professional conduct research paper

An official website of the United States government

The .gov means it’s official. Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

The site is secure. The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

• Publications
• Account settings

Preview improvements coming to the PMC website in October 2024. Learn More or Try it out now .

• Advanced Search
• Journal List
• HHS Author Manuscripts

Researcher Perceptions of Ethical Guidelines and Codes of Conduct

Vincent giorgini.

University of Oklahoma

Jensen T. Mecca

Carter gibson, kelsey medeiros, michael d. mumford, shane connelly, lynn d. devenport.

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.

In the summer of 1999, the Institute for Human Gene Therapy at the University of Pennsylvania was conducting experimental clinical gene therapy trials for OTC deficiency, a rare disorder characterized by an excess of ammonia and orotic acid in the blood, often leading to fatal outcomes. After weeks of uneventful trials, Jesse Gelsinger, an 18 year old with the disease, volunteered for the therapy in hopes of getting answers about his illness. Within hours of beginning the trial, Gelsinger suffered a chain reaction in which he developed a fever, a blood-clotting disorder, jaundice, and spiked ammonia levels, and suffered multiple-organ failure, before falling into a brain-dead coma. Gelsinger was dead less than four days after the trial began. A Federal Drug Administration investigation into the proceedings unveiled myriad violations of ethical guidelines and regulations. It was found that the university had failed to report serious side effects from the gene therapy experienced by two previous patients. Additionally, informed consent documents failed to disclose the deaths of monkeys from similar techniques in earlier animal trials. Finally, it was found that the principal investigators and the University of Pennsylvania held a patent for the clinical drug and had a stake in the company producing it, representing a conflict of interest. The Institutional Review Board (IRB) at the University of Pennsylvania approved the study with the requirement that no documents be changed. The approved materials showed consent forms with information regarding the sickness and deaths of animals in prior trials, but the consent forms given to Gelsinger lacked such information ( Wilson, 2010 ). Ultimately, investigation into the case led to major setbacks for scientists working on gene therapy research.

The case of Jesse Gelsinger provides an illustration of how poor ethical decisions such as failing to adhere to ethical guidelines and ethical codes of conduct can lead to severe consequences. Additionally, lapses in ethical judgment from prestigious, credible, and powerful corporate employees can undermine the credibility of their organizations or professions ( Bayles, 1981 ; Frankel, 1989 ; Savan, 1989 ; Kerr & Smith, 1995 ). Indeed, ethical codes of conduct provide a valuable source of information for individuals engaged in ethical decision making ( Neukrug, Lovell, & Parker, 1996 ). A code of ethics is a written, formal document consisting of moral standards and guidelines intended to help guide employee or corporate behavior ( Schwartz, 2002 ; Stevens, 1994 ). Because of their presumed importance to organizations and research, codes of ethics are common. According to a 1992 study by the Center for Business Ethics, more than 90 percent of large corporations have codes of ethics in place, a substantial increase from the approximately 40 percent of large corporations reporting ethics codes in the 1950s ( Fulmer, 1969 ). Gordon and Miyake (2001) suggest that such codes of conduct can be used to prevent and counteract unethical behavior (e.g. bribery).

Although codes of conduct and ethical guidelines play a critical role in corporate and business contexts, they may be of even more importance with regard to research settings. Each scientific field or discipline has its own set of ethical and professional guidelines or principles ( Helton-Fauth et al., 2003 ; McCabe, Trevino, & Butterfield, 1996 ). Within these disciplines, ethical guidelines differ in detail and content. For example, the code of ethics for the American Society For Biochemistry and Molecular Biology consists of three brief subsections featuring various obligations to the public, other investigators, or trainees. On the other hand, the ethical principles and code of conduct for psychologists, a field consisting of both researchers and practitioners, contains a preamble, five general principles, and many specific ethical standards covering, in great detail, every aspect of the various psychological disciplines and jobs ( American Psychological Association, 2002 ). The principles assume a largely interactional focus, with emphasis on respect for humans and their rights, integrity, justice and relational responsibility. Codes of conduct in the computer sciences are much more general and emphasize qualities such as professional competence, honoring of commitments, and respect for electronics (Association for Computing Machinery, 1992). With regard to the Gelsinger case presented earlier, the National Institutes of Health Guidelines for Research Involving Recombinant or Synthetic Nucleic Acid Molecules (2013) offers a comprehensive array of guidelines and practices expected to be followed by researchers. Clear stipulations regarding informed consent and full disclosure of conflict of interest were disregarded in the Institute for Human Gene Therapy clinical trial.

In addition to cross-field differences in ethical guidelines, many subdisciplines have their own specialty guidelines and codes of conduct. For example, within the general field of engineering, mechanical engineering ( American Society of Mechanical Engineering, 2012 ), civil engineering ( Institution of Civil Engineers, 2008 ), chemical engineering ( American Institute of Chemical Engineers, 2003 ), and nuclear science ( American Nuclear Society, 2003 ) each have their own set of specific guidelines or codes of conduct.

Codes of ethics and professional guidelines are established for a number of reasons. First, establishing codes and guidelines creates consistent normative standards for researchers of a particular field ( Schwartz, 2002 ). Additionally, codes of conduct are created so as to avoid legal consequences of ethical breaches and to promote public image ( Ethics Resource Center, 1990 ) or to ensure that members of a field maintain a higher standard of conduct than would be called for by law ( Backof & Martin, 1991 ). Researchers create guidelines and formal ethics codes according to what issues are most prevalent as scientific advancements are made ( Cressey & Moore, 1983 ; Lefebvre & Singh, 1992 ). Ethical codes and professional guidelines are enacted to assure outside parties, such as clients, colleagues, and the public, that integrity will be maintained and that high standards are of utmost priority ( Ward, Ward, Deck, & Allen, 1993 ). Codes may be established with a goal of mediating disputes ( Frankel, 1989 ) or forcing individuals to question their present values ( Meyer, 1987 ).

Despite the prevalence and importance of codes of conduct, studies examining their effectiveness with regard to behavior offer mixed results. Some studies have shown ethical codes to be effective; that is, they achieve their purpose. In an experimental study, Hegarty and Sims (1979) found that graduate student participants who were instructed to make decisions under conditions in which an organizational ethics policy was in place made more ethical decisions than those not consulting an ethics policy. Similarly, in another study, when participants were asked to react to scenarios, it was found that the condition featuring a code of ethics influenced the morality of participants’ actions ( Laczniak & Inderrieden, 1987 ), indicating that unethical behavior can be controlled or mitigated through organizational practices and policies. A qualitative study bearing on computer ethics concluded that formal codes of computer ethics impact decision making and are thus important to have ( Pierce & Henry, 1996 ), as long as the codes are effectively communicated throughout the organization and considered legitimate by members.

Given these potential moderators, it is not surprising that other researchers have found a weak or no relationship between these codes and ethical behavior, or otherwise argued against their effectiveness and utility. In their survey study of business students, Cleek and Leonard (1998) found that codes of ethics are not strong enough tools to influence ethical decision-making behavior. The presence of an organizational code of ethics did not correlate with research ethics judgments in a study examining judgments of marketing professionals about ethical issues in marketing research ( Akaah & Riordan, 1989 ). Murphy, Smith, and Daley (1992) found a weak relationship between existence of ethical codes and ethical behavior, indicating that ethical codes, and leadership in particular, do not strongly affect ethical behavior, finding instead that attitudes and organizational size are better predictors of ethical behavior.

The increasing number and types of ethical misconduct violations occurring in scientific research ( Van Noorden, 2011 ) suggests that ethical codes of conduct and professional guidelines are not serving their purpose. How codes are perceived by researchers is important for better understanding their strengths and weaknesses. The ambiguous findings regarding the effectiveness of ethical codes of conduct and professional guidelines led us to examine researchers’ awareness of and perceptions about ethical guidelines.

To investigate these research questions, a number of research professionals in various scientific disciplines were interviewed regarding their responses on a test of ethical decision making in the sciences. The content of these interviews was analyzed to identify themes in participants’ discussion of codes of conduct and professional guidelines in academic or research settings.

The sample of this study consisted of 64 faculty members at a large southwestern university. Of these, 37 were male and 27 were female. Additionally, 15 faculty members were assistant professors, 28 faculty members were associate professors, 20 faculty members were full professors, and one faculty member was an adjunct professor. Professors were recruited from six disciplines comprised of related fields of study: performance (e.g. drama, theatre, architecture) ( n = 10), biological sciences (e.g. botany, biochemistry) ( n = 6), health sciences (e.g. medicine, dentistry) ( n = 22), humanities (e.g. history of science, philosophy) ( n = 5), physical sciences (e.g. engineering, geology) ( n = 7), and social sciences (e.g. sociology, economics) ( n = 14). Faculty members were recruited to participate in a study of ethical decision making by the graduate liaisons of their departments following a presentation regarding the purpose of the study.

Ethical Decision-Making Instrument

In order to identify researchers’ perspectives regarding ethical codes of conduct and professional guidelines, it was necessary to induce thinking regarding their decision making in ethically ambiguous situations. To do this, participants were asked to complete an ethical decision-making instrument developed by Mumford and colleagues (2006) . This instrument presents participants with a number of field-relevant scenarios containing ethical dilemmas and asks them to choose how the main character in the scenarios should respond from a set of multiple response options. This approach was favored over an explicit interview about guidelines because it encouraged participants to discuss their perceptions of research guidelines within the context of ethically-loaded hypothetical scenarios, thus likely producing more honest, less socially desirable responses.

The creation of this instrument was guided by review and discussion of codes of conduct across fields of study, which led to the categorization of four broad dimensions of ethical behavior in the sciences: 1) data management, 2) study content, 3) professional practices, and 4) business practices. In order to tap these four dimensions, six equivalent measures were created with each measure intended to address a particular discipline of study (e.g. physical sciences, biological sciences, humanities, performance, health sciences, and social sciences). Although the scenarios differ in content based on field of study, they present test-takers with similar ethical situations.

Each measure consisted of between four and seven scenarios, each with approximately five follow-up questions. Each question in the instrument presented approximately eight response options and asks test-takers to select the two options that they believe represent the best ways to respond to the ethical dilemma presented in the scenario. An example scenario, question, and possible responses are shown in Table 1 . Each response was coded by experts as either low (1 pt.), medium (2 pts.), or high (3 pts.), with low responses representing poor responses and high representing good responses to the ethical dilemma featured in the scenario.

Example Ethical Decision-Making Measure Scenario and Questions

Note. Item responses are labeled to indicate whether they represent low-quality (L), medium-quality (M), or high-quality (H) responses to the ethical decision-making scenario. The quality designations are only presented on the measure key; they are not visible to participants.

Evidence of construct validity for these instruments, including divergent and convergent validity evidence, as well as correlations with measures of expected causes and outcomes of ethical decisions, is available in a summary article by Mumford et al. (2006) .

In the present study, participants completed online versions of their field-specific instruments via Qualtrics, a web-based survey tool. For example, engineers completed the physical sciences version of the instrument to ensure that the material presented in the scenarios was relevant to their research and professional experiences. Upon completing their respective surveys, participants were given scores for each scenario based on the number of low, medium, and high response options they selected for those scenarios. Each participant also received an overall ethical decision-making score for the entire instrument, representing an average score across each of the included scenarios. To identify scenarios most likely to represent instances of lower and higher ethical decision making, for each participant, only scenarios on which a participant scored more or less than a half standard deviation above his or her own average score were extracted for subsequent interviewing. These scenarios are of particular importance because they represent participants’ good and poor ethical decisions relative to their overall level of ethical decision making.

Think-Aloud Protocol Interviews

Following a one-week lag period, participants participated in a think-aloud protocol interview in which they were asked questions regarding their reasoning for selecting their answers on scenarios identified as examples of poor or good ethical responses. A pool of four interviewers, industrial-organizational psychology graduate students familiar with the ethical decision-making literature, carried out the one-on-one interviews. To prepare for the interviews, interviewers underwent a thorough training process. This process involved interviewers practicing interviewing one another, with recordings of the interviews reviewed for consistency via consensus agreement. After establishing a consistent interview procedure, interviewers piloted the interview protocol on two faculty volunteers. These pilot interviews were also recorded, transcribed, and reviewed for consistency. Following approval of faculty pilot interviews, the formal interview process with real participants commenced. These interviews were also recorded and transcribed for subsequent analysis.

Content Analysis

Transcribed interviews were then content analyzed. To be more specific, all participant discussion of ethical codes, professional guidelines, and codes of ethics was identified and analyzed for thematic content. To isolate portions of the transcripts in which participants discussed codes of conduct or professional guidelines, keywords associated with these topics were devised and utilized. Keywords associated with codes of conduct and professional guidelines were listed and reviewed by subject matter experts in ethical decision-making and revised to accommodate their suggestions. A list of these keywords can be found in Table 2 . NVivo 9, a computer-based qualitative analysis program, was then used to search all interview transcripts for words on the keyword list. Text surrounding these keywords was extracted and assessed for relevance by the coders, who reached consensus agreement.

Ethical Guidelines Keywords

Text identified as relevant to codes of conduct or professional guidelines was then sorted into categories, each labeled as a theme present in the discussion of codes of conduct or professional guidelines by researchers. These themes were reviewed by three faculty subject matter experts, in order to confirm that the excerpts related to codes of conduct or professional guidelines and that the thematic groupings reflected distinct, meaningful categories.

NVivo analysis of transcript content identified a total of 22 text excerpts from the 64 faculty interviewees as dealing concretely with issues involving codes of conduct, ethics codes, or professional guidelines. These 22 excerpts were sorted into five general themes: 1) expressing ignorance regarding guidelines, 2) use of ethical guidelines when a clear rule is available and consequences are substantial, 3) deference to professional norms over field-relevant ethical guidelines, 4) use of one’s internal compass in absence of clear guidelines, and 5) thinking of guidelines as flexible, idealistic, and representing a best-case scenario. Further discussion of each theme is presented below. It should be noted that any quotes used as examples in the following sections represent close approximations of relevant quotes from faculty interviews. Actual quotes have been slightly adjusted or generalized to protect confidentiality.

Expressing Ignorance or Lack of Knowledge Regarding Guidelines

Six of the 22 identified excerpts involved participants expressing ignorance or lack of knowledge regarding guidelines. Individuals responding in this manner tended to be ignorant of specific guidelines in their respective fields. Examples similar to participant responses include, “There may be a guideline regarding this issue, but I couldn’t point it out to you,” “I’m not sure what the rules are here at the university,” and “I don’t know if there are any written guidelines; I think most people just make their best guess.” Interestingly, it appears that individuals are actually aware of their ignorance regarding codes of conduct and professional guidelines, as illustrated in the above remarks and similar responses, such as “I didn’t know about consulting professional guidelines,” and “I just don’t know if they’re written down anywhere. I don’t know if the primary professional association guidelines in my field tells you that or not.” These individuals display a lack of knowledge about field-relevant guidelines and codes of conduct.

Use of Ethical Guidelines When Clear Rule is Available and Consequences are Substantial

Two of the 22 identified excerpts involved individuals referring to ethical guidelines that are clear and penalties potentially serious. Responses falling under this theme tend to refer to guidelines when they believe a clear, concrete rule is available, and when consequences may be substantial and costly. Discussion in this area typically revolved around issues involving informed consent, conflict of interest, and authorship/ownership rights. Some example statements include, “I think most journals have a policy in place and tell you who should be on the paper,” “It is important to describe all the possible risks in the informed consent form because that is something we are required to do,” and “… checking the guidelines, I think this is very important because codes usually say something about avoiding conflicts of interest.” The emphasis in these statements is on adhering to known, clear rules in situations with potentially serious consequences.

Deference to Professional Norms Over Field-Relevant Guidelines

Four of the 22 excerpts involved participants favoring the norms of their profession over official guidelines of the field. Thematic analysis revealed that many researchers defer to professional norms rather than ethical guidelines in a given field. For example, “This is more a matter of professional responsibility than one of ethics,” There aren’t really ethical guidelines here; it’s more of a culture thing,” and “I’m not sure if my field’s professional society has rules about multi-author papers, but I wouldn’t consult a handbook anyway because it’s more culture issue.” Here respondents appear to downplay the importance of guidelines in favor of more subjective, easier-to-follow norms within the field.

Use of Internal Compass in Absence of Clear Guidelines or Norms

Of the 22 excerpts, seven involved individuals using some sort of internal compass when clear guidelines are unavailable. When researchers cannot identify clear guidelines to follow and are unable to fall back on clear professional norms, they appear to use their own internal moral compasses to guide their decision making. An example of this tendency is illustrated in the following exemplar quotes, “It is your responsibility to be fair and honest with regard to your data,” and “There’s no specific guideline I can point to here; it’s more of a general understanding of ethics.” Here individuals appear to be guided by their own preset values and remain uninfluenced by norms and guidelines, either due to ignorance regarding them or lack of explicit guidelines.

Thinking of Guidelines as Flexible and Idealistic

Three of the 22 excerpts featured interviewees thinking about guidelines as flexible and idealistic. Individuals responding in this fashion tend to think that guidelines are not concrete and hard-set rules, but rather idealistic responses to situations in a best-case scenario context. Some example responses include, “The hardhat rule is often not for safety, it’s for social needs to let you know the roles of individuals on site,” and “You’re not going to make it very far in the real world if you can’t find a way to cut a corner.” These responses illustrate a tendency of individuals to assume they are above guidelines as they currently stand, and a tendency to disregard them.

Before turning to the implications of the present study, several limitations should be noted. First, due to the participants’ knowledge that they were participating in a study on ethical decision making, they may have perceived pressure to respond in a manner that portrayed them and their responses regarding ethical codes of conduct and professional guidelines in a positive light. However, given the neutral or negative framing of many responses, the effects of this issue are likely minimal.

Second, participants discussed prescribed scenarios designed to direct their thinking within an instrument of ethical decision making, rather than their own personal experiences dealing with codes of conduct or professional guidelines, which may have limited the range of situations they discussed regarding ethical codes. Because many responses dealt with codes of conduct or professional guidelines in a general light and not specific to the scenarios, however, it is likely that these themes represent the mindsets regarding guidelines typically present among research professionals in academia (e.g. not knowing the guidelines, not knowing if guidelines exist, knowing when to apply certain guidelines). Participants also often talked about their own experiences related to those identified in the ethical decision-making scenarios.

Despite the noted limitations, the present study provides some valuable insight into how researchers think about ethical codes of conduct and research guidelines. Thematic analysis of interview content revealed five general themes regarding researchers’ use of professional norms and guidelines. These themes do not represent specific, mutually-exclusive approaches an individual may take when thinking about guidelines, but rather different perspectives regarding norms and guidelines. The first identified theme deals with the tendency for researchers to express ignorance regarding guidelines, which is congruent with findings by House & Seeman (2010) . For example, they indicate their lack of awareness about the existence of such guidelines or their naivety when it comes to how and when to use them. Due to their lack of knowledge regarding professional guidelines, individuals exhibiting this thought pattern are at higher risk for failing to adhere to norms, codes of conduct, and professional guidelines than those who have such knowledge. However, this risk may be reduced by the apparent self-awareness regarding their ignorance of guidelines. In actual ethical situations, this self-awareness might prompt individuals to seek out relevant field or organizational guidelines.

A second way researchers talked about ethical guidelines was with regard to their use under specific conditions. That is, individuals will use guidelines when they are clear and concrete, providing definitive courses of action and when consequences for not adhering to such guidelines are serious. Some ethical dilemmas are more serious in nature than others and therefore concrete guidelines surrounding behavior in such situations are made more salient by professional associations within a field and by research organizations. Researchers are often more aware of and adhere to these well-advertised guidelines because they know the harm that can potentially result from failing to adhere to them. However, these kinds of guidelines may overshadow guidelines for less serious kinds of unethical behavior, resulting in either a lack of guidelines or less emphasis on and circulation of such guidelines when they exist.

When individuals do not have clear-cut, concrete guidelines to consult, they will defer to professional norms within their field. Individuals operating with this mindset may minimize the importance of formal codes of conduct and professional guidelines in favor of social and cultural norms. Unwritten norms in a field may be deemed equally acceptable as official rules and guidelines, and thus represent a viable alternative to individuals confronted with ethically loaded situations when clear, formal rules are unavailable. However, this belief could lead to complications as what is considered socially acceptable by individuals of a common profession may not necessarily represent the best course of action. Additionally, this could be complicated by the variability of norms across disciplines (Anderson et al., 2007; House & Seeman, 2007), which carries an implicit inconsistency of what is considered appropriate.

A fourth theme identified revealed instances where individuals relied on their existing moral compasses and values when clear professional norms are absent, which is consistent with a finding by House and Seeman (2010) which indicated that individuals rationalize their decisions with phrases like “it just seems to be the right thing.” The effectiveness of this tendency with regard to ethical behavior is presumably contingent upon the individual’s moral standards. That is, how the individual decides to proceed with a course of action depends on his or her subjective view of what is right and what is wrong. As a result, such individuals may act in a way that would be incongruent with how the majority of professionals in their field would act in the same situation.

A fifth and final theme is the view that guidelines need not be taken seriously; i.e., they are merely guidelines and not rules. These individuals may view guidelines as flexible and able to be adjusted to fit their own biases and judgments. For example, these individuals may think that their own opinion of how something should be done supersedes the established norm or guidelines, such as having the notion that safety can be sacrificed for efficiency, despite what the rules dictate. On the other hand, it is certainly possible that some guidelines are archaic and no longer represent the best course of action, and individuals who approach use of such guidelines with flexibility may, in fact, take a better, or more ethical, course of action.

Practical Implications

The findings flowing from this study have some interesting practical implications for ethical codes of conduct, professional norms, and professional guidelines. Professional societies and organizations need to find better ways of communicating guidelines and helping researchers use them appropriately. This can help be achieved in a number of ways. First, researchers can better utilize guidelines by being able to recognize ethical elements of situations. This basic tenet is in accordance with what Eriksson, Hoglund, and Helgesson (2008) referred to as an interpretation problem with applying the directives of ethical regulations in ethical situations. This problem posits that there is a gap between the rules and the practice they are intended to regulate. An individual must always interpret the rules appropriately to assess their applicability to a particular situation. Additionally, an individual must have an ethical foundation from which to base interpretations. A potential solution to this may be through an institutional ethics training program designed to instruct individuals how to recognize ethical situations and provide them with a framework with how to work through dilemmas to reach the best possible outcome.

Another way professional societies and organizations can better communicate guidelines and help researchers use them appropriately is by developing clearly worded guidelines and codes. Specifically, guidelines need to be written in such a way that they can be readily encoded. That is, heuristics should be created using short, clear definitions attached to explanations of importance. Some examples of current APA guidelines and proposed simplified heuristics are presented in Table 3 . Utilizing heuristics rather than complex, overly detailed explanations of guidelines will allow individuals to readily retain ethical guideline information. Individuals will be more knowledgeable of guidelines when relevant situations arise. Thus, these individuals will be better equipped to handle situations calling for ethical decision making.

Proposed heuristics for current APA guidelines

In the event that professional guidelines or formal codes of conduct do not exist, an awareness of professional norms needs to be encouraged. It is the responsibility of the organization or professional society to communicate to its members what is expected of them, even if it is done in an informal manner. This may best be done as part of the socialization process into the professional society or organization. For example, when an employee enters into an institution, he or she should be made aware of professional norms from a number of sources, including peers and leaders.

Finally, researchers can use guidelines and ethical codes more appropriately if they receive practice in or explicit guidance in understanding how to use guidelines and codes in decision making. This may be attained by implementing a practice section into the aforementioned ethics training program, specifically designed to give individuals the opportunity to practice interpreting and applying professional guidelines of their respective field. Additionally, this program could give them guidance in how to respond when clear, formal guidelines and codes do not exist. It is important for researchers to understand that they are guidelines, not laws, but that in some cases guidelines may also be laws and it is important to recognize the difference.

Future Research

While the present effort provides useful implications with regard to codes of conduct and professional guidelines, further research can seek to determine the most effective strategies for developing such codes and guidelines. The solutions proposed above are purely exploratory at this point, and experimental studies may provide causal insight into whether short, clear, heuristic-based codes of conduct and professional guidelines influence subsequent ethical decision making. Furthermore, it may be interesting to examine whether individuals operating under heuristic codes better encode and adhere to guidelines than individuals operating under the more traditional, complex descriptions. Similarly, it is worth investigating the effectiveness of an ethics training program on communicating guidelines and norms and helping researchers to use them more appropriately. The research conducted in this study can be expanded upon by broadening the sample to include individuals who are not strictly researchers, such as applied professionals and corporate employees. Finally, future research efforts should seek to develop effective methods for increasing awareness about professional norms in order to give researchers a framework from which to act when guidelines and formal codes are absent.

The present effort sought to determine under what circumstances researchers adhere to ethical codes of conduct and professional guidelines, as well as determine the underlying reasons researchers have for not adhering to codes of conduct and professional guidelines. Thematic analysis of interviews with researchers in six disciplines of study revealed five primary themes regarding codes of conduct and professional guidelines: 1) expressing ignorance regarding guidelines, 2) use of ethical guidelines when a clear rule is available and consequences are substantial, 3) deference to professional norms over field-relevant ethical guidelines, 4) use of internal compass in absence of clear guidelines, and 5) thinking of guidelines as inflexible, idealistic, and representing a best-case scenario.

Additionally, we identified some implications of these findings for better communicating and applying extant codes of conduct and professional guidelines. For example, professional guidelines and codes of conduct may not be properly communicated to members of professional societies and organizations. Specifically, professional guidelines as they are currently constructed may be overly complex and written in excessive detail. A better approach is suggested, in which professional guidelines and codes of conduct are written in brief, clear descriptions so as to provide heuristics for researchers to easily encode and recall them when necessary. Additionally, an ethics training program can serve as a solution to the disconnect between an organization’s guidelines and employees’ ability to use them appropriately. Finally, we propose a socialization approach to communicating how and when to use professional norms as an appropriate replacement when formal guidelines and codes of conduct are not readily available or known. We hope that the present effort provides valuable insight into how researchers view codes of conduct and professional guidelines, as well as provides an impetus for policy-makers to see the need to improve codes and guidelines so as to maximize their effectiveness.

Acknowledgments

We would like to thank Dr. Lee Williams for his contributions to the present effort. Parts of this work were sponsored by Grant No. R21 ES021075-01 from the National Institutes of Health, Michael D. Mumford, principle investigator.

Contributor Information

Vincent Giorgini, University of Oklahoma.

Jensen T. Mecca, University of Oklahoma.

Carter Gibson, University of Oklahoma.

Kelsey Medeiros, University of Oklahoma.

Michael D. Mumford, University of Oklahoma.

Shane Connelly, University of Oklahoma.

Lynn D. Devenport, University of Oklahoma.

• Akaah IP, Riordan EA. Judgments of marketing professionals about ethical issues in marketing research: A replication and extension. Journal of Marketing Research. 1989; 26 :112–120. [ Google Scholar ]
• American Institute of Chemical Engineers. Code of ethics. 2003. [ Google Scholar ]
• American Nuclear Society. Code of ethics. 2003. [ Google Scholar ]
• American Psychological Association. Ethical principles of psychologists and code of conduct. American Psychological Association; 2002. [ Google Scholar ]
• American Society of Mechanical Engineering. Society policy: Ethics. 2012. [ Google Scholar ]
• Backof JF, Martin CL., Jr Historical perspectives: development of the codes of ethics in the legal, medical and accounting professions. Journal of Business Ethics. 1991; 10 (2):99–110. [ Google Scholar ]
• Bayles MD. Professionals Ethics. 1981. [ Google Scholar ]
• Center for Business Ethics. Instilling ethical values in large corporations. The Journal of Business Ethics. 1992; 11 :863–867. [ Google Scholar ]
• Cleek MA, Leonard SL. Can corporate codes of ethics influence behavior? Journal of Business Ethics. 1998; 17 (6):619–630. [ Google Scholar ]
• Cressey DR, Moore CA. Managerial values and corporate codes of ethics. California Management Review. 1983; 25 (4):53–77. [ Google Scholar ]
• Eriksson S, Höglund AT, Helgesson G. Do ethical guidelines give guidance? A critical examination of eight ethics regulations. Cambridge Quarterly of Healthcare Ethics. 2008; 17 (1):15–29. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Ethics Resource Center and The Behavior Research Center. Ethics Policies and Programs in American Business: Report of a Landmark Survey of US Corporations. Washington, D.C: 1990. [ Google Scholar ]
• Frankel MS. Professional codes: Why, how, and with what impact? Journal of Business Ethics. 1989; 8 (2–3):109–115. [ Google Scholar ]
• Fulmer RM. Personnel Administrator. 1969. Ethical Codes for Business; pp. 49–57. [ Google Scholar ]
• Gordon K, Miyake M. Business approaches to combating bribery: A study of codes of conduct. Journal of Business Ethics. 2001; 34 (3–4):161–173. [ Google Scholar ]
• Hegarty WH, Sims HP. Organizational philosophy, policies, and objectives related to unethical decision behavior: A laboratory experiment. Journal of Applied Psychology. 1979; 64 (3):331–338. [ Google Scholar ]
• Helton-Fauth W, Gaddis B, Scott G, Mumford M, Devenport L, Connelly S, Brown R. A new approach to assessing ethical conduct in scientific work. Accountability in Research: Policies and Quality Assurance. 2003; 10 (4):205–228. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• House MC, Seeman JI. Credit and authorship practices: educational and environmental influences. Accountabilityin research. 2010; 17 :223–256. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Institution of Civil Engineers. ICE code of professional conduct. 2008. [ Google Scholar ]
• Kerr DS, Smith LM. Importance of and approaches to incorporating ethics into the accounting classroom. Journal of Business Ethics. 1995; 14 (12):987–995. [ Google Scholar ]
• Laczniak GR, Inderrieden EJ. The influence of stated organizational concern upon ethical decision making. Journal of Business Ethics. 1987; 6 (4):297–307. [ Google Scholar ]
• Lefebvre M, Singh JB. The content and focus of Canadian corporate codes of ethics. Journal of Business Ethics. 1992; 11 (10):799–808. [ Google Scholar ]
• Martinson MS, Martinson BC, de Vries R. Normative dissonance in science: Results from a national survey of U.S. scientists. Journal of Empirical Research on Human Research in Ethics. 2007; 2 :3–14. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• McCabe DL, Trevino LK, Butterfield KD. The influence of collegiate and corporate codes of conduct on ethics-related behavior in the workplace. Business Ethics Quarterly. 1996; 6 (4):461–476. [ Google Scholar ]
• Meyer P. Ethical Journalism. Longman; New York: 1987. [ Google Scholar ]
• Mumford MD, Devenport LD, Brown RP, Connelly S, Murphy ST, Antes AL. Validation of ethical decision making measures: Evidence for a new set of measures. Ethics & Behavior. 2006; 16 (4):319–345. [ Google Scholar ]
• Murphy PR, Smith JE, Daley JM. Executive attitudes, organizational size and ethical issues: Perspectives on a service industry. Journal of Business Ethics. 1992; 11 (1):11–19. [ Google Scholar ]
• Neukrug E, Lovell C, Parker RJ. Employing Ethical Codes and Decision-Making Models: A Developmental Process. Counseling and Values. 1996; 40 (2):98–106. [ Google Scholar ]
• Pierce MA, Henry JW. Computer ethics: The role of personal, informal, and formal codes. Journal of Business Ethics. 1996; 15 (4):425–437. [ Google Scholar ]
• Savan B. Beyond professional ethics: issues and agendas. Journal of Business Ethics. 1989; 8 (2–3):179–185. [ Google Scholar ]
• Schwartz M, Cragg W. Corporate codes of ethics: Factors leading to effectiveness. Proceedings of the Academy of Management Annual Conference; Summer 2000.2000. [ Google Scholar ]
• Schwartz MS. A code of ethics for corporate code of ethics. Journal of Business Ethics. 2002; 41 (1–2):27–43. [ Google Scholar ]
• Stevens B. An analysis of corporate ethical code studies: “Where do we go from here?” Journal of Business Ethics. 1994; 13 (1):63–69. [ Google Scholar ]
• Van Noorden R. The trouble with retractions. Nature. 2011; 478 :26–28. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Ward SP, Ward DR, Deck AB. Certified public accountants: Ethical perception skills and attitudes on ethics education. Journal of Business Ethics. 1993; 12 (8):601–610. [ Google Scholar ]
• Wilson RG. The death of Jesse Gelsinger: New evidence of the influence of money and prestige in human research. American Journal of Law & Medicine. 2010; 36 :295–325. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]

Click through the PLOS taxonomy to find articles in your field.

For more information about PLOS Subject Areas, click here .

Loading metrics

Open Access

Peer-reviewed

Research Article

Research Integrity and Research Ethics in Professional Codes of Ethics: Survey of Terminology Used by Professional Organizations across Research Disciplines

Affiliation Medical student, University of Split, School of Medicine, Split, Croatia

Affiliation Rogor, Zagreb, Croatia

* E-mail: [email protected]

Affiliation Department of Research in Biomedicine and Health, University of Split, School of Medicine, Split, Croatia

• Dubravka Komić, 
• Stjepan Ljudevit Marušić, 
• Ana Marušić

• Published: July 20, 2015
• https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0133662
• Reader Comments

Professional codes of ethics are social contracts among members of a professional group, which aim to instigate, encourage and nurture ethical behaviour and prevent professional misconduct, including research and publication. Despite the existence of codes of ethics, research misconduct remains a serious problem. A survey of codes of ethics from 795 professional organizations from the Illinois Institute of Technology’s Codes of Ethics Collection showed that 182 of them (23%) used research integrity and research ethics terminology in their codes, with differences across disciplines: while the terminology was common in professional organizations in social sciences (82%), mental health (71%), sciences (61%), other organizations had no statements (construction trades, fraternal social organizations, real estate) or a few of them (management, media, engineering). A subsample of 158 professional organizations we judged to be directly involved in research significantly more often had statements on research integrity/ethics terminology than the whole sample: an average of 10.4% of organizations with a statement (95% CI = 10.4-23-5%) on any of the 27 research integrity/ethics terms compared to 3.3% (95% CI = 2.1–4.6%), respectively (P<0.001). Overall, 62% of all statements addressing research integrity/ethics concepts used prescriptive language in describing the standard of practice. Professional organizations should define research integrity and research ethics issues in their ethics codes and collaborate within and across disciplines to adequately address responsible conduct of research and meet contemporary needs of their communities.

Citation: Komić D, Marušić SL, Marušić A (2015) Research Integrity and Research Ethics in Professional Codes of Ethics: Survey of Terminology Used by Professional Organizations across Research Disciplines. PLoS ONE 10(7): e0133662. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0133662

Editor: Jelte M. Wicherts, Tilburg University, NETHERLANDS

Received: December 29, 2014; Accepted: June 30, 2015; Published: July 20, 2015

Copyright: © 2015 Komić et al. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License , which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited

Data Availability: All relevant data are within the paper and its Supporting Information files. Data are from a publicly available database ( http://ethics.iit.edu/ecodes/ ).

Funding: The author(s) received no specific funding for this work. SLM is a freelancer for Rogor, who did not have any additional role in the study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript. The specific role of this author is articulated in the ‘author contributions’ section.

Competing interests: The authors have the following interests: Stjepan Ljudevit Marušić is a freelancer under the trading name 'Rogor', Zagreb, Croatia. There are no patents, products in development or marketed products to declare. This does not alter the authors' adherence to all the PLOS ONE policies on sharing data and materials, as detailed online in the guide for authors.

Introduction

There are many definitions of professional codes of ethics and their functions [ 1 ] but they can generally be described as formal documents sending a message to the professional community about moral standards guiding professional behaviour. These moral standards also address research and publication activities in most professional societies across disciplines [ 1 ]. Judging from the increasing evidence for the seriousness of research misconduct at the global level [ 2 – 4 ], ethics codes have failed miserably in preventing research misconduct, as the practical definition of an ineffective code is that it “has failed to prevent illegal or unethical behaviour… that was prohibited in the code” [ 5 ].

Just as there are many definitions of professional codes of ethics, there are also many definitions of research integrity and misconduct, which vary a lot according to the legislative definitions in different countries [ 4 ]. In general, research integrity can be defined as “research behaviour viewed from the perspective of professional standards” and is different from research ethics, which is “research behaviour viewed from the perspective of moral principles” [ 6 ]. Research integrity (RI) is a part of responsible conduct of research–the ideal behaviour in research, contrasted by deliberate misconduct on the other side of the behavioural spectrum, which includes fabrication, falsification and plagiarism (FFP) as the worst behaviour [ 6 ]. In the middle of this behavioural spectrum are the so-called questionable research practices (QRP), which “violate traditional values or commonly accepted practices, from initial project design through to publication and peer review” [ 6 ]. Questionable research practices include inaccuracy, misrepresentation and bias in research and publishing [ 4 , 6 ].

Despite the importance of research integrity, it is not clear how professions define and communicate this concept to their membership. There is a wealth of research into codes of ethics, particularly in business [ 1 , 7 ] but little data on how current concepts of research integrity and research misconduct are addressed in the codes. A study of 90 codes from 61 scientific professional organizations funded by the National Science Foundation in the USA in 1998 demonstrated that only 39% had general statements on the need to give proper credit in publications and only 17% provided a definition of authorship [ 8 ]. The codes used mostly normative, prescriptive language to describe the “minimum levels of appropriate behaviour” [ 8 ]. A comparison of codes/policies from peer-reviewed journals and professional organizations, showed that 53% of the journals and only 11% of professional codes had authorship definitions [ 9 ]. Professional codes of ethics used a prescriptive language more often than journals (75% vs 18%) in defining authorship [ 9 ]. In a qualitative study of 46 scientific organization codes of ethics [ 10 ], the codes included issues such as honesty in conducting and reporting research; fairness and integrity in authorship; appropriate use of public funds; sharing, preservation and dissemination of research results; and responsibility for the integrity of the published record (for organizations with strong publishing activity).

This article attempts to provide the basic landscape for research integrity in professional codes of ethics across different disciplines. We took advantage of the existence of a large online collection of professional codes of ethics, created and maintained by The Center for the Study of Ethics in the Professions (CSEP) from the Illinois Institute of Technology [ 11 ]. The Codes of Ethics Collection database was started in 1996, when it was developed through a grant from the US National Science Foundation [ 12 ]. The codes are classified into 28 different categories of professional organizations and have been contributed by academic organizations, businesses, industry associations, fraternal organizations, government organizations, non-profit organizations and professional associations.

We searched all codes from the Codes of Ethics Collection database for the corpus of research integrity/ethics terms generated from literature and discussion with experts, and counted these statements. We developed the list of research integrity/ethics terms from the definitions provided in the article by N. Steneck from the Office of Research Integrity of the US Department for Health and Human Services in 2006 [ 6 ]. We first created a list of 23 terms, which were piloted with a group of 5 researchers in the area of research integrity and ethics (listed in the Acknowledgment section: 1 editor of a medical journal and researcher in publishing integrity and ethics, 3 researchers in moral reasoning and research integrity and ethics, and 1 editor and researcher, former Chair of the Committee on Publication Ethics, COPE). After consultations, some of the terms were rephrases and 3 new terms were added. The list was then discussed with the participants of the 3 rd World Congress on Research Integrity (May 2013), where we presented our preliminary analysis [ 13 ]; the discussion resulted in addition of one more term to designate conflict of interest (‘dual relationship’). The final search set included 27 RI concepts (in alphabetical order): 1) Author/Authorship, 2) Bias (including bias due to conflict of interest), 3) Competing interest, 4) Conflict of interest, 5) Contributor/Contribution, 6) Credit, 7) Dishonesty, 8) Dual interest/relationship, 9) Ethics, 10) Fabrication, 11) Falsification, 12) Fraud/Fraudulent, 13) Honesty, 14) Inaccuracy, 15) Integrity, 16) Malpractice, 17) Manipulation, 18) Misconduct, 19) Misrepresentation, 20) Plagiarism, 21) Questionable publication practices (QPP)–duplicate publication, 22) QPP–redundant publication, 23) QPP–repetitive publication, 24) QPP–salami publication, 25) QPP–secondary publication, 26) Questionable research practices, 27) Responsible conduct of research.

For analysis, we classified the terms into three groups, which are usually described to span the whole spectrum of research behaviour–from responsible conduct of research (RCR) over questionable research practices (QRP) to research misconduct (FFP–fabrication, falsification, and plagiarism) [ 6 ]. “Questionable research practices” is the term used by the Office of Research Integrity in the USA to describe “actions that violate traditional values of the research enterprise and that may be detrimental to the research process”, but are not directly damaging to research as is FFP [ 6 ]. The 27 terms identified for this study were arbitrarily divided into these three groups: RCR–‘ethics’, ‘responsible conduct of research’, ‘integrity’, ‘honesty’, ‘authorship’, ‘contributorship’, and ‘credit’; QRP–‘inaccuracy’, ‘misrepresentation’, ‘questionable research practices’, ‘bias’, ‘conflict of interest’, ‘competing interest’, ‘dual interest/relationship’, and ‘questionable publication practices (duplicate, redundant, repetitive and salami publications)’; and research misconduct–‘falsification’, ‘fabrication’, plagiarism’, ‘misconduct’, ‘malpractice’, ‘fraud’, ‘manipulation’ and ‘dishonesty’. We deliberately used overlapping terms and synonyms, as well as terminology related to research ethics, in order to increase the sensitivity of the search, so that we could identify all and any ethics statement that would use these terms in the context of research. Where needed, we used variations of the term to increase the sensitivity of the search (e.g. ‘author’ and ‘authorship’; ‘contribution’, ‘contributor’ and ‘contributorship’; and ‘fraud’ and ‘fraudulent’). Only the statements where the search terms were used to address research activity and not only professional duties were included in the analysis. The last search was performed in October 2013. We did not use any time-limits to the search, so different codes of the same organizations were retrieved. For the code documents with the same title but different dates of issue, only the latest version was analyzed. Documents with different titles from the same professional organization were all analyzed, irrespective of the date of issue. Data extraction and analysis was performed by two authors (DK and AM), with high inter-rater agreement (kappa = 0.997, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.995–0.999). In cases of disagreement, the two raters discussed the discrepancies and made a consensus decision on the inclusion of a statement in the final analysis. We first analyzed the statements mentioning research integrity/ethics terms from all retrieved professional organizations and then performed a separate analysis for research-related professions. Organizations involved in performing or regulating research were identified as those having the term ‘research’ or ‘science’ in their name or the following terms: ‘academy’, ‘alliance’, ‘association’, ‘board’, ‘center/centre’, ‘chamber’, ‘committee’, ‘congress’, ‘council’, ‘federation’, ‘institute’, ‘journal’, ‘society’, or ‘university’.

For statements included in the analysis, we assessed the tone of the language in the statements addressing research integrity/ethics terms, using the method developed by Rose [ 8 ]. The language of a statement was categorized as either aspirational , when it formulated suggestions for best or desired practices, such as using the words “strive to,” “attempt to,” “endeavour to,” or “seek” or prescriptive – normative , when the statement defined minimal standards for practice which should not be failed by any researcher. For example, the statement “ I shall strive to avoid scientific and professional misconduct including , but not limited to fraud , fabrication , plagiarism , concealment , inappropriate omission of information , and making false or deceptive statements .” was considered aspirational, and the statement “ … members shall not commit scientific misconduct , defined as fabrication , falsification , or plagiarism .” was classified as prescriptive. Two authors (SLM and AM) independently coded the language of the retrieved statements. Kappa index for agreement in coding ranged from 0.719 to 1 for individual terms; the median kappa for all coded terms was 0.940 (95% CI = 0.924–1.000). All differences were resolved by discussion and final agreement on the language coding.

The data were presented as frequencies for categorical variables and means or medians with 95% confidence interval (CI) for continuous variables, depending of the normality of data distribution, as tested by D'Agostino-Pearson test (MedCalc statistical software v.13.0.2; Ostend, Belgium). No statistical tests were employed for comparisons among research integrity/ethics terms or organizations since sampling was not performed. Student t-test for independent samples was used to compare the subsample of research-related organizations with the total sample.

Prevalence of research integrity/ethics terms in professional codes of ethics

At the time of the search, the database had a collection of electronic formats of ethic codes from 795 professional organizations. Out of those, 182 (23%) organizations had codes with at least one research integrity/ethics term (full database in S1 File , list of organizations in Table A in S2 File ). Most of the organizations that addressed any research integrity/ethics term in their codes were national societies or associations (n = 142, 78%), followed by international societies/associations (n = 20, 11%); there were 7 government institutions (4%, all from USA), 5 universities/institutes (3%), 5 business corporations (3%) and 3 journals (2%).

The number of terms (concepts) addressed by an organization ranged from 1 to 20, with a median of 2 (95% CI 2–3). The body with the highest number of research integrity/ethics terms addressed (20 out of 27) was the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE), followed by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (United States Department of Commerce) which addressed 17 terms, while the Academy for Certification of Vision Rehabilitation and Education Professionals, American Chemical Society, American Sociological Association and United States Fish and Wildlife Service addressed 14 terms each.

Most commonly addressed research integrity/ethics terms (more than 5% of 795 organizations) were ‘inaccuracy’, ‘ethics’, terms related to authorship and credit for research, ‘plagiarism’, ‘conflict of interest’ and ‘integrity’ ( Table 1 ).

• PPT PowerPoint slide
• PNG larger image
• TIFF original image

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0133662.t001

We separately searched for three terms related to the concept of giving proper credit for research contribution: ‘author(ship)’, ‘contributor(ship)’ and ‘credit’ ( Table 1 ). Whereas ‘authorship’ was defined in a total of 78 statements, 46% of ‘contributor(ship)’ statements (n = 46 of 99) were a part of an authorship definition. ‘Credit for research’ was addressed independently of authorship or contributorship in 42 (52%) of all statements mentioning this concept (n = 81, Table 1 ).

After deduplication of organizations and statements, terms related to deliberate misconduct, including FFP, were addressed by 78 organizations (10%), with a total of 253 statements. Among these concepts, ‘plagiarism’ was the term addressed by most of the organizations (7%) and in the largest number of statements ( Table 1 ). The so-called Questionable research practices, as defined by the Office of Research Integrity in the USA [ 6 ], were addressed by 119 (15%) organizations in 313 statements. Questionable publishing practices [ 6 ], such as ‘duplicate’, ‘redundant’ or ‘secondary publication’ were rarely addressed by professional organizations: only 13 (1.6%) organizations addressed any of these concepts, with a total of 19 statements. Whereas no organizations provided any instruction on ‘salami publications’ or ‘salami slicing’ (least-publishable unit or publishing a single study in several partial publication) [ 6 ], ‘duplicate publication’ (publishing of the same data more than once without reference to the earlier version) [ 6 ] was addressed in 11 statements by 10 (1.3%) organizations ( Table 1 ).

We also analyzed a subset of ethical codes from 158 professional organizations we judged to be directly involved in research ( Table 2 ) (list in Table B in S2 File ). These organizations significantly more often had statements on research integrity/ethics terms than the whole sample of professional organizations: average of 10.4% (95% CI = 10.4-23-5%) on any of the 27 concepts compared to 3.3% of organizations with a statement (95% CI = 2.1–4.6%), respectively (t df = 52 = 4.186, P<0.001). The ranking of most frequently used terms was similar to that observed in the total sample.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0133662.t002

Language of statements addressing research integrity/ethics terms

We analyzed a total of 1072 statements retrieved by individual term searches, representing 652 unique statements because some individual statements addressed more than one RI concept. Overall, 62% of all statements used prescriptive language in describing the standard of practice. For the analysis of statement language tone for individual research integrity/ethics terms the total set of 1072 statements was used.

Terms addressing responsible conduct of research were mostly described in prescriptive language (309 (61%) of the total of 504 statements) ( Table 1 ). The concept addressed with slightly more statements in aspirational than prescriptive language was ‘integrity’ (58% vs 42%, respectively) ( Table 1 ).

Statements describing research misconduct were also written predominantly in prescriptive language (159 (63%) of 253 statements). Whereas the statements on research fabrication, falsification and plagiarism (FFP) were prescriptive in almost three thirds of the statements, the language of statements describing ‘manipulation’, ‘dishonesty’, ‘fraud’ and ‘misconduct’ was mixed, with equal prevalence of the two language tones or small dominance of aspirational (for ‘dishonesty’ and ‘manipulation’) ( Table 1 ).

Prescriptive language also dominated in the statements addressing the so-called questionable research practices, as 190 (61%) statements out of total 313 used the normative tone. The statements related to research misconduct more often included the description of a procedure to address the breach of integrity (15% of the statement for research misconduct vs 2% for responsible conduct of research concepts and 1% for questionable research practices).

Prescriptive language also dominated in the statements from the subgroup of 158 professional organizations directly related to research ( Table 2 ). There were no differences in the prevalence of prescriptive language among statements for research integrity/ethics concepts: average prevalence of 49.0 (95% CI 37.9-60-1%) for the research professional organizations compared to 53.9% (95% CI 43.8–64.0%) for the total sample (t df = 52 = –0.668, P = 0.507).

RI statements in different professional fields

The above analysis included all statements from individual organizations. However, the results we obtained may not be the reflection of the actual visibility or awareness of these concepts in different research disciplines. The Codes of Ethics Collection database organizes ethics codes into 28 categories, where some organizations are included in more than one category. For example, the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) was included in 5 categories: ‘Communications’, ‘Media’, ‘Other Professions’, ‘Science’, and ‘Social Science’s, whereas World Medical Association was included in ‘Health Care’ and in ‘Service Organizations’. Table 3 presents the analysis of research integrity/ethics terms addressed and the language of the statements across different professional disciplines, regardless of their overlap in included organizations, in order to assess the visibility of research integrity/ethics concepts within a discipline rather than in individual professional organizations.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0133662.t003

A median of 15% of organizations in any category (95% CI 10–335) had a statement that addressed research integrity/ethics concepts. This prevalence ranged from 0% in categories ‘Construction Trades’, ‘Fraternal Social Organizations’ and ‘Real Estate’ to 82% in ‘Social Sciences’, 71% in ‘Mental Health and Counselling’, and ‘Science’ ( Table 3 ). Most of the organizations addressing research integrity/ethics concepts in their codes belonged to the research-related organizations as defined in our study ( Table 4 ).

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0133662.t004

The average number of research integrity/ethics concepts addressed by a professional discipline was 11.8 (95% CI for the mean 8.9–14.8). No research integrity topics were addressed by organizations in the categories of ‘Construction Trades’ (n = 17 organizations), ‘Fraternal Social Organizations’ (n = 5) and ‘Real Estate’ (n = 6). Organizations in categories ‘Health Care’ addressed 24 (96%), and those in ‘Science’ addressed 24 (89%) out of 27 concepts. The median number of statements per professional discipline was 29 (95% CI 13–42), ranging from 3 for the ‘Finance’ to 478 for the ‘Science’ category. Prescriptive language in the statements predominated across disciplines, with the average percentage of 58.5% (95% CI 47.0%-70.0%).

Although the size of the category, expressed as the number of organizations having a code addressing research integrity/ethics concepts, positively correlated with the number of statements identified for each category ( Table 3 ), there were categories with an exceptionally large number of statements, such as ‘Sciences’, where 46 organizations had 478 statements. The ‘Health Care’ category had 47 organizations, with 280 statements.

In relation to individual concepts, none of the professional disciplines addressed all concepts. The number of organizations addressing an individual research integrity/ethics concept ranged from 2 to 23 (median 17, 95% CI 7–18). RI topics most commonly addressed were: ‘inaccuracy’ (n = 23 professional disciplines), ‘credit’ (n = 21), ‘integrity’ (n = 21), ‘plagiarism’ (n = 19), author (n = 19), ‘contributor’ (n = 19), ‘honesty’ (n = 18), ‘conflict of interest’ (n = 18), ‘falsification’ (n = 18), ‘fabrication’ (n = 18) and ‘misconduct’ (n = 17). ‘malpractice’ and ‘salami publications’ were not addressed by organizations in any of the professional disciplines. The concepts addressed by the fewest organization categories were ‘repetitive publication’ (n = 3, categories ‘Health Care’, ‘Science’, ‘Service Organizations’), ‘secondary publication’ (n = 3, categories ‘Communication’, ‘Health Care’ and ‘Science’) and ‘questionable research practices’ (n = 2, categories ‘Science’ and ‘Education and Academia’).

The subsample of professional organizations directly related to research did not differ from the total sample ( Table 4 ), in the average number of concepts addressed by organizations (average of 12.6%, 95% CI 9.4–15.8%; range 1 to 415), average number of statements per professional organization of 20.0%, 13.1–64.8%), prevalence of statements with prescriptive language (average of 58%, 95% CI 47.0–70.0%), number of statements per professional categories, and number of organizations addressing individual concepts (average of 11.1 organizations, 95% CI 8.8–13.5%).

Our survey demonstrated that the important terms (concepts) concerning the broad field of research integrity and ethics are not in the focus of professional communities, despite high prevalence of research misconduct and violations of responsible conduct of research [ 2 – 4 ]. The fact that only 23% of 795 professional organizations had a code that addressed at least one of the well-known and generally accepted research integrity/ethics terms [ 6 ] is not good news for the scientific community. It is also worrying that even those organizations that defined research integrity concepts in their codes only addressed a small number of important terms, from 2 to 3 per organization. In the subsample of professional organizations directly involved in research (n = 158), codes of ethics on average addressed three times more RI terms that the whole sample. In both groups, the language of the statements on research integrity/ethics terms was predominantly prescriptive, setting minimal standards which must not be failed. In this way, a strong message is sent to its members about expected professional behaviour.

Some professional fields, such as ‘Education and Academia’, ‘Health Care, ‘Mental Health/Counselling’, ‘Science’ and ‘Other Professions’ (as classified in the Collection) had the highest number of organizations and the highest number of statements addressing research integrity/ethics concepts per organization. This indicates that some professions, especially those providing care for human individuals or providing teaching services pay special attention to research as an important aspect of their work. The most commonly addressed research integrity/ethics concepts were ethics and authorship/contributorship/credit from the “positive” spectrum of research behaviour, and inaccuracy, plagiarism and conflict of interest among the” negative” spectrum of research behaviour. These concepts are very old, and provide the base for moral judgments in any profession [ 10 ]. Newer research integrity/ethics concepts, such as ‘responsible conduct of research’ and ‘questionable research practices’, commonly used in research on research integrity [ 6 ], seem not to have found their way into all professions.

A limitation to the study is the fact that the Collection of Codes may not be representative of the research community, which is most acutely concerned with research integrity. However, 475 out of 795 analyzed organizations (60%) had the term ‘association’, ‘federation’, ‘society’, ‘academy’, ‘college’, ‘university’, ‘congress’ or ‘council’, or ‘science’ in their title. Even in this subsample of professional organizations that should address research and publishing activities the prevalence of research integrity statements was only 38%. When we analyzed a subsample of organizations that may be directly related to research (judging from their names) and that addressed research integrity/ethics concepts in their codes, we found a greater number of concepts addressed than in the whole sample. Also, organizations from this subsample were responsible for 82% of the statements addressing research integrity/ethics concepts in the whole sample. However, we would argue that this distinction between research and non-research professional organizations is artificial. Although research is not explicitly mentioned in most of the definitions of professional codes of ethics [ 1 ], it is implicit that a profession should be engaged in collecting evidence and using it for its further development. This is reflected in the definition of profession by Cogan [ 14 ] as a “vocation whose practice is founded upon an understanding of the theoretical structure of some department of learning or science, and upon abilities accompanying such understanding.” This is illustrated by the fact that the organizations from the ‘Government and Military’ and ‘Wildlife and Environmental Stewardship’ categories did not include research-related organizations, but still addressed important research integrity/ethics concepts (9 ‘Government and Military’ organizations addressed 18 concepts in 90 statements and 2 Wildlife and Environmental Stewardship’ organizations addressed 14 concepts in 35 statements). Furthermore, some of the disciplines traditionally considered as research-oriented, had a small prevalence of organizations with a code addressing research integrity/ethics concepts, such as 8% for ‘Engineering’.

Another limitation of the study is the fact that we analyzed only the codes available online. It is possible that professional organizations have relevant guidelines in a printed form or on a web-site different from the one provided in the Collection. For a few that were not transcribed into the database, such as the one from the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors, we analyzed the content of the website provided in the link. We did not attempt to retrieve the codes that were available only in a printed version. Our intention was to investigate the codes available in the public domain because one of the important aspects of a profession is to provide service, i.e. have a public purpose [ 1 ]. Our search strategy was designed to be sensitive, so that the statements with any term related to research integrity/ethics could be identified. This resulted in terminological overlaps and synonyms, which were all included in the analysis. We also did not perform a qualitative analysis of the content of the statements, so it is possible that brief and vague statements that included more than one research integrity/ethics term would contribute more to the frequency analysis in this study than a long and detailed statement with a single term. The search strategy also did not have a time limit, which introduced a bias, as our intention was to provide a time–independent landscape of research integrity/ethics concepts in professional organizations. Furthermore, the Collection is dominated by organizations from the USA and thus biased towards scientific communities in developed, high-income countries. In view of this fact, the survey findings are even more worrying because evidence shows that research misconduct is at least as prevalent in low–and middle–income countries as it is in high–income countries [ 4 ], and in some aspects of research misbehaviour, such as authorship [ 3 ] or plagiarism [ 15 ], it can even be a greater problem. Finally, the categorization of codes and language of the statement was a subjective and arbitrary process and thus prone to bias; however, the agreement in coding between two independent reviewers was high, indicating consistency in the applied methodology, and the terminology was developed in collaboration with experts in research integrity research and based on commonly used terms in this community (such as current World Conferences on Research Integrity and past RI research on research integrity conferences [ 6 ]).

The findings of our study should inform professional organizations to revise and update their codes to include current concepts in research integrity and ethics. Such a change will probably not guarantee the change in research behaviour, as the current evidence base for the effectiveness of codes of ethics in changing behaviour is controversial [ 7 ]. However, as professional organizations are moral agents in a self-organized community [ 16 ], they have an influence on the moral judgments of that same community and the public in general through the profession’s engagement in providing a service to the public. Furthermore, as research integrity is behaviour in research related to professional standards and not necessarily only moral standards [ 6 ], it would be easier for the professional organizations and the professional community in general to establish and implement such standard than to ensure strict adherence to moral rules. Most of the professional organizations that had addressed research integrity/ethics concepts in their codes used the prescriptive language in the statements, establishing a norm for a professional behaviour. Such language tone sends a clear signal about the minimal standards for professional practice in responsible conduct of research, i.e. working rules for everyday professional research activities [ 8 , 10 ]. Such language may not be applicable to concepts that are more related to research ethics than to integrity. Research on the codes of ethics in business [ 17 ] showed that the use of language may greatly influence the perception of a code among its users. For example, overuse of grammatical structures such as relational clauses, the passive, nominalisation, grammatical metaphor and modality may communicate an authoritarian message and sense of over-obligation, which establishes a feeling of powerlessness and the inability for open decision making for the individual [ 17 ]. This may deter a professional from using professional codes of ethics, as was shown in a national survey of physicians in the USA, where only one in four practicing physician acknowledged a strong influence of the traditional (Hippocratic) oath or other professional codes in their practice, relying rather on their own personal moral sense [ 18 ].

Professional organizations need also to address how their professional standards in research are presented to the public. The quality of a code of ethics depends on its pubic availability, involvement of the governing structures, readability and tone, non-retaliation and reporting, commitment and values, risk topics, comprehension aids and presentation and style [ 19 ]. The quality of the code has to be integrated in a complex process of code development and implementation, where the success at the level of stakeholders in a profession and the society as a whole are determined by factors both internal and external to the profession. Professional communities should also collaborate across disciplinary borders and share experiences in defining, preventing and dealing with research integrity and research misconduct. A good example of trans-disciplinary collaboration is a recent exercise from the US Institute of Medicine, which worked on a unified code of ethics for health professionals from 18 different disciplines related to health [ 20 ]. Only by taking a serious and conscientious approach to research integrity, professional communities in different disciplines can make their codes of ethics relevant to the changing landscape of science.

Supporting Information

S1 file. database of ethic codes with statements on research integrity terms analysed in the study..

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0133662.s001

S2 File. List of all professional organizations (Table A) and professional organizations directly involved in research activities (Table B).

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0133662.s002

Acknowledgments

This study was presented in part at the 3 rd World Conference on Research Integrity, Montreal, Canada, 5–8 May 2013.

We thank our colleagues who were involved in the discussion of research integrity concepts: Prof. Matko Marušić, MD, PhD and Mario Malički, MD, from the University of Split School of Medicine, Split, Croatia; Assist. Prof. Darko Hren, PhD, from the University of Split School of Humanities and Social Sciences; Prof. Vedran Katavić, MD, PhD, from the University of Zagreb School of Medicine; Prof. Elizabeth Wager, PhD, from Sideview and Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE), UK; and participants at the 3 rd World Conference on Research Integrity, Montreal, Canada, who also made suggestions on research integrity/ethics terminology during poster presentation of the study pilot results.

Author Contributions

Conceived and designed the experiments: AM. Performed the experiments: DK SLM AM. Analyzed the data: DK SLM AM. Contributed reagents/materials/analysis tools: DK SLM AM. Wrote the paper: DK SLM AM. Wrote the first draft of the manuscript: AM.

• 1. Bateman CR. Proessional ethical standards: The journey toward effective codes of ethics. In: Reilly NP, Sirgy MJ, Gorman CA, editors. Work and quality of life. Ethical practices in organizations. Amsterdam: Springer Netherlands; 2012. pp 21–34.
• View Article
• PubMed/NCBI
• Google Scholar
• 8. Rose M. What professionals expect: Scientific professional organizations’ statements regarding authorship. In: Manson CJ, Geoscience Information Society, editors. Science editing & information management, Proceedings of the Second International AESE/CBE/EASE Joint Meeting, Sixth International Conference on Geoscience Information and Thirty-second Annual Meeting, Association of Earth Science Editors; 1998 Sep 10–22 Washington DC. Alexandria, VA: Geoscience Information Society; 1998. pp. 15–22.
• 11. Olson A. Authoring a code of ethics: observations on process and organization. The Center for the Study of Ethics in the Professions (CSEP), Illinois Institute of Technology, 1998. Available: http://ethics.iit.edu/ecodes/authoring-code . Accessed: 1 May 2014.
• 12. Center for the Study of Ethics in the Professions. Codes of Ethics Collection. Illinois Institute of Technology; 2014. Available: http://ethics.iit.edu/ecodes/ . Accessed: 1 May 2014.
• 13. Komić D, Marušić SL, Marušić A. Policies on responsible conduct of research in professional codes of ethics. 3rd World Conference on Research Integrity, Montreal, Canada, 5–8 May 2013, Poster session Tuesday 7 May 2013. Available: http://www.wcri2013.org/program2_e.shtml . Accessed: 27 December 2014.

• Original article
• Open access
• Published: 13 July 2021

Assisting you to advance with ethics in research: an introduction to ethical governance and application procedures

• Shivadas Sivasubramaniam 1 ,
• Dita Henek Dlabolová 2 ,
• Veronika Kralikova 3 &
• Zeenath Reza Khan 3  

International Journal for Educational Integrity volume  17 , Article number:  14 ( 2021 ) Cite this article

18k Accesses

12 Citations

4 Altmetric

Metrics details

Ethics and ethical behaviour are the fundamental pillars of a civilised society. The focus on ethical behaviour is indispensable in certain fields such as medicine, finance, or law. In fact, ethics gets precedence with anything that would include, affect, transform, or influence upon individuals, communities or any living creatures. Many institutions within Europe have set up their own committees to focus on or approve activities that have ethical impact. In contrast, lesser-developed countries (worldwide) are trying to set up these committees to govern their academia and research. As the first European consortium established to assist academic integrity, European Network for Academic Integrity (ENAI), we felt the importance of guiding those institutions and communities that are trying to conduct research with ethical principles. We have established an ethical advisory working group within ENAI with the aim to promote ethics within curriculum, research and institutional policies. We are constantly researching available data on this subject and committed to help the academia to convey and conduct ethical behaviour. Upon preliminary review and discussion, the group found a disparity in understanding, practice and teaching approaches to ethical applications of research projects among peers. Therefore, this short paper preliminarily aims to critically review the available information on ethics, the history behind establishing ethical principles and its international guidelines to govern research.

The paper is based on the workshop conducted in the 5th International conference Plagiarism across Europe and Beyond, in Mykolas Romeris University, Lithuania in 2019. During the workshop, we have detailed a) basic needs of an ethical committee within an institution; b) a typical ethical approval process (with examples from three different universities); and c) the ways to obtain informed consent with some examples. These are summarised in this paper with some example comparisons of ethical approval processes from different universities. We believe this paper will provide guidelines on preparing and training both researchers and research students in appropriately upholding ethical practices through ethical approval processes.

Introduction

Ethics and ethical behaviour (often linked to “responsible practice”) are the fundamental pillars of a civilised society. Ethical behaviour with integrity is important to maintain academic and research activities. It affects everything we do, and gets precedence with anything that would include/affect, transform, or impact upon individuals, communities or any living creatures. In other words, ethics would help us improve our living standards (LaFollette, 2007 ). The focus on ethical behaviour is indispensable in certain fields such as medicine, finance, or law, but is also gaining recognition in all disciplines engaged in research. Therefore, institutions are expected to develop ethical guidelines in research to maintain quality, initiate/own integrity and above all be transparent to be successful by limiting any allegation of misconduct (Flite and Harman, 2013 ). This is especially true for higher education organisations that promote research and scholarly activities. Many European institutions have developed their own regulations for ethics by incorporating international codes (Getz, 1990 ). The lesser developed countries are trying to set up these committees to govern their academia and research. World Health Organization has stated that adhering to “ ethical principles … [is central and important]... in order to protect the dignity, rights and welfare of research participants ” (WHO, 2021 ). Ethical guidelines taught to students can help develop ethical researchers and members of society who uphold values of ethical principles in practice.

As the first European-wide consortium established to assist academic integrity (European Network for Academic Integrity – ENAI), we felt the importance of guiding those institutions and communities that are trying to teach, research, and include ethical principles by providing overarching understanding of ethical guidelines that may influence policy. Therefore, we set up an advisory working group within ENAI in 2018 to support matters related to ethics, ethical committees and assisting on ethics related teaching activities.

Upon preliminary review and discussion, the group found a disparity in understanding, practice and teaching approaches to ethical applications among peers. This became the premise for this research paper. We first carried out a literature survey to review and summarise existing ethical governance (with historical perspectives) and procedures that are already in place to guide researchers in different discipline areas. By doing so, we attempted to consolidate, document and provide important steps in a typical ethical application process with example procedures from different universities. Finally, we attempted to provide insights and findings from practical workshops carried out at the 5th International Conference Plagiarism across Europe and Beyond, in Mykolas Romeris University, Lithuania in 2019, focussing on:

• highlighting the basic needs of an ethical committee within an institution,

• discussing and sharing examples of a typical ethical approval process,

• providing guidelines on the ways to teach research ethics with some examples.

We believe this paper provides guidelines on preparing and training both researchers and research students in appropriately upholding ethical practices through ethical approval processes.

Background literature survey

Responsible research practice (RRP) is scrutinised by the aspects of ethical principles and professional standards (WHO’s Code of Conduct for responsible Research, 2017). The Singapore statement on research integrity (The Singapore Statement on Research integrity, 2010) has provided an internationally acceptable guidance for RRP. The statement is based on maintaining honesty, accountability, professional courtesy in all aspects of research and maintaining fairness during collaborations. In other words, it does not simply focus on the procedural part of the research, instead covers wider aspects of “integrity” beyond the operational aspects (Israel and Drenth, 2016 ).

Institutions should focus on providing ethical guidance based on principles and values reflecting upon all aspects/stages of research (from the funding application/project development stage upto or beyond project closing stage). Figure  1 summarizes the different aspects/stages of a typical research and highlights the needs of RRP in compliance with ethical governance at each stage with examples (the figure is based on Resnik, 2020 ; Žukauskas et al., 2018 ; Anderson, 2011 ; Fouka and Mantzorou, 2011 ).

Summary of the enabling ethical governance at different stages of research. Note that it is imperative for researchers to proactively consider the ethical implications before, during and after the actual research process. The summary shows that RRP should be in line with ethical considerations even long before the ethical approval stage

Individual responsibilities to enhance RRP

As explained in Fig.  1 , a successfully governed research should consider ethics at the planning stages prior to research. Many international guidance are compatible in enforcing/recommending 14 different “responsibilities” that were first highlighted in the Singapore Statement (2010) for researchers to follow and achieve competency in RRP. In order to understand the purpose and the expectation of these ethical guidelines, we have carried out an initial literature survey on expected individual responsibilities. These are summarised in Table  1 .

By following these directives, researchers can carry out accountable research by maximising ethical self-governance whilst minimising misconducts. In our own experiences of working with many researchers, their focus usually revolves around ethical “clearance” rather than behaviour. In other words, they perceive this as a paper exercise rather than trying to “own” ethical behaviour in everything they do. Although the ethical principles and responsibilities are explicitly highlighted in the majority of international guidelines [such as UK’s Research Governance Policy (NICE, 2018 ), Australian Government’s National Statement on Ethical Conduct in Human Research (Difn website a - National Statement on Ethical Conduct in Human Research (NSECHR), 2018 ), the Singapore Statement (2010) etc.]; and the importance of holistic approach has been argued in ethical decision making, many researchers and/or institutions only focus on ethics linked to the procedural aspects.

Studies in the past have also highlighted inconsistencies in institutional guidelines pointing to the fact that these inconsistencies may hinder the predicted research progress (Desmond & Dierickx 2021 ; Alba et al., 2020 ; Dellaportas et al., 2014 ; Speight 2016 ). It may also be possible that these were and still are linked to the institutional perceptions/expectations or the pre-empting contextual conditions that are imposed by individual countries. In fact, it is interesting to note many research organisations and HE institutions establish their own policies based on these directives.

Research governance - origins, expectations and practices

Ethical governance in clinical medicine helps us by providing a structure for analysis and decision-making. By providing workable definitions of benefits and risks as well as the guidance for evaluating/balancing benefits over risks, it supports the researchers to protect the participants and the general population.

According to the definition given by National Institute of Clinical care Excellence, UK (NICE 2018 ), “ research governance can be defined as the broad range of regulations, principles and standards of good practice that ensure high quality research ”. As stated above, our literature-based research survey showed that most of the ethical definitions are basically evolved from the medical field and other disciplines have utilised these principles to develop their own ethical guidance. Interestingly, historical data show that the medical research has been “self-governed” or in other words implicated by the moral behaviour of individual researchers (Fox 2017 ; Shaw et al., 2005 ; Getz, 1990 ). For example, early human vaccination trials conducted in 1700s used the immediate family members as test subjects (Fox, 2017 ). Here the moral justification might have been the fact that the subjects who would have been at risk were either the scientists themselves or their immediate families but those who would reap the benefits from the vaccination were the general public/wider communities. However, according to the current ethical principles, this assumption is entirely not acceptable.

Historically, ambiguous decision-making and resultant incidences of research misconduct have led to the need for ethical research governance in as early as the 1940’s. For instance, the importance of an international governance was realised only after the World War II, when people were astonished to note the unethical research practices carried out by Nazi scientists. As a result of this, in 1947 the Nuremberg code was published. The code mainly focussed on the following:

Informed consent and further insisted the research involving humans should be based on prior animal work,

The anticipated benefits should outweigh the risk,

Research should be carried out only by qualified scientists must conduct research,

Avoiding physical and mental suffering and.

Avoiding human research that would result in which death or disability.

(Weindling, 2001 ).

Unfortunately, it was reported that many researchers in the USA and elsewhere considered the Nuremberg code as a document condemning the Nazi atrocities, rather than a code for ethical governance and therefore ignored these directives (Ghooi, 2011 ). It was only in 1964 that the World Medical Association published the Helsinki Declaration, which set the stage for ethical governance and the implementation of the Institutional Review Board (IRB) process (Shamoo and Irving, 1993 ). This declaration was based on Nuremberg code. In addition, the declaration also paved the way for enforcing research being conducted in accordance with these guidelines.

Incidentally, the focus on research/ethical governance gained its momentum in 1974. As a result of this, a report on ethical principles and guidelines for the protection of human subjects of research was published in 1979 (The Belmont Report, 1979 ). This report paved the way to the current forms of ethical governance in biomedical and behavioural research by providing guidance.

Since 1994, the WHO itself has been providing several guidance to health care policy-makers, researchers and other stakeholders detailing the key concepts in medical ethics. These are specific to applying ethical principles in global public health.

Likewise, World Organization for Animal Health (WOAH), and International Convention for the Protection of Animals (ICPA) provide guidance on animal welfare in research. Due to this continuous guidance, together with accepted practices, there are internationally established ethical guidelines to carry out medical research. Our literature survey further identified freely available guidance from independent organisations such as COPE (Committee of Publication Ethics) and ALLEA (All European Academics) which provide support for maintaining research ethics in other fields such as education, sociology, psychology etc. In reality, ethical governance is practiced differently in different countries. In the UK, there is a clinical excellence research governance, which oversees all NHS related medical research (Mulholland and Bell, 2005 ). Although, the governance in other disciplines is not entirely centralised, many research funding councils and organisations [such as UKRI (UK-Research and Innovation; BBSC (Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council; MRC (Medical Research Council); EPSRC (Economic and Social Research Council)] provide ethical governance and expect institutional adherence and monitoring. They expect local institutional (i.e. university/institutional) research governance for day-to-day monitoring of the research conducted within the organisation and report back to these funding bodies, monthly or annually (Department of Health, 2005). Likewise, there are nationally coordinated/regulated ethics governing bodies such as the US Office for Human Research Protections (US-OHRP), National Institute of Health (NIH) and the Canadian Institutes for Health Research (CIHR) in the USA and Canada respectively (Mulholland and Bell, 2005 ). The OHRP in the USA formally reviews all research activities involving human subjects. On the other hand, in Canada, CIHR works with the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council (NSERC), and the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council (SSHRC). They together have produced a Tri-Council Policy Statement (TCPS) (Stephenson et al., 2020 ) as ethical governance. All Canadian institutions are expected to adhere to this policy for conducting research. As for Australia, the research is governed by the Australian code for the responsible conduct of research (2008). It identifies the responsibilities of institutions and researchers in all areas of research. The code has been jointly developed by the National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC), the Australian Research Council (ARC) and Universities Australia (UA). This information is summarized in Table  2 .

Basic structure of an institutional ethical advisory committee (EAC)

The WHO published an article defining the basic concepts of an ethical advisory committee in 2009 (WHO, 2009 - see above). According to this, many countries have established research governance and monitor the ethical practice in research via national and/or regional review committees. The main aims of research ethics committees include reviewing the study proposals, trying to understand the justifications for human/animal use, weighing the merits and demerits of the usage (linking to risks vs. potential benefits) and ensuring the local, ethical guidelines are followed Difn website b - Enago academy Importance of Ethics Committees in Scholarly Research, 2020 ; Guide for Research Ethics - Council of Europe, 2014 ). Once the research has started, the committee needs to carry out periodic surveillance to ensure the institutional ethical norms are followed during and beyond the study. They may also be involved in setting up and/or reviewing the institutional policies.

For these aspects, IRB (or institutional ethical advisory committee - IEAC) is essential for local governance to enhance best practices. The advantage of an IRB/EEAC is that they understand the institutional conditions and can closely monitor the ongoing research, including any changes in research directions. On the other hand, the IRB may be overly supportive to accept applications, influenced by the local agenda for achieving research excellence, disregarding ethical issues (Kotecha et al., 2011 ; Kayser-Jones, 2003 ) or, they may be influenced by the financial interests in attracting external funding. In this respect, regional and national ethics committees are advantageous to ensure ethical practice. Due to their impartiality, they would provide greater consistency and legitimacy to the research (WHO, 2009 ). However, the ethical approval process of regional and national ethics committees would be time consuming, as they do not have the local knowledge.

As for membership in the IRBs, most of the guidelines [WHO, NICE, Council of Europe, (2012), European Commission - Facilitating Research Excellence in FP7 ( 2013 ) and OHRP] insist on having a variety of representations including experts in different fields of research, and non-experts with the understanding of local, national/international conflicts of interest. The former would be able to understand/clarify the procedural elements of the research in different fields; whilst the latter would help to make neutral and impartial decisions. These non-experts are usually not affiliated to the institution and consist of individuals representing the broader community (particularly those related to social, legal or cultural considerations). IRBs consisting of these varieties of representation would not only be in a position to understand the study procedures and their potential direct or indirect consequences for participants, but also be able to identify any community, cultural or religious implications of the study.

Understanding the subtle differences between ethics and morals

Interestingly, many ethical guidelines are based on society’s moral “beliefs” in such a way that the words “ethics”‘and “morals” are reciprocally used to define each other. However, there are several subtle differences between them and we have attempted to compare and contrast them herein. In the past, many authors have interchangeably used the words “morals”‘and “ethics”‘(Warwick, 2003 ; Kant, 2018 ; Hazard, GC (Jr)., 1994 , Larry, 1982 ). However, ethics is linked to rules governed by an external source such as codes of conduct in workplaces (Kuyare et al., 2014 ). In contrast, morals refer to an individual’s own principles regarding right and wrong. Quinn ( 2011 ) defines morality as “ rules of conduct describing what people ought and ought not to do in various situations … ” while ethics is “... the philosophical study of morality, a rational examination into people’s moral beliefs and behaviours ”. For instance, in a case of parents demanding that schools overturn a ban on use of corporal punishment of children by schools and teachers (Children’s Rights Alliance for England, 2005 ), the parents believed that teachers should assume the role of parent in schools and use corporal or physical punishment for children who misbehaved. This stemmed from their beliefs and what they felt were motivated by “beliefs of individuals or groups”. For example, recent media highlights about some parents opposing LGBT (Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgender) education to their children (BBC News, 2019 ). One parent argued, “Teaching young children about LGBT at a very early stage is ‘morally’ wrong”. She argued “let them learn by themselves as they grow”. This behaviour is linked to and governed by the morals of an ethnic community. Thus, morals are linked to the “beliefs of individuals or group”. However, when it comes to the LGBT rights these are based on ethical principles of that society and governed by law of the land. However, the rights of children to be protected from “inhuman and degrading” treatment is based on the ethical principles of the society and governed by law of the land. Individuals, especially those who are working in medical or judicial professions have to follow an ethical code laid down by their profession, regardless of their own feelings, time or preferences. For instance, a lawyer is expected to follow the professional ethics and represent a defendant, despite the fact that his morals indicate the defendant is guilty.

In fact, we as a group could not find many scholarly articles clearly comparing or contrasting ethics with morals. However, a table presented by Surbhi ( 2015 ) (Difn website c ) tries to differentiate these two terms (see Table  3 ).

Although Table 3 gives some insight on the differences between these two terms, in practice many use these terms as loosely as possible mainly because of their ambiguity. As a group focussed on the application of these principles, we would recommend to use the term “ethics” and avoid “morals” in research and academia.

Based on the literature survey carried out, we were able to identify the following gaps:

there is some disparity in existing literature on the importance of ethical guidelines in research

there is a lack of consensus on what code of conduct should be followed, where it should be derived from and how it should be implemented

The mission of ENAI’s ethical advisory working group

The Ethical Advisory Working Group of ENAI was established in 2018 to promote ethical code of conduct/practice amongst higher educational organisations within Europe and beyond (European Network for Academic Integrity, 2018 ). We aim to provide unbiased advice and consultancy on embedding ethical principles within all types of academic, research and public engagement activities. Our main objective is to promote ethical principles and share good practice in this field. This advisory group aims to standardise ethical norms and to offer strategic support to activities including (but not exclusive to):

● rendering advice and assistance to develop institutional ethical committees and their regulations in member institutions,

● sharing good practice in research and academic ethics,

● acting as a critical guide to institutional review processes, assisting them to maintain/achieve ethical standards,

● collaborating with similar bodies in establishing collegiate partnerships to enhance awareness and practice in this field,

● providing support within and outside ENAI to develop materials to enhance teaching activities in this field,

● organising training for students and early-career researchers about ethical behaviours in form of lectures, seminars, debates and webinars,

● enhancing research and dissemination of the findings in matters and topics related to ethics.

The following sections focus on our suggestions based on collective experiences, review of literature provided in earlier sections and workshop feedback collected:

a) basic needs of an ethical committee within an institution;

b) a typical ethical approval process (with examples from three different universities); and

c) the ways to obtain informed consent with some examples. This would give advice on preparing and training both researchers and research students in appropriately upholding ethical practices through ethical approval processes.

Setting up an institutional ethical committee (ECs)

Institutional Ethical Committees (ECs) are essential to govern every aspect of the activities undertaken by that institute. With regards to higher educational organisations, this is vital to establish ethical behaviour for students and staff to impart research, education and scholarly activities (or everything) they do. These committees should be knowledgeable about international laws relating to different fields of studies (such as science, medicine, business, finance, law, and social sciences). The advantages and disadvantages of institutional, subject specific or common (statutory) ECs are summarised in Fig.  2 . Some institutions have developed individual ECs linked to specific fields (or subject areas) whilst others have one institutional committee that overlooks the entire ethical behaviour and approval process. There is no clear preference between the two as both have their own advantages and disadvantages (see Fig. 2 ). Subject specific ECs are attractive to medical, law and business provisions, as it is perceived the members within respective committees would be able to understand the subject and therefore comprehend the need of the proposed research/activity (Kadam, 2012 ; Schnyder et al., 2018 ). However, others argue, due to this “ specificity ”, the committee would fail to forecast the wider implications of that application. On the other hand, university-wide ECs would look into the wider implications. Yet they find it difficult to understand the purpose and the specific applications of that research. Not everyone understands dynamics of all types of research methodologies, data collection, etc., and therefore there might be a chance of a proposal being rejected merely because the EC could not understand the research applications (Getz, 1990 ).

Summary of advantages and disadvantages of three different forms of ethical committees

[N/B for Fig. 2 : Examples of different types of ethical application procedures and forms used were discussed with the workshop attendees to enhance their understanding of the differences. GDPR = General Data Protection Regulation].

Although we recommend a designated EC with relevant professional, academic and ethical expertise to deal with particular types of applications, the membership (of any EC) should include some non-experts who would represent the wider community (see above). Having some non-experts in EC would not only help the researchers to consider explaining their research in layperson’s terms (by thinking outside the box) but also would ensure efficiency without compromising participants/animal safety. They may even help to address the common ethical issues outside research culture. Some UK universities usually offer this membership to a clergy, councillor or a parliamentarian who does not have any links to the institutions. Most importantly, it is vital for any EC members to undertake further training in addition to previous experience in the relevant field of research ethics.

Another issue that raises concerns is multi-centre research, involving several institutions, where institutionalised ethical approvals are needed from each partner. In some cases, such as clinical research within the UK, a common statutory EC called National Health Services (NHS) Research Ethics Committee (NREC) is in place to cover research ethics involving all partner institutions (NHS, 2018 ). The process of obtaining approval from this type of EC takes time, therefore advanced planning is needed.

Ethics approval forms and process

During the workshop, we discussed some anonymised application forms obtained from open-access sources for qualitative and quantitative research as examples. Considering research ethics, for the purpose of understanding, we arbitrarily divided this in two categories; research based on (a) quantitative and (b) qualitative methodologies. As their name suggests their research approach is extremely different from each other. The discussion elicited how ECs devise different types of ethical application form/questions. As for qualitative research, these are often conducted as “face-to-face” interviews, which would have implications on volunteer anonymity.

Furthermore, discussions posited when the interviews are replaced by on-line surveys, they have to be administered through registered university staff to maintain confidentiality. This becomes difficult when the research is a multi-centre study. These types of issues are also common in medical research regarding participants’ anonymity, confidentially, and above all their right to withdraw consent to be involved in research.

Storing and protecting data collected in the process of the study is also a point of consideration when applying for approval.

Finally, the ethical processes of invasive (involving human/animals) and non-invasive research (questionnaire based) may slightly differ from one another. Following research areas are considered as investigations that need ethical approval:

research that involves human participants (see below)

use of the ‘products’ of human participants (see below)

work that potentially impacts on humans (see below)

research that involves animals

In addition, it is important to provide a disclaimer even if an ethical approval is deemed unnecessary. Following word cloud (Fig.  3 ) shows the important variables that need to be considered at the brainstorming stage before an ethical application. It is worth noting the importance of proactive planning predicting the “unexpected” during different phases of a research project (such as planning, execution, publication, and future directions). Some applications (such as working with vulnerable individuals or children) will require safety protection clearance (such as DBS - Disclosure and Barring Service, commonly obtained from the local police). Please see section on Research involving Humans - Informed consents for further discussions.

Examples of important variables that need to be considered for an ethical approval

It is also imperative to report or re-apply for ethical approval for any minor or major post-approval changes to original proposals made. In case of methodological changes, evidence of risk assessments for changes and/or COSHH (Control of Substances Hazardous to Health Regulations) should also be given. Likewise, any new collaborative partners or removal of researchers should also be notified to the IEAC.

Other findings include:

in case of complete changes in the project, the research must be stopped and new approval should be seeked,

in case of noticing any adverse effects to project participants (human or non-human), these should also be notified to the committee for appropriate clearance to continue the work, and

the completion of the project must also be notified with the indication whether the researchers may restart the project at a later stage.

Research involving humans - informed consents

While discussing research involving humans and based on literature review, findings highlight the human subjects/volunteers must willingly participate in research after being adequately informed about the project. Therefore, research involving humans and animals takes precedence in obtaining ethical clearance and its strict adherence, one of which is providing a participant information sheet/leaflet. This sheet should contain a full explanation about the research that is being carried out and be given out in lay-person’s terms in writing (Manti and Licari 2018 ; Hardicre 2014 ). Measures should also be in place to explain and clarify any doubts from the participants. In addition, there should be a clear statement on how the participants’ anonymity is protected. We provide below some example questions below to help the researchers to write this participant information sheet:

What is the purpose of the study?

Why have they been chosen?

What will happen if they take part?

What do they have to do?

What happens when the research stops?

What if something goes wrong?

What will happen to the results of the research study?

Will taking part be kept confidential?

How to handle “vulnerable” participants?

How to mitigate risks to participants?

Many institutional ethics committees expect the researchers to produce a FAQ (frequently asked questions) in addition to the information about research. Most importantly, the researchers also need to provide an informed consent form, which should be signed by each human participant. The five elements identified that are needed to be considered for an informed consent statement are summarized in Fig.  4 below (slightly modified from the Federal Policy for the Protection of Human Subjects ( 2018 ) - Diffn website c ).

Five basic elements to consider for an informed consent [figure adapted from Diffn website c ]

The informed consent form should always contain a clause for the participant to withdraw their consent at any time. Should this happen all the data from that participant should be eliminated from the study without affecting their anonymity.

Typical research ethics approval process

In this section, we provide an example flow chart explaining how researchers may choose the appropriate application and process, as highlighted in Fig.  5 . However, it is imperative to note here that these are examples only and some institutions may have one unified application with separate sections to demarcate qualitative and quantitative research criteria.

Typical ethical approval processes for quantitative and qualitative research. [N/B for Fig. 5 - This simplified flow chart shows that fundamental process for invasive and non-invasive EC application is same, the routes and the requirements for additional information are slightly different]

Once the ethical application is submitted, the EC should ensure a clear approval procedure with distinctly defined timeline. An example flow chart showing the procedure for an ethical approval was obtained from University of Leicester as open-access. This is presented in Fig.  6 . Further examples of the ethical approval process and governance were discussed in the workshop.

An example ethical approval procedures conducted within University of Leicester (Figure obtained from the University of Leicester research pages - Difn website d - open access)

Strategies for ethics educations for students

Student education on the importance of ethics and ethical behaviour in research and scholarly activities is extremely essential. Literature posits in the area of medical research that many universities are incorporating ethics in post-graduate degrees but when it comes to undergraduate degrees, there is less appetite to deliver modules or even lectures focussing on research ethics (Seymour et al., 2004 ; Willison and O’Regan, 2007 ). This may be due to the fact that undergraduate degree structure does not really focus on research (DePasse et al., 2016 ). However, as Orr ( 2018 ) suggested, institutions should focus more on educating all students about ethics/ethical behaviour and their importance in research, than enforcing punitive measures for unethical behaviour. Therefore, as an advisory committee, and based on our preliminary literature survey and workshop results, we strongly recommend incorporating ethical education within undergraduate curriculum. Looking at those institutions which focus on ethical education for both under-and postgraduate courses, their approaches are either (a) a lecture-based delivery, (b) case study based approach or (c) a combined delivery starting with a lecture on basic principles of ethics followed by generating a debate based discussion using interesting case studies. The combined method seems much more effective than the other two as per our findings as explained next.

As many academics who have been involved in teaching ethics and/or research ethics agree, the underlying principles of ethics is often perceived as a boring subject. Therefore, lecture-based delivery may not be suitable. On the other hand, a debate based approach, though attractive and instantly generates student interest, cannot be effective without students understanding the underlying basic principles. In addition, when selecting case studies, it would be advisable to choose cases addressing all different types of ethical dilemmas. As an advisory group within ENAI, we are in the process of collating supporting materials to help to develop institutional policies, creating advisory documents to help in obtaining ethical approvals, and teaching materials to enhance debate-based lesson plans that can be used by the member and other institutions.

Concluding remarks

In summary, our literature survey and workshop findings highlight that researchers should accept that ethics underpins everything we do, especially in research. Although ethical approval is tedious, it is an imperative process in which proactive thinking is essential to identify ethical issues that might affect the project. Our findings further lead us to state that the ethical approval process differs from institution to institution and we strongly recommend the researchers to follow the institutional guidelines and their underlying ethical principles. The ENAI workshop in Vilnius highlighted the importance of ethical governance by establishing ECs, discussed different types of ECs and procedures with some examples and highlighted the importance of student education to impart ethical culture within research communities, an area that needs further study as future scope.

Declarations

The manuscript was entirely written by the corresponding author with contributions from co-authors who have also taken part in the delivery of the workshop. Authors confirm that the data supporting the findings of this study are available within the article. We can also confirm that there are no potential competing interests with other organisations.

Availability of data and materials

Authors confirm that the data supporting the findings of this study are available within the article.

Abbreviations

ALL European academics

Australian research council

Biotechnology and biological sciences research council

Canadian institutes for health research

Committee of publication ethics

Ethical committee

European network of academic integrity

Economic and social research council

International convention for the protection of animals

institutional ethical advisory committee

Institutional review board

Immaculata university of Pennsylvania

Lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender

Medical research council)

National health services

National health services nih national institute of health (NIH)

National institute of clinical care excellence

National health and medical research council

Natural sciences and engineering research council

National research ethics committee

National statement on ethical conduct in human research

Responsible research practice

Social sciences and humanities research council

Tri-council policy statement

World Organization for animal health

Universities Australia

UK-research and innovation

US office for human research protections

Alba S, Lenglet A, Verdonck K, Roth J, Patil R, Mendoza W, Juvekar S, Rumisha SF (2020) Bridging research integrity and global health epidemiology (BRIDGE) guidelines: explanation and elaboration. BMJ Glob Health 5(10):e003237. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjgh-2020-003237

Article   Google Scholar  

Anderson MS (2011) Research misconduct and misbehaviour. In: Bertram Gallant T (ed) Creating the ethical academy: a systems approach to understanding misconduct and empowering change in higher education. Routledge, pp 83–96

BBC News. (2019). Birmingham school LGBT LESSONS PROTEST investigated. March 8, 2019. Retrieved February 14, 2021, available online. URL: https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-birmingham-47498446

Children’s Rights Alliance for England. (2005). R (Williamson and others) v Secretary of State for Education and Employment. Session 2004–05. [2005] UKHL 15. Available Online. URL: http://www.crae.org.uk/media/33624/R-Williamson-and-others-v-Secretary-of-State-for-Education-and-Employment.pdf

Council of Europe. (2014). Texts of the Council of Europe on bioethical matters. Available Online. https://www.coe.int/t/dg3/healthbioethic/Texts_and_documents/INF_2014_5_vol_II_textes_%20CoE_%20bio%C3%A9thique_E%20(2).pdf

Dellaportas S, Kanapathippillai S, Khan, A and Leung, P. (2014). Ethics education in the Australian accounting curriculum: a longitudinal study examining barriers and enablers. 362–382. Available Online. URL: https://doi.org/10.1080/09639284.2014.930694 , 23, 4, 362, 382

DePasse JM, Palumbo MA, Eberson CP, Daniels AH (2016) Academic characteristics of orthopaedic surgery residency applicants from 2007 to 2014. JBJS 98(9):788–795. https://doi.org/10.2106/JBJS.15.00222

Desmond H, Dierickx K (2021) Research integrity codes of conduct in Europe: understanding the divergences. https://doi.org/10.1111/bioe.12851

Difn website a - National Statement on Ethical Conduct in Human Research (NSECHR). (2018). Available Online. URL: https://www.nhmrc.gov.au/about-us/publications/australian-code-responsible-conduct-research-2018

Difn website b - Enago academy Importance of Ethics Committees in Scholarly Research (2020, October 26). Available online. URL: https://www.enago.com/academy/importance-of-ethics-committees-in-scholarly-research/

Difn website c - Ethics vs Morals - Difference and Comparison. Retrieved July 14, 2020. Available online. URL: https://www.diffen.com/difference/Ethics_vs_Morals

Difn website d - University of Leicester. (2015). Staff ethics approval flowchart. May 1, 2015. Retrieved July 14, 2020. Available Online. URL: https://www2.le.ac.uk/institution/ethics/images/ethics-approval-flowchart/view

European Commission - Facilitating Research Excellence in FP7 (2013) https://ec.europa.eu/research/participants/data/ref/fp7/89888/ethics-for-researchers_en.pdf

European Network for Academic Integrity. (2018). Ethical advisory group. Retrieved February 14, 2021. Available online. URL: http://www.academicintegrity.eu/wp/wg-ethical/

Federal Policy for the Protection of Human Subjects. (2018). Retrieved February 14, 2021. Available Online. URL: https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2017/01/19/2017-01058/federal-policy-for-the-protection-of-human-subjects#p-855

Flite, CA and Harman, LB. (2013). Code of ethics: principles for ethical leadership Perspect Health Inf Mana; 10(winter): 1d. PMID: 23346028

Fouka G, Mantzorou M (2011) What are the major ethical issues in conducting research? Is there a conflict between the research ethics and the nature of nursing. Health Sci J 5(1) Available Online. URL: https://www.hsj.gr/medicine/what-are-the-major-ethical-issues-in-conducting-research-is-there-a-conflict-between-the-research-ethics-and-the-nature-of-nursing.php?aid=3485

Fox G (2017) History and ethical principles. The University of Miami and the Collaborative Institutional Training Initiative (CITI) Program URL  https://silo.tips/download/chapter-1-history-and-ethical-principles # (Available Online)

Getz KA (1990) International codes of conduct: An analysis of ethical reasoning. J Bus Ethics 9(7):567–577

Ghooi RB (2011) The nuremberg code–a critique. Perspect Clin Res 2(2):72–76. https://doi.org/10.4103/2229-3485.80371

Hardicre, J. (2014) Valid informed consent in research: an introduction Br J Nurs 23(11). https://doi.org/10.12968/bjon.2014.23.11.564 , 567

Hazard, GC (Jr). (1994). Law, morals, and ethics. Yale law school legal scholarship repository. Faculty Scholarship Series. Yale University. Available Online. URL: https://digitalcommons.law.yale.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?referer=https://www.google.com/&httpsredir=1&article=3322&context=fss_papers

Israel, M., & Drenth, P. (2016). Research integrity: perspectives from Australia and Netherlands. In T. Bretag (Ed.), Handbook of academic integrity (pp. 789–808). Springer, Singapore. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-287-098-8_64

Kadam R (2012) Proactive role for ethics committees. Indian J Med Ethics 9(3):216. https://doi.org/10.20529/IJME.2012.072

Kant I (2018) The metaphysics of morals. Cambridge University Press, UK https://doi.org/10.1017/9781316091388

Kayser-Jones J (2003) Continuing to conduct research in nursing homes despite controversial findings: reflections by a research scientist. Qual Health Res 13(1):114–128. https://doi.org/10.1177/1049732302239414

Kotecha JA, Manca D, Lambert-Lanning A, Keshavjee K, Drummond N, Godwin M, Greiver M, Putnam W, Lussier M-T, Birtwhistle R (2011) Ethics and privacy issues of a practice-based surveillance system: need for a national-level institutional research ethics board and consent standards. Can Fam physician 57(10):1165–1173.  https://europepmc.org/article/pmc/pmc3192088

Kuyare, MS., Taur, SR., Thatte, U. (2014). Establishing institutional ethics committees: challenges and solutions–a review of the literature. Indian J Med Ethics. https://doi.org/10.20529/IJME.2014.047

LaFollette, H. (2007). Ethics in practice (3rd edition). Blackwell

Larry RC (1982) The teaching of ethics and moral values in teaching. J High Educ 53(3):296–306. https://doi.org/10.1080/00221546.1982.11780455

Manti S, Licari A (2018) How to obtain informed consent for research. Breathe (Sheff) 14(2):145–152. https://doi.org/10.1183/20734735.001918

Mulholland MW, Bell J (2005) Research Governance and Research Funding in the USA: What the academic surgeon needs to know. J R Soc Med 98(11):496–502. https://doi.org/10.1258/jrsm.98.11.496

National Institute of Health (NIH) Ethics in Clinical Research. n.d. Available Online. URL: https://clinicalcenter.nih.gov/recruit/ethics.html

NHS (2018) Flagged Research Ethics Committees. Retrieved February 14, 2021. Available online. URL: https://www.hra.nhs.uk/about-us/committees-and-services/res-and-recs/flagged-research-ethics-committees/

NICE (2018) Research governance policy. Retrieved February 14, 2021. Available online. URL: https://www.nice.org.uk/Media/Default/About/what-we-do/science-policy-and-research/research-governance-policy.pdf

Orr, J. (2018). Developing a campus academic integrity education seminar. J Acad Ethics 16(3), 195–209. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10805-018-9304-7

Quinn, M. (2011). Introduction to Ethics. Ethics for an Information Age. 4th Ed. Ch 2. 53–108. Pearson. UK

Resnik. (2020). What is ethics in Research & why is it Important? Available Online. URL: https://www.niehs.nih.gov/research/resources/bioethics/whatis/index.cfm

Schnyder S, Starring H, Fury M, Mora A, Leonardi C, Dasa V (2018) The formation of a medical student research committee and its impact on involvement in departmental research. Med Educ Online 23(1):1. https://doi.org/10.1080/10872981.2018.1424449

Seymour E, Hunter AB, Laursen SL, DeAntoni T (2004) Establishing the benefits of research experiences for undergraduates in the sciences: first findings from a three-year study. Sci Educ 88(4):493–534. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.10131

Shamoo AE, Irving DN (1993) Accountability in research using persons with mental illness. Account Res 3(1):1–17. https://doi.org/10.1080/08989629308573826

Shaw, S., Boynton, PM., and Greenhalgh, T. (2005). Research governance: where did it come from, what does it mean? Research governance framework for health and social care, 2nd ed. London: Department of Health. https://doi.org/10.1258/jrsm.98.11.496 , 98, 11, 496, 502

Book   Google Scholar  

Speight, JG. (2016) Ethics in the university |DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/9781119346449 scrivener publishing LLC

Stephenson GK, Jones GA, Fick E, Begin-Caouette O, Taiyeb A, Metcalfe A (2020) What’s the protocol? Canadian university research ethics boards and variations in implementing tri-Council policy. Can J Higher Educ 50(1)1): 68–81

Surbhi, S. (2015). Difference between morals and ethics [weblog]. March 25, 2015. Retrieved February 14, 2021. Available Online. URL: http://keydifferences.com/difference-between-morals-and-ethics.html

The Belmont Report (1979). Ethical Principles and Guidelines for the Protection of Human Subjects of Research. The National Commission for the Protection of Human Subjects of Biomedical and Behavioral Research. Retrieved February 14, 2021. Available online. URL: https://www.hhs.gov/ohrp/sites/default/files/the-belmont-report-508c_FINAL.pdf

The Singapore Statement on Research Integrity. (2020). Nicholas Steneck and Tony Mayer, Co-chairs, 2nd World Conference on Research Integrity; Melissa Anderson, Chair, Organizing Committee, 3rd World Conference on Research Integrity. Retrieved February 14, 2021. Available online. URL: https://wcrif.org/documents/327-singapore-statement-a4size/file

Warwick K (2003) Cyborg morals, cyborg values, cyborg ethics. Ethics Inf Technol 5(3):131–137. https://doi.org/10.1023/B:ETIN.0000006870.65865.cf

Weindling P (2001) The origins of informed consent: the international scientific commission on medical war crimes, and the Nuremberg code. Bull Hist Med 75(1):37–71. https://doi.org/10.1353/bhm.2001.0049

WHO. (2009). Research ethics committees Basic concepts for capacity-building. Retrieved February 14, 2021. Available online. URL: https://www.who.int/ethics/Ethics_basic_concepts_ENG.pdf

WHO. (2021). Chronological list of publications. Retrieved February 14, 2021. Available online. URL: https://www.who.int/ethics/publications/year/en/

Willison, J. and O’Regan, K. (2007). Commonly known, commonly not known, totally unknown: a framework for students becoming researchers. High Educ Res Dev 26(4). 393–409. https://doi.org/10.1080/07294360701658609

Žukauskas P, Vveinhardt J, and Andriukaitienė R. (2018). Research Ethics In book: Management Culture and Corporate Social Responsibility Eds Jolita Vveinhardt IntechOpenEditors DOI: https://doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.70629 , 2018

Download references

Acknowledgements

Authors wish to thank the organising committee of the 5th international conference named plagiarism across Europe and beyond, in Vilnius, Lithuania for accepting this paper to be presented in the conference.

Not applicable as this is an independent study, which is not funded by any internal or external bodies.

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

School of Human Sciences, University of Derby, DE22 1, Derby, GB, UK

Shivadas Sivasubramaniam

Department of Informatics, Mendel University in Brno, Zemědělská, 1665, Brno, Czechia

Dita Henek Dlabolová

Centre for Academic Integrity in the UAE, Faculty of Engineering & Information Sciences, University of Wollongong in Dubai, Dubai, UAE

Veronika Kralikova & Zeenath Reza Khan

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Contributions

The manuscript was entirely written by the corresponding author with contributions from co-authors who have equally contributed to presentation of this paper in the 5th international conference named plagiarism across Europe and beyond, in Vilnius, Lithuania. Authors have equally contributed for the information collection, which were then summarised as narrative explanations by the Corresponding author and Dr. Zeenath Reza Khan. Then checked and verified by Dr. Dlabolova and Ms. Králíková. The author(s) read and approved the final manuscript.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Shivadas Sivasubramaniam .

Ethics declarations

Competing interests.

We can also confirm that there are no potential competing interest with other organisations.

Additional information

Publisher’s note.

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ . The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver ( http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/ ) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article.

Sivasubramaniam, S., Dlabolová, D.H., Kralikova, V. et al. Assisting you to advance with ethics in research: an introduction to ethical governance and application procedures. Int J Educ Integr 17 , 14 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s40979-021-00078-6

Download citation

Received : 17 July 2020

Accepted : 25 April 2021

Published : 13 July 2021

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/s40979-021-00078-6

Share this article

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

• Higher education
• Ethical codes
• Ethics committee
• Post-secondary education
• Institutional policies
• Research ethics

International Journal for Educational Integrity

ISSN: 1833-2595

• Submission enquiries: Access here and click Contact Us
• General enquiries: [email protected]

The Concept of Professionalism: Professional Work, Professional Practice and Learning

• First Online: 01 January 2014

Cite this chapter

• Julia Evetts Ph.D. 4  

Part of the book series: Springer International Handbooks of Education ((SIHE))

8790 Accesses

70 Citations

For a long time, the sociological analysis of professional work has differentiated professionalism as a special means of organizing work and controlling workers and in contrast to the hierarchical, bureaucratic and managerial controls of industrial and commercial organizations. But professional work is changing and being changed as increasingly professionals (such as doctors, nurses, teachers, social workers) now work in employing organizations; lawyers and accountants in large professional service firms (PSFs) and sometimes in international and commercial organizations; pharmacists in national (retailing) companies; and engineers, journalists, performing artists, the armed forces and police find occupational control of their work and discretionary decision-making increasingly difficult to sustain.

The paper begins with a section on defining the field of professional work, professional practice and its learning. The paper continues with a second section on the concept of professionalism, its history and current developments. The third section of the paper considers the changes, challenges and opportunities of the practice of professional work within employing organizations. The fourth section of the paper identifies some of the important contributions made by researchers on professional work to public policy developments, assessment and evaluation.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

• Available as PDF
• Read on any device
• Instant download
• Own it forever
• Available as EPUB and PDF
• Durable hardcover edition
• Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
• Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

New Conditions of Professional Work or the Fall of Professions? On Managerialism and Professionalism

Professional Responsibility in an Age of Experts and Large Organizations

Governing Learning Practices: Governmentality and Practices

Abbott, A. (1988). The system of professions: An essay on the division of expert labour . Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Google Scholar  

Adler, P., Kwon, S., & Hecksher, C. (2008). Professional work: The emergence of collaborative community. Organization Science, 19 , 359–376.

Article   Google Scholar  

Annandale, E. (1998). The sociology of health and medicine . Cambridge: Polity Press.

Armstrong, P. (1985). Changing management control strategies: The role of competition between accountancy and other organizational professions. Accounting, Organization and Society, 10 (2), 129–148.

Bolton, S. C. (2005). “Making up” managers: The case of NHS nurses. Work, Employment and Society, 19 (1), 5–23.

Born, G. (1995). Rationalizing culture: IRCAM, Boulez and the institutionalization of the musical avant-garde . Berkeley: University of California Press.

Bourgeault, I. L., & Benoit, C. (2009). Comparative perspectives on the sociology of professions groups. Current Sociology, Monograph Issue, 57 (4), 475–485.

Bourgeault, I. L., Benoit, C., & Davis-Floyd, R. (2004). Reconceiving midwifery . Montreal: McGill-Queen’s University Press.

Boussard, V. (2008). Sociologie de la gestion: les faiseurs de performance . Paris: Editions Belin.

Brante, T. (2010). Professional fields and truth regimes: In search of alternative approaches. Comparative Sociology, 9 , 843–886.

Brint, S. (1994). In an age of experts: The changing role of professionals in politics and public life . Princeton: Princeton University Press.

Brint, S. (2001). Professions and the “knowledge economy”: Rethinking the theory of post-industrial society. Current Sociology, 49 , 101–132.

Brint, S. (2006). Saving the ‘soul of professions’: Freidson’s institutional ethics and the defence of professional autonomy. Knowledge, Work and Society, 4 (2), 101–129.

Broadbent, J., Jacobs, K., & Laughlin, R. (1999). Comparing schools in the UK and New Zealand. Management Accounting Research, 10 , 339–361.

Burchell, G., Gordon, C., & Miller, P. (Eds.). (1991). The Foucault effect: Studies in governmentality . Hemel Hempstead: Harvester Wheatsheaf.

Burrage, M., & Torstendahl, R. (Eds.). (1990a). Professions in theory and history: Rethinking the study of the professions . London: Sage.

Burrage, M., & Torstendahl, R. (Eds.). (1990b). The formation of professions: Knowledge, state and strategy . London: Sage.

Carr-Saunders, A. M., & Wilson, P. A. (1933). The professions . Oxford: Clarendon.

Carvalho, T. (2008, June 5–7). Redefining professional frontiers in health: negotiations in the field . Paper presented at conference, interim meeting of ESA Research Network on ‘sociology of professions’, Aarhus, Denmark.

Champy, F. (2008, June 5–7). Where does the “power” go when professionals lose part of their knowledge-based autonomy? French architects and “formal rationalization” . Paper presented at conference, interim meeting of ESA Research Network on ‘sociology of professions’, Aarhus, Denmark.

Champy, F. (2009). Overcoming the double-bind of the sociology of professions . Paper presented at ESA conference, Lisbon, RN19.

Champy, F. (2011). Nouvelle thèorie sociologie des professions . Paris: Presses Universitaires de France.

Coburn, D. (2006). Medical dominance then and now: Critical reflections’. Health Sociology Review, 15 (5), 432–443.

Collins, R. (1979). The credential society: An historical sociology of education and stratification . New York: Academic.

Collins, R. (1981). Crises and declines in credential systems. In Sociology since midcentury: Essays in theory cumulation . New York: Academic.

Considine, M. (2001). Enterprising states: The public management of welfare-to-work . Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Cooper, D., Lowe, A., Puxty, A., Robson, K., & Willmott, H. (1988, January). Regulating the UK accountancy profession: Episodes in the relation between the profession and the state . Paper presented at the ESRC conference on corporatism at the Policy Studies Institute, London, England.

Crompton, R. (1990). Professions in the current context. Work, Employment and Society , Special Issue 4 , 147–166.

Dahl, H. M. (2008, June 5–7). New public management and new professionalism: ambiguities and struggles . Paper presented at conference, interim meeting of ESA Research Network on ‘sociology of professions’, Aarhus, Denmark.

Davies, C. (1995). Gender and the professional predicament in nursing . Buckingham: Open University Press.

Davies, C. (1996). The sociology of professions and the profession of gender. Sociology, 30 (4), 661–678.

Dent, M., Kirkpatrick, I., Kragh Jespersen, P., & Neo Y. I. (2008, June 5–7). Medicine and management in a comparative perspective: Denmark and the UK . Paper presented at conference, interim meeting of ESA Research Network on ‘sociology of professions’, Aarhus, Denmark.

Dingwall, R. (1996). Professions and social order in a global society . Plenary paper presented at the ISA Working Group 02 conference, Nottingham, UK.

Dingwall, R. (2008). Essays on professions (Ashgate classics in sociology ). Burlington: Aldershot.

Dingwall, R., & King, M. D. (1995). Herbert Spencer and the professions: Occupational ecology reconsidered. Sociological Theory, 13 (1), 14–24.

Dingwall, R., & Lewis, P. (Eds.). (1983). The sociology of the professions: Lawyers, doctors and others . London: Macmillan.

du Gay, P., & Salaman, G. (1992, September). The cult[ure] of the customer. Journal of Management Studies, 29 (5), 615–633.

Dubar, C. (2000). La Crise des Identités: l’interprétation d’une mutation . Paris: Presses Universitaires de France.

Durkheim, E. (1992). Professional ethics and civic morals . London: Routledge.

Etzioni, A. (1969). The semi-professionals and their organization: Teachers, nurses and social workers . New York: Free Press.

Evetts, J. (1994). Becoming a secondary headteacher . London: Cassell.

Evetts, J. (1998, July 26–August 1). Analysing the projects of professional associations: National and international dimensions . Unpublished paper presented at ISA Congress, Montreal.

Evetts, J. (2003). The sociological analysis of professionalism: Occupational change in the modern world. International Sociology, 18 (2), 395–415.

Evetts, J. (2006, January). Short note: ‘The sociology of professional groups: New directions’. Current Sociology, 54 (1), 133–143. ISSN 0011-3921.

Evetts, J. (Ed.). (2008). Professional work in Europe: Concepts, theories and methodologies. Special Issue of European Societies, 10 (4), 525–544.

Evetts, J. (2009). The management of professionalism: A contemporary paradox. In S. Gewirtz, P. Mahony, I. Hextall, & A. Cribb (Eds.), Changing teacher professionalism: International trends, challenges and ways forward (pp. 19–30). London: Routledge.

Farrell, C., & Morris, J. (2003). The neo-bureaucratic state: Professionals, managers and professional managers in schools, general practices and social work. Organization, 10 (1), 129–156.

Faulconbridge, J. R., & Muzio, D. (2008). Organizational professionalism in globalizing law firms. Work, Employment and Society, 22 , 7–25.

Flood, J. (2011, July). The re-landscaping of the legal profession: Large law firms and professional re-regulation. In D. Muzio and I. Kirkpatrick (Eds.), Reconnecting professional occupations and professional organizations. Current Sociology, 59 (4): monograph 2, 507–529. London: Sage.

Fournier, V. (1999). The appeal to “professionalism” as a disciplinary mechanism. Social Review, 47 (2), 280–307.

Freidson, E. (1982). Occupational autonomy an labor market shelters. In P. L. Steward & M. G. Cantor (Eds.), Varieties of work (pp. 39–54). Beverley Hills: Sage.

Freidson, E. (1983). The theory of professions: State of the art. In R. Dingwall & R. Lewis (Eds.), The sociology of professions . London: Macmillan.

Freidson, E. (1994). Professionalism reborn: Theory, prophecy and policy . Cambridge: Polity Press.

Freidson, E. (2001). Professionalism: The third logic . London: Polity Press.

Gewirtz, S., Mahony, P., Hextall, I., & Cribb, A. (Eds.). (2009). Changing teacher professionalism: International trends, challenges and ways forward . London: Routledge.

Goldthorpe, J. (1982). On the service class, its formation and future. In A. Giddens & G. MacKenzie (Eds.), Classes and the division of labour: Essays in honour of Ilya Neustadt (pp. 162–185). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Greenwood, E. (1957). The attributes of a profession. Social Work, 2 , 44–55.

Grelon, A. (1996). Ingenieurs et risques technologiques dans le chimie industrielle en France . Paper presented at ISA Working Group 02 conference, Nottingham.

Halliday, T. C. (1987). Beyond monopoly: Lawyers, state crises and professional empowerment . Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Hanlon, G. (1998). Professionalism as enterprise: Service class politics and the redefinition of professionalism. Sociology, 32 , 43–64.

Hanlon, G. (1999). Lawyers, the state and the market: Professionalism revisited . Basingstoke: Macmillan.

Hawkins, K. (Ed.). (1992). The uses of discretion . Oxford: Clarendon.

Hoggett, P. (1996). New modes of control in the public services. Public Administration, 74 (1), 9–32.

Hughes, E. C. (1958). Men and their work . New York: Free Press.

Johnson, T. (1972). Professions and power . London: Macmillan.

Johnson, T. (1992, November 19–20). The internationalization of expertise . Paper given to conference: Sociology of occupational groups, Paris.

Karpik, L. (1989). Le désintéressement. Annales, Economies Socitétés Civilisations, 3 , 733–751.

Kuhlmann, E. (2006). Modernising health care. Reinventing professions, the state and the public . Bristol: The Policy Press.

Kuhlmann, E. (2008, June 5–7). Unsettling the power-knowledge nexus in professionalism: multiple dynamics in healthcare . Paper presented at conference, interim meeting of ESA Research Network on ‘sociology of professions’, Aarhus, Denmark.

Lane, J.-E. (2000). New public management . London: Routledge & Kegan.

Langer, A. (2008, June 5–7). Academic qualification programmes for professional management: Managerial expertise as one facet of a new professionalism . Paper presented at conference, interim meeting of ESA Research Network on ‘sociology of professions’, Aarhus, Denmark.

Langer, A., & Schrőer, A. (Eds.). (2011). Professionalisierung im nonprofit management . Heidelberg: Vs Verlag.

Larkin, G. (1983). Occupational monopoly and modern medicine . London: Tavistock.

Larson, M. S. (1977). The rise of professionalism . Berkeley: University of California Press.

Liljegren, A. (2012). Pragmatic professionalism: Micro-level discourse in social work. European Journal of Social Work, 15 (3), 295–312.

MacDonald, K. M. (1995). The sociology of professions . London: Sage.

Marshall, T. H. (1950). Citizenship and social class and other essays . Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

McClellend, C. E. (1990). Escape from freedom? Reflections on German professionalization 1870–1933. In M. Burrage & R. Torstendahl (Eds.), The formation of professions: Knowledge, state and strategy (pp. 97–113). London: Sage.

Milburn, P. (1996). Les territoires professionnels et la négociation experte du réel: compatibilté des modèles théoriques . Paper presented at ISA Working Group 02 conference, Nottingham.

Miller, P., & Rose, N. (1990). Governing economic life. Economy and Society, 19 (1), 1–31.

Mintzberg, H. (1983). Structure in fives: Designing effective organizations . Englewood Cliffs: Prentice Hall.

Noordegraaf, M. (2007). From pure to hybrid professionalism: Present day professionalism in ambiguous public domains. Administration and Society, 39 (6), 761–785.

Olgiati, V., Orzack, L. H., & Saks, M. (Eds.). (1998). Professions, identity and order in comparative perspective . Onati: The International Institute for the Sociology of Law.

Olofsson, G. (2009). The coming of the proto-professions – A third stage of professionalization? . Paper presented at ESA conference, Lisbon, RN19.

Orzack, L. H. (1998). Professions and world trade diplomacy: National systems of international authority. In V. Olgiati, L. Orzack, & M. Saks (Eds.), Professions, identity and order in comparative perspective (Onati papers, Vol. 4/5). Onati: International Institute for the Sociology of Law, 13–38.

Parsons, T. (1939). The professions and social structure. Social Forces, 17 , 457–467.

Pavlin, S., Svetlik, I., & Evetts, J. (2010). Revisiting the role of formal and practical knowledge from a sociology of professions perspective: The case of Slovenia. Current Sociology, 58 (1), 94–118.

Ruiz Ben, E. (2009), Professionalism patterns in the internationalization of information work . Paper presented at ESA conference, Lisbon, RN19.

Saks, M. (1995). Professions and the public interest: Medical power, altruism and alternative medicine . London: Routledge.

Schepers, R. (2006). Regulation and trust in action: The subtle balance between doctors and management in two Belgian hospitals. Current Sociology, 54 (4), 637–648.

Sciulli, D. (2005). Continental sociology of professions today: Conceptual contributions. Current Sociology, 53 (6), 915–942.

Svensson, L., & Evetts, J. (Eds.). (2003). Conceptual and comparative studies of continental and Anglo-American professions (Goteborg studies in sociology, Vol. 129). Goteborg: Goteborg University.

Svensson, L., & Evetts, J. (Eds.). (2010). Sociology of professions. Continental and Anglo-Saxon traditions . Goteborg: Daidalos.

Tawney, R. H. (1921). The acquisitive society . New York: Harcourt Bruce.

Trépos, J. (1996). Une modelisation des jugements d’experts: catégories et instruments de mesure . Paper presented at ISA Working Group 02 conference, Nottingham.

Verpraet, G. (2009). Knowledge professions between market professionalism and professional autonomy: The adequation of sociological typologies . Paper presented at ESA conference, Lisbon, RN19.

Wilensky, H. L. (1964). The professionalization of everyone? American Journal of Sociology, 70 (2), 137–158.

Witz, A. (1992). Professions and patriarchy . London: Routledge.

Book   Google Scholar  

Wrede, S. (2008, June 5–7). An erasure of professionalism in the caring occupations? The organizational discourse of flexibility and the fragmentation of occupational identities . Paper presented at conference, interim meeting of ESA Research Network on ‘sociology of professions’, Aarhus, Denmark.

Download references

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

School of Sociology and Social Policy, University of Nottingham, Nottingham, UK

Julia Evetts Ph.D.

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Julia Evetts Ph.D. .

Editor information

Editors and affiliations.

School of Education and Professional Studies, Adult and Vocational Education, Griffith University, Brisbane, Queensland, Australia

Stephen Billett

Institute of Educational Science, University of Paderborn, Paderborn, Germany

Christian Harteis

Institute of Educational Science, University of Regensburg, Regensburg, Germany

Hans Gruber

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2014 Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht

About this chapter

Evetts, J. (2014). The Concept of Professionalism: Professional Work, Professional Practice and Learning. In: Billett, S., Harteis, C., Gruber, H. (eds) International Handbook of Research in Professional and Practice-based Learning. Springer International Handbooks of Education. Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-017-8902-8_2

Download citation

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-017-8902-8_2

Published : 27 May 2014

Publisher Name : Springer, Dordrecht

Print ISBN : 978-94-017-8901-1

Online ISBN : 978-94-017-8902-8

eBook Packages : Humanities, Social Sciences and Law Education (R0)

Share this chapter

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

• Publish with us

Policies and ethics

• Find a journal
• Track your research

Professional Ethics Research Paper Topics

This page provides a comprehensive list of professional ethics research paper topics , offering students studying ethics a valuable resource for their academic endeavors. Delve into the diverse world of professional ethics, explore its significance, and discover a wide array of research paper topics that can enrich your studies. Whether you seek to understand the ethical dimensions of various professions or wish to analyze ethical challenges in professional settings, this page is your gateway to a wealth of knowledge in the field of professional ethics. Additionally, learn about the writing services offered by iResearchNet, which can help you excel in your research paper assignments. Explore this page and take the first step toward crafting a compelling research paper on professional ethics.

100 Professional Ethics Research Paper Topics

Professional ethics stands as a cornerstone in the realm of ethical studies, guiding individuals and organizations toward responsible and morally sound conduct within their respective fields. It is through the lens of professional ethics that we scrutinize the behavior, values, and dilemmas that arise within various professions. This page provides an invaluable resource for students delving into the intricate world of professional ethics. By exploring the extensive list of research paper topics curated here, you will gain insights into the ethical dimensions of diverse professions and the challenges they face. Through in-depth analysis and critical examination, you can contribute to the ongoing discourse on professional ethics. Dive into this comprehensive collection, and discover the myriad topics awaiting exploration in this vital field.

Academic Writing, Editing, Proofreading, And Problem Solving Services

Get 10% off with 24start discount code.

Healthcare Professions

• Ethical considerations in organ transplantation.
• The role of confidentiality in healthcare ethics.
• Medical malpractice and professional responsibility.
• Bioethical dilemmas in end-of-life care.
• Ethical implications of pharmaceutical marketing.
• Mental health professionals’ duty to protect confidentiality.
• Patient autonomy and decision-making in medical ethics.
• Ethical challenges in clinical trials and research.
• Ethics of healthcare resource allocation.
• Euthanasia and physician-assisted suicide debates.

Legal and Judicial Professions

• Legal ethics and attorney-client privilege.
• Judicial impartiality and the rule of law.
• Ethical dilemmas in criminal defense.
• Professional ethics in corporate law.
• Judges’ recusal and conflicts of interest.
• Prosecutorial misconduct and accountability.
• The role of ethics in alternative dispute resolution.
• Legal ethics in the age of technology.
• The death penalty and ethical considerations.
• Ethical issues in international human rights law.

Business and Corporate Ethics

• Corporate social responsibility and ethical business practices.
• Workplace ethics and employee rights.
• Ethical dimensions of business advertising.
• The role of whistleblowers in corporate ethics.
• Environmental ethics in business and sustainability.
• Ethics in international business negotiations.
• Leadership ethics and the impact on organizational culture.
• Ethical considerations in outsourcing and globalization.
• Corporate governance and ethical decision-making.
• Business ethics in the digital age.

Journalism and Media Ethics

• Ethical challenges in reporting on sensitive topics.
• Journalistic objectivity and the pursuit of truth.
• The role of ethics in photojournalism and image manipulation.
• Media ownership and its implications for journalistic ethics.
• The impact of social media on ethical journalism.
• Whistleblowing in the media industry.
• Ethical considerations in celebrity reporting.
• Censorship, freedom of the press, and ethical dilemmas.
• Conflict of interest in journalism.
• Privacy issues in the digital media era.

Education and Academic Ethics

• Plagiarism and academic integrity.
• Ethical issues in student-teacher relationships.
• The role of ethics in academic publishing.
• Educational equity and ethical considerations.
• Ethical dilemmas in standardized testing.
• Academic freedom and its ethical boundaries.
• The ethics of diversity and inclusion in education.
• Ethics in research involving human subjects.
• Student rights and educational ethics.
• The ethics of technology in the classroom.

Engineering and Technology Ethics

• Ethical considerations in artificial intelligence development.
• Privacy concerns in the digital age.
• The impact of automation on job ethics.
• Environmental ethics in engineering and technology.
• Ethical dilemmas in genetic engineering.
• Cybersecurity and ethical responsibilities.
• Ethical dimensions of autonomous vehicles.
• Intellectual property and technology ethics.
• Ethical issues in biotechnology research.
• The role of ethics in software development.

Social Work and Counseling Ethics

• Ethical principles in counseling and psychotherapy.
• Confidentiality and informed consent in counseling.
• Ethical challenges in child welfare services.
• The intersection of spirituality and counseling ethics.
• Cultural competence and ethical practice in social work.
• Ethical considerations in addiction counseling.
• Dual relationships in therapeutic settings.
• The ethics of mental health advocacy.
• Social justice and ethical social work practice.
• Ethical issues in gerontology and elder care.

Environmental Ethics

• Conservation ethics and wildlife protection.
• Climate change ethics and global responsibility.
• Environmental justice and ethics.
• Ethical dimensions of sustainable agriculture.
• The ethics of natural resource management.
• Biodiversity preservation and ethical considerations.
• Pollution control and environmental ethics.
• Eco-friendly technology and ethical innovation.
• Corporate responsibility for environmental ethics.
• Ethical considerations in eco-tourism.

Military and Defense Ethics

• The ethics of military intervention and just war theory.
• Soldiers’ moral responsibilities in combat.
• Ethical dilemmas in intelligence operations.
• The use of drones and unmanned warfare ethics.
• Cyber warfare and its ethical implications.
• Military leadership ethics and responsibility.
• Ethical considerations in nuclear deterrence.
• War crimes, accountability, and international law.
• The ethics of humanitarian assistance in conflict zones.
• Military ethics in the digital age.

Public Service and Government Ethics

• Public officials’ duty to uphold the law and ethical conduct.
• Corruption, transparency, and government ethics.
• Whistleblowing and ethics in public service.
• Ethical dimensions of public health policy.
• Ethical challenges in international diplomacy.
• Accountability and ethical governance.
• The role of ethics in disaster management.
• Ethical considerations in intelligence agencies.
• Lobbying, special interests, and government ethics.
• Ethical issues in public-private partnerships.

The compilation above represents merely a fraction of the vast landscape of research paper topics within professional ethics. As you delve into these categories, you’ll find that professional ethics transcends specific vocations, touching on fundamental principles of responsibility, integrity, and accountability. By exploring these topics, students can gain a deeper understanding of the ethical considerations that underpin various professions and industries. From healthcare to journalism, from business to environmental preservation, professional ethics plays a pivotal role in shaping our society.

The Range of Professional Ethics Research Paper Topics

Introduction.

Professional ethics is a cornerstone of ethical studies, offering a compass to navigate the complex terrain of our working lives. As students delve into the world of ethical research, they encounter the multifaceted domain of professional ethics. This page serves as a gateway to exploring the ethical considerations that underpin various vocations and industries, providing a rich tapestry of research paper topics to explore.

Exploring Professional Ethics

Professional ethics, nestled within the larger field of applied ethics, plays a pivotal role in guiding the moral conduct of individuals and organizations in diverse professions. At its core, it seeks to bridge the gap between theoretical ethical principles and the practical realities encountered in professional life.

In various fields, ethical considerations are woven into the fabric of daily practice. For instance, healthcare professionals grapple with dilemmas related to patient autonomy, confidentiality, and end-of-life decisions. Journalists strive to balance the pursuit of truth with concerns regarding privacy and sensitivity. Business leaders navigate the intricate interplay of corporate social responsibility and profit margins.

Research in professional ethics extends beyond academia, impacting real-world practices. By examining the ethical dimensions of specific professions, scholars and practitioners can contribute to the development of ethical guidelines, policies, and practices. Such research aids in addressing ethical challenges, fostering responsible conduct, and safeguarding the integrity of professions.

Range of Research Paper Topics

Professional ethics offers a diverse array of research paper topics that span different vocations and industries, each with its unique ethical considerations. These topics shed light on the moral dimensions of professions and are integral to ethical studies:

Within the expansive realm of professional ethics, students can explore topics ranging from the ethical dilemmas in organ transplantation to legal ethics and the attorney-client privilege. They can delve into corporate social responsibility in business ethics or investigate ethical challenges in reporting sensitive topics in journalism ethics.

Ethical dimensions are not confined to traditional professions. In the ever-evolving world of technology, the ethics of artificial intelligence development and privacy concerns in the digital age are pressing topics. Additionally, questions about conservation ethics and wildlife protection resonate in environmental ethics.

These are but a few examples of the vast landscape of professional ethics research paper topics. Whether you are drawn to the complexities of healthcare, the legal arena, business ethics, or any other profession, the study of professional ethics offers a captivating journey into the moral dimensions of our working lives.

In conclusion, professional ethics is an essential facet of ethical studies, guiding individuals and organizations to uphold principles of responsibility, integrity, and accountability within their respective professions. As students embark on their exploration of professional ethics research paper topics, they enter a realm where ethical principles are put to the test in real-world scenarios.

The breadth of topics within professional ethics mirrors the diversity of professions themselves. Each field presents unique ethical challenges and dilemmas, providing a fertile ground for ethical inquiry. Through rigorous research and thoughtful analysis, students and scholars have the opportunity to contribute to ethical frameworks that shape our society and professions.

We encourage you to delve into the ethical considerations of your chosen profession, for it is within this exploration that you will uncover insights, perspectives, and solutions that can lead to a more ethical and responsible world of work. Embrace the journey, and let your research on professional ethics illuminate the path toward ethical excellence in your chosen field.

Custom Research Paper Writing Services

When it comes to embarking on the journey of academic research, the importance of expert guidance cannot be overstated. Crafting a compelling and rigorous research paper is a meticulous task that demands a profound understanding of the subject matter, rigorous research skills, and adept writing prowess. At iResearchNet, we recognize the paramount significance of these elements, and that’s why we bring to you a team of expert degree-holding writers who are poised to assist you in your research endeavors.

Our commitment to excellence in academic writing services stems from the belief that your research should not only meet academic standards but should also contribute meaningfully to your field of study. Our seasoned writers, with their wealth of knowledge and expertise, are dedicated to helping you achieve precisely that.

• Expert Degree-Holding Writers : Our team comprises writers with advanced degrees in various fields. They possess both the academic acumen and the practical experience to tackle research papers with authority.
• Custom Written Works : Every research paper we produce is custom-crafted to meet your unique requirements. We believe in the originality and authenticity of your work.
• In-Depth Research : Thorough research forms the bedrock of any great research paper. Our writers are adept at diving deep into scholarly sources and extracting relevant insights.
• Custom Formatting : We understand the importance of adhering to specific formatting styles. Your paper will be meticulously formatted as per your guidelines.
• Top Quality : Quality is non-negotiable for us. Our stringent quality control measures ensure that your paper is of the highest standard.
• Customized Solutions : We recognize that each research paper is unique. Our approach is highly flexible, and we tailor our services to your specific needs.
• Flexible Pricing : We understand the budget constraints of students. Our pricing structure is competitive and adaptable to your financial considerations.
• Short Deadlines : We excel in meeting tight deadlines. If you have a pressing submission date, we can deliver your paper within as little as three hours.
• Timely Delivery : We value punctuality. Your research paper will be delivered promptly, allowing you ample time for review and submission.
• 24/7 Support : Our customer support team is available round the clock to address your queries and concerns. We believe in providing constant support throughout your research journey.
• Absolute Privacy : Your privacy is paramount. We guarantee the confidentiality of your personal information and the work we do for you.
• Easy Order Tracking : Our user-friendly platform allows you to track the progress of your research paper at every stage, ensuring transparency and peace of mind.
• Money-Back Guarantee : We are confident in the quality of our services. If, for any reason, you are not satisfied, we offer a money-back guarantee.

We take pride in offering a comprehensive suite of services that encompass every facet of research paper writing. From the moment you entrust us with your research paper, we embark on a journey to deliver excellence, ensuring that your academic endeavors are met with success.

Choosing iResearchNet for your research paper assistance means choosing a partner dedicated to your academic triumph. Our team of expert writers, combined with our unwavering commitment to quality and excellence, positions us as the ideal companion on your research journey.

As you delve into the world of professional ethics research paper topics or any other subject, remember that you are not alone. iResearchNet is here to provide the expertise, support, and guidance you need to craft research papers that stand out. With our custom solutions, timely deliveries, and commitment to your academic success, we invite you to experience research paper writing at its finest. Together, we will unlock the door to scholarly excellence.

Join the ranks of students who have benefited from our services and discover the difference that iResearchNet can make in your academic journey.

Secure Your Academic Success with iResearchNet

Are you ready to elevate your academic journey and make a meaningful impact in the realm of professional ethics? Look no further! At iResearchNet, we’re here to turn your aspirations into accomplishments.

Embarking on a research paper in professional ethics is a commendable endeavor, but we understand that it can be a daunting task. That’s where we come in. Our team of expert degree-holding writers is eager to partner with you on this exciting academic journey.

Why Choose Us?

• Unparalleled Expertise : Our writers are seasoned professionals with advanced degrees in various fields, including ethics. They bring both academic knowledge and practical experience to the table, ensuring that your research paper is a cut above the rest.
• Custom-Crafted Excellence : Your research paper will be custom-written, tailored to your specific requirements. We believe in the originality and authenticity of your work.
• Convenience and Quality : We’ve streamlined the entire process, from order placement to delivery. Experience hassle-free, top-quality service that aligns perfectly with your academic goals.
• Meeting Deadlines : Whether you have a looming deadline or need a paper in as little as three hours, we’ve got you covered. Our punctuality ensures that you never miss a submission date.
• Comprehensive Support : Our customer support team is available 24/7 to address your questions and concerns. We are your partners in academic success, offering unwavering support at every step.

Imagine the confidence of submitting a research paper that reflects your dedication and academic prowess. With iResearchNet by your side, that dream is well within reach. Order your custom professional ethics research paper today and witness the transformation in your academic pursuits.

Unleash Your Academic Potential

The path to scholarly excellence begins with a single step—a step that takes you closer to achieving your academic goals and making a meaningful contribution to the field of professional ethics. By choosing iResearchNet, you’re choosing a partner dedicated to your success.

Don’t let the complexity of professional ethics research papers deter you. Embrace the opportunity to excel, backed by a team of experts who share your commitment to academic achievement.

Order your custom professional ethics research paper now, and embark on a journey that promises academic fulfillment and intellectual growth. Your future of scholarly excellence awaits!

Unlock Your Potential with iResearchNet. Place your order today!

ORDER HIGH QUALITY CUSTOM PAPER

Purdue Online Writing Lab Purdue OWL® College of Liberal Arts

Conducting Research

Welcome to the Purdue OWL

This page is brought to you by the OWL at Purdue University. When printing this page, you must include the entire legal notice.

Copyright ©1995-2018 by The Writing Lab & The OWL at Purdue and Purdue University. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, reproduced, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed without permission. Use of this site constitutes acceptance of our terms and conditions of fair use.

These OWL resources will help you conduct research using primary source methods, such as interviews and observations, and secondary source methods, such as books, journals, and the Internet. This area also includes materials on evaluating research sources.

In this section

Subsections.

Want to create or adapt books like this? Learn more about how Pressbooks supports open publishing practices.

11.1 The Purpose of Research Writing

Learning objectives.

• Identify reasons to research writing projects.
• Outline the steps of the research writing process.

Why was the Great Wall of China built? What have scientists learned about the possibility of life on Mars? What roles did women play in the American Revolution? How does the human brain create, store, and retrieve memories? Who invented the game of football, and how has it changed over the years?

You may know the answers to these questions off the top of your head. If you are like most people, however, you find answers to tough questions like these by searching the Internet, visiting the library, or asking others for information. To put it simply, you perform research.

Whether you are a scientist, an artist, a paralegal, or a parent, you probably perform research in your everyday life. When your boss, your instructor, or a family member asks you a question that you do not know the answer to, you locate relevant information, analyze your findings, and share your results. Locating, analyzing, and sharing information are key steps in the research process, and in this chapter, you will learn more about each step. By developing your research writing skills, you will prepare yourself to answer any question no matter how challenging.

Reasons for Research

When you perform research, you are essentially trying to solve a mystery—you want to know how something works or why something happened. In other words, you want to answer a question that you (and other people) have about the world. This is one of the most basic reasons for performing research.

But the research process does not end when you have solved your mystery. Imagine what would happen if a detective collected enough evidence to solve a criminal case, but she never shared her solution with the authorities. Presenting what you have learned from research can be just as important as performing the research. Research results can be presented in a variety of ways, but one of the most popular—and effective—presentation forms is the research paper . A research paper presents an original thesis, or purpose statement, about a topic and develops that thesis with information gathered from a variety of sources.

If you are curious about the possibility of life on Mars, for example, you might choose to research the topic. What will you do, though, when your research is complete? You will need a way to put your thoughts together in a logical, coherent manner. You may want to use the facts you have learned to create a narrative or to support an argument. And you may want to show the results of your research to your friends, your teachers, or even the editors of magazines and journals. Writing a research paper is an ideal way to organize thoughts, craft narratives or make arguments based on research, and share your newfound knowledge with the world.

Write a paragraph about a time when you used research in your everyday life. Did you look for the cheapest way to travel from Houston to Denver? Did you search for a way to remove gum from the bottom of your shoe? In your paragraph, explain what you wanted to research, how you performed the research, and what you learned as a result.

Research Writing and the Academic Paper

No matter what field of study you are interested in, you will most likely be asked to write a research paper during your academic career. For example, a student in an art history course might write a research paper about an artist’s work. Similarly, a student in a psychology course might write a research paper about current findings in childhood development.

Having to write a research paper may feel intimidating at first. After all, researching and writing a long paper requires a lot of time, effort, and organization. However, writing a research paper can also be a great opportunity to explore a topic that is particularly interesting to you. The research process allows you to gain expertise on a topic of your choice, and the writing process helps you remember what you have learned and understand it on a deeper level.

Research Writing at Work

Knowing how to write a good research paper is a valuable skill that will serve you well throughout your career. Whether you are developing a new product, studying the best way to perform a procedure, or learning about challenges and opportunities in your field of employment, you will use research techniques to guide your exploration. You may even need to create a written report of your findings. And because effective communication is essential to any company, employers seek to hire people who can write clearly and professionally.

Writing at Work

Take a few minutes to think about each of the following careers. How might each of these professionals use researching and research writing skills on the job?

• Medical laboratory technician
• Small business owner
• Information technology professional
• Freelance magazine writer

A medical laboratory technician or information technology professional might do research to learn about the latest technological developments in either of these fields. A small business owner might conduct research to learn about the latest trends in his or her industry. A freelance magazine writer may need to research a given topic to write an informed, up-to-date article.

Think about the job of your dreams. How might you use research writing skills to perform that job? Create a list of ways in which strong researching, organizing, writing, and critical thinking skills could help you succeed at your dream job. How might these skills help you obtain that job?

Steps of the Research Writing Process

How does a research paper grow from a folder of brainstormed notes to a polished final draft? No two projects are identical, but most projects follow a series of six basic steps.

These are the steps in the research writing process:

• Choose a topic.
• Plan and schedule time to research and write.
• Conduct research.
• Organize research and ideas.
• Draft your paper.
• Revise and edit your paper.

Each of these steps will be discussed in more detail later in this chapter. For now, though, we will take a brief look at what each step involves.

Step 1: Choosing a Topic

As you may recall from Chapter 8 “The Writing Process: How Do I Begin?” , to narrow the focus of your topic, you may try freewriting exercises, such as brainstorming. You may also need to ask a specific research question —a broad, open-ended question that will guide your research—as well as propose a possible answer, or a working thesis . You may use your research question and your working thesis to create a research proposal . In a research proposal, you present your main research question, any related subquestions you plan to explore, and your working thesis.

Step 2: Planning and Scheduling

Before you start researching your topic, take time to plan your researching and writing schedule. Research projects can take days, weeks, or even months to complete. Creating a schedule is a good way to ensure that you do not end up being overwhelmed by all the work you have to do as the deadline approaches.

During this step of the process, it is also a good idea to plan the resources and organizational tools you will use to keep yourself on track throughout the project. Flowcharts, calendars, and checklists can all help you stick to your schedule. See Chapter 11 “Writing from Research: What Will I Learn?” , Section 11.2 “Steps in Developing a Research Proposal” for an example of a research schedule.

Step 3: Conducting Research

When going about your research, you will likely use a variety of sources—anything from books and periodicals to video presentations and in-person interviews.

Your sources will include both primary sources and secondary sources . Primary sources provide firsthand information or raw data. For example, surveys, in-person interviews, and historical documents are primary sources. Secondary sources, such as biographies, literary reviews, or magazine articles, include some analysis or interpretation of the information presented. As you conduct research, you will take detailed, careful notes about your discoveries. You will also evaluate the reliability of each source you find.

Step 4: Organizing Research and the Writer’s Ideas

When your research is complete, you will organize your findings and decide which sources to cite in your paper. You will also have an opportunity to evaluate the evidence you have collected and determine whether it supports your thesis, or the focus of your paper. You may decide to adjust your thesis or conduct additional research to ensure that your thesis is well supported.

Remember, your working thesis is not set in stone. You can and should change your working thesis throughout the research writing process if the evidence you find does not support your original thesis. Never try to force evidence to fit your argument. For example, your working thesis is “Mars cannot support life-forms.” Yet, a week into researching your topic, you find an article in the New York Times detailing new findings of bacteria under the Martian surface. Instead of trying to argue that bacteria are not life forms, you might instead alter your thesis to “Mars cannot support complex life-forms.”

Step 5: Drafting Your Paper

Now you are ready to combine your research findings with your critical analysis of the results in a rough draft. You will incorporate source materials into your paper and discuss each source thoughtfully in relation to your thesis or purpose statement.

When you cite your reference sources, it is important to pay close attention to standard conventions for citing sources in order to avoid plagiarism , or the practice of using someone else’s words without acknowledging the source. Later in this chapter, you will learn how to incorporate sources in your paper and avoid some of the most common pitfalls of attributing information.

Step 6: Revising and Editing Your Paper

In the final step of the research writing process, you will revise and polish your paper. You might reorganize your paper’s structure or revise for unity and cohesion, ensuring that each element in your paper flows into the next logically and naturally. You will also make sure that your paper uses an appropriate and consistent tone.

Once you feel confident in the strength of your writing, you will edit your paper for proper spelling, grammar, punctuation, mechanics, and formatting. When you complete this final step, you will have transformed a simple idea or question into a thoroughly researched and well-written paper you can be proud of!

Review the steps of the research writing process. Then answer the questions on your own sheet of paper.

• In which steps of the research writing process are you allowed to change your thesis?
• In step 2, which types of information should you include in your project schedule?
• What might happen if you eliminated step 4 from the research writing process?

Key Takeaways

• People undertake research projects throughout their academic and professional careers in order to answer specific questions, share their findings with others, increase their understanding of challenging topics, and strengthen their researching, writing, and analytical skills.
• The research writing process generally comprises six steps: choosing a topic, scheduling and planning time for research and writing, conducting research, organizing research and ideas, drafting a paper, and revising and editing the paper.

Writing for Success Copyright © 2015 by University of Minnesota is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License , except where otherwise noted.