Research Integrity: Synthesizing Insights from Multiple Sources

This essay explores the critical topic of research integrity within academia, synthesizing insights from specified sources to provide a comprehensive overview. It delves into the ethical challenges and questionable research practices that can undermine the integrity of scientific work, drawing upon surveys and studies that reveal the prevalence and impact of misconduct. The essay examines factors influencing research integrity, such as academic culture, misconduct policies, and career stage, while also considering disciplinary differences in the frequency and types of ethical problems encountered. By synthesizing these perspectives, the essay aims to shed light on the importance of maintaining high ethical standards in research and the need for ongoing self-examination and vigilance within academic institutions. This document is available on Desklib, a platform providing study tools and resources for students.

See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/253188976
Ethical Problems in Academic Research
Article · January 2013
CITATIONS READS
122 309
3 authors, including:
Karen Seashore Louis
University of Minnesota Twin Cities
196 PUBLICATIONS 9,880 CITATIONS
SEE PROFILE
Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:
Positive School Leadership View project
Research4Schools View project
All content following this page was uploaded by Karen Seashore Louis on 01 November 2016.
The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Sigma Xi, The Scientific Research Society
Ethical Problems in Academic Research
Author(s): Judith P. Swazey, Melissa S. Anderson, Karen Seashore Lewis and Karen
Seashore Louis
Source: American Scientist, Vol. 81, No. 6 (November-December 2013), pp. 542-553
Published by: Sigma Xi, The Scientific Research Society
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/29775057
Accessed: 01-11-2016 22:25 UTC
REFERENCES
Linked references are available on JSTOR for this article:
http://www.jstor.org/stable/29775057?seq=1&cid=pdf-reference#references_tab_contents You may
need to log in to JSTOR to access the linked references.
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted
digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information
about JSTOR, please contact [e-mail].
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at
http://about.jstor.org/terms
Sigma Xi, The Scientific Research Society is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend
access to American Scientist
This content downloaded from 134.84.192.102 on Tue, 01 Nov 2016 22:25:04 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms

Ethical Problems in Academic Research
A survey of doctoral candidates and faculty raises important questions about
the ethical environment of graduate education and research
Judith P. Swazey, Melissa S. Anderson and Karen Seashore Lewis
Misconductuniversityand-basedotherresearchethicalhave beenproblems in
widely discussed, but the result is still wide dis?
agreement. Disparate opinions appear to place
the extent and the significance of such impro?
priety somewhere between minuscule and
monstrous. Yet quantitative information on
which to base such opinions has been sparse.
Furthermore, much of the debate about mis?
conduct has concerned its impact on the pub?
lic's impression of science. When questions are
asked about the effects of misconduct, they of?
ate Education of Scientists and Engineers, with
grant support from the National Science Foun?
dation, surveyed 2,000 doctoral candidates and
2,000 of their faculty about their experiences with 15
different types of ethically question?
able behavior. We sampled doctoral students
and faculty from 99 of the largest graduate de?
partments in chemistry, civil engineering, mi?
crobiology and sociology.
Although our results do not measure the ac?
tual frequency of misconduct?instead, our
questionnaires sought rates of exposure to per?
Judith P. Swazey is president of
The Acadia Institute. She received
a bachelor's degree
from Wellesley College and a
Ph.D. in the history of science
from Harvard University.
Melissa S. Anderson is an
assistant professor of higher
education in, and Karen
Seashore Louis is a professor
in and chair of the
Department of Educational
Policy and Administration,
College of Education,
University of Minnesota,
Minneapolis. Anderson
received a Ph.D. in higher
education from the University
of Minnesota.
Lewis received a Ph.D. in
sociology from Columbia
University. Address for
Swazey: The Acadia
Institute, 118 West Street,
Bar Harbor, ME 04609-1429.
ten include: Have the media overemphasized
such problems? Have reports?merited or
not?influenced public funding of scientific re?
search? Does the public believe in the
integrity of science?
By comparison, the effect of misconduct on
the academic environment itself has received
minimal attention. A faculty member's behav?
ior may have a significant influence on the for?
mation of a student's values and standards. Yet,
despite the likelihood that numerous examples
of misconduct?some serious?escape the pub?
lic eye but are readily apparent to those close at
hand, commentary rarely concentrates on the
exposure of students to questionable behavior.
There is also little information about the
comparative prevalence of ethical problems in
the various academic disciplines. Once again,
we would likely be misled to think that the rate at
which problems are publicly reported repre?
sents their actual frequency. Students in differ?
ent disciplines may be exposed to different
numbers and types of ethical problems.
Equally important, graduate students may
receive subtle messages about ethics from the
university's willingness, or lack of it, to under?
go self-examination. If a student or faculty
member appears to misbehave, does another
student or faculty member who dares to report
it face reprisal?
To answer these and other questions about
the research environment in doctoral pro?
grams, the Acadia Institute Project on Profes?
sional Values and Ethical Issues in the Gradu
ceived misconduct?they do demonstrate that
such problems are more pervasive than many
insiders believe. We also found significant dif?
ferences among disciplines in the frequency
and the types of questionable behavior ob?
served. Furthermore, students and faculty who
responded to our survey were guaranteed
anonymity. Without that promise, their re?
sponses suggest, it is likely that a significant
number would have remained silent about
their perceptions of misconduct.
What Is an Ethical Problem?
For the analyses reported in this article, ethical
problems were clustered into three categories
used by the National Academy of Sciences "to
delineate... behaviors in the research environ?
ment that require attention." Category 1, mis?
conduct in science, includes "fabrication, falsi?
fication, or plagiarism, in proposing, or
reporting research." Category 2 includes ques?
tionable research practices, such as keeping
poor research records or permitting honorary
authorship. As the Academy report notes, al?
though such practices "violate traditional val?
ues of the research enterprise and... may be
detrimental to the research process," there is
"neither broad agreement about [their] seri?
ousness... nor any consensus on standards for
behavior in such matters." The report's third
category, "other misconduct," includes behav? ior
such as sexual harassment and violations
of government regulations, which may take
place in a research context but "are clearly not
542 American Scientist, Volume 81
This content downloaded from 134.84.192.102 on Tue, 01 Nov 2016 22:25:04 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms

Figure 1. Misconduct and other ethical problems in university-based research have been widely debated, but discussion has
focused primarily on public perceptions and external impacts. Survey data, however, indicate that misconduct and ethically
questionable behavior may have profound effects within the academic community on the climate of learning
and the transmission of values and standards. In the myth that originated the term mentor, Odysseus entrusted the ed?
ucation of his son, Telemachus, to the care of Mentor. Student and teacher are portrayed here by Giovanni Battista Tlepolo, in
the 18th-century painting 'Telemachus and Mentor," now displayed at the Rijksmuseum in Amsterdam.
1993 November-December 543
This content downloaded from 134.84.192.102 on Tue, 01 Nov 2016 22:25:04 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms

Figure 2. Two types of scientific misconduct as defined by the National Academy of Sciences were assessed in the authors' survey of 4,000 grad? uate students
and faculty. When faculty and graduate students were asked to indicate the number of faculty and graduate students they had ob? served, or had other direct
evidence of, engaging in these types of behavior, between 6 and 33 percent reported at least one exposure.
unique to the conduct of science... [and] are
subject to generally applicable legal and social
penalties."
The student and the faculty surveys contained
13 identical items on misconduct, with two addi?
tional items on the faculty survey. The instruc?
tions for this section of the student questionnaire
were: "In this program, have you observed or had
other direct evidence of any of the following typesof
misconduct? Please indicate the number of
graduate students and faculty members whose
misconduct you have observed/experienced."
To make faculty and student responses more
comparable, the faculty questionnaire asked
those surveyed to respond with reference to the
department with which they are currently affili?
ated and with reference to misconduct observed
within the past five years.
ed response rates for graduate students and
faculty were 72 percent and 59 percent, respec?
tively In addition, the degree of agreement be?
tween faculty and student responses on most
items reinforces the reliability of our data.
Some of the items on which student and facul?
ty observations are divergent reflect differences
in opportunities to observe misconduct. Facul?
ty, for example, report more knowledge of stu?
dent plagiarism and cheating and more faculty
misuse of research funds and facilities, which
probably reflects faculty members' greater ac?
cess to these types of information.
We have no reason to think that the data do
not accurately reflect the respondents' experi?
ences, which may include self-reports of their
own activities. Nevertheless, we recognize the
need for several caveats in interpreting our find?
Interpreting the Data
Our surveys have relatively high response
rates compared to those of other efforts to
study the various types of misconduct. Adjust
faculty students faculty students
plagiarism
Figure 3. Reports of plagiarism were most common in civil engineering, especially
among faculty. Faculty reports of student plagiarism were also greatest in civil engi?
neering, although sociology students reported the greatest exposure to plagiarism
among their peers.
544 American Scientist, Volume 81
ings. To begin with, we do not know exactly
how respondents defined the phrase "other di?
rect evidence" in the survey instructions. Sec?
ond, since the questionnaires did not ask the re?
spondents to distinguish between what they
believed to be instances of misbehavior and cas?
es that had been confirmed by an official or un?
official type of investigation, their responses
should be viewed as "strongly suspected" in?
stances. A third important caveat bears repeat?
ing. Because it is likely that more than one facul?
ty or student respondent in a given department
reported the same incident in their question?
naires, one cannot estimate from our data what
percentage of faculty or graduate students in a
given department or in the four disciplines may be
engaging in a particular type of misconduct or
questionable research practice. Rather, grow? ing
out of the project's focus on the ways that
departments and disciplines affect the educa?
tion and socialization of graduate students, our
objective was to document the exposure of
graduate students and faculty to what they be?
lieve is ethically wrong or problematic conduct in
their departments.
Scientific Misconduct
Overall, one can infer from our data that, al?
though misconduct is not rampant, examples
This content downloaded from 134.84.192.102 on Tue, 01 Nov 2016 22:25:04 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms

of behavior that fall into the National Acade? my's
definition of science-related misconduct
(Category 1) are not rare. Between six and nine
percent of both students and faculty report that
they have direct knowledge of faculty who have
plagiarized or falsified data (Figure 2).
Faculty reports of plagiarism and falsification by
students are considerably higher; nearly a
third of faculty claim to have observed student
plagiarism.
On a more positive note, most of those who
reported examples of plagiarism or falsifica?
tion were aware of such misconduct by only
one or two people. At the same time, however, we
believe there is cause for concern in the
finding that substantially higher percentages of
graduate students than faculty in all four
disciplines are believed to be engaging in these
types of misconduct.
There were significant differences between
disciplines in reported knowledge of plagiarism
(Figure 3). More than 40 percent of faculty in civ?
il engineering and sociology have detected pla?
giarism among their graduate students. In civil
engineering, 18 percent of faculty have noted
plagiarism by their colleagues, a significantly
higher proportion than in the other fields.
Exposure to data falsification (Figure 4) does
not follow a clear disciplinary pattern. At 10
percent, civil engineering faculty report the
highest level of "cooking" among their col?
leagues, but 12 percent of microbiology stu?
dents say that their teachers have falsified data.
Faculty report similar levels of falsification
among chemistry, civil engineering and micro?
biology students, but sociologists report signif?
icantly less. Among the students, chemistry
faculty students faculty students
falsification
Figure 4. Reports of falsifying or "cooking" research data were most common among
civil engineering faculty and among microbiology students.
doctoral students note the greatest exposure to falsification
by their peers (20 percent).
Questionable Research Practices
Across the disciplines, reports of questionable research
practices are far more common than reports of outright
misconduct. For example, 43 percent of faculty say they
know of peers
making inappropriate use of university re?
sources for personal purposes, and almost one
third know of inappropriate assignment of au?
thorship of research papers (Figure 5).
Twenty-two percent of faculty report instances
of their colleagues overlooking sloppy use of data, and
15 percent know of cases where data
that would contradict an investigator's own
previous research have not been presented. Al?
though students reportedly engage in ques?
tionable research practices at somewhat lower rates than
faculty, the data indicate that sub
Figure 5. Reports of four types of questionable research practices as defined by the National Academy of Sciences were far more commo reports of scientific misconduct In
general, students were nearly as aware as faculty of such behavior, whether the questionable research tice was carried out by students or faculty.
1993 November-December 545
This content downloaded from 134.84.192.102 on Tue, 01 Nov 2016 22:25:04 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms

HH chemistry H civil engineering f//^ microbiology Hsociolo9y
? faculty students faculty students
misuse of resources
Figure 6. Use of university resources for outside consulting or other inappropriate
purposes was reported most commonly by civil engineering faculty and students. More
than one-third of civil engineering students were aware of such behavior by
faculty. Faculty knowledge of such behavior was even more common.
stantial numbers of both students and faculty
have observed such practices by students.
The most significant disciplinary differences
in questionable research practices are in the use
of university resources for outside consulting or
other personal purposes (Figure 6) and in the in?
appropriate assignment of authorship (Figure 7).
Among faculty, 61 percent of civil engineers
have direct knowledge of their colleagues' in?
appropriate use of resources, and 44 percent re?
port inappropriate assignment of authorship.
According to student respondents, however, in?
appropriate assignment of authorship by facul?
ty is most common in microbiology (38 percent).
faculty students faculty students
inappropriate authorship
Disciplinary differences in overlooking oth?
ers' use of flawed data or questionable inter?
pretations of data are largely insignificant, ex?
cept in the case of student reports of faculty behavior.
Here, civil engmeering students re? port significantly
lower levels of these prac? tices compared to other
fields (Figure 8). With respect to failing to present data
that contra? dict one's previous research, there are
discipli?
nary differences among student, but not facul?
ty, responses (Figure 9). More students in
microbiology (21 percent) than in other fields
report direct knowledge of this practice by fac? ulty,
whereas students in chemistry and micro? biology report
the highest levels of this practice by their peers (16 and 17
percent).
Other Misconduct
In the experience of both faculty and students, there are
serious issues that are not directly re?
search-related but still involve unethical and,
in some cases, possibly illegal behaviors The
reports of conduct that involves unethical
treatment of peers and subordinates by faculty
are striking. Approximately one-half of stu? dents and
faculty, for example, say they have
observed or have other direct knowledge of
faculty exploiting others (Figure 10), and al?
most one-quarter of both groups have direct
knowledge of sexual harassment. Although
fewer students than faculty identify instances of faculty
trying to get by on the work of oth?
ers, students report substantially more dis?
crimination by faculty on the basis of personal
characteristics.
Sociology stands out in terms of both faculty
and student exposure to three forms of inter?
personal misconduct (Figures 11, 12 and 13).
High proportions of sociology faculty report
that their colleagues have engaged in sexual
harassment (40 percent), have discriminated
based on race, ethnicity or gender (32 percent),
or have used their positions to exploit or ma?
nipulate others (57 percent). Sociology students
report even higher levels of exposure to dis?
crimination (55 percent) and exploitation (60
percent) by faculty.
Three types of abuses of a researcher's position for
personal financial gain or professional advan?
tage also are included in the category of "other
misconduct": misusing research funds (Figure
14), unauthorized use of privileged information (Figure 15)
and failing to disclose involvement in
firms whose products are based on the faculty member's
own research (Figure 16). Between 7
and 23 percent of both faculty and students have first-hand
information about each of these abuses
by faculty. Differences between sociology and
other fields are apparent for these three items,
but in this case sociology faculty and students
Figure 7. Inappropriate assignment of authorship to research papers by faculty was are less likely to observe misconduct.
reported most frequently by faculty in civil engineering, but students reported the Compliance with research regulations in?
greatest exposure in microbiology. volving human subjects, animal care and use,
546 American Scientist, Volume 81
This content downloaded from 134.84.192.102 on Tue, 01 Nov 2016 22:25:04 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms

and biosafety also appears to be problematic
(Figure 17). Almost 20 percent of faculty have
direct knowledge of their peers ignoring such
policies, with even more students observing
misconduct in this area by other students. Micro
biologists, both faculty and students, are most
frequently exposed to peers who ignore uni?
versity research policies.
Chemistry graduate students demonstrate a
particularly noticeable disciplinary difference in
reported exposure to attempts to get by on the
work of others (Figure 18). Although only 16
percent say they have seen this behavior in fac?
ulty?the lowest percentage of any group of re?
HI chemistry H civil engineering H microbiology sociology
2 10- ??.-? ?? 1 ?? W^^M? ^?^?^?^h ^?^?^1^1
^I^h^H^I
_ __^H^HflB^H_j__^HflE^UIlB_j_JHfll^
faculty students faculty students
overlooking flawed data
spondents?48 percent say they have seen it
among their peers. From a faculty perspective,
civil engineering students and faculty most fre?
quently try to get by on others' work?53 per? cent
have seen such behavior by their students.
Figure 8. Civil engineering students reported the least exposure to faculty overlook? ing the use of flawed
data or interpreting data in a questionable fashion.
dent than by a colleague. Nonetheless, only 60
The final type of misconduct included in percent of the faculty believe they could defi?
the surveys is cheating in coursework by nitely report a graduate student suspected of graduate students
(Figure 19). Not surprising? misconduct without experiencing retaliation, ly, faculty know of more instances of
such whereas just 35 percent believe that they could
misbehavior than do students. Among the definitely report another faculty member with
four disciplines, the highest levels of cheating impunity.
are identified by both students and faculty in Differences in responses across disciplines
civil engineering. are significant for faculty and for students re?
Dealing with Misconduct
porting misconduct by other students. Chem?
istry faculty are more certain than faculty in
The ways in which suspected misconduct and other disciplines that they could report sus?
other ethical problems are dealt with at the de?
partmental or institutional level are crucial to the
integrity of research and scholarship, and
they may help shape the values, the attitudes and
the behaviors of trainees. Two sets of find?
ings from our surveys bear on these matters:
faculty and student expectations of retaliation for
reporting suspected misconduct, and the extent to
which faculty believe they should and actually do
exercise a collective responsi? bility for the
professional-ethical conduct of their colleagues and
students.
To gauge expectations about the conse?
quences of "whistle-blowing," we asked stu?
dents and faculty: "Could you report cases of
suspected misconduct (a) by a faculty member [or]
(b) by a graduate student in your depart? ment
without expecting retaliation?" Not sur?
prisingly, given the greater vulnerability of people
in subordinate positions in organiza?
tions, a much greater percentage of students
pected misconduct without retaliation, where?
as civil engineering faculty and students indi?
cate the greatest concern about sanctions.
We also looked at concerns about whistle
blowing in relationship to a respondent's citi?
zenship and race. Faculty who are U.S. citizens
and also members of a minority group are
more likely to expect retaliation for reporting
either a faculty member or a student than are
either white U.S. faculty or non-U.S. citizens.
Among students, a greater percentage of for?
eign nationals than of white or minority U.S.
citizens would expect retaliation for reporting
either a faculty member or a student.
than faculty believe they would experience re?
taliation if they reported suspected misconduct by
either a faculty member or another student.
Fifty-three percent of the students compared
to 26 percent of the faculty said they probably or
definitely could not report a faculty member without
expecting retaliation. Students feel less vulnerable at
the prospect of reporting another student, but a
substantial number (29 percent)
faculty students faculty students
overlooking contradictory data
believe this act, too, would likely result in re?
taliation. Faculty clearly feel it is far safer to re?
port suspected misconduct by a graduate stu
Figure 9. Failure to present data that contradict a faculty member's own previous re?
search was reported by 21 percent of microbiology students, and 17 percent had ex? perienced such
behavior among their peers.
1993 November-December 547
This content downloaded from 134.84.192.102 on Tue, 01 Nov 2016 22:25:04 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms

conduct by faculty
number of exposures number of exposures
0 1-2 3-5 5+ 0 1-2 3-5 5+
% %
841322
752231
781931
593164
821521
543574
not asked
not asked
not applicable
Figure 10. Nine types of "other" misconduct as defined by the National Academy of Sciences were reported by faculty and students surveyed.
Although faculty were generally more aware of faculty misbehavior, and students of student misbehavior, students were significantly more
aware of cases of discrimination based on race, ethnicity, gender, etc.
We expected that junior faculty would be closer to those of the assistant professors than
less confident than senior faculty about re? they were to those of the full professors, sug?
porting a colleague. This was confirmed by gesting that the sense of vulnerability is not
cross-tabulations between faculty members' simply a question of tenure.
willingness to report suspected misconduct
by other faculty and their appointment sta?
These findings about the relationship be?
tween academic appointment status and ex?
tus. Forty-three percent of the full professors pectations about sanctions for reporting sus?
believed they definitely could report suspect? pected misconduct have some sobering
ed misconduct by colleagues without expect? implications, because the current demogra?
ing retaliation, whereas only 18 percent of as? phy of the academic profession is highly
sistant professors were equally confident. The skewed toward senior faculty. In our sample,
responses of the associate professors were for example, 61 percent of the respondents are
548 American Scientist, Volume 81
This content downloaded from 134.84.192.102 on Tue, 01 Nov 2016 22:25:04 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms

full professors. As demographics change? duct, whereas 30 percent hold that there is very older
professors retire and are replaced with little or no manifestation of collegial responsi? junior faculty who have
learned to be cau? bility. Looking at disciplinary differences, a tious about taking an active role in
governing substantially smaller percentage of chemists
scholarly and research standards and con? than faculty in the other three fields believe
duct?there may be an increase in reluctance they have a strong degree of collective respon?
to confront misconduct. Unless promotion sibility for their peers' behavior.
and higher status alter faculty views and be? Environments that foster expectations of re?
havior, or there are changes in the culture of taliation, coupled with low levels of exercised
the academy that make such confrontation collective responsibility for the conduct of col?
less threatening, willingness to report mis? leagues and students, raise grave concerns
conduct may decline. about the willingness and ability of members
We also looked at the relationship between of academic research communities to govern
faculty members' exposure to misconduct and
their confidence that they could report with?
out retaliation. Those who have been exposed
to instances of scientific misconduct or ques?
tionable research practices among their peers, and
thus have had a real opportunity to con? front their
obligations and willingness to re? port suspected
wrongdoing, are more likely to
believe that they would suffer retaliation.
The extent to which faculty accept a collec?
tive as well as an individual professional re?
sponsibility for their colleagues' and students'
conduct is another aspect of a department's
ethical climate that may affect how suspected
wrongdoing or questionable practices are han? dled.
Respondents to the faculty survey were
asked to indicate the extent to which they be?
lieve that faculty in their academic and re?
search community should exercise a "collec?
tive responsibility for the professional-ethical conduct"
of their peers and their graduate stu? dents, and the
extent to which faculty in their department actually
manifest such behavior.
Faculty report striking differences between
their espoused values and the actual practice in
faculty students faculty students
sexual harassment
Figure 11. Sexual harassment was reported most often among sociology faculty andstudents. Although
the low rates of this behavior among civil engineers may reflect
the preponderance of males in the field, microbiology has a female-to-male ratio not
far below that of sociology.
their departments. In principle, virtually all
faculty (99 percent) believe they and their col?
leagues should exercise at least some degree of
collective responsibility for the conduct of their
graduate students. A smaller but still substan?
tial 74 percent believe they should exercise
such a responsibility to a great extent, but only
27 percent judge that they and their depart?
mental colleagues actually manifest to a great
extent their shared responsibility for their stu?
dents' professional-ethical conduct. Chemistry and
microbiology faculty feel more strongly than civil
engineers and sociologists that they have a
collective responsibility for their stu?
dents' conduct, whereas chemists judge that
they actually exercise the greatest amount of
collective responsibility, and sociologists judge
that they exercise the least. Almost all faculty
(94 percent) also believe that they have some
degree of responsibility for their colleagues'
ethical conduct, but only 55 percent hold this belief
to a great extent. In terms of actual be?
havior, however, just 13 percent judge that fac? ulty in
their department exercise a great deal of
shared responsibility for their colleagues' con
faculty students faculty students
discrimination
Figure 12. Discrimination based on race, ethnicity or gender was most common
among sociologists, faculty and students. More than half of students and nearly a
third of faculty reported exposure to this behavior by faculty.
1993 November-December 549
This content downloaded from 134.84.192.102 on Tue, 01 Nov 2016 22:25:04 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms

faculty students faculty students
exploitation
Figure 13. Use of one's position to exploit or manipulate others was also most com?
monly reported by sociologists. Overall, this was the most frequently reported form of "other"
misconduct by faculty, regardless of discipline.
the conduct of their peers and students. Many
observers of higher education have affirmed
the importance of both professional autonomy
and collective or group regulation of the acad?
emic enterprise. Burton Clark has written that
"the culture of the [academic] profession
everywhere emphasizes personal autonomy
and collegial self-government." Our survey
data, and statements by faculty and graduate
students whom we have interviewed, chal?
lenge the idea that faculty actually practice an
ethic of collective governance.
Disciplinary and Departmental Factors
The sometimes striking differences in respons?
es across disciplines are a particularly chal?
lenging aspect of our findings. If scientists and
faculty students faculty students
misuse of funds
engineers are serious about efforts to ensure
the integrity of research, it is important to un?
derstand why we found pronounced varia?
tions in reported instances of scientific miscon? duct. For
example, over 40 percent of faculty in
civil engineering and sociology have encoun?
tered plagiarism by their graduate students; a higher
percent of faculty in civil engineering than in other fields
report knowledge of pla?
giarism and data falsification by their col?
leagues; microbiology students report more
data falsification by faculty than do students
in the other disciplines; and chemistry students report the
greatest amount of data falsification
by their peers.
These patterns do not support the "bad ap?
ple" explanation that is often proffered to ac? count for
scientific misconduct. In the case of
faculty, disciplinary variations also call into
question the generic explanation that scientific
misconduct is primarily attributable to the in?
tense pressures in research-intensive universi?
ties to obtain funding and to "publish or perish."
Faculty reports of higher rates of plagiarism
by graduate students in civil engineering and
sociology may suggest that faculty in those fields
have more experience with evaluating student work
compared to faculty in chem?
istry and microbiology. In any event, the sig?
nificant rate of reported student plagiarism
points to the role faculty need to play in in?
structing even graduate students about appro?
priate attribution standards. However, our
data do not support the view that faculty have
the greatest difficulty in this area of scholar?
ship with foreign students, who may not be
as knowledgeable as U.S. students about attri?
bution standards: In our sample, although civ? il
engineering does have the greatest number
of foreign students (46 percent), sociology has
the fewest (17 percent).
To pose another discipline-related question,
why does sociology have the highest propor?
tion of reported exposure to sexual harassment
and racial, ethnic or gender discrimination in
every reporting category? The answer does not reside
solely, if at all, in the gender, citizenship or racial
composition of the departments in our
sample. Although sociology does have the
highest percentage of female faculty (45 per?cent)
and students (55 percent), microbiology's percentages
are nearly as high (32 and 45 per?
cent respectively); yet the reports of harassment
and disaimination are high in one field and rel?
atively low in the other. With respect to citizen?
ship, sociology has the lowest percentage of
both faculty and students who are foreign na? tionals.
Nor can the higher levels of reported
knowledge of racial discrimination be accounted
for by a significantly higher percentage of minor?
ity students and faculty. For example, although
Figure 14. Misuse of research funds was reported most frequently by civil engineer? sociology has the highest percentage of U.S. mi?
ing faculty and least frequently by sociology faculty. Chemistry and microbiology fell
in between, with similar rates. nority students in our sample (11 percent), mi
550 American Scientist, Volume 81
This content downloaded from 134.84.192.102 on Tue, 01 Nov 2016 22:25:04 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms

crobiology has almost as many (9 percent).
Disciplinary variations, both in expecta?
tions about the consequences of reporting sus?
pected misconduct and in faculty's views
about their shared responsibility for the ethi?
cal conduct of their students and colleagues,
are also important for understanding the eth?
ical environment in graduate training and re?
search. Why, for example, are chemistry fac?
ulty more certain than faculty in civil
engineering, microbiology and sociology that
they could report suspected wrongdoing
without retaliation? Why, conversely, are civil
engineering faculty and students more certain they
would experience sanctions? In terms of
professional self-regulation, why do chem? istry
and microbiology faculty believe more
strongly than their counterparts in civil engi?
neering that they have a collective responsi?
bility for their students' ethical conduct?
What accounts for the fact that chemistry fac?
ulty believe they exercise such a responsibility
to a greater extent than do faculty in the other three
disciplines, or that sociology faculty be?
I chemistry I civil engineering
faculty faculty
misuse of privileged information
Figure 15. Reports of unauthorized use by faculty of
privileged information in connection with their own
research were relatively uncommon, but particularly so
among sociology faculty. Students were not asked
to respond in either this survey item or the one report?
ed in Figure 16.
only survey items referring to research poli?
cies, misuse of university or research funds
and trying to get by on the work of others?
I microbiology I sociology
faculty
commercial involvement
Figure 16. Failure to proper?
ly disclose commercial in?
volvement relating to one's
own research was reported
most frequently by civil en?
gineering faculty.
lieve they exercise the least amount? And what might be called employment miscon?
why, when their appraisals reflect a high de? duct?we found that such misconduct is sig? gree of
collective responsibility for their stu? nificantly more likely to be observed by dents, do
chemistry faculty believe more graduate students in departments whose fac? strongly than faculty
in the other three disci? ulty and students collaborate on publications. plines that they bear little
responsibility for Faculty members' observations of misconduct
their colleagues' conduct? are also linked with climate factors. In depart?
Our larger body of survey data, as well as ments whose members put their own inter? in-
depth interviews conducted with faculty ests first, compete for resources and are in and
graduate students, indicate that under? continual conflict, faculty witness significant?
standing the nature of disciplines and depart? ly more misconduct. The preferential treat?
ments will help to explain why certain types of ment of some students has the same effect on
ethical problems take place more frequently in faculty observations of misconduct. These
some fields and graduate programs than in types of findings suggest that attention to the
others and will, in turn, suggest strategies to quality of a department's climate and struc
address these problems. In addition to the spe?
cialized knowledge and techniques that distin?
guish them, academic disciplines have distinc?
tive cultures?that is, particular beliefs, norms, values,
and patterns of work and interpersonal
interaction that affect the behavior of individu?
als within the discipline. Thus, for example,
one could look not only at the importance that
different fields give to various types of mis?
conduct or questionable practices, but also at
what opportunities are provided by the nature
of the research training and research work.
The department is the local embodiment of
a discipline, and the climate of a depart?
ment?that is, the psychologically important
aspects of the work environment?also affects
the activities and attitudes of its members. For
example, we found that in highly competitive
departments?those in which students have
to compete for departmental resources as well
faculty students faculty students
ignoring research policies
as faculty time and attention?graduate stu?
dents are significantly more likely to observe
research and other types of misconduct by
their peers and faculty. When we considered
Figure 17. Ignoring university research policies (for example, policies on animal care, protection of human
subjects and biosafety) was reported most frequently by micro
biologists. One-third of both students and faculty reported exposure to this behavior on the part of faculty.
1993 November-December 551
This content downloaded from 134.84.192.102 on Tue, 01 Nov 2016 22:25:04 UTC

All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms

faculty students faculty students faculty students
getting by on other's work cheating
Figure 18. Reports of efforts of students to get by on the work of others were frequent Figure 19. Cheating in coursework by graduate stu?
in all the disciplines, and at least a fifth of faculty in all the disciplines had experi?dents was reported most commonly by civil engineer? enced the behavior
among their peers. One interesting result of this survey question ingstudents and faculty. Microbiology was the only
is that chemistry students reported low rates of this behavior among faculty but disciplinehigh in which fewer than a third of faculty said
rates among their peers. that they had seen this behavior by students.
ture?which have many alterable dimen?
sions?should be an important component of
preventive or remedial strategies to deal with
misbehavior.
Conclusions and Reflections
Our findings indicate that scientific misconduct,
as narrowly defined to include plagiarism and
data falsification, takes place less frequently
than other types of ethically wrong or question?
able behavior by faculty and graduate students in
the four disciplines mat we surveyed. At the
same time, however, exposure to plagiarism
and data falsification is not extremely rare. Also,
the data show clearly that substantial numbers of
students and faculty are encountering other types
of misconduct and a variety of question?
able research practices.
A point needs to be emphasized about
these findings: Because respondents reported
direct experience with each type of misconduct
predicted by those who focus on the dramatic
but rare instances that are publicly reported
and acted on.
Although we favor restrictive official defini?
tions of scientific misconduct with respect to
federal regulations and government involve?
ment in investigating and adjudicating alleged
incidents, our findings underscore the impor?
tance of not confining concerns about stan?
dards and conduct to fraud, falsification and
plagiarism. Because science and engineering
are human endeavors, it is unlikely that we
ever can design a fail-safe system that will pre?
vent all scientific and other forms of miscon?
duct. As other analyses of our data concerning the
effects of departmental structure and cli?
mate suggest, however, it should be possible
to alter some of the institutional conditions that
make misconduct more likely to happen, and
to improve the ways in which both suspected
and verified misconduct are handled. The sci?
separately, the data presented in the figures
do not reflect a faculty member's or student's
cumulative exposure to ethical problems.
When we accumulate reports of all types of
misconduct and questionable research prac?
tices by faculty and students, we find that 44
percent of students and 50 percent of faculty
have been exposed to two or more types. The
cumulative exposure of graduate students
and faculty to what they define as ethically
wrong or dubious behavior suggests that
there are significant challenges to the integrity
of academic science that reach directly into
the research enterprise. The pervasiveness of
these experiences is greater than would be
552 American Scientist, Volume 81
ence, social-science and engineering commu?
nities also need to develop a consensus on the
seriousness of questionable research
practices and articulate explicit standards for
acceptable behavior regarding these practices.
Serious and ongoing attention to the values,
ethical standards and actions connected with
misconduct, and to what should constitute
proper standards for various research practices, are
crucial tasks. As Walter Massey, former di?
rector of the National Science Foundation, has
stated, "Few things are more damaging to the
scientific enterprise than falsehoods?be they
the result of error, self-deception, sloppiness
and haste, or, in the worst case, dishonesty. It is
This content downloaded from 134.84.192.102 on Tue, 01 Nov 2016 22:25:04 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms

the paradox of research that the reliance on truth
is both the source of modern science and
engineering's enduring resilience and its in?
trinsic fragility."
References
Anderson, M. S., K. S. Louis and J. Earle. In press. Dis?
ciplinary and departmental effects on observations of
graduate student misconduct. Journal of Higher
Education.
Becher, T. 1987. The disciplinary shaping of the profes?
sion. In The Academic Profession, ed. B. Clark. Berkeley:
University of California Press.
Biglan, A. J. 1973. The characteristics of subject matter in
different academic areas. Journal of Applied Psychology
57:195-203.
Clark, B. 1983. The Higher Education System: Academic Or?
ganization in Cross-National Perspective. Berkeley: Uni?
versity of California Press.
LaFollette, M. C. 1992. Stealing into Print. Berkeley: Uni?
versity of California Press.
Louis, K. Sv M. S. Anderson and L. Rosenberg. 1993.
Academic misconduct and academic values: an exploration
of the contributing roles of productivity, entrepreneurship
and department climate. Paper presented at the Annual
Meeting of the American Educational and Research
Association, Atlanta, April 12-16.
Massey, W. 1992. National Science Foundation Annual Report
1991. Washington, DC: National Science Foundation.
Office of Inspector General. 1990. Survey Data on the Ex?
tent of Misconduct in Science and Engineering, National
Science Foundation OIG-90-3124.
Responsible Science. 1992. Ensuring the Integrity of the
Research Process, Volume I. Washington, DC: National
Academy Press.
Swazey, J. P., and S. R. Scher, eds. 1982. Whistleblowing in
Biomedical Research. Washington, DC: President's
Commission for the Study of Ethical Problems in
Medicine and Biomedical and Behavioral Research.
Van Maanen, J., and E. Schein. 1979. Toward a theory of
organizational socialization. In Research in Organiza?
tional Behavior, Volume 1, ed. B. Shaw. Greenwich,
Conn.: JAI Press.
Victor, B., and J. B. Cullen. 1988. The organizational ba?
sis of ethical work climates. Administrative Science
Quarterly 33:103.
IMPACTED fogrirtJRE. _
i- ' ~ - ^*-? ??-? 11
1993 November-December 553
This content downloaded from 134.84.192.102 on Tue, 01 Nov 2016 22:25:04 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
View publication stats