The Embassy of Good Science - User contributions [en]

Theme:520b3bc7-a6ab-4617-95f2-89c9dee31c53

2021-03-25T13:59:37Z

Guy.Widdershoven:

{{Theme
|Theme Type=Principles & Aspirations
|Title=Virtues in research integrity
|Is About=‘Virtue’ derives from ancient Greek - ἀρετή - and means ‘excellence of any kind’. To be virtuous means to strive towards living in compliance with one’s full potential, intellectually as well as morally. The reference to full potential shows that the ability to develop a virtue is innate yet, in order to become virtuous, one needs to practice. A distinction can be made between intellectual or epistemological virtues and moral virtues. Both types of virtues are character traits, relevant for research integrity, as doing good research requires intellectual and moral excellence.
|Important Because=Research integrity is not only about following rules. It also requires personal engagement and competence. These requirements show that research integrity requires virtues. A person who is virtuous, not merely follows methodological or moral rules, but embodies goodness or excellence . <ref>[http://artsfaculty.auckland.ac.nz/staff/?UPI=rhur007 Hursthouse], R. and Pettigrove, G (2016). “Virtue Ethics”. Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Accessible at: https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/ethics-virtue/.</ref> Goodness or excellence in research depends on what we do, as well as on who we are, intellectually and morally. The possession of a virtue says something about this person as a person. So, to tell of a person that she is imaginative or honest, is to say something about this person’s character. Aristotle described virtue as ‘the state of character which makes a man good and which makes him do his work well.’ <ref>Aristotle (1925). Nicomachean ethics (translation D.W. Ross). Oxford: Clarendon Press</ref> MacIntyre defined virtue as ‘an acquired human quality the possession and the exercise of which tends to enable us to achieve those goods which are internal to practices and the lack of which effectively prevents us from achieving any such goods’. <ref>MacIntyre, A. C. (2014). After virtue. London: Bloomsbury.</ref> MacIntyre, therefore, emphasized the importance of practice for the expression and development of virtues.

Aristotle distinguishes between two kinds of virtues, intellectual and moral virtues. Examples of the first kind of virtues are critical thinking, curiosity, imaginativeness, perseverance and open-mindedness. Examples of moral virtues are courage, honesty, generosity, fair-mindedness, and justice. Although intellectual and moral virtues are distinct, they have in common that they are both character traits.

A number of attempts have been made to identify which virtues are essential for good scientific practice . <ref>Pennock, R. in Abstract nr PM-064. (2017) Available at: <nowiki>http://www.wcri2017.org/organization/conference-proceedings</nowiki>. (Accessed: 24th August 2017).</ref> <ref>Marusic, A. (confidential) Report on the results from the stakeholder focus groups.</ref> These include: honesty;curiosity;attentiveness or observance;perseverance or patience; objectivity; humility to evidence; skepticism; meticulousness; courage; collaboration; resoluteness; accountability; availability; competency; reliability; sincerity; creativity; accountability; punctuality; truthfulness; selflessness; reflexivity; clarity of purpose; collaborative spirit; fairness; loyalty; moderation; positivity/open-mindedness; respectfulness.

According to Aristotle, a virtuous person has the disposition to act in accordance with the right middle. A virtuous person is able to see and do what is right in the specific situation, and knows how to avoid the extremes of showing too little or too much. An example of a virtue is courage. Someone who is brave knows how to find the right middle between the extremes of cowardice on the one hand and recklessness on the other. That applies not only to war, to the Greeks an important example of human action. It also applies to interacting with people with whom one collaborates. For example, if the person makes a mistake, it may be important to tell her ' the truth '. That requires courage, as the right middle between making an allusion in the hope that the other understands the message, and confronting the other in public with the fact that she does something wrong. What is the right middle depends on the situation, that is, the seriousness of the error, the openness of the other for the message, and the ability of the person who performs the act. In some cases the right middle is closer to being cautious;in other cases more emphasis is needed.

Being virtuous means living in accordance with one’s natural potential. Thus, virtues refer to human nature. Yet, developing virtues requires training and exercise in practice. In practice, one learns to see what is the importance of, for example, honesty as openness to criticism, and how it can be adequately shaped. How much attention should you devote to literature before you do a study? When does that literature help sharpen the mind, and when does it lead to confusion? Of course it is important to study existing investigations before one starts to research, for example by doing a systematic review. But how to ensure that this really gives an insight into what was previously found, and provides a connecting factor for further research? The same applies to the discussion of possible explanations for results of own research. What literature do you refer to, and how do you use it to sharpen the findings? Do the quoted articles really help them to better understand the outcomes of the study, draw conclusions and formulate new questions? The answer to such questions does not come from textbooks, but requires insights and skills that are already acquired in practice.
<references />
|Important For=PhD Students; Junior researchers; Senior researchers; Postdocs; All stakeholders in research; Research integrity trainers
|Has Best Practice=Values and norms are core concepts in moral reflection about research integrity. For instance in Moral Case Deliberation (MCD), a method used to reflect on morally troublesome situations investigation of values and norms is used to deepen the understanding of the situation at stake. <ref>MacIntyre, A. C. (2014). After virtue. London: Bloomsbury.</ref> A core element in this investigation, guided by a facilitator, is analysing the case by looking at the values and norms of all relevant perspectives (persons involved in the case and/or participants in the MCD meeting). Which values motivate each of the persons? How can these values be specified into norms for the person? For example, a moral issue might concern supervision. Should one, as a supervisor of a PhD student, in preparing a response to a reviewer, give guidance and correct mistakes, or at some point take over the writing? A relevant value for the supervisor in the case might be: autonomy. The corresponding norm in the case could be: I should give the opportunity to the PhD student to try this herself. Another value might be: effectiveness. The norm related to this value in the concrete situation could be: the article should be accepted and published. In analysing the case from the perspective of the supervisor, the group becomes aware of these conflicting values. This may then give rise to a dialogue on what value is most important in this situation. This can lead to a conclusion on the most desirable norm and related course of action. Also, the dialogue might provide insights in how to deal with the conflicting value which turns out less important. How can one do justice to the value which will not be realized? In the example, efficiency might turn out to be most important for the supervisor, meaning that at a certain point she will take over the writing. In order to do justice to the value of autonomy, the supervisor might, for instance, propose that the PhD student will get more responsibilty for writing the response after submission of the next article. MCD can thus foster decision making, not by prescribing a rule, but by fostering reflection and dialogue, enabling participants to achieve an new and richer view on the situation.

It is useful to differentiate between three different types of scientific values and norms: ''internal'' values and norms, ''external'' values and norms, and ''linkage'' values and norms . <ref>Pennock, R. in Abstract nr PM-064. (2017) Available at: <nowiki>http://www.wcri2017.org/organization/conference-proceedings</nowiki>. (Accessed: 24th August 2017).</ref>''Internal'' values and norms of science justify and guide the practice of science itself. Examples of scientific values of the internal kind are: ''truth, honesty, simplicity, consistency, coherence, economy, exactitude and completeness, openness, open-mindedness, confidence, originality and ‘interestingness’.'' External values and norms comprise general ideals and rules for action which are relevant for science, but are not constitutive of the practice of science itself. Examples of external values are human (and animal) welfare notions which are related to the wider social and cultural context in which scientists operate. Finally, we have a different set of values and norms guiding scientific research which represent normative points of contact - linkage - between the research community and the community at large, between internal and external values and norms. Examples are requirements of fruitfulness and relevance.
<references />
|Has Detail=This list might help when using virtues in e.g. teaching about responsible conduct of research.
{{{!}} class="wikitable"
{{!}}+
!Virtue
!Meanings in research integrity & ethics
{{!}}-
{{!}}Accountability
{{!}}Responsibility, answerability
{{!}}-
{{!}}Availability
{{!}}Efficaciousness, readiness to come to effect
{{!}}-
{{!}}Clarity of purpose
{{!}}Visionary, targeted, zeal
{{!}}-
{{!}}Collaborative spirit
{{!}}Cooperative, synergistic, sharing
{{!}}-
{{!}}Competency
{{!}}Expertise, proficiency, capability
{{!}}-
{{!}}Compliance
{{!}}Willingness to conform/follow
{{!}}-
{{!}}Courage
{{!}}Braveness, heroic resoluteness
{{!}}-
{{!}}Creativity
{{!}}Inventiveness, imagination, originality
{{!}}-
{{!}}Critical awareness
{{!}}Analytic, insightful, rationality
{{!}}-
{{!}}Curiosity
{{!}}Eagerness to know or to explore, inquisitiveness
{{!}}-
{{!}}Diligence
{{!}}Earnestness, perseverance in carrying out action
{{!}}-
{{!}}Empathy
{{!}}Understanding, compassion, recognition
{{!}}-
{{!}}Fairness
{{!}}Justice, equity
{{!}}-
{{!}}Honesty
{{!}}Truthfulness, candidness, sincerity
{{!}}-
{{!}}Humility
{{!}}Humbleness, modesty
{{!}}-
{{!}}Loyalty
{{!}}Faithfulness, allegiance, fidelity
{{!}}-
{{!}}Moderation
{{!}}Temperance, patience
{{!}}-
{{!}}Morality
{{!}}Ethicalness, righteousness, decency
{{!}}-
{{!}}Objectivity
{{!}}Neutrality, unbiased, impartiality, open-minded
{{!}}-
{{!}}Open-mindedness
{{!}}Willing to reconsider views, receptiveness, tolerance
{{!}}-
{{!}}Patience
{{!}}Perseverance, willingness to endure
{{!}}-
{{!}}Perseverance
{{!}}Dedication, determination, persistence
{{!}}-
{{!}}Positivity
{{!}}Alacrity, willingness
{{!}}-
{{!}}Punctuality
{{!}}Readiness, promptness, steadiness
{{!}}-
{{!}}Reflexivity
{{!}}Thoughtfulness, contemplativeness, deliberation
{{!}}-
{{!}}Reliability
{{!}}Trustworthiness, accuracy, dependability
{{!}}-
{{!}}Resoluteness
{{!}}Determination, persistence, purposefulness
{{!}}-
{{!}}Respectfulness
{{!}}Politeness, having good manners, courtesy
{{!}}-
{{!}}Responsibility
{{!}}Accountability, liable, trustworthiness, truthfulness
{{!}}-
{{!}}Selflessness
{{!}}Altruism, benevolence
{{!}}-
{{!}}Sincerity
{{!}}Earnestness, truthfulness, veracity, honesty
{{!}}-
{{!}}Thoroughness
{{!}}Care, scrupulousness
{{!}}-
{{!}}Transparency
{{!}}Clarity, not hiding, honesty, openness
{{!}}-
{{!}}Trustworthiness/truthfulness
{{!}}Honesty, accuracy, sincerity
{{!}}}
|Has Reference=a
}}
{{Related To
|Related To Theme=Theme:17d406f9-0b0f-4325-aa2d-2fe186d5ff34;Theme:Cda80c83-0101-4e27-bdc0-87a45846e5ed
}}
{{Tags
|Has Good Practice And Misconduct=Responsible research
}}

Theme:B4f7b2e3-af61-4466-94dc-2504affab5a8

2021-03-25T13:58:46Z

Guy.Widdershoven:

{{Theme
|Theme Type=Principles & Aspirations
|Title=Values and norms
|Is About=Values are important beliefs or ideals of a person in a community, serving as a motivation for action. Norms are action-guiding rules. The difference between a value and a norm is that a value is general, referring to an overall ideal, whereas a norm is concrete, specifying certain things that have to be done (or omitted). Values can be operationalized in specifying norms; norms refer to and are justified by underlying values.
|Important Because=In codes of conduct for scientific research, the concepts of values and norms are often used interchangeably. Yet, it is crucial to distinguish between the two concepts <ref>Tranøy, K.E. (1977). "Norms of Inquiry: Methodologies as Normative Systems", in G. Ryle (Ed.), ''Contemporary Aspects of Philosophy''. London: Oriel Press: 1-13.</ref><ref>Tranøy, K.E. (1998). "Science and ethics. Some of the main principles and problems", in A.J.I.Jones (Ed)., ''K.E. Tranøy, The moral import of science. Essays on normative theory, scientific activity and Wittengenstein''. Bergen: Sigma Forlag: 111-136. </ref>. Values are general ideals. They underlie norms, which are action-guiding rules. There are three kinds of such rules: permissions, orders or commands and prohibitions. Values show what persons and communities hold as important. Norms say what has to be done in order to realize values. Without a reference to underlying values, rules lack motivation and justification. Without corresponding norms, values lack specification and concrete direction.

Values and norms can be ''formal'' (that is: explicitly formulated) or ''informal'' (that is: implicitly assumed). Often, when values are discussed, corresponding norms are not explicitly mentioned. On the other hand, when norms are posed, the underlying values often remain implicit. Yet it is important to be aware of the concrete action-guiding rules envisaged when a certain value is mentioned, and of the general ideal behind a specific norm. An important aim of moral reflection is to provide such clarifications.
<references />
|Important For=All stakeholders in research; PhD students; Junior researchers; Senior researchers; Research integrity trainers
|Has Best Practice=Values and norms are core concepts in moral reflection about research integrity. For instance in Moral Case Deliberation (MCD), a method used to reflect on morally troublesome situations, investigation of values and norms is used to deepen the understanding of the situation at stake.<ref>Stolper M., Molewijk B., Widdershoven G. (2016). Bioethics education in clinical settings: theory and practice of the dilemma method of moral case deliberation. ''BMC Medical Ethics'', <nowiki>https://doi.org/10.1186</nowiki> (0)6 -016 25 -0125 -1</ref> A core element in this investigation, guided by a facilitator, is analysing the case by looking at the values and norms of all relevant perspectives (persons involved in the case and/or participants in the MCD meeting). Which values motivate each person? How can these values be specified into norms? For example, a moral issue might concern supervision. Should one, as a supervisor of a PhD student, in preparing a response to a reviewer, give guidance and correct mistakes, or at some point take over the writing? A relevant value for the supervisor in the case might be: autonomy. The corresponding norm in the case could be: I should give the opportunity to the PhD student to try this herself. Another value might be: effectiveness. The norm related to this value in the concrete situation could be: the article should be accepted and published. In analysing the case from the perspective of the supervisor, the group becomes aware of these conflicting values. This may then give rise to a dialogue on what value is most important in this situation. This can lead to a conclusion on the most desirable norm and related course of action. Also, the dialogue might provide insights in how to deal with the conflicting value which turns out less important. How can one do justice to the value which will not be realized? In the example, efficiency might turn out to be the most important for the supervisor, meaning that, at a certain point, she will take over the writing. In order to do justice to the value of autonomy, the supervisor might, for instance, propose that the PhD student will get more responsibility for writing the response after submission of the next article. MCD can thus foster decision making, not by prescribing a rule, but by encouraging reflection and dialogue, enabling participants to achieve a new and richer view of the situation.

It is useful to differentiate between three different types of scientific values and norms: ''internal'' values and norms, ''external'' values and norms, and ''linkage'' values and norms.<ref>Solbakk JH (1998).The concept of goodness in medical research. An action theoretic approach.In: Weisstub D (Ed.) ''Research on Human Subjects. Ethics, Law and Social Policy''. Elsevier Sciences: Oxford: 73-87</ref> Internal values and norms of science justify and guide the practice of science itself. Examples of scientific values of the internal kind are: truth, honesty, simplicity,consistency, coherence,economy,exactitude and completeness, openness, open-mindedness, confidence, originality and ‘interestingness’. External values and norms comprise general ideals and rules for action, which are relevant for science, but are not constitutive of the practice of science itself. Examples of external values are human (and animal) welfare notions, which are related to the wider social and cultural context in which scientists operate. Finally, we have a different set of values and norms guiding scientific research, which represent normative points of contact - linkage - between the research community and the community at large, between internal and external values and norms. Examples are requirements of fruitfulness and relevance.
<references />
|Has Reference=a
}}
{{Related To
|Related To Theme=Theme:17d406f9-0b0f-4325-aa2d-2fe186d5ff34
}}
{{Tags
|Involves=Guy Widdershoven; Jan-Helge Solbakk
|Has Good Practice And Misconduct=Ethics
}}

Theme:17d406f9-0b0f-4325-aa2d-2fe186d5ff34

2021-03-25T13:57:53Z

Guy.Widdershoven:

{{Theme
|Theme Type=Principles & Aspirations
|Title=Moral conflict and moral dilemma
|Is About=A moral conflict is a situation in which a person has two moral obligations, which cannot be met both at once. Behind these obligations lie conflicting values. Sometimes, the conflict can be resolved to the full satisfaction of the different parties involved, i.e. without leaving behind any regrettable remainder or residue. A moral dilemma is an irresolvable moral conflict, i.e. no fully satisfactory resolution is possible since all possible options for action leave behind a remainder that does not cease to be morally binding.
|Important Because=Research integrity can involve a situation of moral conflict. This means that two courses of action are possible, which exclude one another. If one goes for one action, the alternative cannot be realized. Moreover, one has to choose between both actions; a third option, such as not making a choice, is not possible. An example is the choice between adding a person as an author to an article or not. There is no third option: either the person is made author, or not.

A moral conflict implies two conflicting values. In the case of authorship, these values might be gratitude (for a – albeit small - contribution) versus righteousness (acting in line with the authorship guidelines). Sometimes, moral conflicts can be resolved because one of the values clearly overrides the other. Thus, from a research integrity perspective, authorship requirements are more important than gratitude. In order to do justice to the value of gratitude, the person can be mentioned in an acknowledgement.

However, there are examples of situations in research where conflicts can be irresolvable, because the person who has to choose feels the obligation to do justice to two incompatible values. In such cases, one is confronted with a moral dilemma .<ref>Tessman, L. (2017). When doing the right thing is impossible. Oxford, New York: OUP</ref> <ref>Nussbaum M (1986). The fragility of goodness. OIxford: Oxford University Press</ref> A moral dilemma is a conflict situation in which the choice one makes causes a moral harm, which cannot be restlessly repaired. Take the example of how to respond when a fellow researcher needs help, but refuses your assistance. In light of the value of care, you should at least try to convince them that support is needed. On the other hand, the value of autonomy might indicate that you should not impose yourself upon them. Whatever you decide to do, you do harm to one of the two values involved. If you choose to try and get them to accept support, they might feel being treated as an incompetent researcher. If you choose to let go, they might get in serious difficulty with their research.
<references />
|Important For=PhD Students; Researchers; Supervisors; Research integrity trainers
|Has Best Practice=Reflection on moral conflicts, and especially on moral dilemmas, is an important element of responsible research practice. Take for example Phase I trials that involve novel therapies for patients (so-called First-In-Human (FIH) Trials). <ref>Solbakk JH, Zoloth L. The Tragedy of Translation: The Case of ‘‘First Use’’in Human Embryonic Stem Cell Research. Cell Stem Cell, 2011, 8: 479-481.</ref> These trials involve a high degree of uncertainty in intervention development and possible outcomes. Although this step, hopefully, in turn, will make a Phase-III clinical trial in compliance with the basic epistemological and ethical requirement of therapeutic trials possible, it is a fact that so far no widely accepted standards for judgments of uncertainty, safety, and value of FIH trials have yet been formulated. Consequently, no selection of patients to be included in such trials can be said to be fully satisfactory, i.e. without the possibility of moral failure. Through acknowledging the possible existence of irresolvable moral conflicts in research, researchers will learn modesty, and thereby also protect themselves from being infected by the vice of ''hybris''.

Reflection on moral dilemmas can be fostered by organizing Moral Case Deliberation (MCD). <ref>Stolper M., Molewijk B., Widdershoven G. (2016). Bioethics education in clinical settings: theory and practice of the dilemma method of moral case deliberation. BMC Medical Ethics, https://doi.org/10.1186 (0)6 -016 25 -0125 -1</ref> In MCD, a morally troublesome situation is investigated by a group, guided by a facilitator. During the investigation, the conflicting values in the situation are examined in dialogue. This enables participants to become aware of, and reflect on the moral conflict involved. MCD specifically focuses on moral conflicts that cannot be restlessly solved, that is on moral dilemmas. The aim is to investigate different values of stakeholders in practice, and become aware that in making a choice, certain values will be harmed. This may result in the awareness that, although a choice is unavoidable, one should be open to the negative consequences of and take responsibility for them.
<references />
|Has Reference=a
}}
{{Related To
|Related To Resource=Resource:Fa27f5f7-b2cd-43b3-83df-892fc20d948b;Resource:313feb13-82bc-4489-be7a-387d3415c427
|Related To Theme=Theme:Cda80c83-0101-4e27-bdc0-87a45846e5ed
}}
{{Tags
|Has Virtue And Value=Reliability; Conscientiousness; Collegiality; Fairness; Responsibility
|Has Good Practice And Misconduct=Balancing Harm and Benefits
|Related To Research Area=SH - Social Sciences and Humanities
}}

Theme:6217d06b-c907-4b09-af4e-b4c8a17b9847

2021-03-25T13:56:50Z

Guy.Widdershoven:

{{Theme
|Theme Type=Principles & Aspirations
|Title=Dialogue versus debate
|Is About=Dialogue is a vehicle for reaching understanding and learning from each other. Dialogue is to be distinguished from debate. Dialogue focuses on listening to the other and being open to the other’s perspective, whereas debate aims at convincing the other through argumentation.
|Important Because=Research integrity issues often require thorough consideration, as it is not always simple to apply rules and to know what is the right action given a code of conduct. A dialogue can help to find ways to deal with such issues. A dialogue can take place within the research team, or in a group aiming at reflection on research integrity issues.

The idea of dialogue is not only being nice and friendly. The aim is to come to a better view of the situation, gaining knowledge and understanding. This requires that one seriously investigates the relevance of the perspective of the other. Being open to the perspective of the other does not mean simply giving up one’s own point of view, but being prepared to learn from the other’s point of view. By exchanging perspectives, dialogue can result in a fusion of horizons.<ref>Gadamer, H-G (1989), Truth and Method, 2nd edn, [[wikipedia:Sheed_and_Ward|Sheed and Ward]], London</ref>

It is important to distinguish dialogue from debate. In a nutshell, the most relevant differences are the following :<ref>[http://www.intellitics.com/ Bonnemann], T. Quick Comparison: Debate and Deliberation, 2007. Accessible at: http://www.intellitics.com/blog/2007/11/18/quick-comparison-debate-and-deliberation/.</ref><ref>Bonnemann, T. Dialogue and Deliberation 2007. Accesible at: http://www.intellitics.com/blog/2007/07/13/dialogue-and-deliberation/</ref>

*Dialogue focuses on learning from differences; debate focuses on finding the one right answer
*Dialogue focuses on understanding the other; debate focuses on convincing the other
*Dialogue focuses on listening and questioning; debate focuses on speaking and arguing
*Dialogue focuses on looking for strengths in the position of the other; debate focuses on looking for weaknesses in the position of the other
*Dialogue focuses on exploring and considering; debate focuses on attacking and defending
*Dialogue focuses on thinking slow; debate focuses on thinking fast
*Dialogue focuses on reflection and learning; debate focuses on concluding and deciding
<references />
|Important For=PhD Students; Researchers; Supervisors; Research integrity trainers
|Has Best Practice=The philosophical importance of dialogue has been elaborated in philosophical hermeneutics. <ref name=":0">Widdershoven, G. A., & Metselaar, S. (2012). Gadamer's Truth and Method and Moral Case Deliberation in Clinical Ethics. In ''Hermeneutics and the Humanities'' (pp. 287-305)</ref><ref>Gadamer, H-G (1989), ''Truth and Method'', 2nd edn, [[wikipedia:Sheed_and_Ward|Sheed and Ward]], London</ref>

Moral Case Deliberation is an example of group reflection on moral issues through dialogue.<ref name=":0" /> In MCD, a morally troublesome situation is investigated by a group, guided by a facilitator. During the investigation, the conflicting values in the situation are examined in dialogue.
<references />
|Is Flagged=No
|Has Reference=a
}}
{{Related To
|Related To Theme=Theme:17d406f9-0b0f-4325-aa2d-2fe186d5ff34
}}
{{Tags
|Has Virtue And Value=Collegiality
|Has Good Practice And Misconduct=Ethical Dilemma
|Related To Research Area=SH - Social Sciences and Humanities
}}

Theme:Cda80c83-0101-4e27-bdc0-87a45846e5ed

2021-03-25T13:54:24Z

Guy.Widdershoven:

{{Theme
|Theme Type=Principles & Aspirations
|Title=Cognitive dissonance and moral distress
|Is About=Because of structural imperatives that overemphasize the good of efficiency (number of publications, h-index), researchers may feel it is not possible to do justice to principles and values related to research integrity (e.g. taking time in order to improve the quality of one publication, rather than publishing as much as possible). In such a situation, a researcher experiences cognitive dissonance and moral distress. The psychological notion of cognitive dissonance refers to the mental discomfort experienced by someone who holds two or more contradictory beliefs, ideas, or values. The ethical concept of moral distress denotes the experience of a person who knows what is the right thing to do, but is (or feels) unable to act accordingly.
|Important Because=In participating in the communal practice of science, we have to accept certain standards of excellence (related to values, like truth) and rules to follow (to give an accurate account of the authors’ contributions). Thus, we are likely to experience cognitive dissonance or moral distress, when confronted with conflicting imperatives (for instance the need to give an authorship to one’s superior, even if she did not contribute to the specific paper). Cognitive dissonance theory holds that when we experience cognitive or dissonance or moral distress, we tend to justify our behavior. The more often we engage in justifying our unethical behavior, the more we will perceive this unethical behavior as already justified and the more likely we are to engage in it again.

Although we will always be blind to our own ignorance to a certain degree, we can learn to recognize our self-justification strategies as indicators of our (evolving) vices. By recognizing why we engage in self-justification strategies and how they impact our decision-making, we can foster conditions for good research.

Virtue ethics emphasizes that we need to develop virtues in order to deal with imperatives that are detrimental to good research.<ref>Hicks, D. J., & Stapleford, T. A. (2016). The Virtues of Scientific Practice: MacIntyre, Virtue Ethics, and the Historiography of Science. ''Isis'', 107(3), 449–472. <nowiki>https://doi.org/10.1086/688346</nowiki></ref> According to MacIntyre, “virtues serve three functions: to enable individuals to achieve excellence in practice, to protect the practice from threat of corruption by goods of efficiency, and to be constitutive components of the good human life”.<ref>MacIntyre, A. C. (2014). After virtue. London: Bloomsbury, (p. 226-228)</ref> So virtues can be seen as crucial to counter corruptive tendencies in the research system. <ref>Davies, S. R. (2018). An Ethics of the System: Talking to Scientists About Research Integrity. Science and Engineering Ethics, 1-19. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11948-018-0064-y</ref><ref>Nakamura, J., & Condren, M. (2018). A systems perspective on the role mentors play in the cultivation of virtue. Journal of Moral Education, 47(3), 316–332. <nowiki>https://doi.org/10.1080/03057240.2018.1444981</nowiki></ref>

Cultivating sensitivity for cognitive dissonance and moral distress is an important element of research integrity education.<ref>Carr, D. (2017). Virtue and Character in Higher Education. ''British Journal of Educational Studies, 65''(1), 109–124. https://doi.org/10.1080/00071005.2016.1224806 </ref> <ref>Peters, R., & Filipova, A. (2009). Optimizing Cognitive-Dissonance Literacy in Ethics Education. ''Public Integrity, 11''(3), 201–220. https://doi.org/10.2753/PIN1099-9922110301</ref>It may support us in our attempts to find the right middle between being lenient and being too harsh on ourselves. What is the right middle depends on situational factors, as well as individual capabilities of the researcher. Knowing the right middle is not something that we can learn solely by understanding the underlying dynamics. It has to be learned in practice, over and over again. If we keep in sight the goods of excellence to achieve, we can be prepared not to be discouraged if we fail to assess a situation appropriately, but rather use any mistake we make as a means to fine-tune our cognitive strategies and moral behavior.

<br />
<references />
|Important For=PhD Students; Students; Researchers; Supervisors; Research integrity trainers
|Has Best Practice=In their virtue-based model of ethical decision-making, Crossan et al. outline how a virtue-based orientation may be a means of resilience for individuals who are trying to navigate between high situational pressures and demands for ethical behavior.<ref>Crossan, M., Mazutis, D., & Seijts, G. (2013). In Search of Virtue: The Role of Virtues, Values and Character Strengths in Ethical Decision Making. ''Journal of Business Ethics, 113''(4), 567–581. <nowiki>https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-013-1680-8</nowiki></ref>

Medeiros et al. give an overview of cognitive biases prevalent among university staff.<ref>Medeiros, K. E., Mecca, J. T., Gibson, C., Giorgini, V. D., Mumford, M. D., Devenport, L., & Connelly, S. (2014). Biases in Ethical Decision Making among University Faculty. ''Accountability in Research, 21''(4), 218–240. https://doi.org/10.1080/08989621.2014.847670</ref> Mecca et al. give valuable insights on the efficacy of a training intervention based on the finding of Medeiros et al.<ref>Mecca, J. T., Medeiros, K. E., Giorgini, V., Gibson, C., Mumford, M. D., & Connelly, S. (2016). Biases and Compensatory Strategies: The Efficacy of a Training Intervention. ''Ethics & Behavior, 26(2)'', 128–143. <nowiki>https://doi.org/10.1080/10508422.2014.997878</nowiki></ref>

Cassam recently introduced an account on how epistemic vices may influence unethical decision-making.<ref name=":0">Cassam, Q. (2019). Vices of the Mind. Oxford: Oxford University Press</ref> Moreover, he gives an overview on how these vices may be corrected (see chapter 8 “Self-improvement“, p. 167-187).<ref name=":0" />
<references />
|Is Flagged=true
|Has Reference=a
}}
{{Related To
|Related To Resource=Resource:5bbdd729-8f96-432a-a0ee-56510e343d01;Resource:05f04469-5834-4411-9217-c2551a0c745a
|Related To Theme=Theme:520b3bc7-a6ab-4617-95f2-89c9dee31c53
}}
{{Tags
|Related To Research Area=SH - Social Sciences and Humanities
}}

User:Guy.Widdershoven

2021-03-25T13:52:45Z

Guy.Widdershoven: create user page