Search results

This chapter presents a virtue-based approach to research ethics which both complements and challenges dominant principle- and rule-based ethical codes and governance frameworks. Virtues are qualities of character that contribute to human and ecological flourishing, focussing on the dispositions and motivations of moral agents (in this case, researchers) as opposed to simply their actions. The chapter argues for the usefulness of ‘researcher integrity’, in the context of increasing interest internationally in ‘research integrity’ frameworks for regulating research practice. ‘Researcher integrity’ is analysed, including weak and strong versions of the concept (conduct according to current standards, versus reflexive commitment to ideals of what research should be at its best). Researcher integrity in its stronger sense is depicted as an overarching complex virtue, holding together and balancing other virtues such as courage, care, trustworthiness, respectfulness and practical wisdom. Consideration is given to educating researchers and university students as virtuous researchers, rather than simply ensuring that rules are followed and risks minimised. Several approaches are outlined, including Socratic dialogue, to develop attentiveness and respectfulness and participatory theatre to rehearse different responses to ethical challenges in research. Some limitations of virtue ethics are noted, including dangers of reinforcing a culture of blaming researchers for institutional failings, and its potential to be co-opted by those who wish to indoctrinate rather than cultivate virtues. Nevertheless, it is an important counter-weight to current trends that see research ethics as entailing learning sets of rules and how to implement them (to satisfy institutional research governance requirements), rather than processes of critical and responsible reflection.

There is more than a bit of ‘ethical neediness’ in society. One good question is what can be done about it. The answer pursued here is that we should promote integrity aggressively and integritively. Directing attention to the arena of higher education and problems associated with academic or educational integrity, the chapter (a) discusses honor codes as a device for promoting academic integrity; (b) identifies and explains a key virtue and a vice of honor codes and, in relation to the values an honor code is meant to safeguard, a significant way in which honor codes are like a professional ethic; and (c) argues that success in this project requires abandonment of an attractive but misleading conception of ethics that suggests, wrongly, that acting rightly is simply a matter of rigid adherence to standards. To be sure, some questions about what one should do are straightforwardly and quite legitimately answered by reference to rules. In this, ethics may seem quite like law (adjudication). But one has to be careful here, lest one be seduced by the siren song of what Roscoe Pound called mechanical jurisprudence, for in law and ethics, as in the Greek myth, this does not have a happy ending. There is more to the story. In ethics (adjudication too) one confronts genuine complexity that cannot be dealt with algorithmically. This is something that we have to face head on, if we are committed to promoting integrity integritively.

Training in research ethics in higher education institutions tends to be increasingly focussed on operational instruction and how to navigate review processes. This has largely come about as a result of the gradual extension of the ‘medical model’ of prospective ethics review to all research involving human participants over the last few decades. Often devolved to an administrator, the purpose of instruction in research ethics is sometimes reduced to form-filling techniques. While this may serve to facilitate researchers’ compliance with ‘auditable’ regulatory requirements, and to reassure risk-averse universities that they can demonstrate rigorous oversight, it does nothing to skill researchers in assessing the ethical implications of their own research. Mastering the skills to address and mitigate the moral dilemmas that can emerge during a research project involves more than having a pre-determined set of options for research practice. Changing their perception means enabling researchers to view themselves as ethical practitioners within a broader community of researchers. In this chapter we discuss the implementation of a university training programme that has been designed to improve both the moral character, and thus the moral competence of researchers. Using a virtue ethics approach, we employed case studies and discussion, backed up by provision of individualised advice, to help researchers to consider the moral implications of research and to improve their moral decision-making skills. Attendees reported greater engagement with the issues and increased confidence in facing ethical dilemmas in their own research.

This chapter considers the current standards that exist for the conduct of research and whether these standards are being met. Issues of scope and terminology are discussed and debated. Also considered are the reasons and benefits to the Academy of Social Sciences and other professional and disciplinary bodies by being involved in developing generic ethics principles in social science research.

In this chapter, the author delves into the third ‘C:’ compliance, which is fundamentally linked to business ethics. The chapter introduces the concept of business ethics and its significance in contemporary business strategy while interpreting Taoist principles from a compliance perspective. Compliance deals with our recognition of the potentially harmful or imprudent actions we take or our belief that we are superior to others. Compliance refers to an individual's expression of altered attitudes or behaviours in response to adhering to others' requests. Compliance encompasses humility, integrity, accountability and more. This chapter concentrates on the influence of Taoist ethical principles, particularly humility and integrity, on responsible management.

The chapter aims to analyse the influence of the board of directors on transparency and integrity in hybrid organisations like state-owned enterprises. The effect of several characteristics of directors on the board’s effectiveness was assessed. The empirical analysis was based on 60 Italian listed and non-listed state-owned enterprises. Each enterprise’s website was individually examined and coded to obtain two self-constructed indexes on transparency and integrity, and a regression model was created to test the hypotheses.

The ‘knowledge structure’ of interlocking directors and board compensation were found to be both positively related to the level of commitment among state-owned enterprises to transparency and integrity. Skill and gender diversity on the board had no significant impact. The analysis used data from a one-year period but dealt with hidden and complex phenomena like corruption. Future longitudinal studies and qualitative approaches would provide more comprehensive insights into the relationship between the board of directors, transparency and integrity over time.

Policymakers and all those involved in the appointment of directors to state-owned enterprises should be aware that some features of board members may affect the levels of organisational transparency and integrity. The chapter contributes to the literature on governance of state-owned enterprises, emphasising the board’s role and its effectiveness in sustaining transparency and integrity.

Academic dishonesty is a global challenge, with organizational and economic repercussions of the most undesirable kind. Worldwide, efforts are made to establish external and internal factors that contribute to the spread of unethical behavior, so that based on empirical evidence the most useful approaches to mitigating the phenomenon can be found. The present chapter has two major objectives. A first objective is to explore the steps taken by higher education institutions in Romania regarding the construction of an ethical infrastructure, highlighting the strengths and weaknesses. The author will refer to civil society initiatives and universities’ efforts, including legislative efforts. The second objective is to identify a set of lessons from international research that will support the intervention in the direction of building an academic ethical culture in Romania. Given the level of academic fraud demonstrated through research, the process of building university integrity is extremely difficult in Romania. The intervention of the political factors at the university level contributes to a great instability, sabotaging the process of implementing ethical standards. Ethics infrastructures from Romanian universities are incomplete, focusing on two formal components, namely the ethical code and the ethics commissions. There is no coherent chain of ethical decision, ethical management does not actually work. In conclusion, in Romanian universities, ethical principles are not a top priority, as they clash with organizational and governance practices.

In this unashamedly polemical piece it is argued that we should not jump into bed with virtue too quickly. It is suggested that the concept of virtue is dangerously ill defined, so it becomes what those in power hegemonically define it to be; that virtue’s rise may serve factional political purposes within social science; that system implications are frequently missed, side-lined or minimised so that virtue niavely becomes a purely individual construct; that aspirational codes, which expect a-contextual demonstration of ‘virtue’ from practitioners, need to be tempered with a dose of reality; and that the achievable ‘good enough’ is better than the unrealisable and idealised virtuously ‘perfect’. It is suggested that the implied centrality of ‘virtue’ in research is problematic, that being ‘critically virtuous’ has limits, and that better education will not necessarily lead to morality and integrity in research – any more than it does in the general population. Finally it is argued that ethics committees should focus on (probable) behaviours, rather than rather than imagined motives or vague character traits. Locating virtue in an individual is dangerous because it allows the system to blame and punish an individual, rather than acknowledge the collective responsibility of the whole system. It is suggested that we need to move from a purist pursuit of virtue to a more realistic and nuanced appreciation of the real world consequences of its adoption. Whilst the present emphasis on sound research ethics and responsibility is a positive development, we need to slow down.