standard

Deviation

1.060 .990 .954

Research Integrity Descriptive Statistics

At this university,

there is an

effective human

subjects training

to prepare people

to conduct

research with

integrity.

At this university,

the reviewing of

research proposals

undergoes an

effective

Institutional Review

Board process.

At this

university, it

feels necessary

to guard one’s

research ideas

due to fear that

someone else

will “steal” one’s

research for

their own.

Min 1 1 1

Max 5 5 5

Mean 3.58 3.61 2.94

Variance .977 .964 1.093

Standard

Deviation

.988 .982 1.046

Research Integrity Descriptive Statistics

When facing an

ethical research

dilemma on this

campus, I can

identify at least one

resource on

campus from which

I can seek guidance.

At this university,

there is an

effective research

office in place to

assist

faculty/academic

staff in the

conducting of

scholarly

activities.

Expectations

around

research

integrity are

clearly

communicate

d to

faculty/acade

mic staff

members by

all levels of

the university.

At this university,

faculty/academic

staff members,

on average,

engage in

responsible

research

practices.

Min 1 1 1 1

Max 5 5 5 5

Mean 3.63 3.37 3.37 3.67

Variance 1.131 1.134 1.072 .798

Standard

Deviation 1.064 1.065 1.035 .893

Definition of Research Integrity

• Qualitative responses from 216 participants to open-ended inquiry regarding defining research integrity

• Four themes emerged:

– systematic investigation

–professional dissemination

– ethical

–honest and truthful

Systematic Investigation

• Participant quotes:

– “Conducting research in a way that is well-designed and accurate and that is not harmful to subjects.”

– “The work follows the basic principles and conventions of scholarly work. The work is ground in theory and the professional literature. The work complies with basic rules of evidence. The work can withstand peer review.”

– “Compliance with IRB and following research practices that result in valid and reliable findings that are free of bias.”

– “Research was conducted following the spirit of inquiry and thus contributes meaningfully to the body of knowledge.”

– “Systematic investigation uses correct procedures to produce accurate results which are reported without bias.”

Professional Dissemination

• Participant quotes:

– “The work can withstand peer review.”

– “Sharing recognition for work done and not stealing another's ideas.”

– “Individuals make sure that their research is original, and any sources are properly credited to avoid plagiarism.”

– “Finding and disseminating research in a way that is an honest representation of the information that was found.”

– “Being honest in disseminating the findings.”

Ethical

• Participant quotes:

– “Culture of ethics around research.”

– “Being ethical and responsible in the research.”

– “Participation in ethical practices (e.g., no plagiarism, honesty) that adds to the discussion/research of a topic.”

– “Conducting research in a responsible and ethical manner.”

– “Ethical responsibilities and duties of a researcher.”

Honest & Truthful

• Participant quotes:

– “Being honest with your research.”

– “Honesty in all forms.”

– “Staying true to the core of the research.”

– “Being true to the research, (i.e., no shortcuts, no plagiarism, etc.).”

– “Research is "truth."

Definition of Research Integrity

• Word cloud using raw qualitative data:

Discussion

• Addresses gaps & adds to literature

• Quantitative findings generally centered on middle scores, except regarding query focused on need to guard one’s work due to fear of research theft, which participants responded they did not agree with a need to do this at the university

• Qualitative themes appear to reflect an understanding of research integrity

Implications

• Based on lack of strong feelings of agreement & disagreement on quantitative items could be indication of need for university setting to be more overt with university community regarding research integrity, or it could be a limitation of measure

• If latter, in re-administering survey in future a recommendation may be to remove a neither agree nor disagree response item from participant options

• If former, perhaps providing clear definition of research integrity for university community based on findings could be of value in terms of being more overt

Definition of Research Integrity*

• Based upon qualitative findings:

– The moral code or ethical policies associated with research practices. This includes values such as avoidance of cheating or plagiarism; maintenance of systematic investigation; honesty and rigor throughout the research process and in the publishing of research.

*Influenced by common understandings of academic integrity

Questions

Please Note

• Thanks to University of Wisconsin-Stout Center for Applied Ethics for grant-funded scholar position enabling this research project

• Gratitude extended to Gina Lawton, GA Center for Applied Ethics, for assistance in presentation preparation

• Full references list provided as handout

• For copy of presentation & follow-up, contact

Dr. Markie L. C. Blumer:

https://uwstout.academia.edu/MarkieBlumer

blumerm@uwstout.edu or @Markie_Blumer