Ethical Decision Making in the Conduct of Research: Role of Individual, Contextual and Organizational Factors
- Philip J. Langlais
- … show all 1 hide
Rent the article at a discountRent now
* Final gross prices may vary according to local VAT.Get Access
Despite the importance of scientific integrity to the well-being of society, recent findings suggest that training and mentoring in the responsible conduct of research are not very reliable or effective inhibitors of research misbehavior. Understanding how and why individual scientists decide to behave in ways that conform to or violate norms and standards of research is essential to the development of more effective training programs and the creation of more supportive environments. Scholars in business management, psychology, and other disciplines have identified many important factors that affect ethical behavior, including individual, contextual, and organizational factors. Surprisingly little research has been conducted to examine the role of these factors in either the development of ethical decision-making skills, or their applicability to ethical issues commonly encountered in research and other scholarly and professional activities. Interdisciplinary approaches combined with research and discipline relevant paradigms should greatly enhance understanding of the individual contextual and organizational factors involved in ethical and unethical research conduct. Such studies will inform and facilitate the development of more effective ethics education programs in the sciences and engineering professions.
- Anderson, M. S. (2001). What would get you in trouble: Doctoral students’ conceptions of science and its norms. In Proceedings: Investigating Research Integrity, pp. 19–25.
- 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, 853–860. CrossRef
- Brady, F. N., & Wheeler, G. E. (1996). An empirical study of ethical predispositions. Journal of Business Ethics, 15, 927–940. CrossRef
- Brown, S., & Kalichman, M. (1998). Effects of training the responsible conduct of research: A survey of graduate students in experimental sciences. Science and Engineering Ethics, 4, 487–498. CrossRef
- Geller, G., Boyce, A., Ford, D. E., & Sugarman, J. (2010). Beyond “Compliance”: The role of institutional culture in promoting research integrity. Academic Medicine, 85, 1296–1302. CrossRef
- Greene, J. D., Sommerville, R. B., Nystrom, L. E., Darley, J. M., & Cohen, J. D. (2001). An fMRI investigation of emotional engagement in moral judgment. Science, 293, 2105–2108. CrossRef
- Jeffers, B. R. (2005). Research environments that promote integrity. Nursing Research, 54, 63–70. CrossRef
- Jones, T. M. (1991). Ethical decision making by individuals in organizations: An issue-contingent model. Academy of Management Review, 16, 366–395.
- Lampe, M. (2012). Science, human nature, and a new paradigm for ethics education. Science and Engineering Ethics, 18 (this issue).
- Lefkowitz, J. (2009). Individual and organizational antecedents of misconduct in organizations: What do we (believe that we) know, and on what bases do we (believe that we) know it? In R. J. Burke & C. L. Cooper (Eds.), Research companion to corruption in organizations. Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar Publ. Ltd.
- Loe, T. W., Ferrel, L., & Mansfield, P. (2000). A review of empirical studies assessing ethical decision making in business. Journal of Business Ethics, 25, 185–204. CrossRef
- Martin, K. D., & Cullen, J. B. (2006). Continuities and extensions of ethical climate theory: A meta-analytic review. Journal of Business Ethics, 69, 175–194. CrossRef
- Martinson, B. C., Anderson, M. S., Crain, A. L., & De Vries, R. (2006). Scientists’ perceptions of organizational justice and self-reported misbehaviors. Journal of Empirical Research on Human Research Ethics, 1, 51–66. CrossRef
- Martinson, B. C., Anderson, M. S., & De Vries, R. (2005). Scientists behaving badly. Nature, 435(7043), 737–738. CrossRef
- Mumford, M. D., Devenport, L. D., Brown, R. P., Connelly, S., Murphy, S. T., Hill, J. H., et al. (2006). Validation of ethical decision making measures: Evidence for a new set of measures. Ethics and Behavior, 16(4), 319–345. CrossRef
- National Institute of Medicine. (2002). Integrity in scientific research: Creating an environment that promotes responsible conduct of research. Washington, DC: National Research Council.
- O’Fallon, M. J., & Butterfield, K. D. (2005). A review of the empirical ethical decision-making literature: 1996–2003. Journal of Business Ethics, 59, 375–413. CrossRef
- Pearsall, M. J., & Ellis, A. P. J. (2011). Thick as thieves: The effects of ethical orientation and psychological safety on unethical team behavior. Journal of Applied Psychology, 96, 401–411. CrossRef
- Poldrack, R. A. (2006). Can cognitive processes be inferred from neuroimaging data? TRENDS in Cognitive Sciences, 10(2), 59–63. CrossRef
- Rest, J. R. (1979). Development in judging moral issues. Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press.
- Rest, J. R. (1986). Moral development: Advances in research and theory. New York: Praeger Press.
- Reynolds, S. J. (2006). Moral awareness and ethical predispositions: Investigating the role of individual differences in the recognition of moral issues. Journal of Applied Psychology, 91, 233–243. CrossRef
- Sims, R. L. K., & Keon, T. L. (1999). Determinants of ethical decision-making: The relationship of the perceived organizational environment. Journal of Business Ethics, 19, 393–404. CrossRef
- Steneck, N. H. (2006). Fostering integrity in research: Definitions, current knowledge and future directions. Science and Engineering Ethics, 12, 53–74.
- Trevino, L. K. (1986). Ethical decision making in organizations: A person-situation interactionist model. Academy of Management Review, 11, 601–617.
- Trevino, L. K., Weaver, G. R., & Reynolds, S. J. (2006). Behavioral ethics in organizations: A review. Journal of Management, 32, 951–990. CrossRef
- Ulrich, C. M., Soeken, I. K. L., & Miller, N. (2003). Ethical conflict associated with managed care: View of nurse practitioners. Nursing Research, 52, 168–175. CrossRef
- Ethical Decision Making in the Conduct of Research: Role of Individual, Contextual and Organizational Factors
Science and Engineering Ethics
Volume 18, Issue 3 , pp 551-555
- Cover Date
- Print ISSN
- Online ISSN
- Springer Netherlands
- Additional Links
- Decision making
- Author Affiliations
- 1. Department of Psychology, Old Dominion University, 130C Mills Godwin Bldg., Norfolk, VA, 23520-0267, USA