Project for Scholarly Integrity:
Engaging the Whole Community
Jeffrey Engler, Ph.D.
Associate Dean for Academic Affairs
February 26, 2011
Funded by the Council of Graduate Schools and the Office
of Research Integrity
http://www.scholarlyintegrity.org/
Participants: UAB; Emory; Columbia; University of Arizona,
Michigan State, University of Wisconsin, Penn State
University
Affiliates from the CSGS region included: Duke University,
Georgia Institute of Technology, Howard University,
University of North Carolina (Chapel Hill), University of West
Florida, Wake Forest University
Engaging the Whole Community
Overall Questions:
How can institutional leaders understand the
perspectives of all groups who will be involved in
training programs?
How can they use what they learn to develop messages
and activities that reach everyone?
What roles do graduate schools play in these activities?
Understanding Their Perspectives
• Surveys – Fall, 2008 – joint survey with the
University of Alabama and the University of
Alabama in Huntsville
• Partnerships – use student and other groups
to provide support for the project
• Focus groups – use their experiences to
identify issues that need to be addressed
Survey on RCR, Fall 2008
Survey given at UA, UAB, UAH – 25-30% response rate
Areas of agreement: trust issues
Faculty: “Can I trust the data my student collects?”
Students: “Can I trust my mentor to treat me fairly?”
Areas of disagreement: what is the most effective means
of delivering scholarly integrity information/advice?
Faculty: Informally, as need arises.
Students: Formally, with lectures – perceived lack of instruction
by mentors
Understanding Their Perspectives:
Institutional Partnerships
Develop partners to support the efforts to strengthen
teaching in scholarly integrity
• Graduate Student Association
• Postdoctoral Association
• VP for Research and Economic Development
• Center for Ethics and Values in the Sciences
– Drs. Harold Kincaid and Sara Vollmer
• Center for Clinical and Translational Science
– Drs. Ned Hook and Dale Benos
• UAB Research Foundation – Dr. David Winwood
Understanding their perspectives:
Focus Groups
• We established focus groups to develop ideas for
educational resources to assist faculty in preparing
graduate students for scholarly integrity.
• We presented case studies and articles to the members
of these focus groups and asked them to suggest ideas
for projects/resources that could developed.
• After this initial priming, other ideas developed based on
student and faculty experiences: videos on data integrity
(“Cultural Miscommunication”), authorship issues
(“That’s My Paper”), and intellectual property rights
(“Invention”).
How to Develop Compelling Messages?
If our effort was going to succeed, we had to:
• Identify faculty “champions”.
• Provide resources and information to support them.
• Show them how these resources could be used.
• Change the conversation from “Thou Shalt Not…” to
“Here’s why it’s important.”
• Provide strategies to model good practice
Testing the Message: Workshops
We decided to test how to deliver the message
• A one-hour workshop: “Avoiding Plagiarism”
– Graduate School staff: Dr. Julia Austin; Jennifer Greer
– This title was perceived as “Thou Shalt Not…”
• Changed to “Ethical Authorship”
– Many short duration activities: Case studies, short focused
PowerPoints, self-quizzes, practice writing, critical thinking
– Can be adjusted for time and for audience
– Given 24 times over the last 3 years.
Group Activity
Constructing Scholarship:
What ethical standards do you set?
1. Break into 5 groups. I will assign you a role.
2. (5 min) For your assigned role, discuss the most
important assumptions you would make about a
written research product.
3. (5 min) Report your conclusions to the whole group.
Group Activity
4. (5 min) Read the case study on the reverse side of
the paper and discuss the answers to the
questions.
5. (5 min) Report out your conclusions on the case
study to the whole group.
Plagiarism Concerns among Graduate
Students at UAB
Data taken from
anonymous
surveys during
“Ethical
Authorship”
workshops
Included both
Master’s and
doctoral students.
Testing the Message: Videos
With our partnership with the Center for Ethics and Values in
the Sciences, we decided to test different means for
effective deliver of online content
• “Query – Video – Query” – Dr. Sara Vollmer
http://www.uab.edu/graduate/rcr/index.html
“Amanda’s Dilemma”
“Whistleblower”
Testing the Message: Videos
“Decision Tree” simulation – Dr. Elizabeth
Holmes, Stockdale Center, US Naval Academy
Using this video simulation
strategy, the Office of
Research Integrity at DHHS as
recently released a video
detailing the consequences of
research misconduct and
allowing viewers to test the
outcomes of decisions about
research conduct made
http://ori.hhs.gov/TheLab throughout the course of the
simulation.
Scholarly Integrity at Emory
WORKING TOWARD A COMPREHENSIVE
PROGRAM
LISA TEDESCO, DEAN
MARK RISJORD, ASSOCIATE DEAN
JAMES T. LANEY SCHOOL OF GRADUATE STUDIES
Program Development Process
1. Build interest and knowledge
2. Establish principles
3. Identify needs
4. Design the program with
faculty and graduate
student input
5. Develop resources
Principles and Outcomes
 Education in scholarly
integrity should







Be relevant to each
student’s research and career
path.
Be an organic part of each
PhD program
Include some multidisciplinary experiences
Be dispersed throughout a
student’s career
Involve faculty from the
program
Be tracked on the student’s
transcript
Include regular program
assessment
 Graduates should





Be able to disentangle
complex ethical problems
Have communication
skills necessary to both
prevent, address, and
resolve ethical issues
Know their disciplinary
codes of conduct
Receive certification
when necessary (e.g. IRB
training).
Be familiar with the
resources for addressing
ethical problems and
reporting misconduct
Phase 5: Develop Resources
Challenges:
Responses:
 Lack of experience and
 Course material
expertise
 Burden on faculty and
students
 Need faculty program
leadership
archive
 Faculty summer
seminar in research
ethics
 Develop faculty
champions
RCR at the University of West Florida
A Master’s intensive institution with ~2000 graduate students
26 Master’s degrees in 17 departments
Adopted an “embedding” model for RCR education
• Avoid adding more courses to the already full curriculum
• A faculty-driven process
• Survey of faculty – what are they doing already?
• Study existing course syllabi – what’s already being done?
• Developed a rubric to guide the review of course syllabi
• Conversation with faculty – how much and what content is
appropriate?
• Website of resources
Information provided by Richard S. Podemski,
Graduate Dean, UWF
Summary: Roles for the Graduate School
in Developing Programs in RCR
• Identify best practices and resources
• Survey faculty, graduate students and other
staff for those areas in which they feel most
vulnerable
• Partnerships to pool resources and ideas
– CCTS “Best Mentoring Practices” Project
– Ideas and Contributions of other Graduate Deans.
Resources Available
Online resources
• University of Mass, Amherst
– http://www.umass.edu/sts/digitallibrary/
• National Academy of Engineering
– http://www.onlineethics.org
• University of Illinois
– http://nationalethicsresourcecenter.net/index.php/home
• Project for Scholarly Integrity (CGS)
– www.scholarlyintegrity.org
• Office of Research Integrity
– http://ori.hhs.gov/education/
Challenges
• Integrity Education versus Compliance Training
• Identifying and supporting faculty “Champions”
• Finding appropriate partners to share resources and
talent
• Overcoming “Survey Fatigue”
• Assessing Long-term Changes in Institutional Culture
and Attitudes.
Thank You!
For more information, contact :
Jeffrey Engler, Ph.D.
University of Alabama at Birmingham
engler@uab.edu
Mark Risjord, Ph.D.
Emory University
mark.risjord@emory.edu
Richard S. Podemski
University of West Florida
rpodemski@uwf.edu