个人信念如何决定对研究伦理标准的遵守:一项 EFA 和路径分析研究

Shreyashee Tripathi, Ramesh Kumar Chaturvedi
{"title":"个人信念如何决定对研究伦理标准的遵守:一项 EFA 和路径分析研究","authors":"Shreyashee Tripathi, Ramesh Kumar Chaturvedi","doi":"10.1108/ijoes-05-2023-0117","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<h3>Purpose</h3>\n<p>This study aims to identify causes of (un)ethical behaviour in research and how they influence adherence to research ethics.</p><!--/ Abstract__block -->\n<h3>Design/methodology/approach</h3>\n<p>The authors developed and tested a conceptual model that includes mediation and helps to understand the mechanism of adherence to ethical standards of research based on the “social judgment theory” (SJT). In Study 1, the authors conducted an exploratory study using the exploratory factor analysis technique to identify factors responsible for adherence to research ethics. In Study 2, the authors used SJT to provide support for establishing a relationship between key variables.</p><!--/ Abstract__block -->\n<h3>Findings</h3>\n<p>Two factors, “Proclivity to Egoism” and “Proclivity to Emotivism”, were identified based on the personal beliefs of researchers. These factors were found to play an important role in determining the tendency towards adherence to standards of research ethics (Belmont Report and COPE). SJT successfully explains the mechanism of adoption of ethical standards. Adherence to Belmont principles was seen to mediate relationship between factors identified and tendency to adhere to COPE.</p><!--/ Abstract__block -->\n<h3>Originality/value</h3>\n<p>Majorly, this study is unique as it establishes and guides to incorporate researchers’ point of view in formulating ethical standards and guidelines, apart, from various other important theoretical and societal implications.</p><!--/ Abstract__block -->","PeriodicalId":42832,"journal":{"name":"International Journal of Ethics and Systems","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.7000,"publicationDate":"2024-01-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"How personal beliefs determine adherence to standards of research ethics: an EFA and path analysis study\",\"authors\":\"Shreyashee Tripathi, Ramesh Kumar Chaturvedi\",\"doi\":\"10.1108/ijoes-05-2023-0117\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<h3>Purpose</h3>\\n<p>This study aims to identify causes of (un)ethical behaviour in research and how they influence adherence to research ethics.</p><!--/ Abstract__block -->\\n<h3>Design/methodology/approach</h3>\\n<p>The authors developed and tested a conceptual model that includes mediation and helps to understand the mechanism of adherence to ethical standards of research based on the “social judgment theory” (SJT). In Study 1, the authors conducted an exploratory study using the exploratory factor analysis technique to identify factors responsible for adherence to research ethics. In Study 2, the authors used SJT to provide support for establishing a relationship between key variables.</p><!--/ Abstract__block -->\\n<h3>Findings</h3>\\n<p>Two factors, “Proclivity to Egoism” and “Proclivity to Emotivism”, were identified based on the personal beliefs of researchers. These factors were found to play an important role in determining the tendency towards adherence to standards of research ethics (Belmont Report and COPE). SJT successfully explains the mechanism of adoption of ethical standards. Adherence to Belmont principles was seen to mediate relationship between factors identified and tendency to adhere to COPE.</p><!--/ Abstract__block -->\\n<h3>Originality/value</h3>\\n<p>Majorly, this study is unique as it establishes and guides to incorporate researchers’ point of view in formulating ethical standards and guidelines, apart, from various other important theoretical and societal implications.</p><!--/ Abstract__block -->\",\"PeriodicalId\":42832,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"International Journal of Ethics and Systems\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.7000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-01-02\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"International Journal of Ethics and Systems\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1108/ijoes-05-2023-0117\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"ECONOMICS\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"International Journal of Ethics and Systems","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1108/ijoes-05-2023-0117","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"ECONOMICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

设计/方法/途径 作者根据 "社会评判理论"(SJT)开发并测试了一个概念模型,该模型包括中介作用,有助于理解遵守研究伦理标准的机制。在研究 1 中,作者使用探索性因素分析技术进行了一项探索性研究,以确定导致遵守研究伦理的因素。研究结果根据研究人员的个人信念,确定了 "利己主义倾向 "和 "情感倾向 "这两个因素。研究发现,这些因素在决定研究人员是否倾向于遵守研究伦理标准(贝尔蒙特报告和 COPE)方面发挥了重要作用。SJT 成功地解释了采用伦理标准的机制。坚持贝尔蒙特原则被认为是确定的因素与坚持 COPE 的倾向之间关系的中介。原创性/价值这项研究的独特之处主要在于,它确立并指导在制定伦理标准和准则时纳入研究人员的观点,以及其他各种重要的理论和社会影响。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
How personal beliefs determine adherence to standards of research ethics: an EFA and path analysis study

Purpose

This study aims to identify causes of (un)ethical behaviour in research and how they influence adherence to research ethics.

Design/methodology/approach

The authors developed and tested a conceptual model that includes mediation and helps to understand the mechanism of adherence to ethical standards of research based on the “social judgment theory” (SJT). In Study 1, the authors conducted an exploratory study using the exploratory factor analysis technique to identify factors responsible for adherence to research ethics. In Study 2, the authors used SJT to provide support for establishing a relationship between key variables.

Findings

Two factors, “Proclivity to Egoism” and “Proclivity to Emotivism”, were identified based on the personal beliefs of researchers. These factors were found to play an important role in determining the tendency towards adherence to standards of research ethics (Belmont Report and COPE). SJT successfully explains the mechanism of adoption of ethical standards. Adherence to Belmont principles was seen to mediate relationship between factors identified and tendency to adhere to COPE.

Originality/value

Majorly, this study is unique as it establishes and guides to incorporate researchers’ point of view in formulating ethical standards and guidelines, apart, from various other important theoretical and societal implications.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
4.40
自引率
11.10%
发文量
67
期刊介绍: The International Journal of Ethics and Systems (formerly named Humanomics, the International Journal of Systems and Ethics) is a multidisciplinary journal publishing peer review research on issues of ethics and morality affecting socio-scientific systems in epistemological perspectives. The journal covers diverse areas of a socio-scientific nature. The focus is on disseminating the theory and practice of morality and ethics as a system-oriented study defined by inter-causality between critical variables of given problems.
期刊最新文献
Whistleblowing intentions of external auditors: an application of Hofstede’s cultural dimensions theory Relational business model for shared responsibility The impact of external debt stock on economic growth: ethical dilemmas and evidence from East African community bloc Overcoming organizational politics and unlocking meaningful work through ethical leadership Ethical mindset and the efficacy of tax ethical awareness initiatives
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1