Samuel V. Bruton

The ethics and politics of policing plagiarism: a qualitative study of faculty views on student plagiarism and Turnitin®

Recently, the usage of plagiarism detection software such as Turnitin® has increased dramatically among university instructors. At the same time, academic criticism of this software’s employment has also increased. We interviewed 23 faculty members from various departments at a medium-sized, public university in the southeastern US to determine their perspectives on Turnitin® and student plagiarism. We wanted to discern if there are important disciplinary differences in how instructors define and handle plagiarism; how instructors use Turnitin®; and if instructors’ thinking aligns with ethical and political concerns commonly expressed in the academic literature. Despite varying attitudes towards Turnitin®, those interviewed did not differ significantly in their views as to what student plagiarism is or its seriousness, and typical objections to ‘policing’ plagiarism and Turnitin® had little resonance with interviewees. The majority viewed a substantial amount of plagiarism they encountered as unintentional and penalised only what they considered to be extreme versions of intentional plagiarism. However, often this contradicted the way they presented the concept of plagiarism in their syllabi and their classrooms. Surprisingly, these patterns were consistent among those who employed the software frequently and those who did not.

The Influence of Disclosure and Ethics Education on Perceptions of Financial Conflicts of Interest

This study explored how disclosure of financial conflicts of interest (FCOI) influences naïve or “lay” individuals’ perceptions of the ethicality of researcher conduct. On a between-subjects basis, participants read ten scenarios in which researchers disclosed or failed to disclose relevant financial conflicts of interest. Participants evaluated the extent to which each vignette represented a FCOI, its possible influence on researcher objectivity, and the ethics of the financial relationship. Participants were then asked if they had completed a college-level ethics course. Results indicated that FCOI disclosure significantly influenced participants’ perceptions of the ethicality of the situation, but only marginally affected perceptions of researcher objectivity and had no significant influence on perceptions of the existence of FCOIs. Participants who had previously completed a college-level ethics course appeared more sensitive to the importance of FCOI disclosure than those who lacked such background. This result suggests that formal ethical training may help individuals become more critical consumers of scientific research.

In Defense of the Questionable: Defining the Basis of Research Scientists’ Engagement in Questionable Research Practices:

National Institutes of Health principal investigators reported their perceptions of the ethical defensibility, prevalence in their field, and their personal willingness to engage in questionable research practices (QRPs). Using ethical defensibility ratings, an exploratory factor analysis yielded a two-factor solution: behaviors considered unambiguously ethically indefensible and behaviors whose ethical defensibility was more ambiguous. In addition, increasing perceptions that QRPs affect science predicted reduced acceptability of QRPs, whereas increasing beliefs that QRPs are normative or necessary for career success predicted increased acceptability of QRPs. Perceptions that QRPs are risky were unrelated to QRP acceptability but predicted reduced extramural funding (i.e., researchers’ lifetime extramural grants and total funding secured). These results identify risk (i.e., beliefs that QRPs are normative to stay competitive in one’s field) and protective factors (i.e., beliefs that QRPs have a significant negative impact on society) related to QRP endorsement that could inform educational interventions for training research scientists.

Financial Conflicts of Interest, Disclosure, and Academic Discipline.

Peer assessments of researchers’ financial conflicts of interest (FCOIs) are crucial to effective FCOI management. We sought to determine how academics perceive FCOI disclosure and whether their perceptions vary depending on discipline and educational backgrounds. Participants (faculty and staff members from a multi-disciplinary academic medical center) responded to a questionnaire involving 10 hypothetical scenarios in which researchers either disclosed or failed to disclose a financial conflict (between-participants manipulation). Participants viewed disclosure as important and believed that researchers’ objectivity would be affected by undisclosed FCOIs. In contrast to non-physicians, physicians showed greater recognition that the existence of an FCOI does not depend on its disclosure. This suggests that physicians are relatively well informed about FCOIs, which is likely attributable to more education about them.

Race and the extra-legal punishment of professional athletes

Abstract In recent years, major American sports teams and leagues have responded increasingly to players’ off-field, off-court wrongdoing by imposing extra-legal punishments (ELPs) on offending athletes. This paper focuses on an unexplored ethical concern raised by ELPs: teams’ and leagues’ economic incentive for racial bias in the imposed sanctions. In an experimental study, Black and White participants read a series of vignettes about fictional professional athletes who received ELPs for various off-field transgressions. Black participants evaluating punishments imposed on Black athletes found the ELPs inappropriate and overly punitive relative to punishments imposed on White or racially neutral athletes. Conversely, Whites assessing ELPs imposed on Whites found them too harsh. These findings suggest that the race of both perceiver and target influence lay persons’ judgements about ELPs, which raises questions about the ability and willingness of teams and leagues to impose such punishments fairly and consistently, given their business interests.

Grounds for Ambiguity: Justifiable Bases for Engaging in Questionable Research Practices

The current study sought to determine research scientists’ sensitivity to various justifications for engaging in behaviors typically considered to be questionable research practices (QRPs) by asking them to evaluate the appropriateness and ethical defensibility of each. Utilizing a within-subjects design, 107 National Institutes of Health principal investigators responded to an invitation to complete an online survey in which they read a series of research behaviors determined, in prior research, to either be ambiguous or unambiguous in their ethical defensibility. Additionally, each behavior was paired with either an ostensibly sound or unsound reason for the behavior. Consistent with hypotheses, the results indicated that scientists perceived QRPs as more appropriate and defensible when paired with a justifiable motive relative to when paired with a clearly unethical motive, particularly for QRPs that are more ambiguous in their ethicality. In fact, ambiguous QRPs were perceived as categorically defensible when given a justifiable motive. This suggests scientists are sensitive to contextual factors related to QRPs’ appropriateness, which could inform how institutions develop appropriate training modules for research integrity.

What’s it to me? Self-interest and evaluations of financial conflicts of interest

Disclosure has become the preferred way of addressing the threat to researcher objectivity arising from financial conflicts of interest (FCOIs). This article argues that the effectiveness of disclosure at protecting science from the corrupting effects of FCOIs—particularly the kind of disclosure mandated by US federal granting agencies—is more limited than is generally acknowledged. Current NIH and NSF regulations require disclosed FCOIs to be reviewed, evaluated, and managed by officials at researchers’ home institutions. However, these reviewers are likely to have institutional and personal interests of their own that may undermine the integrity of their evaluations. This paper presents experimental findings suggesting that such interests affect third-party assessments of FCOIs. Over 200 participants gauged the ethical significance of various hypothetical yet realistic FCOIs in academic research settings. Some of them were led to believe they had a small personal interest in allowing conflicted research to proceed, whereas others’ personal outcomes were unrelated to the conflicted research. The results show that motivated reasoning influences FCOI evaluations, such that those with personal interest in conflicted research provided more lenient evaluations of researcher FCOIs. These findings imply that the capacity of federally mandated FCOI disclosure procedures to enhance bias-free science is quite restricted.

Looks‐Based Hiring and Wrongful Discrimination

Popular clothing retailer Abercrombie and Fitch (A&F) is well‐known for hiring attractive store sales clerks. While the economic benefits of this hiring practice for the company are undeniable, many commentators contend that it constitutes wrongful discrimination against unattractive job seekers. In this article, I explore the ethics of A&F‐style lookism and challenge two common perspectives on this issue. I argue that on one hand, looks‐based hiring cannot be defended based on its economic benefits alone, as race‐based hiring also can be profitable in some circumstances. At the same time, I reject arguments that looks‐based hiring is not “job relevant” given its economic impact in many contexts. Through a comparison between race‐ and looks‐based hiring, I conclude that at least for businesses that are relevantly similar to A&F - firms for which lookism produces clear economic benefits - looks‐based hiring is permissible.