Abstract
A self-perceived lack of training in ethical theories and related pedagogy has kept many engineering faculty members from teaching data ethics, an important aspect of engineering research that has become more salient in recent years. This paper describes the development of a module, which includes concepts, cases, policies, and best practices, to support the teaching of ethical data practice. Based on a user-oriented design approach and a moral literacy framework, the module was designed to be used in different courses and co-curricular activities for students of varying levels of competence to improve their ability to identify and analyze ethical problems associated with the handling of research data. This work seeks to encourage ethical reflection on researchers’ data practice through the idea of an “ecology of data,” which highlights the co-production of data by multiple, interconnected, and heterogeneous actors. This paper also presents online and in-class evidence about the impact and limitations of the module, which is now available for interested researchers and instructors to browse and use.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
Notes
The module is available at https://sites.psu.edu/ethicsofdatamanagement/.
As an exception, a recent Research and Data Integrity (ReaDI) program at Columbia University demonstrates significant considerations of the learning needs of researchers in different disciplines and at different stages of the research career (Columbia University, 2018).
See the section “Cultivating Moral Literacy” for more details.
Given the pilot nature of the course implementation and the small sample size, the survey results should be considered indirect indicators of students’ experiences with the online module.
References
American Physical Society (APS). (2020). Publication practices case study: Authorship and collaboration. https://www.aps.org/programs/education/ethics/upload/Ethics-Case-Studies-Student-Edition.pdf. Accessed March 28, 2020.
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.
Ashford, E. (2000). Utilitarianism, integrity and partiality. The Journal of Philosophy, 97(8), 421–439. https://doi.org/10.5840/jphil200097834
Baker, K. S., & Bowker, G. C. (2007). Information ecology: Open system environment for data, memories, and knowing. Journal of Intelligent Information Systems, 29, 127–144. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10844-006-0035-7
Bero, B., & Kuhlman, A. (2011). Teaching ethics to engineers: Ethical decision making parallels the engineering design process. Science and Engineering Ethics, 17(3), 597–605. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11948-010-9213-7
Bero, L. A. (2005). Tobacco industry manipulation of research. Public Health Reports, 120, 200–208. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.phr.2004.04.016
Calhoun, C. (1995). Standing for something. The Journal of Philosophy, 92(5), 235–260. https://doi.org/10.2307/2940917
Columbia University. (2004) Data acquisition and management. Retrieved from http://ccnmtl.columbia.edu/projects/rcr/rcr_data/winResources.html.
Columbia University. (2018). The research and data integrity (ReaDI) program. Retrieved from https://research.columbia.edu/ReaDI-Program.
Cox, A. M., & Pinfield, S. (2014). Research data management and libraries: Current activities and future priorities. Journal of Librarianship and Information Science, 46(4), 299–316. https://doi.org/10.1177/0961000613492542
Cox, D., La Caze, M., & Levine, M. (2017) “Integrity” in The Stanford encyclopedia of philosophy.https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/spr2017/entries/integrity/. Accessed November 17, 2020.
Cushman, R. (2018). “Data management” in responsible conduct of research [RCR] (Social and behavioral). Collaborative Institutional Training Initiative (CITI). Retrieved from https://www.citiprogram.org/members/index.cfm?pageID=147.
Cutler, S., Xia, Y., Lissenden, C. J., Costanzo, F., Gluckman, B., & Litzinger, T. A. (2020). A problem-based curriculum in support of structured learning experiences to prepare Ph. D. candidates for independent research. 2020 American Society for Engineering Education Virtual Annual Conference, online.
Davenport, T. H., & Prusak, L. (1997). Information ecology: Mastering the information and knowledge environment. Oxford University Press.
DeMets, D. L. (1999). Statistics and ethics in medical research. Science and Engineering Ethics, 5(1), 97–117.
Federation of American Societies for Experimental Biology (FASEB). (2006). Shared responsibility, individual integrity: Scientists addressing conflicts of interest in biomedical research. Report. http://www.faseb.org/portals/2/pdfs/opa/faseb_coi_paper.pdf. Accessed March 28, 2020.
Frugoli, J., Etgen, A. M., & Kuhar, M. (2010). Developing and communicating responsible data management policies to trainees and colleagues. Science and Engineering Ethics, 16(4), 753–762. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11948-010-9219-1
Giffels, J., Vollmer, S. H., & Bird, S. J. (2010). Editors’ overview: Topics in the responsible management of research data. Science and Engineering Ethics, 16(4), 631–637. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11948-010-9243-1
Guillemin, M., & Gillam, L. (2004). Ethics, reflexivity, and “ethically important moments” in research. Qualitative Inquiry, 10(2), 261–280. https://doi.org/10.1177/1077800403262360
Harris, C. E. (2009). Is moral theory useful in practical ethics? Teaching Ethics, 10(1), 51–67.
Higgins, S. (2008). The DCC curation lifecycle model. International Journal of Digital Curation, 3(1), 134–140. https://doi.org/10.2218/ijdc.v2i2.30
Hollander, R., & Arenberg, C. R. (2009). Ethics education and scientific and engineering research: What’s been learned? What should be done? Summary of a workshop. The National Academies Press.
Jasanoff, S. (2004). States of knowledge: The co-production of science and the social order. Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203413845
Joshi, M., & Krag, S. S. (2010). Issues in data management. Science and Engineering Ethics, 16(4), 743–748. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11948-010-9223-5
Kaiser, D., & Wasserman, L. (2016, December). The Rockefeller Family Fund vs. Exxon. The New York Review of Books. https://www.nybooks.com/articles/2016/12/08/the-rockefeller-family-fund-vs-exxon/. Accessed March 28, 2020.
Litzinger, T. A., & Lattuca, L. R. (2014). Translating research to widespread practice in engineering education. In A. Johri & B. M. Olds (Eds.), Cambridge handbook of engineering education research (pp. 375–392). Cambridge University Press.
Lyon, D. (2014). Surveillance, Snowden, and big data: Capacities, consequences, critique. Big Data & Society, 1(2), 1–13. https://doi.org/10.1177/2053951714541861
Mayer-Schönberger, V., & Cukier, K. (2013). Big data: A revolution that will transform how we live, work, and think. Eamon Dolan/Houghton Mifflin Harcourt.
Metcalf, J., Keller, E. F., and Boyd, D. (2016). Perspectives on big data, ethics, and society. Retrieved from http://bdes.datasociety.net/council-output/perspectives-on-big-data-ethics-and-society/
Mulhearn, T. J., Steele, L. M., Watts, L. L., Medeiros, K. E., Mumford, M. D., & Connelly, S. (2017). Review of instructional approaches in ethics education. Science and Engineering Ethics, 23(3), 883–912. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11948-016-9803-0
Muskavitch, K. (2001). What is it and how is it investigated? Scientific misconduct. Research cases for use by the NIH community. https://oir.nih.gov/sites/default/files/uploads/sourcebook/documents/ethical_conduct/case_studies-2001.pdf. Accessed March 28, 2020.
Nadim, T. (2016). Data labours: How the sequence databases GenBank and EMBL-Bank make data. Science as Culture, 25(June), 1–24. https://doi.org/10.1080/09505431.2016.1189894
National Research Council (NRC). (1999). How people learning: Bridging research and practice. National Academy Press.
O’Rourke, M., & Crowley, S. J. (2013). Philosophical intervention and cross-disciplinary science: The story of the Toolbox Project. Synthese, 190(11), 1937–1954.
Olsthoorn, P. (2009). A critique of integrity: Has a commander a moral obligation to uphold his own principles? Journal of Military Ethics, 8(2), 90–104. https://doi.org/10.1080/15027570903037868
Oxford University Press. (2018). “Integrity.” English Oxford living dictionaries. Retrieved from https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/integrity
Pennsylvania State University. (2022). Scholarship and research integrity. Retrieved from https://online.stat.psu.edu/statprogram/ethics/research-integrity.
Phillips, T., Nestor, F., Beach, G., & Heitman, E. (2018). America COMPETES at 5 years: An analysis of research-intensive universities’ RCR training plans. Science and Engineering Ethics, 24(1), 227–249. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11948-017-9883-5
Pritchard, M. (2005). Teaching research ethics and working together—commentary on “Pedagogical objectives in teaching research ethics in science and engineering”. Science and Engineering Ethics, 11(3), 367–371. Retrieved from http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16190277
Raghavan, S. (2016) All in the interpretation. Online Ethics Center for Engineering and Science. https://www.onlineethics.org/Resources/Interpretation.aspx. Accessed March 28, 2020.
Rasko, J., & Power, C. (2015). What pushes scientists to lie? The disturbing but familiar story of Haruko Obokata. The Guardian. Retrieved from https://www.theguardian.com/science/2015/feb/18/haruko-obokata-stap-cells-controversy-scientists-lie
Resnik, D. B. (2008) Who owns your data?: Ethical issues in data management. Retrieved from https://www.ncsu.edu/grad/preparing-future-leaders/docs/Ethical_Issues_in_Data_Management_Handout.pdf
Ribes, D., & Jackson, S. J. (2013). Data bite man: The work of sustaining a long-term study. In L. Gitelman (Ed.), “Raw data” is an oxymoron (pp. 147–166). The MIT Press.
Ripley, E., Markowitz, M., Nichols-Casebolt, A., Williams, L., & Macrina, F. (2012). Guiding the next generation of NIH investigators in responsible conduct of research: The role of the mentor. Accountability in Research, 19(4), 209–219.
Rozier, K. Y., & Rozier, E. W. D. (2014). Reproducibility, correctness, and buildability: The three principles for ethical public dissemination of computer science and engineering research. In: IEEE international symposium on ethics in science, technology and engineering. https://doi.org/10.1109/ETHICS.2014.6893384
Schienke, E. W., Baum, S. D., Tuana, N., Davis, K. J., & Keller, K. (2011). Intrinsic ethics regarding integrated assessment models for climate management. Science and Engineering Ethics, 17(3), 503–523. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11948-010-9209-3
Schienke, E. W., Tuana, N., Brown, D. A., Davis, K. J., Keller, K., Shortle, J. S., Stickler, M., & Baum, S. D. (2009). The role of the national science foundation broader impacts criterion in enhancing research ethics pedagogy. Social Epistemology, 23(3–4), 317–336. https://doi.org/10.1080/02691720903364282
Skloot, R. (2010). The immortal life of Henrietta Lacks. Broadway Books.
Star, S. L., & Ruhleder, K. (1996). Steps toward an ecology of infrastructure: Design and access for large information spaces. Information Systems Research, 7(1), 111–134. https://doi.org/10.1287/isre.7.1.111
Tang, X., Mendieta, E., & Litzinger, T. A. (2017). Building a community of ethics educators in graduate engineering programs: Developing an ethics workshop following a user-oriented approach. American Society for Engineering Education Annual Conference 2017. Columbus, OH, USA.
Tang, X., Mendieta, E., & Litzinger, T. A. (2022). The ethics of data management. Retrieved from https://sites.psu.edu/ethicsofdatamanagement/.
Tene, O., & Polenetsky, J. (2013). Big data for all: Privacy and user control in the age of analytics. Northwestern Journal of Technology and Intellectual Property. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-12275-0_39
Todd, E. M., Torrence, B. S., Watts, L. L., Mulhearn, T. J., Connelly, S., & Mumford, M. D. (2017). Effective practices in the delivery of research ethics education: A qualitative review of instructional methods. Accountability in Research, 24(5), 297–321.
Tractenberg, R. E., Russell, A. J., Morgan, G. J., FitzGerald, K. T., Collmann, J., Vinsel, L., Steinmann, M., & Dolling, L. M. (2015). Using ethical reasoning to amplify the reach and resonance of professional codes of conduct in training big data scientists. Science and Engineering Ethics, 21(6), 1485–1507. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11948-014-9613-1
Tuana, N. (2007). Conceptualizing moral literacy. Journal of Educational Administration, 45(4), 364–378. https://doi.org/10.1108/09578230710762409
Tuana, N., & Vasko, S. (2022). STEM modules: Moral literacy. Retrieved from https://rockethics.psu.edu/stem-modules/moral-literacy/.
Turns, J., Atman, C. J., & Adams, R. (2000). Concept maps for engineering education: A cognitively motivated tool supporting varied assessment functions. IEEE Transactions on Education, 43(2), 164–173.
Vardeman, S. B., & Morris, M. D. (2003). Statistics and ethics. The American Statistician, 57(1), 21–26. https://doi.org/10.1198/0003130031072
Watts, L. L., Medeiros, K. E., Mulhearn, T. J., Steele, L. M., Connelly, S., & Mumford, M. D. (2017). Are ethics training programs improving? A meta-analytic review of past and present ethics instruction in the sciences. Ethics & Behavior, 27(5), 351–384.
Whitbeck, C. (1995). Teaching ethics to scientists and engineers: Moral agents and moral problems. Science and Engineering Ethics, 1(3), 299–308.
Acknowledgements
This work was supported by funding from the Rock Ethics Institute and the Leonhard Center for the Enhancement of Engineering Education at The Pennsylvania State University.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Additional information
Publisher's Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Tang, X., Mendieta, E. & Litzinger, T.A. Developing an Online Data Ethics Module Informed by an Ecology of Data Perspective. Sci Eng Ethics 28, 21 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11948-022-00374-5
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11948-022-00374-5