Research integrity - Training the trainers

www.helsinki.fi/yliopisto

Research integrity - Training the trainers

Erika Löfström PhD, Docent, Academy Research Fellow

University of Helsinki, Institute of Behavioural Sciences Centre for Research and Development of Higher Education

Finland

11.12.14 Käyttäytymistieteellinen tiedekunta / Henkilön nimi / Academic Integrity 1


•  Ethics education should begin with academics instead of the focus on students meeting course requirements (Stevens, Harris & Williamson 1993; Mumford et al, 2006).

•  Improving the quality of mentoring has been seen as a remedy to research misconduct (Kornfeld, 2012)

•  Ethics mentoring tends to have an inverse relationship with misconduct (Anderson et al. 2007) •  -> But a rare large-scale study on mentoring and

training in RCR among US NIH-funded researchers (Anderson et al. 2007) suggests that mentoring is a powerful tool in terms of both decreasing and increasing behaviors that are problematic from an integrity point of view.

11.12.14 2 Käyttäytymistieteellinen tiedekunta / Henkilön nimi / Esityksen nimi

Why focus on training the trainers?


•  Despite the influence that mentors and other senior academics exert on their younger colleagues and students (e.g. Kitchener, 1992 Anderson et al. 2007; Keyser et al., 2008), the training of these individuals in integrity and RCR has received little attention in the literature.

•  Academic staff who have received ethics training feel more comfortable teaching ethics, spend more time teaching it, and are more likely than non-trained faculty to incorporate ethics content into their teaching (Beauvais et al. 2007).


Why focus on training the trainers?


•  There is consensus neither about key contents in ethics and integrity guidance, nor about content, level, timing and frequency of ethics training and the qualifications of trainers (Godecharle, Nemery & Dierickx 2013).

•  A quarter of US federally funded scientists felt insufficiently prepared to deal with the ethics that their work presents them (N= approx. 3300)(Anderson et al., 2007).

•  Very few field-specific studies on the extent to which faculty are trained or feel comfortable discussing ethics in their teaching (Beauvais et al., 2007)

•  Many faculty members lack confidence in their skills and competencies to teach ethics contents (Keller, 2011).

•  Academics believe that academic staff do have the knowledge and competence to teach academic integrity (Löfström et al., 2014).

•  … but need more training in how to teach about research ethics and integrity (Hyytinen & Löfström, manuscript)

•  The institutional teaching culture provides an indication of what kind of instructional development is encouraged. If faculty believe that ethics/integrity are an institutional priority they are more likely to develop competencies for effectively incorporating ethics into their teaching (Beauvais et al., 2007).


Are academics comptent to teach integrity?


•  Training of trainers is an emerging trend in itself Training is often multi-disciplinary

•  Focus on junior scholars •  Training mostly targeted for post docs, although initiatives are

available for more experienced faculty as well •  Reluctance of academics to participate

•  Training offered by various stakeholders, mostly university departments, institutional ethics committees, and scientific associations

•  Training of trainers is varied •  Alongside targeted training it is immersed in a variety of topics

and training schemes


Developments in the field and trends


Ethics training

Pedagogical staff

development

Supervision and mentoring

training

Teaching academic writing

Training in policies and guidelines


Developments in the field: Where does the training of trainers fit in?

www.helsinki.fi/yliopisto 11.12.14 7 Käyttäytymistieteellinen tiedekunta / Henkilön nimi / Esityksen nimi

Common contents for training of trainers

•  General training in good research practices (planning, conducting and reporting research, etc.)

•  Training on the responsible use of human participants in research

•  Training on the responsible use of animal subjects in research

•  Training on conflict of interest •  Training on managing research data and records •  Training on other specialist research integrity areas


•  University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill “Train the Trainer” course for postdoctoral scholars in ethics and research conduct.

•  “The primary objective for the UNC Research Ethics “Train-the-Trainer Short Course” is to address RCR topics such as Publication Practices and Responsible Authorship, Mentor/Trainee Responsibilities, Research Misconduct, and Communication and Difficult Conversations.

•  The program’s goals are to: •  Provide a basic training in research ethics which will focus on ethical

decision making and encourage postdoctoral scholars to think about the impact of their research and decisions on society.

•  Introduce interdisciplinary views into the ethics training curriculum by including Parr Center Fellows and the Center for Genomics and Society faculty from philosophy, sociology, law, business and other disciplines outside of biomedical research disciplines.

•  Create a cultural shift within the biomedical science community that promotes the importance of ethical issues and fosters open discussions among postdoctoral scholars as well as faculty, students and staff.

•  Provide advanced training on research ethics and prepare postdoctoral scholars to teach a mandatory research ethics course for incoming biological and biomedical graduate students.” 11.12.14 8

Käyttäytymistieteellinen tiedekunta / Henkilön nimi / Esityksen nimi

Goals for training of trainers


•  Open training by VU Ethics committee •  a) General training on history of research ethics and

institutional procedures (once each semester) •  b) Specific topics, e.g. privacy, managing risks, clinical

trials, illegal activites (once a month)

•  For superviors and students – encouraged to come together

•  Additionally call-in service and compulsory meetings with researchers with difficult ethics approval applications


Case: Victoria University


RCR workshops for graduate students at University of Pittsburgh: •  Small group discussions led by faculty members recruited from

departments whose students attend the workshops. •  1-2 weeks before the workshop, faculty members receive information

package about the training, including ethics case and notes on the issues in the case + general suggestions on leading a group discussion.

•  Immediately prior to the workshop, faculty members meet to discuss the case with the RCR workshop staff. This session assists faculty members in clarifying aspects of the ethics case and try out lines of reasoning. This discussion serves the purposes of ‒  Preparing the faculty members for the discussion ‒  Generates new insights into the case ‒  Reduces their anxiety about taking the ”ethicist” role


Case: Involving academics in RCR workshops for graduate students (Fischer & Zigmond, 2001)


•  Case: Dartmouth College Ethics Facilitator training: •  For graduate students, postdocs, administrators, and

academic faculty •  Objectives: to gain skills in case style teaching methods

and develop a framework for thinking about ethical issues that occur in research.

•  4 x 2 hour workshops on: •  Professionalism •  Mentoring •  Authorship and peer review •  Data collection

•  + teaching 4 ethics workshops for small groups of 1st year students


Case: Integrity training and hands-on experience


•  RCR training as part of a pedagogical development initiative (East & Donnelly, 2012) •  Initiative on academic integrity content integrated with

development of teaching practices and assessment •  Academic staff involved in creating integrity and

ethics resources •  Modules for students and staff (teaches staff about their

responsibilities). Staff and student support side by side! •  Dissemination taking place via university-wide colloquia •  Ongoing collaborative process, but continued effort and

mandated support needed.


Case: Taking responsibility for academic integrity –project at La Trobe U Australia


•  How to teach writing •  Increased use of text-matching software in

higher education has lead to •  Training in the use of software and institutional

plagiarism/misconduct policies •  Materials and resources, e.g. Be a good Writer! (Kupila,

Karppinen, Löfström & Helminen, 2012) ‒  staff and student resources side by side


Teaching academic writing


•  Combines ethics training with mentoring/supervision training and pedagogical staff development

•  The more innovative designs involve immersing faculty in training initiatives and provide supported hands-on teaching experiences

•  Focus on case-based pedagogies

11.12.14 14

Käyttäytymistieteellinen tiedekunta / Henkilön nimi / Esityksen nimi

Succesfull models and approaches


•  Whose responsibility? Institutions struggle to provide training for trainers; ethics committees and national integrity offices are expected to take more responsibility

•  Emering contents? Trainers need more competence in the area of ”grey ethics” •  Outright misconduct is much more uncommon than questionable

behavior that involves strecthing standards. •  Voluntary or mandatory? •  Move towards more mandatory training? Especially regarding the

common areas of •  General training in good research practices •  responsible use of human participants in research •  responsible use of animal subjects in research •  conflict of interest •  managing research data and records •  other specialist research integrity areas


Central Issues 1/2


•  Re-focusing approach? Much training focuses on how to make better ethical decisions yourself, but it would be important for trainers to learn how to manage the ethics of others, i.e. how to lead on this issue (Treviño in Henderson 2007) •  Ethics in project management training •  How to create strong ethical research climates and

understanding psycholoical aspects of misconduct •  Widening scope? Rather than training specific groups of

academic, more emphasis may be paid to developing integrity at a systems level (e.g. institutional ethical climate, instilling a culture of integrity across the institution)


Central Issues 2/2

www.helsinki.fi/yliopisto 24.11.2011 17 Löfström University of Helsinki Main Building

Thank you!


•  Anderson, M. S., Horn, A. S., Risbey, K. R., Ronning, E. A., De Vries, R., & Martinson, B. C. (2007). What do mentoring and training in the responsible conduct of research have to do with scientists’ misbehavior? Findings from a national survey of NIH-funded scientists. Academic Medicine, 82(9), 853-860.

•  Beauvais, L. L., Desplaces, D. E., Melchar, D. E., & Bosco, S. M. (2007). Business faculty perceptions and actions regarding ethics education. Journal of Academic Ethics, 5, 121-136.

•  Branstetter, S. A. & Handelsman, M. M. (2000). Graduate teaching assistants: ethical training, beliefs, and practices. Ethics & Behavior, 10(1), 27-50.

•  Canadian Secretariat on Responsible Conduct of Research (2014). Activities of the Secretariat on Responsible Conduct of Research 2011-2013. Ottawa, ON.

•  Dartmouth College, Ethics Facilitator Training. September 24, 2013. Retrieved November 12, 2014 from http://graduate.dartmouth.edu/services/ethicstrainerstraining.html

•  East, J. & Donnelly, L. (2012). Taking responsibility for academic integrity: A collaborative teaching and learning design. Journal of University Teaching & Learning Practice, 9(3). http://ro.uow.edu.au/jutlp/vol9/iss3/2. Accessed 20 June 2013.

•  Feldman, M. D. & al. (2009). Training the next generation of research mentors: The University of California, San Francisco, Clinical & Translational Science Institute Mentor Development Program. Clinical and Translational Science 2(3), 216-221.

•  Fischer, B. A. & Zigmond, M. J. (2001). Promoting responsible conduct in research through “Survival Skills” Workshops: Some mentoring is best done in a crowd. Science and Engineering Ethics, 7, 563-587.

•  Godecharle, S., Nemery, B., & Dierickx, K. (2013). Guidance on research integrity: no union in Europe. Lancet, 381, 1097-1098 + Appendix 6 pages.

•  Henderson, B. (2007). Interview with Linda Treviño—Academy of Management Ethics Ombudsperson. Journal of Academic Ethics, 5, 21-24. 11.12.14

References


•  Iyer, R. & Eastman, J. K. (2006). Academic dishonesty: Are business students different from other college students? Journal of Education for Business, 82(2), 101-110.

•  Kalichman M. W. & Friedman, P. J. (1992). A pilot study of biomedical trainees’ perceptions concerning research ethics. Academic Medicine, 67, 769-775.

•  Keyser, D. J., Lakoski, J. M., Lara-Cinisomo, S., Schultz, D. J., Williams, V. L., Zeller, D. F., & Pincus, H. A. (2008). Advancing institutional efforts to support research mentorship: A conceptual framework and self-assessment tool. Academic Medicine, 83, 217–225.

•  Kidwell, L. A. & Kent, J. (2008). Integrity at a distance: A study of academic misconduct among university students on and off campus. Accounting Education: An International Journal, l7, Supplement , S3-S16.

•  Kitchener, K. S. (1992). Psychologist as teacher and mentor: Affirming ethical values throughout the curriculum. Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, 23, 190–195.

•  Kornfeld, D. S. (2012). Research misconduct: the search for a remedy. Academic Medicine, 87(7), 877-882 •  Kupila, P., Karppinen, L., Löfström, E. & Helminen, P. (2012). Älä kopsaa! Miten kirjoittaa ja viitata oikein? (Finnish)

Kopiera inte! Hur skriva och referera rätt? (Swedish) Don’t Copy! Be a Good Writer! (English). University of Helsinki. http://blogs.helsinki.fi/alakopsaa/

•  Löfström, E., Trotman, T., Furnari, M. & Shephard, K. (published online June 26, 2014). Who teaches academic integrity to students and how do they do it? Higher Education. DOI 10.1007/s10734-014-9784-3

•  Mumford, M. D., Devenport, L. D., Brown, R. P., Connelly, S., Murphy, S. T., Hill, J. H., & Antes, A. L. (2006). Validation of ethical decision making measures: Evidence for a new set of measures. Ethics & Behavior, 16(4), 319-345.

•  Smyth, L. M. & Davis, J. R. (2004). Perceptions of dishonesty among two-year college students: academic versus business situations. Journal of Business Ethics, 51(1), 63-73.

•  Stevens, R. E., Harris, O. J., & Williamson, S. (1993). A comparison of ethical evaluations of business school faculty and students: A pilot study. Journal of Business Ethics, 12(8), 611–619.

•  University of North Carolina, Office of Postdoctoral Affairs. Research Ethics. Retrieved November 12, 2014 from http://research.unc.edu/offices/postdoctoral-affairs/postdocs/research-ethics/

•  Zivcakova, L., Wood, E., Forsyth, G., Dhillon, N., Ball, D., Corolis, B., Coulas, A., Daniels, S., Hill, J., Krstic, A., Linseman, A., & Petkovski, M. (2007). Examining the impact of dons providing peer instruction for academic integrity: dons’ and students’ perspectives. Journal of Academic Ethics, 10, 137-150.



•  Workshops: 11 regional events involving >900 participants from over 200 institutions. •  Goals: ‒  raising awareness of RCR and guidelines ‒  Assisting researchers and ethics boards in the implementation

of the ”TCPS2” (policy statement) •  Online tutorial: for students, faculty, research ethics

boards •  Webinars: Members of the Secretariat address key topics

in the policy statement. These in-depth examinations have been recorded and posted on the website (>6200 live & recorded views)

•  Policy statement interpretation services


Case: Canadian Secretariat on Responsible Conduct of Research


”The conference is for individuals in research-oriented disciplines and professional societies who teach at levels ranging from undergraduates through to faculty and professionals. … Both new and experienced instructors of research ethics will benefit from attending.” Contents: •  Research Integrity: national issues and local challenges •  Teaching responsible conduct responsibly •  Approaches to teaching RCR •  Designin, implementing ans establishing RCR training programs •  Evaluating instructional impact •  Cultural issues in teaching RCR •  Active learning and using videos to teach RCR


Training of trainers Conference 2014 Annapolis, MD


•  We know from prior research that peer behavior has an influence on students’ ethical behavior. •  Although a high % of undergraduate students agree

that cheating is unethical, a significant number found cheating to be socially acceptable -> Peer pressure may work against the students own moral evaluation of a situation. (e.g. Smyth & Davis, 2004; Kidwell & Kent, 2008 Iyer & Eastman, 2006)

•  Utilising older peers as integrity tutors may have the potential to improve student integrity


Graduate students as integrity tutors


Zivcakova et al., 2007 on Canadian residential tutors and off-campus leaders of a variety of fields as ethics/integrity tutors: •  The residential tutors felt somewhat prepared in terms of

the content, but lacked the tools, knowledge and skills to succesfully convey the message.

•  They were unable to fully utilise the opportunities to encourage discussion about integrity (and to involve the students)

•  The tutors felt that the information should have been conveyed by experienced professors in a formal setting.

•  Tutors were uncomfortable with the dual role of tutor and faculty imposed on them.


Case: Residential tutors as ethics/integrity trainers

Research integrity - Training the trainers

Documents

Transcript of Research integrity - Training the trainers