促进研究诚信

ProTon Europe
{"title":"促进研究诚信","authors":"ProTon Europe","doi":"10.17226/21896","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Of the many interventions that might be used to improve the responsible conduct of research, educational interventions are among the most frequently employed. However, educational interventions come in many forms and have proven of varying effectiveness. Recognition of this point has led to calls for the systematic evaluation of responsible conduct of research educational programs. In the present effort, the basic principles underlying evaluation of educational programs are discussed. Subsequently, the application of these principles in the evaluation of responsible conduct of research educational programs is described. It is concluded that systematic evaluation of educational programs not only allow for the appraisal of instructional effectiveness but also allows for progressive refinement of educational initiatives. Ethics in the sciences and engineering is of concern not only because of its impact on progress in the research enterprise but also because the work of scientists and engineers impacts the lives of many people. Recognition of this point has led to a number of initiatives intended to improve the ethical conduct of investigators (National Academy of Engineering, 2009; National Institute of Medicine, 2002; National Academy of Sciences, 1992). Although a number of interventions have been proposed as a basis for improving ethical conduct, for example development of ethical guidelines, open data access, and better mentoring, perhaps the most widely applied approach has been ethics education (Council of Graduate Schools, 2012)—an intervention often referred to as training in the responsible conduct of research (RCR). When one examines the available literature on RCR training, it is apparent that a wide variety of approaches have been employed. Some RCR courses are based on a self-paced, online, instructional framework (e.g. Braunschweiger and Goodman, 2007). Other RCR courses involve face-to-face instruction over longer periods of time using realistic exercises and cases (e.g. Kligyte, Marcy, Waples, Sevier, Godfrey, Mumford, and Hougen, 2008). Some RCR courses 1 As the committee launched this study, members realized that questions related to the effectiveness of Responsible Conduct of Research education programs and how they might be improved were an essential part of the study task. A significant amount of work has been done to explore these topics. This work has yielded important insights, but additional research is needed to strengthen the evidence base relevant to several key policy questions. The committee asked one of the leading researchers in this field, Michael D. Mumford, to prepare a review characterizing the current state of knowledge and describing future priorities and pathways for assessing and improving RCR education programs. The resulting review constitutes important source material for Chapter 10 of the report. The committee also believes that the review adds value to this report a as a standalone document, and is including it as an appendix.","PeriodicalId":100659,"journal":{"name":"IMPACT of Computing in Science and Engineering","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2017-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"119","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Fostering Integrity in Research\",\"authors\":\"ProTon Europe\",\"doi\":\"10.17226/21896\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Of the many interventions that might be used to improve the responsible conduct of research, educational interventions are among the most frequently employed. However, educational interventions come in many forms and have proven of varying effectiveness. Recognition of this point has led to calls for the systematic evaluation of responsible conduct of research educational programs. In the present effort, the basic principles underlying evaluation of educational programs are discussed. Subsequently, the application of these principles in the evaluation of responsible conduct of research educational programs is described. It is concluded that systematic evaluation of educational programs not only allow for the appraisal of instructional effectiveness but also allows for progressive refinement of educational initiatives. Ethics in the sciences and engineering is of concern not only because of its impact on progress in the research enterprise but also because the work of scientists and engineers impacts the lives of many people. Recognition of this point has led to a number of initiatives intended to improve the ethical conduct of investigators (National Academy of Engineering, 2009; National Institute of Medicine, 2002; National Academy of Sciences, 1992). Although a number of interventions have been proposed as a basis for improving ethical conduct, for example development of ethical guidelines, open data access, and better mentoring, perhaps the most widely applied approach has been ethics education (Council of Graduate Schools, 2012)—an intervention often referred to as training in the responsible conduct of research (RCR). When one examines the available literature on RCR training, it is apparent that a wide variety of approaches have been employed. Some RCR courses are based on a self-paced, online, instructional framework (e.g. Braunschweiger and Goodman, 2007). Other RCR courses involve face-to-face instruction over longer periods of time using realistic exercises and cases (e.g. Kligyte, Marcy, Waples, Sevier, Godfrey, Mumford, and Hougen, 2008). Some RCR courses 1 As the committee launched this study, members realized that questions related to the effectiveness of Responsible Conduct of Research education programs and how they might be improved were an essential part of the study task. A significant amount of work has been done to explore these topics. This work has yielded important insights, but additional research is needed to strengthen the evidence base relevant to several key policy questions. The committee asked one of the leading researchers in this field, Michael D. Mumford, to prepare a review characterizing the current state of knowledge and describing future priorities and pathways for assessing and improving RCR education programs. The resulting review constitutes important source material for Chapter 10 of the report. The committee also believes that the review adds value to this report a as a standalone document, and is including it as an appendix.\",\"PeriodicalId\":100659,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"IMPACT of Computing in Science and Engineering\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2017-01-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"119\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"IMPACT of Computing in Science and Engineering\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.17226/21896\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"IMPACT of Computing in Science and Engineering","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.17226/21896","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 119

摘要

在许多可用于改善负责任的研究行为的干预措施中,教育干预是最常用的干预措施之一。然而,教育干预有多种形式,并已被证明具有不同的效果。认识到这一点,人们呼吁对研究教育项目的负责任行为进行系统评估。本文讨论了教育项目评估的基本原则。随后,描述了这些原则在评估负责任的研究教育项目行为中的应用。结论是,对教育项目进行系统的评估不仅可以评估教学效果,还可以逐步改进教育活动。科学和工程中的伦理问题之所以受到关注,不仅是因为它对研究事业的进步有影响,还因为科学家和工程师的工作影响着许多人的生活。认识到这一点导致了一系列旨在改善研究人员道德行为的举措(美国国家工程院,2009年;国家医学研究所,2002年;国家科学院,1992年)。虽然已经提出了一些干预措施作为改善道德行为的基础,例如制定道德准则,开放数据获取和更好的指导,但也许最广泛应用的方法是道德教育(研究生院理事会,2012)-一种通常被称为负责任的研究行为(RCR)培训的干预措施。当一个人检查关于RCR训练的现有文献时,很明显,各种各样的方法都被采用了。一些RCR课程是基于自定进度的在线教学框架(如Braunschweiger和Goodman, 2007)。其他RCR课程包括更长时间的面对面教学,使用实际的练习和案例(例如,Kligyte, Marcy, Waples, Sevier, Godfrey, Mumford, and Hougen, 2008)。随着委员会启动这项研究,成员们意识到,与负责任的研究行为教育计划的有效性以及如何改进有关的问题是研究任务的重要组成部分。为探索这些主题已经做了大量的工作。这项工作产生了重要的见解,但需要进一步的研究来加强与几个关键政策问题相关的证据基础。委员会要求该领域的主要研究人员之一迈克尔·芒福德(Michael D. Mumford)准备一份评估报告,描述目前的知识状况,并描述评估和改进RCR教育项目的未来优先事项和途径。审查结果是报告第10章的重要原始材料。委员会还认为,审查增加了本报告作为独立文件的价值,并将其列入附录。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Fostering Integrity in Research
Of the many interventions that might be used to improve the responsible conduct of research, educational interventions are among the most frequently employed. However, educational interventions come in many forms and have proven of varying effectiveness. Recognition of this point has led to calls for the systematic evaluation of responsible conduct of research educational programs. In the present effort, the basic principles underlying evaluation of educational programs are discussed. Subsequently, the application of these principles in the evaluation of responsible conduct of research educational programs is described. It is concluded that systematic evaluation of educational programs not only allow for the appraisal of instructional effectiveness but also allows for progressive refinement of educational initiatives. Ethics in the sciences and engineering is of concern not only because of its impact on progress in the research enterprise but also because the work of scientists and engineers impacts the lives of many people. Recognition of this point has led to a number of initiatives intended to improve the ethical conduct of investigators (National Academy of Engineering, 2009; National Institute of Medicine, 2002; National Academy of Sciences, 1992). Although a number of interventions have been proposed as a basis for improving ethical conduct, for example development of ethical guidelines, open data access, and better mentoring, perhaps the most widely applied approach has been ethics education (Council of Graduate Schools, 2012)—an intervention often referred to as training in the responsible conduct of research (RCR). When one examines the available literature on RCR training, it is apparent that a wide variety of approaches have been employed. Some RCR courses are based on a self-paced, online, instructional framework (e.g. Braunschweiger and Goodman, 2007). Other RCR courses involve face-to-face instruction over longer periods of time using realistic exercises and cases (e.g. Kligyte, Marcy, Waples, Sevier, Godfrey, Mumford, and Hougen, 2008). Some RCR courses 1 As the committee launched this study, members realized that questions related to the effectiveness of Responsible Conduct of Research education programs and how they might be improved were an essential part of the study task. A significant amount of work has been done to explore these topics. This work has yielded important insights, but additional research is needed to strengthen the evidence base relevant to several key policy questions. The committee asked one of the leading researchers in this field, Michael D. Mumford, to prepare a review characterizing the current state of knowledge and describing future priorities and pathways for assessing and improving RCR education programs. The resulting review constitutes important source material for Chapter 10 of the report. The committee also believes that the review adds value to this report a as a standalone document, and is including it as an appendix.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信