Advertisement

Journal of Academic Ethics

, Volume 8, Issue 4, pp 285–300 | Cite as

Ethics in the Humanities: Findings from Focus Groups

  • Cheryl K. Stenmark
  • Alison L. Antes
  • Laura E. Martin
  • Zhanna Bagdasarov
  • James F. Johnson
  • Lynn D. Devenport
  • Michael D. Mumford
Article

Abstract

This project examined the ethical issues faced by academics and professionals in the Humanities. We conducted focus groups to gather information about the ethical concerns in these fields and used the qualitative data arising from the discussions to create a taxonomy that represents the structure of ethical issues in the Humanities. A key implication of our findings is that while the focus of ethics research and interventions has been primarily on the sciences and engineering, academics and professionals in other fields also encounter some unique critical ethical dilemmas that require further research and methods of intervention.

Keywords

Integrity Ethics Ethics taxonomy Focus groups 

Notes

Acknowledgment

We would like to thank the panel members who participated in this project. We would also like to acknowledge the Graduate College for providing the grants for compensating participants.

References

  1. Bechtel, H. K., & Pearson, W. (1985). Deviant scientists and scientific deviance. Deviant Behavior, 6, 237–252.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Calame, B. (2006). Preventing a second Jayson Blair. The New York Times. Retrieved from http://www.nytimes.com. June 18.
  3. De Vries, R., Anderson, M. S., & Martinson, B. C. (2006). Normal misbehavior: scientists talk about the ethics of research. Journal of Empirical Research on Human Research Ethics, 1, 43–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Fleishman, E. A., Mumford, M. D., Zaccaro, S. J., Levin, K. Y., Korotkin, A. L., & Hein, M. B. (1991). Taxonomic efforts in the description of leader behavior: a synthesis and functional interpretation. The Leadership Quarterly, 2, 245–287.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Goldberg, L., & Greenberg, M. (1994). A survey of ethical conduct in risk management: environmental economists. Ethics and Behavior, 4, 331–343.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Helton-Fauth, W., Gaddis, B., Scott, G., Mumford, M., Devenport, L., Connelly, S., et al. (2003). A new approach to assessing ethical conduct in scientific work. Accountability in Research, 10, 205–228.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Italie, H., & Mandak, J. (2009). Shepard Fairey admits faking evidence in AP case. The Huffington Post. Retrieved from http://www.huffingtonpost.com.October 19.
  8. Kennedy, R. (2009). Artist sues the A.P. over Obama image. The New York Times. Retrieved from http://www.nytimes.com.February 9.
  9. Kligyte, V., Marcy, R. T., Sevier, S. T., Godfrey, E. S., & Mumford, M. D. (2008). A qualitative approach to responsible conduct of research (RCR) training development: identification of metacognitive strategies. Science and Engineering Ethics, 14, 3–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Kochan, C. A., & Budd, J. M. (1992). The persistence of fraud in the literature. Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 43, 488–493.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Lewis, M. (2002). Doris Kearns Goodwin and the credibility gap. Forbes. Retrieved from http://www.forbes.com. February 27.
  12. Marshall, E. (1996). Fraud strikes top genome lab. Science, 274, 908–910.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Martinson, B. C., Anderson, M. S., & De Vries, R. (2005). Scientists behaving badly. Nature, 435, 737–738.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 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, 319–345.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Mumford, M. D., Connelly, M. S., Brown, R. P., Murphy, S. T., Hill, J. H., Antes, A. L., et al. (2008). A sensemaking approach to ethics training for scientists: preliminary evidence of training effectiveness. Ethics and Behavior, 18(4), 315–399.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Mumford, M. D., Antes, A. L., Beeler, C., & Caughron, J. (2009). On the corruptions of scientists: The influence of field, environment, and personality. In R. J. Burke & C. L. Cooper (Eds.), Research companion to corruption in organization (pp.145–170).Google Scholar
  17. National Institutes of Health. (2009). Summary of the FY2010 President’s Budget. Retrieved June 3, 2009, from http://officeofbudget.od.nih.gov/UI/2010/Summary%20of%20FY%202010%20President%27s%20Budget.pdf. May 7.
  18. Ng, D. (2009). Shepard Fairey admits to wrongdoing in Associated Press lawsuit. Los Angeles Times. Retrieved from http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/culturemonster/2009/10/shepard-fairey-admits-to-wrongdoing-in-associated-press-lawsuit.html. October 16.
  19. Resnik, D. B. (2003). From Baltimore to Bell labs: reflections on two decades of debate about scientific misconduct. Accountability in Research, 10, 123–135.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Steneck, N. H. (2007). ORI introduction to the responsible conduct of research. Washington DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.Google Scholar
  21. Times reporter who resigned leaves a long trail of deception. (2003). The New York Times. Retrieved from http://www.nytimes.com/2003/05/11/national/11PAPE.html?pagewanted=1. May 11.
  22. Washburn, J. J. (2008). Encouraging research collaboration through ethical and fair authorship: a model policy. Ethics and Behavior, 18, 44–58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  • Cheryl K. Stenmark
    • 1
    • 2
  • Alison L. Antes
    • 1
    • 3
  • Laura E. Martin
    • 1
    • 4
  • Zhanna Bagdasarov
    • 1
  • James F. Johnson
    • 1
  • Lynn D. Devenport
    • 1
  • Michael D. Mumford
    • 1
  1. 1.Center for Applied Social ResearchThe University of OklahomaNormanUSA
  2. 2.Department of Psychology, Sociology, and Social WorkAngelo State UniversitySan AngeloUSA
  3. 3.Northern Kentucky UniversityHighland HeightsUSA
  4. 4.Midwestern State UniversityWichita FallsUSA

Personalised recommendations