Ethics in the University

James G. Speight

• Publisher: Wiley-Scrivener
• Year: 2016
• ISBN:
  9781119346463
• Edition: 1
• Topic: Philosophy
• Subtopic: Ethics & Moral Philosophy

It is the continuous reports of unethical behavior in the form of data manipulation, cheating, plagiarism, and other forms of unacceptable behavior that draw attention to the issues of misconduct. The causes of misconduct are manifold whether it is the need to advance in a chosen discipline or to compete successfully for and obtain research funding. Disappointingly, individuals who are oriented to any form of dishonesty are individuals who had previously displayed little or no consideration for the feelings of others and are therefore more interested in themselves, at the expense of the students, and others recognizing them by any means necessary.

This ground-breaking and honest examination of ethics in the university setting is unabashed in its descriptions of misconduct in the academic world. The text is well furbished with numerous citations that point to academic misconduct and the final chapter deals with the means by which misconduct can be mitigated, a strong reminder to everyone in the academic community that above board conduct must be part of our overall message of learning and part of the whole point of education in the first place.

A must-have for academics and non-academics alike, this text is the second in a series of books on ethics by James G. Speight, and it is useful to anyone, in any industry, who is interested in ethical behavior and how to navigate the sometimes murky depths of our professional lives.

Chapter 1
The Concept of Ethics

1.1 Introduction

For the purposes of this book, the definition of ethics involves defending and recommending concepts of right and wrong conduct. In practice, ethics is an aid to resolving the various aspects of human behavior (conduct and misconduct) by defining the concepts of right and wrong. The purpose of this book is to apply the concept of ethics to behavior within the various universities and the recognition of unethical behavior or, as it is frequently referred to in the text, misconduct by faculty members, staff members, and by students. However, the purpose is not to be judgmental but to encourage every faculty member, staff member, and student to reflect on their actions (that is, in terms of individual values and beliefs) since it is clear that personal motivations and preferences can override any other ethical and contributory factor. In the book, the potential and occurrence of misconduct within the university system is examined and the means by which, or if, the potential for unethical behavior can be negated.

At this point, however, it is essential to define the terms university and college as used in this book.

In a general context, the words college and university have been used interchangeably but can cause confusion. In the context of this book, a university is an institution that offers undergraduate programs and graduate programs. The undergraduate programs lead to a baccalaureate degree while the graduate programs lead to a master’s degree or to a doctorate. Universities may have medical programs and/or law programs leading to the respective professional degrees. Generally, universities have a diverse offering of classes and programs leading to a variety of degrees. On the other hand, again in the context of this book, a college is a part of the university in which specific departments exist to forward the educational aims of the college, such as a College of Science, a College of Engineering, a College of Law, and a College of Medicine. The term university college is used to denote such a college.

The state university system in the United States is a group of public universities supported by an individual state. These systems constitute the majority of public-funded universities and each state supports at least one such system. The amount of the financial subsidy from the state varies from university to university and state to state, but the effect is to lower tuition costs below that of private universities for students from that state or district. On the other hand, a private university is not operated by a (state) government, although many receive favorable tax credits, public student loans, and grants. Depending on their location, private universities may be subject to government regulation.

The head of a university is given the title president or chancellor. In the United States, the head of a university is most commonly a university president. If the occupant of either title (president or chancellor) is titular (i.e., the person is a ceremonial figurehead), the chief executive (equivalent to the private industry chief operating officer) of a university is the provost or vice-chancellor, respectively. The president or chancellor may serve as chairman of the governing body (the board of governors, the board of trustees, the board of regents) or, if not, this duty is often held by a chairman who has been appointed or elected to the board as an external (nonuniversity) member.

Thus, a university is a multidisciplinary organization with a strong mandate to teach using research (that is funded by organizations external to the university) as a means of gaining knowledge and imparting knowledge to the students. It is in the best interests of all universities to maintain a high ethical and sustainable performance, although there are many plausible-sounding rules for defining ethical (and unethical) conduct which may add confusion (and a defensible position by a perpetrator) to the issue of misconduct (Woodward and Goodstein, 1996; Schulz, 2000; Cahn, 2011). There is also the suggestion, perhaps plausible, perhaps not, that definitions of misconduct should include turning to the news media with a story of misconduct that may or may not be reported correctly (Roy, 1999). The default positions for the definitions of unethical behavior or misconduct are the definitions as presented in a code of ethics (sometimes referred to as a code of conduct) which should be available to, and understood by, all faculty, staff, and students. Even when universities find misconduct investigations difficult because of evidence confidentiality problems, the case must be taken to its conclusion by ensuring that the correct procedures are employed throughout the investigation (Hileman, 1997), and once the decision has been reached it is essential that no upper-level administrator should be allowed to make a unilateral decision to overturn the decision of the investigators.

By example and in classrooms, higher education must function as an important determiner of the ethical culture of the present and future (Davies et al., 2009). The professionals who teach at universities are considered to be (or should be) highly ethical people who exhibit behavior that is of the highest ethical and moral standards and is beyond reproach. For many academic professionals this is a credo that is followed throughout their careers and they never move out of the lines that border the straight and narrow path of honesty and integrity. Unfortunately, there are those who perhaps do not even know how to define ethics and who fail to practice any form of honest behavior.

Ethics is “the normative science of conduct, and conduct is a collective name for voluntary actions” (Lillie, 2001). In this regard voluntary actions are those actions that could have been done differently, and such actions may be good or bad, right or wrong, moral or immoral. Ethics focuses not on what people think but what they ought to think and do. An ethical science is an in-depth systematic study of the standards for judging right and wrong, good and bad principles, guiding means, and how far we will or should go (Lillie, 2001; Howard and Korver 2008).

Whatever the definition, ethics is one of the pillars of any university community where higher education requires teaching and high standards of behavior and is assuredly one of the criteria for evaluating the quality of higher education. Despite the range of factors that contribute to ethical or unethical behavior, the central determinant is the personal thoughts (and behavior) of the faculty and staff members, which determines the meaning that the faculty and staff attach to ethics in respect of their profession and position within the university. Indeed, personal thoughts and behavior can override the influence of any other factor, including the code of ethics of a university or even the professional society of which the academic professional may hold membership (Adams et al., 2001).

The ability to manage emotions during the processes of academic research orients many individuals to act on feelings and engage in unethical practices. This is reflected in the (increasing) frequency of reports of misconduct in various disciplines (Cahn, 2011; Speight and Foote, 2011). Briefly, research misconduct is “fabrication, i.e., making up results and recording or reporting them, falsification, i.e., manipulation of research materials, equipment, or processes, or changing or omitting data or results such that the research is not accurately represented in the research record, and plagiarism, i.e., the appropriation of another person’s ideas, processes results, or words without giving appropriate credit” (OSTP, 1999). However, no matter what excuses are made for questionable behavior by academic faculty, academic integrity is critical to higher education, especially where research and learning are manifested. However, faculty consensus is limited on what forms of behavior constitute dishonesty, even though a code of ethics or a code of conduct are available (Kibler, 1994; Rezaee et al., 2001; Verschoor, 2002; Wood and Rimmer, 2003: McKay et al., 2007; Papp and Wertz, 2009).

Indeed, ethical issues have come to and will remain at the fore because of the prioritization of differences by faculty as they seek a more privileged position in academia. This requirement has been compounded further by the emergence of procedural inconsistencies in several major research projects (Kitchener and Kitchener, 2009). Honesty has to be practiced at all times and must be evaluated on the basis of intentions and not outcomes, unlike some occupations. However, “intentions will stop being regarded as good, if they repeatedly produce bad results or no results at all” (Lillie, 2001). Moreover, the correctness of an action depends on the action as a whole and not on the past, and whether or not a faculty member’s conduct is good or bad may be: (1) instinctive and discernible through one’s actions, (2) intentional, which may be direct and motivating or indirect, (3) rooted in desire which is a consciousness to act in a particular manner, or (4) a matter of calculated choice (Lillie, 2001). Furthermore, the actions of one person can impact the actions of others and, as such, the general nature and direction of actions in a university may affect the choices of others and their level of consideration for moral standards. Such actions impact concerns for the common good, levels of egoism and altruism, and the eventual emergence of rights, duties, and entitlements.

Consequently, it must be recognized that (1) the end does not justify the means, (2) a rational basis must be established for dealing with uncertainty in any type of research, (3) some types of research may not be ethically justifiable, and (4) while researchers prefer to minimize errors, there are those who prefer false positives over false negatives (Shrader-Frechette, 1994). If the act that the individual performs is in his or her power not to perform, then he or she is responsible for that act and must face the consequences (Chisholm, 2008). This would establish the morality of the action but the orientation to autonomous or independent individual-level action is shaped and reshaped by the academic climate.

One of the hurdles of applying ethics to academia is to find the correct place to start. For example, one of the most vital areas of debate concerns the hands-on practice of the treatment of the experimental (research) data. If faculty members accept the premise that their actions are always moral, they will always conclude that their actions were correct. Whatever was written on paper cannot be faulted as it was the rationale for the additional ten experiments to produce a possible-maybe answer to the problem. Such attitudes are, in fact, the starting point of much of the traditional moral philosophy as applied ...

Table of contents

• Cover
• Title page
• Copyright page
• Preface
• Chapter 1: The Concept of Ethics
• Chapter 2: Codes of Ethics
• Chapter 3: Academia
• Chapter 4: Integrity in Academia
• Chapter 5: Integrity in Teaching
• Chapter 6: Integrity in Research
• Chapter 7: Publication and Communication
• Chapter 8: Data Manipulation
• Chapter 9: Harassment: Sexual and Otherwise
• Chapter 10: The Sporting Megalopolis
• Chapter 11: Enforcement of Codes of Ethics
• Glossary
• Index
• About the Author
• End User License Agreement