Running Head: RESEARCH ARICLE ANALYSIS
1
Research Article Analysis: “Ethics in Educational Research: A Comparative Analysis of
Graduate Student and Faculty Beliefs”
Christina M. Hubbard
George Mason University
RESEARCH ARTICLE ANALYSIS
2
Research Article Analysis: “Ethics in Educational Research: A Comparative Analysis of
Graduate Student and Faculty Beliefs”
Graduate students work intimately with faculty members. Whenever two populations
work closely together, there is ample opportunity to discover differences in approach,
competency, or understanding. Within academia, this can be particularly pronounced due to the
difference in power held by faculty members as compared to graduate students. Often times, this
is a positive factor, considering the inherent mentorship role faculty may play for graduate
students. However, when ethical considerations arise, this relationship can often be strained.
Article Summary
This article compared the difference in ethical perspectives between faculty and graduate
students. Using a quantitative methodology, the authors were able to determine that in the
majority of circumstances provided, graduate students and faculty members at the studied
institution reported similarly regarding the ethical challenges presented. This indicates that the
ethical comprehension of these two populations was very similar.
This study involved 84 graduate students and 38 faculty members. Each population was
presented with nine different vignettes and participants were asked to assess the extent to which
the scenarios presented unethical behavior. In two of these scenarios, statistically significant
variation of perceptions was recorded between faculty and graduate students. The first scenario
that indicated different perceptions reflected a greater perception of unethical behavior among
graduate students. This scenario presented the idea of splitting a dataset in order to result in
multiple publications. The second scenario that showed a statistically significant result was one
that presented faculty and student interpersonal relationships. In this scenario, the faculty
members rated a higher level of perceived unethical behavior.
RESEARCH ARTICLE ANALYSIS
3
Aside from perceived unethical behavior, the study also sought to determine how they
would rate their current level of ethics training. They were asked about completion of training
through the institution’s Institutional Review Board (IRB), whether they had completed a course
related to research ethics, and whether they had completed any other ethics coursework in their
academic careers. Finally, they were asked about whether they had observed anything they
perceived to be an ethics violation.
Analysis of Methodology and Findings
This article opens with a strong review of the existing literature as it relates to the topic
of ethical behavior in the academy. This provides a strong foundation and justification for the
study. However, one criticism of the literature review is that the authors of the current study did
little to build a strong argument as to why possible differences in perception about ethical
behavior among graduate students as compared to faculty matter to the field. The authors do not
provide a robust background as to any existing literature that led to consideration of the role
graduate students play in the field of academia as compared to undergraduates, staff, or any other
populations in higher education.
This study posed just two research questions and hypotheses. The researchers were
curious as to whether faculty members or graduate students would report more ethical research
training and believed faculty would report more than graduate students due to their time in the
field. They were also curious as to whether graduate students or faculty members would be better
able to identify questionably unethical practices. Like the training, the authors believed that the
faculty members would be more sensitive to unethical practices and report these behaviors more
than graduate students. [interesting hypotheses that are often supported by claims of the ethics
education and the impact on ethical reasoning and decision making competencies]
RESEARCH ARTICLE ANALYSIS
4
The justification of their method was strong. They explained the value of using vignettes
with their participants. The use of strong research further validated their approach. The authors
provided a detailed explanation of how their vignettes were selected due to clearly articulated
professional standards used by highly esteemed research organizations. They also emphasized
the vignettes’ readability or ability to be understood without content area expertise. The
researchers provide an adequate description of their procedures and participant profile. A
criticism of their approach would have to include the brevity of the vignettes that were used.
Each was just one sentence long, which may have contributed to a higher participation rate, but
made the vignettes less detailed than they may have been if they were longer and additional
details had been offered.
One element of this study was to evaluate the amount of ethics training participants feel
they have received. In my opinion, the bar that was set in this study for ethical training was
relatively low. Simply completing the training required by the IRB was deemed sufficient for
indicating some training and still just 66% of graduate students had completed the training that is
required to conduct any research. Though the percentage was much higher among faculty (95%),
it is quite surprising that it fell short of 100% considering the role of faculty in the university
setting. [Typically, IRB training is more around compliance and regulations and less about
ethical reasoning abilities]
Perhaps even more concerning is the fact that 37% of both students and faculty reported
having observed research ethics violations. The authors indicate that these results were not
limited to this study. Their review of the literature noted that research conducted by the
American Psychological Association (APA) found similar results. The findings from the current
RESEARCH ARTICLE ANALYSIS
5
study and the one conducted by the APA suggest that there may be a significant amount of
unethical behavior within our university research settings.
In the discussion of this research study, the authors explain that a comparable percentage
of faculty and students indicated ethics training. This suggests that although faculty have been in
the field longer and possess more advanced levels of education, they have had a comparable
level of ethics training exposure as the students they are mentoring. This is a notable result with
great implications for the field of higher education, as it indicates what should be perceived as a
weakness in this era of mass analysis and scrutiny for research conducted in the university
setting.
I found the discussion about the scenario that was deemed more unethical by faculty
members than by students quite interesting considering a recent discussant topic in our Ethics
class. The sole vignette that indicated a higher response by faculty as it pertained to unethical
behavior was in regard to a professor engaging with a student in a romantic relationship. Faculty
seemed to deem this as far more unethical than the participating graduate students. As I recall
our in-class discussion, the students in our class had a similarly weak position as it related to
faculty and student relationships when students were at the graduate level. The potential for a
relationship among two consenting adults in a situation that inherently has an unequal power
balance seems to raise concerns without conclusions among graduate students not only in this
research, but in our classroom as well. On the other hand, the study suggests a more definitive
response among faculty members as to its unethical nature.
Conclusion
As is the case in any of the social sciences, consideration for ethical behavior is
paramount in academia. This article notes startling statistics among the scientific community that
RESEARCH ARTICLE ANALYSIS
6
suggest a high level of influence on research from external pressures. For example, many
indicated they have changed the design, methodology or results to satisfy funders. Others have
ignored flaws in peers’ studies (Wadman, 2005 as cited in Artino & Brown, 2009). The
implications for academia and the field of higher education are clear. If the same behavior is
occurring within research conducted in our higher education environments, the field runs the risk
of losing its credibility among the general population.
Worse, as Hoekema (as cited in Kiss & Euben, 2010 p. 257) notes in his essay, faculty
“whether consciously or unconsciously, whether systematically, or haphazardly, they serve as
moral guides to students.” Often times, these faculty members that who make unethical decisions
related to research also serve as mentors to the next generation of researchers. Thus, we are
fostering a culture of unethical behavior in academia. The authors explain that current research
(i.e. Langlais, 2006) suggests that strategies for articulating best ethical practices within research
are lacking throughout the field. This is a cycle that higher education professionals need to be
aware of to counteract its effects.
This topic is of critical importance for the field of higher education. Training our current
and emerging community on ethical expectations, standards and best practices will ensure that
the work we do in our field can receive the confidence and acclaim that it deserves. As such, it is
important for future research to consider the following questions:

The current study indicates that among the participants, faculty members and graduate
students seem to have a comparably low level of ethics training. This leads to the
question: does robust ethics training affect an individual’s sensitivity to and ability to
resolve ethical dilemmas, or will individuals still rely primarily on their personal ethical
standards or expectations of their institution, as has been suggested by other research?
RESEARCH ARTICLE ANALYSIS

7
This research was conducted at a single institution with a fairly small sample of faculty
and students. If it was conducted on a larger scale with multiple universities involved,
how would the results differ? For example, at a different institution, perhaps the faculty
members would not indicate a romantic relationship with a graduate student posed an
ethical dilemma.

The authors point out that the use of vignettes can be limiting, because they are so brief
and can be ambiguous. With more detailed case-studies, better depicting the situations,
would results have changed?

The majority of outcomes were consistent among faculty and students. How would the
results change if the same research was conducted with undergraduates? How would they
change in a graduate program that catered to working professionals, versus a traditional
research setting?

[these are excellent research questions that flow nicely from the existing study]
This study concluded that ethical awareness and assessment is comparable among the
participating faculty and graduate students. The need for additional professional development for
faculty would provide an opportunity for deeper development, along the lines of what would be
expected of those that are mentoring graduate students. [this would also reveal the complexities
in ethical reasoning and moral development, going beyond compliance training that is associated
with IRB issues and questionnaires] Likewise, curricular offerings and requirements should
reflect the importance of ethical behavior for our emerging professionals studying at the graduate
level.
RESEARCH ARTICLE ANALYSIS
8
RESEARCH ARTICLE ANALYSIS
9
References
Artino, A.R. and Brown, S.W. (2009). Ethics in educational research: A comparative analysis of
graduate student and faculty beliefs. College Student Journal, 43(2) 599-615.
Kiss, E. & Euben, J. (2010). Debating moral education: Rethinking the role of the modern
university. Durham, NC: Duke University Press.
ChristinaYou demonstrated excellent analysis and critical thinking throughout this paper. You framed
robust research questions in your conclusion that would contribute to the knowledge on
this important topic. Integration of course concepts was evident in your paper, showing
your command of their application.
Prof. Lucas