Infusing Research Integrity Principles and Practices into a Regional Master's Degree–Intensive University: A Case Study

The need for institutions of higher education to advance research and scholarly integrity across graduate degree programs involves a strong commitment from each institution to develop a comprehensive approach for promoting responsible conduct of research (RCR). In response to this need, one master's-intensive regional university implemented a three-tier model project (focusing, developing, and evaluating/sustaining) for infusing research integrity principles and practices while promoting RCR. Components of the model and implementation strategies are presented as a case study analysis. Implications of the model for promoting the RCR are projected relative to graduate programs focused on applied research.     

Implementation of a responsible conduct of research education program at Duke University School of Medicine

Academic medical centers rarely require all of their research faculty and staff to participate in educational programs on the responsible conduct of research (RCR). There is also little published evidence of RCR programs addressing high-profile, internal cases of misconduct as a way of promoting deliberation and learning. In the wake of major research misconduct, Duke University School of Medicine (DUSoM) expanded its RCR education activities to include all DUSoM faculty and staff engaged in research. The program included formal deliberation of the Translational Omics misconduct case, which occurred at Duke. Over 5,000 DUSoM faculty and staff participated in the first phase of this new program, with a 100% completion rate. The article reports on the program’s development, challenges and successes, and future directions. This experience at Duke University illustrates that, although challenging and resource intensive, engagement with RCR activities can be integrated into programs for all research faculty and staff. Formal, participatory deliberation of recent cases of internal misconduct can add a novel dimension of reflection and openness to RCR educational activities.     

Ethics Instruction Increases Graduate Students' Responsible Conduct of Research Knowledge but not Moral Reasoning

The purpose of this study was to assess the short-term effectiveness of ethics courses in enhancing responsible conduct of research (RCR) knowledge and moral judgment among graduate students in health-related disciplines. Forty-eight graduate students completed a questionnaire about research experience, knowledge and judgments about appropriate research practices, and a standardized test of moral judgment at the beginning and end of a semester-long ethics course. Knowledge about RCR but not moral judgment increased significantly in some areas. The results are discussed in terms of implications for RCR instruction and of future research designed to improve RCR instruction.     

Emphasizing the experiences of researchers after RCR instructions: Introduction to Responsible Conduct of Research (RCR) in Malaysia

The purpose of this study is to highlight the experiences of individuals who participate in the Responsible Conduct of Research (RCR) training program held at various universities in Malaysia. In response to a mailing request sent to 40 individuals who had undertaken a RCR training program, 15 participants agreed to be interviewed. The results of the study showed that the three main reasons for participating in the training were as follows: anticipation for knowledge gained; personal experience with research misconduct; and establishing a new network of researchers. In terms of the positive effects gained from undertaking the training, the participants highlighted an increased awareness of the issues and problems related to research misconduct; the need to promote integrity in research conduct; a change in the way they conduct their research; and a change in the way they confront and address misconduct. The findings of this study should be valuable for policy makers and those involved in the management of research programs and ethics, as it demonstrated the importance of RCR training in equipping researchers with the necessary knowledge to conduct research responsibly, and to avoid research misconduct.     

Articulating a Role for Program Evaluation in Responsible Conduct of Research Programs

Since Integrity in Scientific Research: Creating an Environment That Promotes Responsible Conduct was released in 2001, there has been increased interest in evaluating programs designed to foster the responsible conduct of research (RCR). The field of program evaluation is designed to determine the worth or value of programs and can serve as a resource for institutions interested in evaluating their RCR programs. This article provides a very brief overview of program evaluation, demonstrates how it can be applied to RCR, and provides key reference information. Evaluating RCR programs can promote institutional accountability for the resources that are used in supporting those programs.     

Teaching Ethical Aptitude to Graduate Student Researchers

Limited time dedicated to each training areas, irrelevant case-studies, and ethics “checklists” have resulted in bare-bones Responsible Conduct of Research (RCR) training for present biomedical graduate student researchers. Here, we argue that science graduate students be taught classical ethical theory, such as virtue ethics, consequentialist theory, and deontological theory, to provide a basic framework to guide researchers through ethically complex situations and examine the applicability, implications, and societal ramifications of their research. Using a relevant biomedical research example to illustrate this point, we argue that proper ethics training for graduate student researchers not only will enhance current RCR training, but train more creative, responsible scientists.     

Research as Profession and Practice: Frameworks for Guiding the Responsible Conduct of Research

Programs in the responsible conduct of research (RCR) vary between institutions, demonstrated by disparate structures and goals. These variations may be attributed to the absence of grounding frameworks within which to examine research and RCR education programs. This article examines research as a practice and a profession, using these frames to draw out defining features of research and the moral obligations entailed. Situating research within virtue ethics can clarify how researchers might cultivate the virtues necessary for meeting its obligations and aims. By elucidating these features, these perspectives can serve to guide the development of RCR education programs.     

Outcomes assessment of role-play scenarios for teaching responsible conduct of research

We describe the summative assessment of role-play scenarios that we previously developed to teach central topics in the responsible conduct of research (RCR) to graduate students in science and engineering. Interviews with role-play participants, with participants in a case discussion training session, and with untrained students suggested that role-playing might promote a deeper appreciation of RCR by shifting the focus away from wanting to simply "know the rules." We also present the results of a think-aloud case analysis study and describe the development of a behaviorally-anchored rating scale (BARS) to assess participants' case analysis performance.     

Education in the Responsible Conduct of Research in Psychology: Methods and Scope

In this mixed-method study of education in the responsible conduct of research (RCR) in psychology, phase one survey respondents (n?=?141) reported that faculty and students were familiar with RCR standards and procedures to educate them were believed to be adequate. However, educational methods varied widely. In phase two, seven survey respondents completed in-depth interviews assessing RCR training and education and research review procedures. Educational methods through which RCR content was presented included the following ones: traditional (lectures), technical (web-based), and experiential (internships), but RCR was often minimally considered in the formal curriculum. Our results suggest that psychology training programs might benefit from more formal consideration of RCR education and training in the curriculum.     

Outcomes Assessment of Role-Play Scenarios for Teaching Responsible Conduct of Research

We describe the summative assessment of role-play scenarios that we previously developed to teach central topics in the responsible conduct of research (RCR) to graduate students in science and engineering. Interviews with role-play participants, with participants in a case discussion training session, and with untrained students suggested that role-playing might promote a deeper appreciation of RCR by shifting the focus away from wanting to simply “know the rules.” We also present the results of a think-aloud case analysis study and describe the development of a behaviorally-anchored rating scale (BARS) to assess participants' case analysis performance.     

A Brief History of RCR Education

Responsible conduct of research (RCR) education is now common throughout the United States, primarily in response to federal requirements beginning with the National Institutes of Health in 1989. Despite this long history, RCR education programs remain highly disparate, often with ill-defined content, format, and goals, and minimal evidence for effectiveness. However because it is widely believed that such programs can have value, it is hoped that a review of what is available, and how that came to pass, will highlight what has been done well and where gaps still remain.     

Assessing the educational literature in the responsible conduct of research for core content

To determine core content for RCR instruction, content analysis was conducted using key instructional resources for ORI's nine RCR "core instructional areas". Topics discussed in these key RCR resources were identified and their frequency across resources was tabulated. Topics covered most frequently were judged to be core content. Although key educational resources cited a variety of references, specific topics and issues addressed were generally consistent across the materials examined. Nonetheless, key resources varied in organization and depth of coverage for core instructional areas. Recent resources were more systematic and comprehensive than earlier works. This was particularly evident in materials about human participant research, conflicts of interest, and data management and sharing. Key resources presented additional "non-core" issues, such as scientific values, ethical principles, creativity and objectivity, moral reasoning, genetics, epidemiological issues, and scientists' societal roles, suggesting that ORI's core instructional areas should be reconfigured or expanded. Because educational material available on RCR and professionalism was so comprehensive, we recommend that ORI consider research integrity, not research misconduct, as one core instructional area. We also recommend that compliance with research regulations be restored as a core instructional area to accentuate ethical, financial and legal requirements related to acceptance of federal funding.     

Teaching and learning responsible research conduct: influences of prior experiences on acceptance of new ideas

Despite requirements for Responsible Conduct of Research (RCR) training, little is known about how much this training actually influences the thinking and behaviors of participants. Interview-based qualitative research methods were used to study the reactions of Ph.D. students and postdoctoral fellows to what was taught in an RCR course. For trainees with limited prior RCR experience, or who agreed with what was taught, it was relatively easy to influence their attitudes and how they thought they would use the new information in the future. However, if their prior experiences or existing knowledge conflicted with what was taught they resisted and often rejected new ideas that were presented. Interviews also revealed the tremendously complex process trainees must undergo trying to resolve or integrate all of the different perspectives they receive on RCR from other sources. These results revealed the importance of viewing RCR training from the perspective of learning theory and how prior knowledge influences what people learn. The results also support the need for periodic rather than one-time RCR training to counter the often conflicting views and practices young scientists experience in real-life research settings.     

Teaching and Learning Responsible Research Conduct: Influences of Prior Experiences on Acceptance of New Ideas

Despite requirements for Responsible Conduct of Research (RCR) training, little is known about how much this training actually influences the thinking and behaviors of participants. Interview-based qualitative research methods were used to study the reactions of Ph.D. students and postdoctoral fellows to what was taught in an RCR course. For trainees with limited prior RCR experience, or who agreed with what was taught, it was relatively easy to influence their attitudes and how they thought they would use the new information in the future. However, if their prior experiences or existing knowledge conflicted with what was taught they resisted and often rejected new ideas that were presented. Interviews also revealed the tremendously complex process trainees must undergo trying to resolve or integrate all of the different perspectives they receive on RCR from other sources. These results revealed the importance of viewing RCR training from the perspective of learning theory and how prior knowledge influences what people learn. The results also support the need for periodic rather than one-time RCR training to counter the often conflicting views and practices young scientists experience in real-life research settings.     

How to conduct a Narrative Policy Framework study

The Narrative Policy Framework has a growing number of researchers seeking to apply the framework in policy process scholarship. This article is intended to assist those interested in conducting an NPF study that is ‘clear enough to be wrong’ (Sabatier, 2000). While graduate programs offer critical methodological training, this article focuses on the specific application of the NPF to research inquiries about the role of policy narratives in the policy process. We approach our discussion by examining various decisions in the research process and include a detailed discussion of specifying the model and obtaining narrative data. We also point out areas for further investigation.     

Making Professional Decisions in Research: Measurement and Key Predictors

The professional decision-making in research (PDR) measure was administered to 400 National Institutes of Health (NIH)-funded and industry-funded investigators, along with measures of cynicism, moral disengagement, compliance disengagement, impulsivity, work stressors, knowledge of responsible conduct of research (RCR), and socially desirable response tendencies. Negative associations were found for the PDR and measures of cynicism, moral disengagement, and compliance disengagement, while positive associations were found for the PDR and RCR knowledge and positive urgency, an impulsivity subscale. PDR scores were not related to socially desirable responding, or to measures of work stressors and the remaining impulsivity subscales. In a multivariate logistic regression analysis, lower moral disengagement scores, higher RCR knowledge, and identifying the United States as one’s nation of origin emerged as key predictors of stronger performance on the PDR. The implications of these findings for understanding the measurement of decision-making in research and future directions for research and RCR education are discussed.     

Mapping responsible conduct in the uncharted field of research-creation: A scoping review

This scoping review addresses the issues of responsible conduct of research (RCR) that can arise in the practice of research-creation (RC), an emergent, interdisciplinary, and heterogeneous field at the interface of academic research and creative activities. Little is yet known about the nature and scope of RCR issues in RC, so our study examined three questions: (1) What are the specific issues in RC in relation to RCR? (2) How does the specificity of RC influence the understanding and practice of RCR? (3) What recommendations could help address the issues highlighted in the literature? To answer these questions, we conducted a scoping review of the academic literature (n = 181 texts) dealing with RCR in RC. We found that researcher-creators faced some very different RCR challenges in comparison with their colleagues in the rest of academia. Addressing these issues is important for both the RCR and RC communities in order to ensure that the rapid development of this field occurs in line with the norms of RCR which, nonetheless, should be adapted to respect the particularities of RC and allow its contributions to the academic world.     

Credit and Authorship Practices: Educational and Environmental Influences

A survey on credit issues of academic chemists in U.S. Ph.D.-granting institutions was conducted. The respondents rated 15 criteria for authorship of scientific publications; core intellectual contributions received the highest ratings although making a single suggestion that was essential to the successful completion of the project was rated very low. Acquisition of data was also rated highly. The respondents rated eight potential influences on their own “policy” toward giving credit; doing what “seems to be the right thing” was the highest rated influence followed by graduate educational experiences; professional society or other responsible conduct of research (RCR) institutional policies were rated, by far, the lowest.     

Credit and authorship practices: educational and environmental influences

A survey on credit issues of academic chemists in U.S. Ph.D.-granting institutions was conducted. The respondents rated 15 criteria for authorship of scientific publications; core intellectual contributions received the highest ratings although making a single suggestion that was essential to the successful completion of the project was rated very low. Acquisition of data was also rated highly. The respondents rated eight potential influences on their own "policy" toward giving credit; doing what "seems to be the right thing" was the highest rated influence followed by graduate educational experiences; professional society or other responsible conduct of research (RCR) institutional policies were rated, by far, the lowest.     

The Emergence of the Responsible Conduct of Research (RCR) in PHS Policy and Practice

The Responsible Conduct of Research (RCR) is now an established academic field taught at virtually every major American research university and generates a growing volume of research and pedagogical literature. Paradoxically, it is a field without a consensually agreed upon definition, goals, foundational theories, research agenda, and pedagogical methodology. It has been suggested that RCR as currently being taught is ineffective in preventing misconduct and improving the quality of research. The following short history of RCR, focused mainly on Federal policy and practice, explains how this curious state of affairs developed and persists and concludes with some suggestions for the future of RCR instruction.