“Modeling Effective Research Ethics Education in Graduate International Collaborations” Project

Update, Laney Graduate School, July 14, 2014, Council of Graduate Schools

Summary of Case Competition

One pedagogical strategy implemented by the Laney Graduate School Program for Scholarly Integrity

(PSI) was the development of a case design and analysis competition for doctoral students in spring 2014.

The competition put doctoral students in the driver’s seat to communicate ethical reasoning/decision-

making in international research and scholarship. Students were asked to think critically about possible

scenarios that could arise in international research and design a case that exemplifies key challenges to

scholarly integrity and research ethics in international collaborations. Students were also asked to

accompany their case with a detailed analysis that highlights and assesses the case’s ethical dimensions

(using the G.R.A.C.E. Method for Ethical Reflection developed by Micah Hester at the University of

Arkansas -- See Appendix II) in addition to providing a brief statement on how their case/analysis could

be integrated into a broader PSI workshop or training session. The author(s) of the top three cases

received cash prizes and will be celebrated at an event this fall 2014 described below.

Summary of Submissions and Evaluation Procedures

The detailed and carefully thought-through submissions came from students in a variety of programs and

fields across the campus including nursing, biological sciences, public health sciences, and psychology.

These cases were evaluated and assessed by an appointed committee. The committee was equally diverse

and included three graduate faculty members (from Business, Art History, and Epidemiology programs),

three graduate students (from Physics, Philosophy and Health Services Research and Health Policy

programs), and members of the PSI team (from History, English, and Bioethics programs). The

committee evaluated the submissions based on an outlined rubric (See Appendix III for detail) that

included the following areas: (1) evaluation of the case for creativity and originality, adaptability across

disciplines and across cultures; (2) ethical analysis of roles and responsibilities of stakeholders, of

outcomes, consequences and anticipated objections as well as overall use of the GRACE Method: (3)

clarity and description of the instructional recommendations for future educational use of the case; and (4)

overall organization and quality of the submission.

Summary of Top Two Case Studies

First place: “Which hat to wear? Ethical dilemmas of the clinician-researcher”

This case focuses on challenges related to conflicts arising in health sciences oriented research in an

international setting. This ethically rich case features a U.S. nurse practitioner turned graduate student

whose research in Guatemala focuses on behaviors associated with unwanted pregnancies and how these

impact birth outcomes. The student must manage values related to self-identifying as both a clinician and

a researcher and struggles to balance competing values and demands of staff and researchers with limited

resources. The student encounters issues of informed consent, patient privacy, incident reporting,

incentivizing, and authorship and issues relating to interpreting conflicting cultural values and language

barriers. While the authors of this case were students enrolled in the Nursing graduate program, this case

had clear versatility and relevance to researchers in the social sciences, scientists in public health

sciences, as well as to clinicians.

The instructional recommendation for this case involved small group discussions and role-play wherein

each group represents a different stakeholder and perspective (i.e. ethics committee at the Ministry of

Health in Guatemala, the student, the study participants, the study staff). Then these views and concerns

would be reported to the entire group who would then determine solutions. This discussion would be

followed by student-driven discussion where students raise additional issues in potential contexts specific

to their research.

This case will be integrated into our PSI 610 sessions, and will be discussed as part of the case

competition celebration event described below.

Second place: “International Collaboration and Human research within Virtual Worlds”

This innovative and timely case describes a research project in virtual environments wherein investigators

hope to gain access to a broader international sample in order to better understand cultural influences on

human behavior (in this case comparing behaviors of Brazilians and Americans) while avoiding the

restrictions of typical in-person/non-virtual research. The research calls for the participants (in their avatar

roles) to engage in competitive tasks where winners can hug or spit in the face of the “loser”. In this case,

investigators enter ambiguous areas of identity not just across national lines, but also virtual reality lines.

As a result, the investigators find themselves in uncharted research territory facing unique issues in

informed consent and difficulties in evaluating potential harms and benefits to participants. This case

highlights issues related to research bias, confidentiality, respect for cross-cultural sensitivities, and the

complexity of interpreting and anticipating harms to the avatar/agent while balancing societal benefits of

the research. While the authors of this case were students enrolled in the Psychology graduate program,

the case has versatility to the social sciences, computer sciences, and media studies. This case also

presents unique opportunities to interface with the humanities in discussion of the ethics of representation,

and the mediations of identity and international boundaries by new forms of technology.

The instructional recommendation for this case involves active experiential multi-media learning by

having students and the instructor discuss ethical issues in the “virtual world” by creating avatars for a

virtual world class. In this class students would explore the ethical issues presented in research related to

crossing in-world/real-word barriers.

The PSI plans to use this case as part of a workshop in the ethics of research in virtual domains. The

recent controversies surrounding the unethical research practices of Facebook (researchers manipulated

the Facebook feeds of users to study the impact of social on emotional states) will also be discussed in

this workshop.

Summary of Case Competition Celebration Event/Visit in Fall, 2014

The authors of the top 3 cases will introduce their cases (e.g. what inspired the cases and highlights of

ethical issues) at the beginning of the celebration event. Then Dr. Elizabeth Heitman, the visiting speaker,

will facilitate a workshop inspired by the winning case competition. Students will also be invited to have

lunch with Dr. Heitman prior to the celebration. At this lunch, Dr. Heitman will lead an informal

discussion with graduate students about challenges associated with language barriers in the contexts of

international/global research. Dr. Heitman is a world-renowned ethicist of international research practices

and an Associate Professor of Medical Ethics at Vanderbilt University Medical Center's Center for

Biomedical Ethics and Society. She holds faculty appointments in the Department of Medicine's Division

of General Medicine and the Department of Anesthesiology's Division of Critical Care. She also holds an

appointment in the Department of Religious Studies in the College of Arts and Science. In her research

and teaching, Dr. Heitman focuses on the cultural and religious aspects of medicine, biomedical science,

and public health, particularly with respect to education and community experience. Her primary research

addresses the evaluation of education in research ethics and the responsible conduct of research (RCR),

and the cultural awareness and professional socialization of students and researchers.

An initiative of the Program for Scholarly Integrity (PSI) of the Laney Graduate School, this case design and analysis competition aims at putting doctoral students in the driver’s seat to communicate ethical reasoning/decision-making in international research and scholarship. Students are asked to think critically about possible scenarios that could arise in international research and design a case that exemplifies key challenges to scholarly integrity and research ethics in international collaborations. Students will be asked to accompany their case with a detailed analysis that highlights and assesses the case’s ethical dimensions using the G.R.A.C.E. Method for Ethical Reflection (see Appendix II). Through their participation in this competition, students will be able to demonstrate their talents, analytical skills, and creativity in ethical reasoning. The cases and analyses they generate may be integrated in future workshops or classes on scholarly integrity and research ethics. Who is eligible? This competition is open to all doctoral students. Students can work alone, in pairs, or in groups of three to design their workshop submission. All group members, however, must be enrolled in a doctoral program at the Laney Graduate School at the time of submission. What are the objectives of this competition? 1. Knowledge: Explain how national/cultural context may affect researchers’ views on

issues reflected in the core areas for the Program for Scholarly Integrity (see Appendix I). 2. Attitude: Convey concern for different cultural approaches to address a situation that

may arise in international research and scholarly integrity. 3. Skills: Analyze practical challenges for communicating ethics to stakeholders who may

hold different sets of values and norms.

What tasks are required of participants? 1. 500-800 word case scenario: Devise a case scenario that integrates key challenges faced

by students and investigators in international research and scholarship. 2. 1500-2000 word analysis: Provide an analysis of the devised case using the G.R.A.C.E.

Method for Ethical Reflection (see Appendix II). 3. 250-500 word instructional recommendations: Provide a brief description of how the

case and analysis can be used in a training workshop or class on ethics and scholarly integrity in international research.

Timeline 1. January 15 2013: Competition is announced. 2. March 1, 2013: ‘Info-Session.’ Location TBA. 3. April 1, 2013: All submissions (cover sheet, case-scenario, analysis, and instructional

recommendations) are due by 5pm. Submissions should be emailed to psi@emory.edu 4. April 30, 2013: Winning teams are announced via the PSI website.

Ethics of International Research and Scholarship

A Case Design/Analysis Competition

Guidelines for Devising a Case Scenario 1. Adaptable: The case should be tailored so that it can be adapted to various disciplines

and research settings (e.g. avoid intra-disciplinary jargon or context-specific scenarios). Case scenarios should be lifelike in their design and should stem from challenges that could actually arise in a research setting.

2. Not Specific to Person(s) or Event(s): For this competition, a case could be inspired by real-life scenarios, but participants in this competition should refrain from disclosing identifiable details about a particular event or individual. Participants are encouraged to alter names/locations/periods to ensure the anonymity of their cases. Any cases that might potentially identify individuals or specific events may be disqualified from the competition.

3. Relevant to PSI: The case should address at least one of the core areas of the Program

for Scholarly Integrity (see list of core areas in Appendix I)

Guidelines for G.R.A.C.E. Analysis Participants will need to analyze their respective cases using the G.R.A.C.E. Method for Ethical Reflection. While the questions cited in the G.R.A.C.E. rubric should be considered and addressed in full, they do not exhaust all of the terms of each analysis. Instead, the G.R.A.C.E. rubric should serve as a point of departure for students---a catalyst for developing a deeper understanding of the critical thinking and ethical reasoning dimensions of their case. Analyses should also address anticipated objections and consider alternative actions/perspectives. Guidelines for Instructional Recommendations In this brief statement, participants are asked to describe how their case/analysis could be integrated in a broader class/workshop on international research ethics. Participants should detail creative approaches that will optimize the use of their case and analysis. Such approaches may consist of in-class didactic exercises, online tutorials, scripted role-plays, games, etc. Regardless of the approach, the ‘effective’ workshop is one that incorporates various perspectives and interdisciplinary approaches in addition to being informative and participatory. Awards

There are three awards for this competition that have been made possible through support from the Council of Graduate Schools. Awards to the top three teams will be determined by a panel of faculty and student judges. The first place team/individual will be awarded $800 followed by $500 and $300 for second and third placed teams, respectively. This amount is to be divided among team members. Winning workshop designs will be posted on the PSI website and may be shared with the Council of Graduate Schools for further dissemination.

Appendix I

Core Areas of the Program for Scholarly Integrity

i. Data Management: Accepted practices for acquiring and maintaining research data.

Proper methods for record keeping and electronic data collection and storage in scientific

research. Includes defining what constitutes data; keeping data notebooks or electronic

files; data privacy and confidentiality; data selection, retention, sharing, ownership, and

analysis; data as legal documents and intellectual property, including copyright laws.

ii. Mentoring: The responsibilities of mentors, advisors and students in graduate study and

research. Includes the role of a mentor/advisor, responsibilities of a mentor/advisor,

conflicts between mentor/advisor and trainee, collaboration and competition, selection of

a mentor/advisor, and abusing the student - mentor/advisor relationship.

iii. Authorship: The purpose and importance of scholarly publication, and the responsibilities

of the authors. Includes topics such as collaborative work and assigning appropriate

credit, acknowledgments, appropriate citations, repetitive publications, fragmentary

publication, sufficient description of methods, corrections and retractions, conventions

for deciding upon authors, author responsibilities, and the pressure to publish.

iv. Peer Review: The purpose of peer review in determining merit for research funding and

publications. Includes topics such as, the definition of peer review, impartiality, how peer

review works, editorial boards and ad hoc reviewers, responsibilities of the reviewers,

privileged information and confidentiality.

v. Collaboration: Research collaborations and issues that may arise from such collaborations.

Includes topics such as setting ground rules early in the collaboration, avoiding authorship

disputes, and the sharing of materials and information with internal and external

collaborating scholars.

vi. Human Subjects: Issues important in conducting research involving human subjects.

Includes topics such as the definition of human subjects research, ethical principles for

conducting human subjects research, informed consent, confidentiality and privacy of

data and patient records, risks and benefits, preparation of a research protocol,

institutional review boards, adherence to study protocol, proper conduct of the study, and

special protections for targeted populations, e.g., children, minorities, and the elderly.

vii. Animals: Issues important to conducting research involving animals. Includes topics such

as definition of research involving animals, ethical principles for conducting research on

animals, Federal regulations governing animal research, institutional animal care and use

committees, and treatment of animals.

viii. Scholarly Misconduct: The meaning of research misconduct and the regulations, policies,

and guidelines that govern research misconduct in federally funded institutions. Includes

topics such as fabrication, falsification, and plagiarism; error vs. intentional misconduct;

institutional misconduct policies; identifying misconduct; procedures for reporting

misconduct; protection of whistleblowers; and outcomes of investigations, including

institutional and Federal actions.

ix. Conflict of Interest: The definition of conflicts of interest and how to handle conflicts of

interest. Types of conflicts encountered by researchers and institutions. Includes topics

such as conflicts associated with collaborators, publication, financial conflicts, obligations

to other constituencies, and other types of conflicts.

x. Ethics of Teaching: Ethical obligations of a teacher, appropriate student - teacher

relationships, privacy, confidentiality, setting boundaries, ethical implications of material

selection, safe spaces and critical discussion, ethics of grading, letters of

recommendation.

xi. Public Scholarship: Understanding the social or environmental impact of a research

project, communicating with stakeholders, communicating results to the public, the

ethics of community action research, the social value of scholarship, science, and

research.

Appendix II

G.R.A.C.E.¹ : A Method for Ethical Reflection

Get the Whole Story

What are the technical, personal, and social facts and values pertinent to the situation?

o How have the facts influenced the people involved and affect the situation? o What are the beliefs (personal, professional, and cultural) at play?

Recognize Obligations

What is expected of you as a professional (or other role you inhabit) and as a moral agent?

o Would proposed actions fulfill and/or violate any obligations? o Are there legal, regulatory, or policy issues to consider? o How do issues of organizational loyalty factor into your options?

Accept Responsibilities/Avoid Over-reaching

What is the scope of your role in the situation? What falls outside your role? o How should you participate in the process? o How do issues of hierarchy or structure enhance or impede your options?

Consider Consequences

What are the possible outcomes of proposed actions? o Are the possible consequences predicted to produce good and/or bad results? o What are the potential harms and benefits?

Evaluate Character

How might the proposed actions be viewed by others within the profession or outside the institution?

o Might the proposed actions lead to worthwhile or problematic ethical habits? Do they manifest principles of action you are willing to apply in other

similar situations?

Do they set a precedent? o Do they implicate policy for the institution or profession?

¹ Developed by D. Micah Hester, University of Arkansas for Medical Sciences DO NOT REPRODUCE WITHOUT PERMISSION

Appendix III

Cover Page for Case Design/Analysis Competition

Title

Participant(s) Teams can consist of one, two, or three members. All members must be doctoral students in the Laney Graduate School.

Name: Doctoral Program: Year: Phone: Email:

Name: Doctoral Program: Year: Phone: Email:

Name: Doctoral Program: Year: Phone: Email:

PSI Core Areas Please check the following areas of scholarly integrity that will be addressed in the case scenario.

Data Management

Mentoring

Authorship

Peer Review

Collaboration

Human Subjects

Animals

Scholarly Misconduct

Conflict of Interest

Ethics of Teaching

Public Scholarship

Checklist

1. Cover page ___________________ 2. Case scenario (500-800 words) ___________________ 3. GRACE analysis of case (1500-2000 words) ___________________ 4. Description of instructional recommendations (250-500 words) ___________________

All documents are due through electronic submission (psi@emory.edu) by 5pm on April 1, 2014

Case Design and Analysis Assessment Rubric

NOTE: All submissions are expected to follow standard scholarly rules and conventions with respect to grammar and punctuation, spelling, and citations. Failure to adhere to these rules/conventions may negatively impact assessment of a particular submission.

1. Case: Creativity and Originality Fair Good Excellent

1 2 3 4 5 6

Case is clearly inherited or adopted with little original consideration (e.g., case involves a simplified problem that routinely arises in research and entails a standard remedy)

Case is largely original, although some aspects may have been adopted (e.g., case involves a complex problem that can arise from time to time and requires some ethical reasoning and assessment)

Very creative and original (e.g., case involves a complex problem that can arise and requires a strong degree of ethical reasoning and assessment)

Comments

2. Case: Adaptability (by discipline1)--the workshop can be adapted to various disciplines and forms of research.

Fair Good Excellent

1 2 3 4 5 6

Case is applicable to one discipline of research/scholarship (e.g., case involves data storage procedures that largely pertain to computer sciences)

Case may be adapted to more disciplines, but is likely to arise in only one division 2 such as humanities, natural sciences, or social sciences (e.g., case involves data storage procedures applicable to only lab sciences)

Case may be adapted to any division such as humanities, natural sciences, social sciences (e.g., case involves property rights of data/evidence collected outside the U.S.)

Comments

1 ‘Discipline’ refers to a particular field of study or doctoral program (e.g., philosophy, psychology, epidemiology, comparative literature, etc.) 2 ‘Division’ refers to one of the three academic divisions at Laney Graduate School (i.e., humanities, social sciences, and natural sciences)

3. Case: Adaptability (intercultural/international)--the case can be applied to various research settings and entails cultural awareness and sensitivity. Fair Good Excellent

1 2 3 4 5 6

Case is limited to one instance of international/intercultural collaboration (e.g., case involves challenges arising from PI/mentor who is from outside the U.S. and unfamiliar with U.S. norms/customs)

Case involves research in international settings (e.g., case involves challenges arising from collecting data outside the U.S.)

Case involves research conducted outside the U.S. in partnership with international stakeholders (e.g., case involves negotiating authorship for research conducted outside the U.S. and with international partners)

Comments

4. Analysis: Identification and Assessment of Roles and Responsibilities Fair Good Excellent

1 2 3 4 5 6

Does not attempt to or fails to identify key actors, ethical issues, or responsibilities.

Summarizes ethical issues and cites key actors and responsibilities, though some aspects are incorrect or confused. Nuances and key details are missing or glossed over.

Effectively identifies and assesses the ethical aspects of the case in light of key stakeholders and their respective responsibilities. Attentive to nuances and key details, particularly those that pertain to legal, regulatory, and policy constraints.

Comments

5. Analysis: Identifies and Assesses Outcomes, Consequences, and Anticipated Objections. Fair Good Excellent

1 2 3 4 5 6

Merely provides a simplistic assessment; fails to synthesize facts and seems illogical.

Rough integration of facts and assessment of possible outcomes. Outcomes and consequences are explored, but in a limited way.

Identifies and discusses possible outcomes and extends assessment to address implications and consequences. Considers context, assumptions, and facts.

Comments

6. Analysis: Overall Use of GRACE Method for Ethical Reflection Fair Good Excellent

1 2 3 4 5 6

Merely answers questions highlighted in GRACE Method; fails to synthesize facts and seems illogical.

Areas of GRACE are investigated and integrated, but in a limited way; analysis acknowledges, refutes, and synthesizes ideas, although some aspects seem lacking.

Analysis demonstrates ownership of GRACE method and demonstrates sophisticated, integrative thought.

Comments

7. Clear and Descriptive Instructional Recommendations

Fair Good Excellent

1 2 3 4 5 6

Does not attempt to or fails to provide a brief description of how the case and analysis can be used in a training workshop or class on ethics and scholarly integrity in international research.

Merely outlines ways that case and analysis could be used in a class or training workshop, but fails to provide details on where the case/analysis would be most appropriate.

Provides a clear, concise description of how case can best be used in a training workshop or class on ethics and scholarly integrity in international research. Provides multiple instructional options for maximum flexibility.

Comments

8. Overall Organization and Quality of All Submissions (i.e., case-scenario, analysis, and instructional recommendations)

Fair Good Excellent

1 2 3 4 5 6

Case-scenario, analysis, and instructional recommendations reflect limited efforts. Disorganized and repeats information or dismisses evidence without adequate justification; lacks logical connection of ideas. Little evidence of proofreading.

Basic organization is apparent and errors are not distracting or frequent. Still, there appears to be some problems with more difficult aspects of style and voice.

Organization is clear and errors are minimal; Examines evidence thoroughly and concisely; questions its relevance and effectively integrates facts and arguments.

Comments

Overall Assessment

The Case Design and Analysis Assessment Rubric details the traits and dimensions that serve as the basis for evaluating submissions. Within each category, explanations and examples are provided to help clarify the meaning of each trait or dimension. Each category provides a scale of values on which to rate each dimension. These values provide a systematic approach to evaluating submissions for each category; however, the values should not be aggregated into a composite score. Judges are expected to assign weight to each category according to its relevance to the overall outcomes of the competition (namely, the development of a strong case-scenario, analysis, and instructional recommendations). In this light, some submissions may fare better in some categories over others. Judges are to deem whether these categories make a particular submission better than others. Awards are determined by a deliberation process among judges, which is formulated around discussions of team performance in each category. This section below allows judges to note their scores from the Case Design and Analysis Assessment Rubric, but does not suggest that scores in specific areas will be aggregated into a composite score. Judges will determine strongest submissions based on their scores for specific areas in light with broad judging criteria.

Criteria Assigned Score

1. Case: Creativity and Originality

2. Case: Adaptability (by discipline)---

3. Case: Adaptability (intercultural/international)

4. Analysis of Roles and Responsibilities

5. Analysis: Identifies and assesses outcomes, consequences, and anticipated objections.

6. Analysis: Overall Use of GRACE Method for Ethical Reflection

7. Clear and Descriptive Instructional Recommendations

8. Overall Organization and Quality of All Submissions (i.e., case-scenario, analysis, and instructional recommendations)

Summative Comments: