Journal of Academic Ethics最新文献

Abstract

Personal data protection is an ethical issue. In this study we analyzed how research ethics committees (RECs) and data protection officers (DPOs) handle personal data protection issues in research protocols. We conducted a mixed-methods study. We included heads (or delegated representatives) of RECs and DPOs from universities and public research institutes in Croatia. The participants provided information about data protection issues in research and their mutual collaboration on those issues through structured interviews that contained closed and open-ended questions. Qualitative description was used to analyze open-ended questions. The results showed that 55% of the REC representatives were not aware who was DPO in their institution. Among RECs, 65% never contacted the DPO. There were 61% of RECs who reported that they received no training from the organization on personal data protection. When asked about barriers to personal data protection in their institutions, 26% of REC members highlighted the lack of a clear protocol for assessing personal data protection issues, while 30% of DPOs mentioned lack of knowledge among researchers about personal data. In conclusion, we found that when it came to protecting personal data in research protocols, RECs and DPOs hardly ever worked together. When developing future personal data protection policies for academic and scientific research institutions, it is essential that RECs and DPOs should collaborate and both continue to expand/update their knowledge on personal data protection procedures.

The global surge in academic misconduct during the COVID-19 pandemic, exacerbated by remote teaching and online assessment, necessitates a comprehensive understanding of the multidimensional aspects and stakeholders' perspectives associated with this issue. This paper addresses the prevalent use of answer-providing sites and other types of academic misconduct, underscoring the challenge of detecting all or most of the student misconduct. Exploring factors such as faculty inexperience in remote teaching and assessment, the paper advocates for proactive measures to preserve integrity in education. Emphasizing the need for a culture of integrity beyond traditional classrooms, the paper reviews existing models, then details steps to create a framework using the International Labour Organization (ILO)’s TREE training method. It presents the IEPAR framework (Inspiration, Education, Pedagogical considerations, Assessment design, Response and Restorative practice), and assesses its effectiveness. Incorporating faculty feedback, the paper concludes with evidence-based findings, positioning the IEPAR framework as a robust approach for addressing academic misconduct and fostering a culture of academic integrity in higher education through responsible training of all stakeholders.

The evaluation of students in online education poses a notable challenge, primarily due to the potential violation of academic integrity caused by various forms of cheating during online examinations. This study aims to explore the perspectives of English as a Foreign Language (EFL) learners on the reasons for online exam cheating. The study was conducted using a mixed-methods approach and included 27 participants from three different educational contexts: universities, institutes, and schools. The qualitative phase of the study involved conducting comprehensive discussions using the Google Meet app, allowing participants to explore the factors contributing to online exam cheating. The results of qualitative analysis revealed three broad categories of reasons for online exam cheating: student-related factors, teaching-related factors, and assessment-related factors, each with sub-themes. Followed by this, a ranking scale was administered to the participants to determine the perceived significance of these categories. The implications of this study can guide the development of interventions and strategies targeting these different categories of reasons, ultimately fostering a culture of academic honesty among EFL learners in online exam settings. Also, this study contributes to understanding the reasons for online exam cheating among EFL learners and provides insights for promoting integrity in online assessments.

Abstract

The current study aimed to explore effective strategies for preventing cheating in online examinations by surveying students to determine their cheating strategies. A total of 406 Iranian students at BA, MA, and PhD levels in four programs, including English language teaching, English literature, Linguistics, and English language translation, participated in this study using a convenient sampling technique. The sample was drawn from 83 universities across all 31 provinces of Iran. The researchers developed a 30-item questionnaire and a 4-item interview to collect data. The results revealed that searching in PDFs and using social media groups were the most commonly used cheating strategies. To prevent this form of academic dishonesty, teachers used various strategies, the most effective being the use of conceptual questions and one-by-one oral exams with turned-on webcams. The main reason for students to cheat was their desire to perform better. The implications of this study are relevant for educational stakeholders, particularly teachers, and students, in promoting academic integrity.

This paper reports the key findings from two student surveys undertaken at our institution in the academic years 2020-21 and 2021-22. The research was based on the Bretag et al. (2018) student survey undertaken in various Australian universities. After discussions with both Bretag and Harper, we adapted the questions to our context – a Russell Group university in the UK – but included similar questions to enable a comparison, and to find out if there were common themes. The main aim of the surveys was to understand our students’ awareness of what is meant by the term ‘academic integrity’, defined as ‘being honest in your work, acknowledging the work of others and giving credit where you have used other people’s ideas/data’ https://secretariat.leeds.ac.uk/wp-content/uploads/sites/109/2022/12/academic_integrity.pdf. The responses provided an important insight into student attitudes to academic integrity, their understanding of academic malpractice, and their awareness of the penalties if found to have plagiarised, and if found guilty of contract cheating (Medway et al., 2018; Morris, 2018; Harper et al., 2019). The surveys also identified what students would find useful in developing their understanding of academic integrity, and this underlines the importance of consulting our students. Key findings include gaps in the information provided to students, the need for regular and timely reminders of the principles of academic integrity, and the need for guidance to be written using student-friendly language. The findings informed our recommendations in terms of teaching and learning at School/Faculty level and to policy at University level, to further support student success. In the context of the key issues raised by the Quality Assurance Agency for Higher Education (QAA) Academic Integrity Charter (2020), we discuss examples of best practice currently undertaken at the University of Leeds, on-going discussions regarding developments, and our recommendations for further embedding a culture of academic integrity. We argue that all students should have the same baseline experience and therefore promoting this ethos is the responsibility of all staff who teach and support students.

Given the prevalence of misconduct in research and among students in higher education, there is a need to create solutions for how best to prevent such behaviour in academia. This paper proceeds on the assumption that one way forward is to prepare students in higher education at an early stage and to encourage a smoother transition from academic integrity to research integrity by incorporating academic integrity training as an ongoing part of the curriculum. To this end, this paper presents three checklists developed as part of the Erasmus+ Strategic Partnership project Bridging Integrity in Higher Education, Business and Society (BRIDGE, 2020-1-SE01-KA203-077973). The aim of the checklists is to help students and their supervisors to bridge academic integrity and research integrity in research training. The checklists target master students, doctoral students, and their supervisors. This paper presents the theoretical background of the checklists, how they were developed, their content, and how they may be used in supervising thesis/dissertation work to promote a transition from academic integrity to research integrity.

Ethics and integrity should be intertwined within the concept of Responsible Research. Integrity Officers should also be Ethics Officers, enforcing compliance with rules and norms, but also raising awareness on the meaning of ethics in researchers’ daily work. Paul Ricoeur’s definition of Ethics – “the aim of living a good life with and for others in just institutions” (Ricoeur in Oneself as Another. University of Chicago Press, 1994) –, points out the relational dimension of Ethics that matters to all the stakeholders in scientific research. The dialogical interaction between Ethics and Integrity can help to prevent researchers from assuming self-regulation as the only possible path to be followed. In this paper, the challenges and the opportunities posed by this approach will be outlined and discussed, mainly, the challenges of building trust bottom up, while setting up restrictions to comply with rules and norms top down. Concerning the opportunities, the focus will be on making better science and building a solid network among the various stakeholders of the research system.

To determine factors affecting successful research and publication among medical students, a cross-sectional survey study was carried out at four Thai medical schools during 2018–2022. Medical students who had previously performed research under research advisors’ supervision and their research advisors were included. There were 120 participants, 78 medical students and 42 research advisors. The most common problems reported by the students were student’s lack of knowledge of research design (78%) and research topic (53%), while the most common problems reported by the advisors were student’s lack of knowledge of research topic (55%) and how to prepare documents for ethics committee approval (48%). The promoting factors for research success commonly reported by the students and advisors were “an advisor helps with protocol writing and reviewing the manuscript”, “research teaching in the curriculum”, “provision of an example of a written ethics committee protocol”, and “arranging a special session so that advisors can talk to students about their research of interest”. Among the 78 participating students, 20 (26%) had successfully published their research in journals. These 20 students were more likely than those without publications to be from an institute that had a special research project or conference for medical students (20% vs. 0%,) and to suggest that teaching protocol writing helped in promoting research success (70% vs. 43%). These findings suggest that teaching research, a special research project or conference for medical students, and faculty development of research advising could potentially increase the success rate of students’ research publications.

Examination dishonesty is a global problem that became particularly critical after the outbreak of the COVID-19 pandemic and the shift to remote learning. Academic research has often examined this phenomenon as only one aspect of a broader concept of academic dishonesty and as a one-dimensional construct. This article builds on existing knowledge and proposes a novel, two-factor model of examination misconduct, dividing it into individual and collective forms of dishonesty. A study conducted on a large sample of 462 Polish students confirmed the psychometric quality of the new Examination Dishonesty Intention Scale (EDIS) and the superiority of the two-factor model over the unidimensional model. In addition, we tested the psychological correlates of both types of academic dishonesty and demonstrated their divergent validity. The results suggest that EDIS can be a valuable tool for exploring the intentions of exam dishonesty and has potential for practical applications in academic integrity policy and research.

Ethics in research can be broadly divided into two epistemic dimensions. One dimension focuses on bureaucratic procedures (i.e., procedural ethics), while the other focuses on contextually and culturally contested practice of ethics in research (i.e., ethics in practice). Researchers experience both dimensions distinctly in their qualitative research. The review of ethics in prospective research through bureaucratic procedures aims to measure compliance with documented requirements relating to research participants, data management, consent, and ensure researchers can demonstrate their ethical competence before they commence their research. However, researchers often experience unanticipated ethical issues within the context of their research; sometimes ethics-related situations, including language sensitivity, cultural humility, and data processing experienced by researchers can be very different from what was included in bureaucratic procedures. In this study, phenomena related to research ethics in practice, as experienced by social scientists (n = 5) in their qualitative research, are hermeneutically explored and interpreted. The selected phenomena represent the researchers’ lived experiences regarding the practice of participant autonomy, specifically exploring participants’ right to withdraw from research. These phenomena are interpreted from the theoretical perspectives of situational relativism and self-determined autonomy. The interpreted phenomena reveal the current practices in ethical management of data collected from participants before their decision to withdraw from research (i.e., withdrawal data), are predominantly focused on tangible forms of data (i.e., the information that can easily be distinguished from other data), but ethical concerns associated with intangible forms of data are often neglected. The intangible forms of data are experiential knowing and understanding that include, feeling, emotion, courage, respect, celebration, anger, and the sense of being and belonging. The study recommends that researchers and research professionals should exercise ethical sensitivity and humility towards intangible forms of data collected during qualitative research when participants withdraw their consent.