Professional Ethics in Academia: Ethical Research Dilemmas for PhD Students

Lorraine Eden, Texas A&M University

Presentation at the AOM International Management Division Doctoral Student Consortium, Vancouver, August 8, 2015

1

2

3

research!

Outline

4

I. Lifecycle of a PhD StudentII. Research Dilemmas along the

TimelineIII. Ten Mini-Cases: PhD Students and

Research EthicsIV. Where to Learn More?V. The BAM Ethics Guide: Key Advice for

Ethical Research

I. Lifecycle of a PhD Student

5

6

Lifecycle of PhD student research roles and activities

7

• Each of these research roles and activities creates potential ethical pitfalls for doctoral students. I summarize the stages as:1. Entry – admission to doctoral studies2. Research

o Course worko Faculty led projects o Student led projects

3. Presentations – presentation of research at different venues

4. Publication – publication of research in different outlets5. Dissertation – dissertation committee, topic, research,

writing, defense6. Exit - post-dissertation research activities after graduation

II. Research Pitfalls along the Timeline

III. Ten Mini-Cases: Ethical Dilemmas for PhD Students

8

Each of the 10 mini-cases below describes a possible ethicaldilemma facing the PhD student.

1. Is there an ethical dilemma here? If yes, what is it and why?

2. What are the available options facing the PhD student?

3. What ethical course of action do you recommend and why?

Source: Eden, Lorraine and Kevin McSweeney. Twenty Questions: Ethical Research Dilemmas for PhD Students. AOM The Ethicist ( October 2014).

1. Who owns class term papers?

9

Nicolas writes a term paper for his PhD seminar and presents it in class. Barbara, another PhD student in the class, is assigned to critique the term paper. Nicolas does not get a very good grade on the term paper and, after the class is over, he decides the term paper needs too much work to bring the paper up to publishable quality so he puts the paper on the “backburner.” Barbara, however, really likes this topic and writes her own paper, which she submits to the annual Academy of Management conference. Barbara’s paper is accepted for presentation at the meetings. Nicolas sees Barbara’s paper on the AOM conference program and realizes that her paper is on the same topic as his term paper. He accuses her of stealing his term paper.

2. Errors in the data!

10

Justin and Kara are working with Professor X on a jointpaper. They are on a tight deadline; submission for theannual Academy of Management meetings is only twoweeks away.

Justin is tasked to collect some missing data for theirempirical work. He is also in the middle of exams and soquickly gathers the data without checking the numbers.

Kara discovers that the data are flawed, but realizes that ifshe brings this to the attention of Professor X they will likelymiss the window for submitting the paper to the AOMmeetings.

3. Why is he a co-author and not me?

11

Xiao is assigned as a research assistant to Professor Microand spends the semester gathering and analyzing data forone of Professor Micro’s projects. Kevin is doing the samething for Professor Macro.

At the end of the semester, Professor Micro invites Xiao tobe a co-author on a paper that will be based on their jointresearch; Professor Macro does not invite Kevin to be a co-author on a paper that will be based on their joint research.

Xiao and Kevin discover the different treatment when theyget together to discuss their research assignments thissemester.

4. Doubling up on co-authored papers

12

Two PhD students, James and Willem, are office mates. Eachof them is working on a single-authored paper and theyoccasionally discuss their research ideas.

They both know it is very important for their job search tohave multiple papers on their CVs. James and Willem realizethat, if they each added the other as a co-author, they wouldgenerate mutual benefits for each other: doubling theirchances of a publication and beefing up their resumes whenthey enter the job market.

They agree to go ahead and add each other has a co-authorto the other’s papers.

5. Changing the order of authors

13

Andrew, Barbara and Cameron are co-researchers on a project.All three are PhD students: Andrew and Cameron are in their2nd year; Barbara is on the job market.

When they started the project, they agreed that the order ofauthors would be alphabetical because they each werecontributing equally to the project.

The paper is done and they are getting ready to submit it to ajournal. Barbara asks if they can change the order of authors sothat she can be first author. Barbara argues that she is on thejob market and so needs the publication more than they do.Barbara promises to return the favor by being third author onthe next two papers coming out of their work together.

6. Have paper, will travel

14

Kayla has been working for a year, building a dataset for herdissertation. This dataset extends the original datasetprovided by her dissertation chair by adding new variablesand years. Kayla’s dissertation chair has several publicationsout of the original dataset. Kayla discovers, to her horror,that there is a major error in the variables constructed in thedataset and that the error is large enough to potentiallyinvalidate the papers that her chair has already published.Kayla does not know whether (1) she should fix the error inher own dataset, (2) tell her chair about the problem and (3)whether to inform the journals where the papers werepublished that they are fundamentally flawed.

7. The rule of three

15

Rebecca is the lead author on a paper with Tomas and Jean Luis.Rebecca submits their co-authored paper for presentation at theAOM meetings without asking them first. Jean Luis is also part ofthree other teams that each submitted a paper to the AOMmeetings. Jean Luis has therefore violated the Rule of Three sincehis name is on four papers submitted to the AOM meetings.

When Jean Luis tells Rebecca about this, she suggests a simple fix:

She will take Jean Luis’s name off their AOM submission now. If thepaper is accepted and they present it, they will put Jean Luis’s nameback on the paper and slide presentation; he can attend the sessionand present with them. They will tell everyone in the session thatJean Luis is a co-author.

8. Dissertation chair co-author?

16

Jordan’s dissertation chair is an internationally famousscholar, traveling so much that she is seldom available tomeet with Jordan. As a result, Jordan had basically writtenhis dissertation by himself, with little to no help from hischair.

When Jordan submits the dissertation to his chair, she tellsJordan that he must agree to put her name on allpublications coming out of his dissertation or she will notsign off on the dissertation.

9. Publishing part of your thesis in an edited book

17

Javier's dissertation at a US university is well underway with onemain chapter and two supporting chapters. Javier’s formerprofessor in Mexico invites him to publish one of Javier’sdissertation chapters in the professor’s edited book. Javier willhave a quick publication, making him more attractive on the jobmarket. Javier will also have done a favor to his former professorwho wrote a strong letter that helped Javier get into the PhDprogram. Since the book will be in Spanish, there is little chancethat Javier’s chapter will be read by non-Spanish speakingscholars. Therefore, Javier does not think publishing hisdissertation chapter in this edited book will create a problem forhim submitting the chapter for publication in a scholarly journalafterwards.

10. Professor-Student contracts

18

Stefanie's dissertation chair offers to let her use his hand-collected private dataset. Her chair requests in return that hebe a co-author on all publications by Stefanie using his dataset.She agrees verbally to do this.

They write several papers together. Ten years later, Stefaniewrites and publishes a single-authored paper using her chair’soriginal dataset. Stefanie believe she does not have to give co-authorship because the theory development is hers and"enough is enough"; 10 years of joint work is long enough topay for the use of the original dataset.

Stefanie’s chair is furious, arguing they had an agreement thatall published work using the dataset would be joint authored.

IV. Research Ethics Guides – where can you go to learn more?

• AOM Code of Ethics (http://aom.org/About-AOM/Code-of-Ethics.aspx)

• The AOM Ethicist (http://ethicist.aom.org)• AOM Ethics Videos (http://aom.org/About-AOM/Ethics-of-

Research---Publishing-Video-Series.aspx)• British Academy of Management (BAM) Ethics Guide 2015

(http://charteredabs.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/06/Ethics-Guide-2015-Advice-and-Guidance.pdf)

19

20

V. BAM ETHICS GUIDE –

KEY ADVICE FOR ETHICAL ESEARCH

1. Integrity, honesty and transparency in scholarship

21

a. Be self-critical and self-aware so can fairly assess the quality of one’s work and others.

b. Be explicit about intellectual preferences, political and social inclinations, and own biases in their work.

c. Avoid misrepresenting skills or results of one’s work.d. Consider the ethical implications of own research at all

research process stages.e. Uphold the integrity of data and analysis, and ensure that

data, analysis and evidence are the basis of one’s research.f. Ensure that research findings are disseminated and shared

as freely as possible, consistent with funder requirements and copyright considerations.

2. Respect for persons and prevention of harm

22

a. Avoid discrimination on the basis of gender, sexual orientation, ethnicity, social background, age, religion, disability, political beliefs or other aspects of personal identity which are not relevant to the work being undertaken.

b. Consider the possible impact of power and authority in interactions.

c. Consider the safety and well-being of others who might be affected by their work. Evaluate the potential risk of harm and mitigate this risk if potential harm exists.

d. Ensure that any advice or consultancy services do not cause harm and that any political or social biases in such advice are made explicit.

3. Authorship and respect for intellectual property

23

a. Acknowledge all substantive and identifiable contributions to the work undertaken, and be clear about and respect intellectual property.

b. Discuss questions of authorship and achieve consensus among participants. Consider the order of authors and agree to the order based on best practice of the discipline. All listed authors bear responsibility for the work.

c. Identify any material from others and attribute it appropriately to the original authors (unless they wish to remain anonymous).

d. Avoid listing as an author an individual who has not contributed substantively to the work.

e. Avoid citation for reasons other than to improve the work, for example, do not cite to improve the impact factor of a journal where the work is submitted.

4. Consent

24

a. Ensure that participants in research understand the process enough to make informed decision about whether to take part.

b. The principle of informed consent may be set aside in exceptional circumstances (not feasible, not desirable, strong public interest case for undertaking research without consent).

c. Appreciate that where consent has been given, the original commitments given are observed. Material changes should be made only with further consent.

d. Approach covert research with caution since it breaches the principle of informed consent.

5. Privacy, confidentiality and anonymity

25

a.

b. Respect individual and collective rights to privacy.c. Ensure the privacy of personal data.d. Carefully consider confidentiality and anonymity of potential

participants in research and ensure confidentiality and anonymity where there is a prior commitment to do.

e. Consider pseudonyms rather than real names for anonymity. f. There is no need for confidentiality or anonymity where

participants have agreed to their identities being public, provided that informed consent procedures were followed.

g. Make provision for confidentiality or anonymity clear and, preferably, in writing prior to data collection.

h. Be careful using online media as a data source.

6. Declare affiliations, funding and support

26

a. Declare conflicts of interest relating to commercial contracts and other connections.

b. Make others aware of ethical issues that relate to ongoing work. Provide briefing and training to staff and students on ethical issues.

c. Conduct all financial dealings with probity.

7. Misleading, misreporting, misunderstanding and deception

27

a. Collect and use data without fabrication, falsification or inappropriate manipulation.

b. Communicate results honestly and transparently.c. Avoid deception (lies, misleading behavior, misrepresenting

or false reporting).d. Acknowledge the work of others, explicitly reference any

prior work used verbatim and avoid self-plagiarism.e. Approach covert research with considerable caution since it

breaches the principle of informed consent.f. When in doubt about about the probity of an approach or

action, seek advice from someone charged with ethical issues.g. Notify the relevant parties (funding bodies, journal editors) in

a timely and explicit manner if mistakes, false reporting or other breaches of accepted standards are discovered.

Thanks! Questions?

You can reach me at leden@tamu.edu.

28