America COMPETES at 5 years

An Analysis of Research-Intensive Universities’ RCR Training Plans

Trisha Phillips, Franchesca Nestor, Gillian Beach, Elizabeth Heitman

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

2 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

This project evaluates the impact of the National Science Foundation's (NSF) policy to promote education in the responsible conduct of research (RCR). To determine whether this policy resulted in meaningful RCR educational experiences, our study examined the instructional plans developed by individual universities in response to the mandate. Using a sample of 108 U.S. institutions classified as Carnegie “very high research activity”, we analyzed all publicly available NSF RCR training plans in light of the consensus best practices in RCR education that were known at the time the policy was implemented. We found that fewer than half of universities developed plans that incorporated at least some of the best practices. More specifically, only 31% of universities had content and requirements that differed by career stage, only 1% of universities had content and requirements that differed by discipline; and only 18% of universities required some face-to-face engagement from all classes of trainees. Indeed, some schools simply provided hand-outs to their undergraduate students. Most universities (82%) had plans that could be satisfied with online programs such as the Collaborative Institutional Training Initiative's RCR modules. The NSF policy requires universities to develop RCR training plans, but provides no guidelines or requirements for the format, scope, content, duration, or frequency of the training, and does not hold universities accountable for their training plans. Our study shows that this vaguely worded policy, and lack of accountability, has not produced meaningful educational experiences for most of the undergraduate students, graduate students, and post-doctoral trainees funded by the NSF.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)1-23
Number of pages23
JournalScience and Engineering Ethics
DOIs
StateAccepted/In press - Mar 15 2017

Fingerprint

training plan
university
Research
Students
science
trainee
best practice
Practice Guidelines
Education
university policy
student
educational research
Social Responsibility
education
experience
graduate
career
Consensus
Hand
Guidelines

Keywords

  • Ethics education
  • RCR
  • Research integrity
  • Research integrity policy

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Health(social science)
  • Issues, ethics and legal aspects
  • Health Policy
  • Management of Technology and Innovation

Cite this

America COMPETES at 5 years : An Analysis of Research-Intensive Universities’ RCR Training Plans. / Phillips, Trisha; Nestor, Franchesca; Beach, Gillian; Heitman, Elizabeth.

In: Science and Engineering Ethics, 15.03.2017, p. 1-23.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

@article{d32d65f658ef4f568fb72bc846a26f12,
title = "America COMPETES at 5 years: An Analysis of Research-Intensive Universities’ RCR Training Plans",
abstract = "This project evaluates the impact of the National Science Foundation's (NSF) policy to promote education in the responsible conduct of research (RCR). To determine whether this policy resulted in meaningful RCR educational experiences, our study examined the instructional plans developed by individual universities in response to the mandate. Using a sample of 108 U.S. institutions classified as Carnegie “very high research activity”, we analyzed all publicly available NSF RCR training plans in light of the consensus best practices in RCR education that were known at the time the policy was implemented. We found that fewer than half of universities developed plans that incorporated at least some of the best practices. More specifically, only 31{\%} of universities had content and requirements that differed by career stage, only 1{\%} of universities had content and requirements that differed by discipline; and only 18{\%} of universities required some face-to-face engagement from all classes of trainees. Indeed, some schools simply provided hand-outs to their undergraduate students. Most universities (82{\%}) had plans that could be satisfied with online programs such as the Collaborative Institutional Training Initiative's RCR modules. The NSF policy requires universities to develop RCR training plans, but provides no guidelines or requirements for the format, scope, content, duration, or frequency of the training, and does not hold universities accountable for their training plans. Our study shows that this vaguely worded policy, and lack of accountability, has not produced meaningful educational experiences for most of the undergraduate students, graduate students, and post-doctoral trainees funded by the NSF.",
keywords = "Ethics education, RCR, Research integrity, Research integrity policy",
author = "Trisha Phillips and Franchesca Nestor and Gillian Beach and Elizabeth Heitman",
year = "2017",
month = "3",
day = "15",
doi = "10.1007/s11948-017-9883-5",
language = "English (US)",
pages = "1--23",
journal = "Science and Engineering Ethics",
issn = "1353-3452",
publisher = "Springer Netherlands",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - America COMPETES at 5 years

T2 - An Analysis of Research-Intensive Universities’ RCR Training Plans

AU - Phillips, Trisha

AU - Nestor, Franchesca

AU - Beach, Gillian

AU - Heitman, Elizabeth

PY - 2017/3/15

Y1 - 2017/3/15

N2 - This project evaluates the impact of the National Science Foundation's (NSF) policy to promote education in the responsible conduct of research (RCR). To determine whether this policy resulted in meaningful RCR educational experiences, our study examined the instructional plans developed by individual universities in response to the mandate. Using a sample of 108 U.S. institutions classified as Carnegie “very high research activity”, we analyzed all publicly available NSF RCR training plans in light of the consensus best practices in RCR education that were known at the time the policy was implemented. We found that fewer than half of universities developed plans that incorporated at least some of the best practices. More specifically, only 31% of universities had content and requirements that differed by career stage, only 1% of universities had content and requirements that differed by discipline; and only 18% of universities required some face-to-face engagement from all classes of trainees. Indeed, some schools simply provided hand-outs to their undergraduate students. Most universities (82%) had plans that could be satisfied with online programs such as the Collaborative Institutional Training Initiative's RCR modules. The NSF policy requires universities to develop RCR training plans, but provides no guidelines or requirements for the format, scope, content, duration, or frequency of the training, and does not hold universities accountable for their training plans. Our study shows that this vaguely worded policy, and lack of accountability, has not produced meaningful educational experiences for most of the undergraduate students, graduate students, and post-doctoral trainees funded by the NSF.

AB - This project evaluates the impact of the National Science Foundation's (NSF) policy to promote education in the responsible conduct of research (RCR). To determine whether this policy resulted in meaningful RCR educational experiences, our study examined the instructional plans developed by individual universities in response to the mandate. Using a sample of 108 U.S. institutions classified as Carnegie “very high research activity”, we analyzed all publicly available NSF RCR training plans in light of the consensus best practices in RCR education that were known at the time the policy was implemented. We found that fewer than half of universities developed plans that incorporated at least some of the best practices. More specifically, only 31% of universities had content and requirements that differed by career stage, only 1% of universities had content and requirements that differed by discipline; and only 18% of universities required some face-to-face engagement from all classes of trainees. Indeed, some schools simply provided hand-outs to their undergraduate students. Most universities (82%) had plans that could be satisfied with online programs such as the Collaborative Institutional Training Initiative's RCR modules. The NSF policy requires universities to develop RCR training plans, but provides no guidelines or requirements for the format, scope, content, duration, or frequency of the training, and does not hold universities accountable for their training plans. Our study shows that this vaguely worded policy, and lack of accountability, has not produced meaningful educational experiences for most of the undergraduate students, graduate students, and post-doctoral trainees funded by the NSF.

KW - Ethics education

KW - RCR

KW - Research integrity

KW - Research integrity policy

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85015230608&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=85015230608&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1007/s11948-017-9883-5

DO - 10.1007/s11948-017-9883-5

M3 - Article

SP - 1

EP - 23

JO - Science and Engineering Ethics

JF - Science and Engineering Ethics

SN - 1353-3452

ER -