Science and Engineering Ethics

, Volume 18, Issue 3, pp 551–555

Ethical Decision Making in the Conduct of Research: Role of Individual, Contextual and Organizational Factors

Commentary on “Science, Human Nature, and a New Paradigm for Ethics Education”
Commentary

Abstract

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.

Keywords

Ethics Decision making Models Factors Education 

References

  1. 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.Google Scholar
  2. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Brady, F. N., & Wheeler, G. E. (1996). An empirical study of ethical predispositions. Journal of Business Ethics, 15, 927–940.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Jeffers, B. R. (2005). Research environments that promote integrity. Nursing Research, 54, 63–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Jones, T. M. (1991). Ethical decision making by individuals in organizations: An issue-contingent model. Academy of Management Review, 16, 366–395.Google Scholar
  9. Lampe, M. (2012). Science, human nature, and a new paradigm for ethics education. Science and Engineering Ethics, 18 (this issue).Google Scholar
  10. 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.Google Scholar
  11. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Martinson, B. C., Anderson, M. S., & De Vries, R. (2005). Scientists behaving badly. Nature, 435(7043), 737–738.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. National Institute of Medicine. (2002). Integrity in scientific research: Creating an environment that promotes responsible conduct of research. Washington, DC: National Research Council.Google Scholar
  17. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Poldrack, R. A. (2006). Can cognitive processes be inferred from neuroimaging data? TRENDS in Cognitive Sciences, 10(2), 59–63.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Rest, J. R. (1979). Development in judging moral issues. Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press.Google Scholar
  21. Rest, J. R. (1986). Moral development: Advances in research and theory. New York: Praeger Press.Google Scholar
  22. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Steneck, N. H. (2006). Fostering integrity in research: Definitions, current knowledge and future directions. Science and Engineering Ethics, 12, 53–74.Google Scholar
  25. Trevino, L. K. (1986). Ethical decision making in organizations: A person-situation interactionist model. Academy of Management Review, 11, 601–617.Google Scholar
  26. Trevino, L. K., Weaver, G. R., & Reynolds, S. J. (2006). Behavioral ethics in organizations: A review. Journal of Management, 32, 951–990.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of PsychologyOld Dominion UniversityNorfolkUSA

Personalised recommendations