MCAA Annual Conference 2024 - Ethics in the Research Environment

These are some of the questions that the session “Ethics in the Research Environment” tackled on the final day of the 2024 MCAA Annual Conference. The hefty task of breaking down the subjective and sensitive topic of ethics was bravely taken on by the three panellists Gianluigi Riva, Simona Tiribelli, and Francisco Valente Gonçalves

The bedrock of research is the single-minded pursuit of truth and knowledge. Despite the noble ideals we may ascribe to it, the humans undertaking this pursuit are not infallible. Immoral and unethical behaviours abound in research environments, just as they do in any other workplace, because at the end of the day real life triggers for these behaviours are universal. This truth was easily revealed through a quick poll of the attendees at the session, where 88% of the respondents reported that they had observed unethical behaviour in the workplace.

A few issues stood out to the audience as particular ethical pain points. Authorship in papers was the most common area where questionable conduct was observed. Additionally, the session audience also reported unethical behaviour in the declaration of conflicts of interest, data manipulation, and infringement of ideas and intellectual property among others. Ethical codes of conduct exist in almost every profession, and in academia, we find these can be field-specific. The codes lay out best practice and guidelines for their members. Though common, these codes of conduct are not always effective.

Lack of awareness about the guidelines is to blame to some extent for this lack of effectiveness. However, a study also found that researchers often refer to professional norms or an internal moral compass while deciding if a behaviour is ethical, rather than referring to a formal code (Giorgini et al, 2015, House and Seeman, 2010). The exception here being cases where concrete rules and consequences for not adhering to the same are laid out (Giorgini et al, 2015). This point was further emphasised by Gianluigi, stating that everything that is ethical is not legally enforceable. Unless sanctions are attached to it, it remains, in essence, a recommendation.

So the first step would be to ensure that we are familiar with the code of conduct in our field, before we make any judgments, either about our own or someone else’s behaviour being ethical. In case where a clear breach of these ethical guidelines occurs, what should we do next? Simona pointed out two important factors that contribute to the reporting of unethical behaviours. The first is having the right vocabulary to verbalise the nature of what has happened, in a language that is codified in the code of conduct. The second is the assurance that your complaint will be judged on its own merit and not be influenced by who you are. This can be especially important to early career researchers who feel it is not their place to question the system and often have the most to lose by coming forward. Whistleblowing channels can be a powerful mechanism to encourage people to come forward and protect them through the provision of anonymity. The MCAA is a part of PAOLA (PAndora bOx of whistLeblowing in Academia) a project developing a European observatory for reporting unethical behaviour in academic institutions.

As a growing organisation, the MCAA is very much aware of its own responsibility to promote good conduct and ethical practices amongst its members. To this end, the MCAA Code of Conduct was developed to inspire adequate behaviour within our community, including not only ordinary members but also members of the board and others in leadership roles. Alongside this, Gian Maria Greco introduced the MCAA Whistleblowing Channel, a recently-launched services through which members can report any unethical behaviour directly related to either MCAA members or a third party. The MCAA has the provision to take action against any violations of its code of conduct by its own members. In the scenario where a third party is involved, the MCAA will monitor and collate all behaviours reported through the channel and will strive to (anonymously) provide a voice to these complaints and raise these issues with the institutions involved.

Projects like PAOLA and the MCAA Whistleblowing Channel signal a shared commitment to foster an environment where unethical behaviours can be safely and effectively reported in the research community. However, the panellists concede that realistically it is still quite difficult to effect any change in the system. Francisco emphasised the mental health toll on those who are the victims of such unethical conduct and reporting it comes at a significant personal and professional cost. Organisations must do their best to safeguard the rights of those who come forward to report unethical behaviours. At the end of the day, we must recognise that reporting remains a very difficult and highly personal decision for the victims. Whether they choose to fight to change the system or else remove themselves from a toxic environment, only they can decide what is the right course of action for them.

References:

Vincent Giorgini, Jensen T. Mecca, Carter Gibson, Kelsey Medeiros, Michael D. Mumford, Shane Connelly & Lynn D. Devenport (2015). Researcher Perceptions of Ethical Guidelines and Codes of Conduct, Accountability in Research, 22:3, 123-138, DOI: 10.1080/08989621.2014.955607

Mark C. House & Jeffrey I. Seeman (2010) Credit and Authorship Practices: Educational and Environmental Influences, Accountability in Research, 17:5, 223-256, DOI: 10.1080/08989621.2010.512857

Namrata Iyer
MCAA Newsletter Editorial Board