Melissa S. Anderson

Scientists behaving badly

To protect the integrity of science, we must look beyond falsification, fabrication and plagiarism, to a wider range of questionable research practices, argue Brian C. Martinson, Melissa S. Anderson and Raymond de Vries.Own upIn a questionnaire-based survey of US biomedical researchers, respondents admitted to a range of dubious practices. Transgressions included failing to present data contradicting ones own research (6%) and ignoring data based on a ‘gut feeling’ that it was wrong (15%). Writing on the survey, Martinson et al. call this picture of misbehaviour “striking in its breadth and prevalence”.

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

Purpose The authors examine training in the responsible conduct of research and mentoring in relation to behaviors that may compromise the integrity of science. Method The analysis is based on data from the authors’ 2002 national survey of 4,160 early-career and 3,600 midcareer biomedical and social science researchers who received research support from the U.S. National Institutes of Health. The authors used logistic regression analysis to examine associations between receipt of separate or integrated training in research ethics, mentoring related to ethics and in general, and eight categories of ethically problematic behavior. Analyses controlled for gender, type of doctoral degree, international degree, and disciplinary field. Results Responses were received from 1,479 early-career and 1,768 midcareer scientists, yielding adjusted response rates of 43% and 52%, respectively. Results for early-career researchers: Training in research ethics was positively associated with problematic behavior in the data category. Mentoring related to ethics and research, as well as personal mentoring, decreased the odds of researchers’ engaging in problematic behaviors, but mentoring on financial issues and professional survival increased these odds. Results for midcareer researchers: Combined separate and integrated training in research ethics was associated with decreased odds of problematic behavior in the categories of policy, use of funds, and cutting corners. Ethics mentoring was associated with lowered odds of problematic behavior in the policy category. Conclusions The effectiveness of training in obviating problematic behavior is called into question. Mentoring has the potential to influence behavior in ways that both increase and decrease the likelihood of problematic behaviors.

Scientists’ Perceptions of Organizational Justice and Self-Reported Misbehaviors

Policymakers concerned about maintaining the integrity of science have recently expanded their attention from a focus on misbehaving individuals to characteristics of the environments in which scientists work. Little empirical evidence exists about the role of organizational justice in promoting or hindering scientific integrity. Our findings indicate that when scientists believe they are being treated unfairly they are more likely to behave in ways that compromise the integrity of science. Perceived violations of distributive and procedural justice were positively associated with self-reports of misbehavior among scientists.

Becoming a Scientist: The Effects of Work-Group Size and Organizational Climate

The future of the scientific enterprise is vested in the next generation of scientists who are currently enrolled in doctoral programs and fellowships in the nations universities. Because scientific education occurs in the scientific milieu, graduate students and postdoctoral fellows are directly influenced by the organizational and contextual forces driving the conduct of scientific research. The purpose of this research was to examine the impact of industrial research support, work-group size, and organizational climate on the productivity of graduate students and postdocs and their subsequent willingness to share their research with the scientific community. In order to address this issue, we conducted a national survey of a random sample of 2,000 graduate students and postdoctoral fellows in the life sciences, chemical engineering, and computer science. The results of this survey show that organizational climate (as measured by multiitem scales reflecting the amount of collaboration, competition, individualism, and openness) and work-group size are significantly related to the productivity of students as well as to their willingness to share their research results with others. In addition, we found significant differences and similarities between scientific fields and between doctoral students and postdoctoral fellows. Finally, our data suggest that the presence of industrial funding enhances productivity and does not detract from willingness to share.

Conflict in academic departments: An analysis of disputes over faculty promotion and tenure

Because the academic department is the foundational unit of U.S. universities, conflict in that setting is both theoretically and practically important. This analysis focuses on divisiveness in votes for promotion and tenure in departments at a large research university. The findings suggest that the departments most likely to experience very split voting patterns are those with larger instructional loads for faculty, low levels of internal curricular specialization, and “soft” disciplinary paradigms. The implications of these results for research and practice are discussed.

Collaboration, the doctoral experience, and the departmental environment

This study examines department-level effects of collaboration in graduate programs on students’ doctoral experiences and the broader departmental environment. The analysis is based on the survey responses of more than 2,400 doctoral students and faculty from ninety-eight research universities in the United States. The findings suggest clearly salutary effects of collaborative context on doctoral students’ preparation for research careers and on the department’s environment for academic work.

The importance of organizational justice in ensuring research integrity

The professional behavior of scientists, for good or ill, is likely associated with their perceptions of whether they are treated fairly in their work environments, including their academic department and university and by relevant regulatory bodies. These relationships may also be influenced by their own personal characteristics, such as being overcommitted to their work, and by the interactions between these factors. Theory also suggests that such associations may be mediated by negative or positive affect. We examined these issues using data from a national, mail-based survey administered in 2006 and 2007 to 5,000 randomly selected faculty from biomedical and social science departments at 50 top-tier research universities in the United States. We found that perceptions of justice in ones workplace (organizational justice) are positively associated with self-report of “ideal” behaviors and negatively associated with self-report of misbehavior and misconduct. By contrast, researchers who perceive that they are being unfairly treated are less likely to report engaging in “ideal” behaviors and more likely to report misbehavior and misconduct. Overcommitment to ones work is also associated with negative affect and interacts with perceptions of unfair treatment in ways that are associated with higher self-report of misbehavior. Thus, perceptions of fair treatment in the work environment appear to play important roles in fostering—or undermining—research integrity.

Academic Misconduct and Values: The Department's Influence.

Abstract: This paper analyzes survey data of faculty members in four disciplines to explore the effect of patterns of faculty behavior and attitudes within departments on the departmental rates of observed misconduct and espoused scientific research values. The data suggest that the incidence of misconduct is best predicted by department climate variables, while adherance to “traditional” academic research values is affected not only by climate but also by departmental research productivity and levels of entrepreneurial behavior among faculty members.

Research Integrity and Misconduct in the Academic Profession

Integrity in research is fundamental to the advancement of knowledge, for the public’s support of research, and the autonomy of the academic profession. Misconduct in the forms of fabrication, falsification, and plagiarism introduces error and misrepresentation into the scientific record. This chapter reviews the history of research integrity and misconduct in the United States, as well as the nature and prevalence of misconduct. It then turns to factors associated with misconduct and efforts to promote integrity, which include policy and regulation, normative pressure, codes of conduct, training, and mentoring.

Equity Issues in Higher Education Outcomes

In the United States a college education has long been viewed as a passkey to advancement, prosperity, and economic security. Over the course of the nation’s history, higher education has become accessible to more and more people. What was in colonial times an experience closed to all but the white male offspring of the nation’s most educated and prosperous Christians has become an experience open to virtually any high school graduate from virtually any background (Trow 1970). During this transformation, the higher education system came to be seen as not only a provider of social and economic opportunity for individuals but also a critical element in the national quest for equity of opportunity across socioeconomic, gender, and racial/ethnic groups. Yet it is important to acknowledge and to examine critically the difference between higher education’s undeniable legal-bureaucratic openness to the masses and the functional-operational openness of its benefits to all. Accordingly, this chapter reviews evidence from the research literature to assess how well higher education is performing its role as “the great equalizer” for society.