TY - JOUR
T1 - Using a Two-Tier Test to Examine Taiwanese Graduate Students’ Misunderstanding of Responsible Conduct of Research
AU - Pan, Sophia Jui-An
AU - Chou, Chien
N1 - Publisher Copyright:
Copyright © 2015 Taylor & Francis Group, LLC.
PY - 2015/11/2
Y1 - 2015/11/2
N2 - The present study investigates Taiwanese graduate students’ general understanding and misunderstanding of Responsible Conduct of Research (RCR). A total of 580 graduate students responded to the self-developed Responsible Conduct of Research Reasoning Test. The results reveal that, first, students did not have sufficient knowledge to reason why a particular instance of research (mis)conduct was doable or not. Second, the statistical results show that female students, students majoring in the humanities or the social sciences, doctoral-level students, and students with RCR-related training outperformed others. In addition, the misbehaviors that students judged relatively uncritically comprise the following nine categories: (a) seeing authorship as a property or power, (b) misinterpreting research coauthors’ responsibilities, (c) inaccurately conducting the informed-consent process, (d) fabricating and falsifying research data, (e) misinterpreting the correct citation of research sources, (f) holding vague concepts of self-plagiarism, (g) misinterpreting the Taiwan Copyright Act, (h) accepting duplicate-publication practices, and (i) accepting piecemeal publication practices. The present study discusses participative students’ major misunderstandings of actual RCR-related practices. The study also presents further implications and suggestions based on the findings.
AB - The present study investigates Taiwanese graduate students’ general understanding and misunderstanding of Responsible Conduct of Research (RCR). A total of 580 graduate students responded to the self-developed Responsible Conduct of Research Reasoning Test. The results reveal that, first, students did not have sufficient knowledge to reason why a particular instance of research (mis)conduct was doable or not. Second, the statistical results show that female students, students majoring in the humanities or the social sciences, doctoral-level students, and students with RCR-related training outperformed others. In addition, the misbehaviors that students judged relatively uncritically comprise the following nine categories: (a) seeing authorship as a property or power, (b) misinterpreting research coauthors’ responsibilities, (c) inaccurately conducting the informed-consent process, (d) fabricating and falsifying research data, (e) misinterpreting the correct citation of research sources, (f) holding vague concepts of self-plagiarism, (g) misinterpreting the Taiwan Copyright Act, (h) accepting duplicate-publication practices, and (i) accepting piecemeal publication practices. The present study discusses participative students’ major misunderstandings of actual RCR-related practices. The study also presents further implications and suggestions based on the findings.
KW - authorship
KW - duplicate publication
KW - moral judgment
KW - plagiarism
KW - responsible conduct of research
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84945444259&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1080/10508422.2014.987921
DO - 10.1080/10508422.2014.987921
M3 - Article
AN - SCOPUS:84945444259
SN - 1050-8422
VL - 25
SP - 500
EP - 527
JO - Ethics and Behavior
JF - Ethics and Behavior
IS - 6
ER -