{"title":"Impact and Assessment of Research Integrity Teaching: A Systematic Literature Review.","authors":"Daniel Crean, Bert Gordijn, Alan J Kearns","doi":"10.1007/s11948-024-00493-1","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Presented here is a systematic literature review of what the academic literature asserts about: (1) the stages of the ethical decision-making process (i.e. awareness, reasoning, motivation, and action) that are claimed to be improved or not improved by RI teaching and whether these claims are supported by evidence; (2) the measurements used to determine the effectiveness of RI teaching; and (3) the stage/s of the ethical decision-making process that are difficult to assess. Regarding (1), awareness was the stage most claimed to be amenable to improvement following RI teaching, and with motivation being the stage that is rarely addressed in the academic literature. While few, some sources claimed RI teaching cannot improve specific stages. With behaviour (action) being the stage referenced most, albeit in only 9% of the total sources, for not being amenable to improvement following RI teaching. Finally, most claims were supported by empirical evidence. Regarding (2), measures most frequently used are custom in-house surveys and some validated measures. Additionally, there is much debate in the literature regarding the adequacy of current assessment measures in RI teaching, and even their absence. Such debate warrants caution when we are considering the empirical evidence supplied to support that RI teaching does or does not improve a specific stage of the decision-making process. Regarding (3), only behaviour was discussed as being difficult to assess, if not impossible. In our discussion section we contextualise these results, and following this we derive some recommendations for relevant stakeholders in RI teaching.</p>","PeriodicalId":49564,"journal":{"name":"Science and Engineering Ethics","volume":"30 4","pages":"30"},"PeriodicalIF":2.7000,"publicationDate":"2024-07-23","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11266247/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Science and Engineering Ethics","FirstCategoryId":"98","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s11948-024-00493-1","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"ENGINEERING, MULTIDISCIPLINARY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Presented here is a systematic literature review of what the academic literature asserts about: (1) the stages of the ethical decision-making process (i.e. awareness, reasoning, motivation, and action) that are claimed to be improved or not improved by RI teaching and whether these claims are supported by evidence; (2) the measurements used to determine the effectiveness of RI teaching; and (3) the stage/s of the ethical decision-making process that are difficult to assess. Regarding (1), awareness was the stage most claimed to be amenable to improvement following RI teaching, and with motivation being the stage that is rarely addressed in the academic literature. While few, some sources claimed RI teaching cannot improve specific stages. With behaviour (action) being the stage referenced most, albeit in only 9% of the total sources, for not being amenable to improvement following RI teaching. Finally, most claims were supported by empirical evidence. Regarding (2), measures most frequently used are custom in-house surveys and some validated measures. Additionally, there is much debate in the literature regarding the adequacy of current assessment measures in RI teaching, and even their absence. Such debate warrants caution when we are considering the empirical evidence supplied to support that RI teaching does or does not improve a specific stage of the decision-making process. Regarding (3), only behaviour was discussed as being difficult to assess, if not impossible. In our discussion section we contextualise these results, and following this we derive some recommendations for relevant stakeholders in RI teaching.
本文对学术文献中有关以下方面的论断进行了系统的文献综述：(1) 声称道德决策过程中的各个阶段（即意识、推理、动机和行动）通过 RI 教学得到了改善或没有得到改善，以及这些说法是否有证据支持；(2) 用于确定 RI 教学有效性的测量方法；(3) 道德决策过程中难以评估的各个阶段。关于(1)，意识是最有可能在开展 RI 教学后得到改善的阶段，而动机则是学术文献中很少涉及的阶段。一些资料声称，区域性学习教学无法改善特定阶段，但这种说法为数不多。行为（行动）是被提及最多的一个阶段，尽管只占全部资料的 9%，但却被认为在进行区域统 一教学后无法得到改善。最后，大多数说法都有实证支持。关于第(2)项，最常用的衡量标准是定制的内部调查和一些经过验证的衡量标准。此外，文献中还有很多关于目前的评估措施是否足以胜任 RI 教学的争论，甚至是没有评估措施的争论。当我们考虑提供实证证据来证明 RI 教学是否改善了决策过程的特定阶段时，这种争论值得警惕。关于第（3）项，只有行为被认为是难以评估的，甚至是不可能评估的。在我们的讨论部分，我们对这些结果进行了背景分析，并在此基础上为相关利益方在理 论创新教学中提出了一些建议。
期刊介绍：
Science and Engineering Ethics is an international multidisciplinary journal dedicated to exploring ethical issues associated with science and engineering, covering professional education, research and practice as well as the effects of technological innovations and research findings on society.
While the focus of this journal is on science and engineering, contributions from a broad range of disciplines, including social sciences and humanities, are welcomed. Areas of interest include, but are not limited to, ethics of new and emerging technologies, research ethics, computer ethics, energy ethics, animals and human subjects ethics, ethics education in science and engineering, ethics in design, biomedical ethics, values in technology and innovation.
We welcome contributions that deal with these issues from an international perspective, particularly from countries that are underrepresented in these discussions.
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：
京公网安备 11010802042870号
