Patricia Keith-Spiegel

Academic Integrity as an Institutional Issue

Academic dishonesty among students is not confined to the dynamics of the classrooms in which it occurs. The institution has a major role in fostering academic integrity. Ways that institutions can have a significant impact on attitudes toward and knowledge about academic integrity as well as reducing the incidence of academic dishonesty are described. These include the content of an effective academic honesty policy, campus-wide programs designed to foster integrity, and the development of a campus-wide ethos that encourages integrity.

The IRB Paradox: Could the Protectors Also Encourage Deceit?

The efforts of some institutional review boards (IRBs) to exercise what is viewed as appropriate oversight may contribute to deceit on the part of investigators who feel unjustly treated. An organizational justice paradigm provides a useful context for exploring why certain IRB behaviors may lead investigators to believe that they have not received fair treatment. These feelings may, in turn, lead to intentional deception by investigators that IRBs will rarely detect. Paradoxically, excessive protective zeal by IRBs may actually encourage misconduct by some investigators. The authors contend that, by fostering a climate in which investigators perceive that they receive fair and unbiased treatment, IRBs optimize the likelihood of collegial compliance with appropriate participant protections.

Peers nip misconduct in the bud

A new survey shows that informal intervention can often avert much irresponsible scientific behaviour, and is not as risky as people might fear, say Gerald Koocher and Patricia Keith-Spiegel.

When Demand Exceeds Supply: Second-Order Criteria Used by Graduate School Selection Committees:

The three primary criteria used to evaluate applicants by doctoral selection committees—grade point average, Graduate Record Examination scores, and letters of recommendation—may fail to narrow the field to the small number of slots available. A survey of doctoral selection committee members identified the relative importance of the next level of selection criteria. Among the most important are research experience, “good match” factors, and writing skills. Among the least important are ability to speak a language other than English, geographical origins of applicants, and “legacy.” Few differences were found between selection committee members from clinical/counseling programs and experimental programs, underscoring the importance of undergraduate research opportunities and adequate faculty advising.

Teaching psychologists and the new APA ethics code: do we fit in?

The new American Psychological Association (APA) ethics code (APA, 1992) creates dilemmas of both image and substance for teaching psychologists. Items specific to teaching psychologists reflect housekeeping matters of lesser importance and situations over which teaching psychologists have little control. Teachers of psychology are sometimes inappropriately grouped with other types of psychologists. Freedom of inquiry and communication are curtailed in ambiguous ways, and the standards expected of teachers in the academy are set a mediocre level. Although the new code contains some improvements over the previous code (APA, 1990)--especially in the areas of multiple relationships, prohibitions against sex with students, respect for differences among students, and authorship rights retained by students--numerous recommendations for future revision are strongly recommended.

Student Response to a Collective Penalty for Reported Cheating: A Case Study

An instructors decision to drop an exam score and to assign a penalty to all class members because no one was willing to identify students who allegedly cheated is described, including how the class members felt about the incident. For the most part, students held the cheaters responsible for their penalties. The instructor received only slightly lower student evaluations, as compared to the 2 other courses she taught that year.