1. Responsible Conduct of Research Training: A Solution for Teaching Ethics in the 21st Century Ethan Waples University of Oklahoma

2. Researchers Professors -Dr. Michael Mumford-Dr. Shane Connelly -Dr. Lynn Devenport-Dr. Ryan Brown Graduate Students -Stephen Murphy -Alison Antes -Jason Hill

3. Training in Research Ethics Variety of Approaches –Moral Reasoning –Field Practices –Case Analysis Effectiveness mixed –Inconsistent findings –Why?

4. Training Effectiveness Possibly presentation Ambiguous High Stakes Emotionally loaded Real People think they “know” –Do the “right thing” –Go with their instinct –Simplistic “Here is the problem”……. Sensemaking

5. Sensemaking Model Affective Framing Prior Personal Experiences Causes EDM Principles Professional Goals Analytical Framing Prior Professional Experiences Situation Crisis Self-reflection Sensemaking Decisions & Actions Personal Values Personal Goals ProfessionalPersonal

6. Present Study Develop and test new curriculum designed specifically for Research Integrity –Biological, Health, and Social Sciences Sensemaking Foundation –Generation –Application Two pronged delivery –Case Method Exemplars providing experiential knowledge Use of own case knowledge encouraged –Strategy Training Effectively dealing with ethical events

7. Method Training Participants –43 Ph.D. students 2 Day Training Course –Offered in “intersession” format Pre-Post with 6 month follow-up (alternative forms)

8. Course Content: Day 1 Critical Rules, Principles, Guidelines Self-Reflection Ethical Decision-Making (EDM) Pre-Test Social Psychological Approach –Personal Biases Identify and Generate Problems –Cases Deal with these problems –Strategies

9. Course Content: Strategies Recognizing Circumstances Asking for Help Questioning Judgment Dealing with Emotions Anticipating Consequences Self-Reflection Considering Others

10. Course Content: Day 2 Introduction to Sensemaking –Integration –Role Play activity Field Specific Differences –Resolving Professional Orientation Viewpoint Activity –Examining ethical issues  varying perspectives Training Summary Ethical Decision-Making (EDM) Post-Test

11. Ethical Decision-Making Measure –Data Management –Study Conduct –Professional Practices –Business Practices Low-Fidelity Simulation 4 Domains of Ethical Conduct (Helton-Fauth et al., 2003) Ethical Scoring –“High” (3), “Moderate” (2), and “Low” (1) Strategy Scoring –Extent to which (7 pt. Likert) response reflects strategy

12. Ethical Decision-Making Measure During graduate school, Langston developed a new methodological approach for analyzing data, with guidance from his advisor. He trained several graduate students on the use of this approach before he graduated. At a recent professional conference, Langston heard a student present preliminary results from her Master’s thesis in which she used the data analytic approach. He noticed a potentially serious error in the interpretation of the data, attributable to improper use of the approach. He mentions this possibility after the presentation.

13. Ethical Decision-Making Measure A month after the conference, one of Langston’s colleagues shows him a manuscript written by the student and Langston’s former advisor. It has been submitted for publication and contains the same information and errors he observed at the conference. He tells his former advisor that he’s sure the analytic approach was applied improperly and can demonstrate this. What should Langston’s former advisor do? Choose two from the following: (H) Retract the submitted manuscript (M) Submit new analyses and interpretations indicating that the wrong version of the manuscript was submitted (L) Wait for reviews and do additional analyses if indicated

14. Pre-Post Differences: Ethical Decision-Making Ethical DomainM pre SD pre M post SD post d Data Management**2.09.372.30.30.63 Study Conduct**1.95.312.35.29 1.33 Professional Practices**2.14.252.31.17.78 Business Practices*2.07.322.24.28.56 Note. Paired samples t-test; *p <.05; ** p <.01

15. Pre-Post Differences: Strategies Domain / StrategyM pre SD pre M post SD post d DM: Recognizing Circumstances**2.99.773.91.521.40 SC: Asking for Help**.16.171.58.563.47 PP: Question Judgment**2.92.683.48.44.95 SC: Deal with Emotions**2.78.743.48.74.93 DM: Anticipate Consequences**2.91.813.41.54.72 BP: Self-Reflection**2.65.983.46.411.05 BP: Consider Others**2.95.923.60.54.86 Note. Paired samples t-test; *p <.05; ** p <.01

16. Preliminary Follow-Up: Ethical Decision-Making Ethical DomainM post SD post M fol SD fol Data Management2.30.302.31.24 Study Conduct2.35.292.43.28 Professional Practices2.31.172.34.05 Business Practices2.24.282.36.09

17. Trainee Reactions Affective Reactions are important Positive Trickle-down effects Reactions using 7-pt. Likert (7 is high) Was training effective/useful? –Day One: M = 5.94 Case Discussion Problems Discussion –Day Two: M = 5.74 Role Play Viewpoint Activity

18. Summary Sizeable effects for training –Enhancement of Ethical Decision-Making Across all 4 Dimensions –Increased usage of Strategies Aid in ethical decision-making Effects hold over time –Across all 4 Dimensions Positive trainee reactions Effectiveness Utility

19. Discussion Why did this training work—and work well? Presentation of Ethical Issues –Not Black and White Sensemaking Basis –Rules and Guidelines –Constructing Knowledge Frameworks Use of Case Knowledge Exercises –Generation of Problems and Strategies –Application of Strategies –Ethical Decision-Making

20. Implications General RCR training effectiveness –Inconclusive evidence Sensemaking Approach –Very effective Shift from training to rules Help people reason