Developing ethical research behaviour in doctoral students
Article Sidebar
Main Article Content
Abstract
Ethical research behaviour plays an essential role in ensuring the integrity of knowledge. Consequently, ethical transgressions during the research process negatively influence the knowledge produced, and have wider social consequences for various stakeholders in society. To honour the value and role of ethical research for individuals and society, researchers are required to display ethical judgement and ethically responsible research behaviour. Doctoral students, who are considered to be significant contributors to knowledge creation, can improve the quality of their research through their ethical research behaviour. Owing to the implicit and explicit ethical practices and conflicts that can arise during the research process, the supervision process is an opportune moment for developing ethical research behaviour and ethical capabilities in doctoral students. This article focuses on developing ethical research behaviour in doctoral students, and offers pragmatic guidelines for ways in which this behaviour can be developed during the supervision process.
Article Details
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.
The SAJBL is published under an Attribution-Non Commercial International Creative Commons Attribution (CC-BY-NC 4.0) License. Under this license, authors agree to make articles available to users, without permission or fees, for any lawful, non-commercial purpose. Users may read, copy, or re-use published content as long as the author and original place of publication are properly cited.
Exceptions to this license model is allowed for UKRI and research funded by organisations requiring that research be published open-access without embargo, under a CC-BY licence. As per the journals archiving policy, authors are permitted to self-archive the author-accepted manuscript (AAM) in a repository.
How to Cite
References
National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. Fostering integrity in research. Washington, DC: National Academies Press, 2017.
Brinkmann S, Kvale S. Confronting the ethics of qualitative research. J Constr Psychol 2005;18(2):157-181. https://doi.org/10.1080/10720530590914789
Frick L, Albertyn R, Brodin E, McKenna S, Claesson S. The role of doctoral education in early career academic development. In: Fourie-Malherbe M, Aitchison C, Blitzer E, Albertyn R, editors. Postgraduate Supervision: Future Foci for the Knowledge Society. Stellenbosch: Sun Press, 2016:203-219.
TraffordV,LeshemS.SteppingStonestoAchievingyourDoctorate:ByFocusing on your Viva from the Start. Berkshire: McGraw Hill/Open University Press, 2012. 5. Ali S, Kelly M. Ethics and social research. In: Seale C, editor. Researching Society
and Culture. 4th ed. London: Sage Publications, 2017:43-62.
Beauchamp TL, Childress JF. Principles of Biomedical Ethics. 5th ed. New York:
Oxford University Press, 2013.
Nieuwoudt S, Dickie KE, Coetsee C, Engelbrecht L, Terblanche E. Retracted
article: Age- and education-related effects on cognitive functioning in Colored South African women. Aging Neuropsychol Cogn 2020;27(3):321-337. https:// doi.org/10.1080/13825585.2019.1598538
World Conferences on Research Integrity. Singapore Statement on Research Integrity. https://wcrif.org/documents/327-singapore-statement-a4size/file (accessed 25 October 2021).
World Medical Association. Declaration of Helsinki, 2013. https://www.wma. net/what-we-do/medical-ethics/declaration-of-helsinki/ (accessed 25 October 2021).
US Department of Health & Human Services. The Belmont Report 1979. https:// www.hhs.gov/ohrp/regulations-and-policy/belmont-report/read-the-belmont- report/index.html#xbasic (accessed 25 October 2021).
Paruzel-Czachura M, Baran L, Spendel Z. Publish or be ethical? Publishing pressure and scientific misconduct in research. Res Ethics 2021;17(3):375-397. https://doi.org/10.1177/1747016120980562
Fanelli D. How many scientists fabricate and falsify research? A systematic review and meta-analysis of survey data. PloS One 2009;4(5):e5738. https://doi. org/10.1371/journal.pone.0005738
Buljan I, Barać L, Marušić A. How researchers perceive research misconduct in biomedicine and how they would prevent it: A qualitative study in a small scientific community. Account Res 2018;25(4):220-238. https://doi.org/10.1080/ 08989621.2018.1463162
Kapp C, Albertyn R. Accepted or rejected: Editors’ perspectives on common errors of authors. Acta Acad 2008;40(4):270-288.
Sim E. A poorer practice: The consequences of unethical research. Imperial Biosci Rev 2021:11. https://imperialbiosciencereview.com/2021/06/11/a-poorer- practice-the-consequences-of-unethical-research/ (accessed 25 October 2021).
Suter WN. Questionable research practices: How to recognise and avoid them. Home Health Care Manag Pract 2020;32(4):183-190. https://doi. org/10.1177/1084822320934468
Stern AM, Casadevall A, Steen RG, Fang FC. Financial costs and personal consequences of research misconduct resulting in retracted publications. Elife 2014;3. https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.02956
Hussinger K, Pellens M. Guilt by association: How scientific misconduct harms prior collaborators. ZEW Discussion papers No. 17-051;2017. https://www. econstor.eu/bitstream/10419/171327/1/1004964110.pdf (accessed 25 October 2021).
Brinkmann S, Kvale S. Ethics in qualitative psychological research. In: Willig C, Stainton-Rogers W, editors. The SAGE Handbook of Qualitative Research in Psychology. 2nd ed. London: Sage Publications, 2017:259-273.
Titus SL, Ballou JM. Ensuring PhD development of responsible conduct of research behaviors: Who’s responsible? Sci Eng Ethics 2014;20(1):221-235. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11948-013-9437-4
South Africa. Protection of Personal Information Act No. 4 of 2013.
Nkwake AM. Working with Assumptions in International Development Program Evaluation. 2nd ed. Switzerland: Springer, 2020.
Hiles DR. Axiology. In: Given L, editor. The Sage Encyclopedia of Qualitative Research Methods. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage, 2008:52-56.
Biedenbach T, Jacobsson M. The open secret of values: The roles of values and axiology in project research. Proj Manag J 2016;47(3):139-155. https://doi. org/10.1177/875697281604700312