The Relationship Between Psychological Climate and Questionable Research Practices: A Pilot Study Kelly L. Wester, PhD The University of North Carolina at Greensboro Mark S. Davis, PhD The Ohio State University

Background Research misconduct occurs, with QRP occurring on a more frequent basis Little is known about the factors that cause or relate to research misconduct and QRPs Some of the information known includes: Entitlement (Davis et al 2008) Perceived stress (Mumford & Helton, 2002) Less research experience (Mumford & Helton, 2002) Organizational factors (e.g., pressure to publish or get grants) (Alberts & Shine, 1994) Organizational integrity related generally to ethics (Kinjerski & Skrypnek)

Significance and Purpose These factors could combine to cause research misconduct and QRP Complexity exists when making ethical decisions (Rest, 1994) For example: Assistant professors, new to the job, may feel the pressure to publish and adjust to a new position. Along with having less experience in research than more senior faculty, they have stressors of adjusting to the job – therefore more likely to engage in QRPs and research misconduct…. ? Same person above, feels supported by the current environment, feels they can be themselves at work and offer their opinions, receives mentorship, and receives recognition for the work that they do – this may possibly interact with other factors to decrease stress – and again…maybe ultimately impact research behaviors…? There is a need to explore the relationships between individual, situational, and environmental factors to the departure from/engagement in RCR – this is a pilot study with ONE discipline

Research Questions 1.What is the likelihood of counselor educators engaging in research misconduct and QRPs? 2.Are faculty who are seeking tenure, currently tenured, or not on the tenure track more likely to depart from RCR? 3.Is there a relationship between departmental psychological climate, life stressors, perceived stress and RCR, while taking into account training in research ethics?

Sample and Procedure Sample : Counselor Educators Engaged in research within past 5 years Research defined as “including but not limited to reviewing others’ articles for publication, developing research ideas, collecting or analyzing data, mentoring students in research, writing up research results, conducting various forms of research including qualitative and quantitative methodology” Stratified cluster and random sampling Stratified by Carnegie Research Classification (research university very high, high, and doctoral) Random by selecting 49 universities from each stratum (except doctoral only had 28 universities, thus all were used) Resulting final sample selection 104 Counselor Educator programs 727 faculty (some not appropriate) Sent up to 3 s for a web-based survey Offered $50 raffle incentive Final Sample/Response Rate 36% response rate 187 final participants (after cleaned data and those that engaged in research)

Instruments Responsible Conduct of Research Measure (RCRM, Wester, Willse & Davis, 2008) Measured likelihood of departing from RCR 42 Likert-type items based on 8 of 9 ORI RCR areas Total score; higher score = self-reported greater likelihood to engage in RCR Reliability =.81 Perceived Stress Scale (PSS, Cohen et al., 1983) Measured current perceived stress (individual factor) 4 Likert-type items Holmes-Rahe Social Readjustment Scale (SRRS, Scully et al., 2000) Measured current life stressors (situational factor) 14 events within past 12 months and degree of impact on 7 point scale Psychological Climate Scale (PSC; Brown & Leigh, 1996) Measured departmental psychological climate (environment factor) Psychological Safety – show and employ oneself w/o fear of negative effects Psychological Meaningfulness – feeling one receives a return on investments of time and energy Research Ethics Training – yes/no

Sample Demographics

Counselor Educators Engaging in QRP and RM RCRM total range 42 to 252 Counselor Educators mean score (SD=15.84), range Example of individual item responses

Faculty Rank Association with RCR Significant difference (F(2,125)=4.76, p<.01) Seeking tenure less likely to engage in RCR than those tenured No significant differences between tenure and non- tenure track Not on tenure track (M=209.83, SD=19.52) Seeking tenure (M=211.17, SD=14.05) Tenured (M=219.15, SD=15.05)

Relationship between individual, situational, and environmental factors and RCR Perceived Stress does NOT relate to QRP/RM* Counselor Educators supported by dept chair, contributing to dept, and whose roles are clearly defined perceive less stress As the amount of life stress increases, perceived stress increases *therefore, life stressors and psychological safety also not related in this model Training in research ethics directly impacted QRP/RM Having a workplace that is psychologically meaningful (i.e., express self freely, job is challenging, receive recognition) has a positive impact on RCR Psych. Safety 1.00 Psych. Meaningfulness 1.00 Ethics Training 1.00 Life Stressors 1.00 RCRM 0.85 PSS 0.77 Path Model Analysis showed model fit well: Chi-Square=3.26, df=9, P-value= , RMSEA=0.000 Explains 15% variance (R 2 =.15) ns 0.24* 0.23* -0.30* 0.37* 0.80

Conclusions Majority of counselors educators engage in RCR, with a few individuals deviating from RCR or engaging in QRP (self- reported) Similar to estimated prevalence of QRP (10-40%, Steneck, 2003) However, even small amount can have a large impact (economically, in mentoring students which has ripple effect) Some relationships do exist: Faculty seeking tenure (or earlier in research career) more likely to depart RCR Being comfortable at work, expressing self freely, challenging job, receives recognition (all psych. Meaningfulness) more likely to engage in RCR

Limitations Only one discipline Small sample and response rate Does not include “everything” While have a beginning to possible environmental factors and training – more needs to be known Is it that these individuals are unaware of specific ethical codes or RCR Do they not care or have a sense of entitlement? Are they able to even recognize ethical situations?