Differences in Biases and Compensatory Strategies Across Discipline, Rank, and Gender Among University Academics.

The study of ethical behavior and ethical decision making is of increasing importance in many fields, and there is a growing literature addressing the issue. However, research examining differences in ethical decision making across fields and levels of experience is limited. In the present study, biases that undermine ethical decision making and compensatory strategies that may aid ethical decision making were identified in a series of interviews with 63 faculty members across six academic fields (e.g., biological sciences, health sciences, social sciences) and three levels of rank (assistant professor, associate professor, and full professor) as well as across gender. The degree to which certain biases and compensatory strategies were used in justifications for responses to ethical situations was compared across fields, level of experience, and gender. Major differences were found across fields for several biases and compensatory strategies, including biases and compensatory strategies related to use of professional field principles and field-specific guidelines. Furthermore, full professors tend to differ greatly from assistant and associate professors on a number of constructs, and there were differences in the consistency with which biases and compensatory strategies were displayed within these various groups. Implications of these findings for ethics training and future research are discussed.

Researcher Perspectives on Conflicts of Interest: A Qualitative Analysis of Views from Academia.

The increasing interconnectedness of academic research and external industry has left research vulnerable to conflicts of interest. These conflicts have the potential to undermine the integrity of scientific research as well as to threaten public trust in scientific findings. The present effort sought to identify themes in the perspectives of faculty researchers regarding conflicts of interest. Think-aloud interview responses were qualitatively analyzed in an effort to provide insights with regard to appropriate ways to address the threat of conflicts of interest in research. Themes in participant responses included disclosure of conflicts of interest, self-removal from situations where conflict exists, accommodation of conflict, denial of the existence of conflict, and recognition of complexity of situations involving conflicts of interest. Moral disengagement operations are suggested to explain the appearance of each identified theme. In addition, suggestions for best practices regarding addressing conflicts of interest given these themes in faculty perspectives are provided.

Are applicants more likely to quit longer assessments? Examining the effect of assessment length on applicant attrition behavior.

Conventional wisdom suggests that assessment length is positively related to the rate at which applicants opt out of the assessment phase. However, restricting assessment length can negatively impact the utility of a selection system by reducing the reliability of its construct scores and constraining coverage of the relevant criterion domain. Given the costly nature of these tradeoffs, is it better for managers to prioritize (a) shortening assessments to reduce applicant attrition rates or (b) ensuring optimal reliability and validity of their assessment scores? In the present study, we use data from 222,772 job-seekers nested within 69 selection systems to challenge the popular notion that selection system length predicts applicant attrition behavior. Specifically, we argue that the majority of applicant attrition occurs very early in the assessment phase and that attrition risk decreases, not increases, as a function of time spent in assessment. Our findings supported these predictions, revealing that the majority of applicants who quit assessments did so within the first 20 min of the assessment phase. Consequently, selection system length did not predict rates of applicant attrition. In fact, when controlling for observed system length and various job characteristics, we found that systems providing more conservative (i.e., longer) estimates of assessment length produced lower overall attrition rates. Collectively, these findings suggest that efforts to curtail applicant attrition by shortening assessment length may be misguided. (PsycINFO Database Record

Playing, sitting out, and observing the game: an investigation of faculty members' perspectives on political behavior in ethical decision making.

Ethical dilemmas are inherently ambiguous, complex, and ill-defined. Additionally, these dilemmas involve multiple stakeholders. These characteristics may induce political behavior as a resolution tactic. Thus, the goal of the present effort was to investigate perspectives on politics among researchers in an ethical decision-making context. A qualitative analysis of interviews with university faculty members revealed that faculty members' perspectives on political behavior in an ethical decision-making context fall into a number of categories, including positive, negative, and realistic views of political activity. The implications of these varying perspectives on ethical decision making are discussed.

Researcher perceptions of ethical guidelines and codes of conduct.

Ethical codes of conduct exist in almost every profession. Field-specific codes of conduct have been around for decades, each articulating specific ethical and professional guidelines. However, there has been little empirical research on researchers' perceptions of these codes of conduct. In the present study, we interviewed faculty members in six research disciplines and identified five themes bearing on the circumstances under which they use ethical guidelines and the underlying reasons for not adhering to such guidelines. We then identify problems with the manner in which codes of conduct in academia are constructed and offer solutions for overcoming these problems.

Perspectives on whistleblowing: faculty member viewpoints and suggestions for organizational change.

Given the prevalence of unethical behavior in research, whistleblowing may serve an important policing function. Despite this potential value of whistleblowing to organizations, engaging in this type of activity often has negative ramifications for those who choose to blow the whistle. Organizations may fail to provide adequate support for these individuals. In order to help inform best practices for organizations in terms of whistleblowing support infrastructure, the present effort content analyzed interviews with university faculty members regarding ethical decision making in which whistleblowing was a topic. Relevant themes in these interviews are discussed.

A Qualitative Analysis of Power Differentials in Ethical Situations in Academia.

Power and organizational hierarchies are ubiquitous to social institutions that form the foundation of modern society. Power differentials may act to constrain or enhance people's ability to make good ethical decisions. However, little scholarly work has examined perceptions of this important topic. The present effort seeks to address this issue by interviewing academics about hypothetical ethical problems that involve power differences among those involved. Academics discussed what they would do in these scenarios, often drawing on their own experiences. Using a think-aloud protocol, participants were prompted to discuss their reasoning and thinking behind their ethical decisions. These interview data were content analyzed using a semantic analysis program that identified a number of distinct ways that academics think about power differences and abuses in ethical situations. Implications of these findings are discussed.

The Influence of Compensatory Strategies on Ethical Decision Making.

Ethical decision making is of concern to researchers across all fields. However, researchers typically focus on the biases that may act to undermine ethical decision making. Taking a new approach, this study focused on identifying the most common compensatory strategies that counteract those biases. These strategies were identified using a series of interviews with university researchers in a variety of areas, including biological, physical, social, and health as well as scholarship and the performing arts. Interview transcripts were assessed with two scoring procedures, an expert rating system and computer-assisted qualitative analysis. Although the expert rating system identified Understanding Guidelines, Recognition of Insufficient Information, and Recognizing Boundaries as the most frequently used compensatory strategies across fields, other strategies, Striving for Transparency, Value/Norm Assessment, and Following Appropriate Role Models, were identified as most common by the computer-assisted qualitative analyses. Potential reasons for these findings and implications for training and practice are identified and discussed.