Impact and Assessment of Research Integrity Teaching: A Systematic Literature Review.

Daniel Crean, Bert Gordijn, Alan J Kearns
Author Information
  1. Daniel Crean: School of Veterinary Medicine, University College Dublin, Belfield, Dublin 4, Ireland. daniel.crean@ucd.ie. ORCID
  2. Bert Gordijn: Institute of Ethics, School of Theology, Philosophy, and Music, Dublin City University, Dublin, Ireland.
  3. Alan J Kearns: Institute of Ethics, School of Theology, Philosophy, and Music, Dublin City University, Dublin, Ireland.

Abstract

Presented here is a systematic literature review of what the academic literature asserts about: (1) the stages of the ethical decision-making process (i.e. awareness, reasoning, motivation, and action) that are claimed to be improved or not improved by RI teaching and whether these claims are supported by evidence; (2) the measurements used to determine the effectiveness of RI teaching; and (3) the stage/s of the ethical decision-making process that are difficult to assess. Regarding (1), awareness was the stage most claimed to be amenable to improvement following RI teaching, and with motivation being the stage that is rarely addressed in the academic literature. While few, some sources claimed RI teaching cannot improve specific stages. With behaviour (action) being the stage referenced most, albeit in only 9% of the total sources, for not being amenable to improvement following RI teaching. Finally, most claims were supported by empirical evidence. Regarding (2), measures most frequently used are custom in-house surveys and some validated measures. Additionally, there is much debate in the literature regarding the adequacy of current assessment measures in RI teaching, and even their absence. Such debate warrants caution when we are considering the empirical evidence supplied to support that RI teaching does or does not improve a specific stage of the decision-making process. Regarding (3), only behaviour was discussed as being difficult to assess, if not impossible. In our discussion section we contextualise these results, and following this we derive some recommendations for relevant stakeholders in RI teaching.

Keywords

References

  1. Am J Bioeth. 2002 Fall;2(4):51-3 [PMID: 12762926]
  2. Sci Eng Ethics. 1998 Oct;4(4):487-98 [PMID: 11658057]
  3. Nat Cell Biol. 2011 Jan;13(1):1 [PMID: 21173798]
  4. Stud Hist Philos Sci. 2019 Jun;75:1-11 [PMID: 31426942]
  5. Acad Med. 2007 Sep;82(9):846-52 [PMID: 17726389]
  6. Account Res. 2008 Jan-Mar;15(1):30-62 [PMID: 18298028]
  7. Sci Eng Ethics. 2023 Jul 20;29(4):28 [PMID: 37470823]
  8. BMC Med Ethics. 2021 May 28;22(1):67 [PMID: 34049556]
  9. Forensic Sci Int. 2000 Sep 11;113(1-3):511-4 [PMID: 10978672]
  10. Sci Eng Ethics. 2003 Apr;9(2):221-41 [PMID: 12774655]
  11. CBE Life Sci Educ. 2021 Sep;20(3):ar38 [PMID: 34241537]
  12. Nat Rev Drug Discov. 2011 Aug 31;10(9):712 [PMID: 21892149]
  13. Cell Biol Educ. 2005 Winter;4(4):330-4 [PMID: 16341260]
  14. J Microbiol Biol Educ. 2014 Dec 15;15(2):135-8 [PMID: 25574263]
  15. Acad Med. 2010 Mar;85(3):519-26 [PMID: 20182131]
  16. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2019 Jun 28;19(1):132 [PMID: 31253092]
  17. Sci Eng Ethics. 2021 Jul 9;27(4):47 [PMID: 34244889]
  18. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 2020 Sep;160(3):730-733 [PMID: 32241608]
  19. J Microbiol Biol Educ. 2014 Dec 15;15(2):108-16 [PMID: 25574258]
  20. Acad Med. 1993 Dec;68(12):871-5 [PMID: 8259954]
  21. Sci Eng Ethics. 2021 Feb 9;27(1):10 [PMID: 33559767]
  22. CBE Life Sci Educ. 2019 Jun;18(2):mr2 [PMID: 31120396]
  23. BMC Med Ethics. 2022 Aug 24;23(1):85 [PMID: 36002817]
  24. Sci Eng Ethics. 2017 Dec;23(6):1719-1754 [PMID: 28150177]
  25. Account Res. 2023 Nov 13;:1-24 [PMID: 37957814]
  26. Nature. 2016 May 25;533(7604):452-4 [PMID: 27225100]
  27. Account Res. 2014;21(4):211-7 [PMID: 24422701]
  28. Sci Eng Ethics. 2006 Jul;12(3):571-82 [PMID: 16909159]
  29. BMJ. 1994 Jan 29;308(6924):283-4 [PMID: 8124111]
  30. Sci Eng Ethics. 2015 Apr;21(2):461-9 [PMID: 24760542]
  31. Ethics Behav. 2017;27(5):351-384 [PMID: 30740008]
  32. Nature. 2011 Mar 24;471(7339):448-9 [PMID: 21430758]
  33. J Res Adm. 2009 Fall;40(1):49-70 [PMID: 22500145]
  34. Lancet Oncol. 2015 Jul;16(7):752-4 [PMID: 26149871]
  35. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2016 Apr 04;4:MR000038 [PMID: 27040721]
  36. Account Res. 2011 Jul-Aug;18(4):217-46 [PMID: 21707415]
  37. Syst Rev. 2021 Apr 19;10(1):117 [PMID: 33875004]
  38. PLoS One. 2022 Feb 16;17(2):e0263023 [PMID: 35171921]
  39. Nature. 2020 Oct;586(7829):358-360 [PMID: 33041342]
  40. J Empir Res Hum Res Ethics. 2013 Apr;8(2):95-103 [PMID: 23651933]
  41. Sci Eng Ethics. 2023 Apr 25;29(3):14 [PMID: 37097508]

Grants

  1. PhD scholarship (award no. unknown)/Dublin City University

MeSH Term

Humans
Awareness
Decision Making
Ethics, Research
Motivation
Scientific Misconduct
Teaching

Word Cloud

Created with Highcharts 10.0.0RIteachingliteraturedecision-makingstageprocessclaimedevidenceRegardingfollowingmeasuresacademic1stagesethicalawarenessmotivationactionimprovedclaimssupported2used3difficultassessamenableimprovementsourcesimprovespecificbehaviourempiricaldebateAssessmentResearchPresentedsystematicreviewassertsabout:iereasoningwhethermeasurementsdetermineeffectivenessstage/srarelyaddressedreferencedalbeit9%totalFinallyfrequentlycustomin-housesurveysvalidatedAdditionallymuchregardingadequacycurrentassessmentevenabsencewarrantscautionconsideringsuppliedsupportdiscussedimpossiblediscussionsectioncontextualiseresultsderiverecommendationsrelevantstakeholdersImpactIntegrityTeaching:SystematicLiteratureReviewEducationEthicalintegrityTeaching

Similar Articles

Cited By