In this article, we focus on the mentoring process, and we argue that the internal and external pressures extant at research universities may create a research culture that may be antithetical to appropriate mentoring. We developed a scale based on motivation theory to determine the perceived research culture in departments and research laboratories, and a mentoring scale to determine approaches to mentoring graduate students. Participants were 610 faculty members across 49 departments at a research oriented university. The findings were that (...) a mastery-oriented research climate and an outcome-oriented research climate were manifested at the university. More importantly, each research climate had its own unique impact on how the faculty approached mentoring graduate students. A mastery research climate was related to a more supportive approach to mentoring than the outcome research climate. We concluded by suggesting that the outcome research climate may have an adverse effect on effective mentoring and on maintaining research ethics. (shrink)

First of all, I would like to commend Roberts and colleagues for taking on a difficult but very important topic. It would be valuable if someone could follow up with a broader sample of universities and laboratories — paying careful attention to possible sampling and non-sampling errors. In general, I recommend that mentors explicitly both learn and teach ethical theory and practice within the context of their scientist development programs. Finally, while it is important to emphasize sound and ethical research (...) standards and processes in mentoring programs, this should not be at the expense of an appropriate emphasis on skills essential to professional competitiveness, such as responsible, effective publication, grant winning, and demonstrably strong performance on the grants won. (shrink)

Training programs, departmental/disciplinary norms, and individual factors have been hypothesized to influence ethical behavior. This exploratory study surveyed graduate students from a single university in the American Southeast. Relationships were examined among 496 participants’ individual characteristics, training, self-rated knowledge and decision-making skills in research conduct, and judgments of ethically questionable vignettes. Key findings include the increased likelihood of unethical action by students in online programs, a negative relationship between age and unethical actions, and a negative relationship between agreeableness and reports (...) that a peer would take an unethical action. Graduate training was unrelated to judgments of ethicality. (shrink)

Research misconduct has been thoroughly discussed in the literature, but mainly in terms of definitions and prescriptions for proper conduct. Even when case studies are cited, they are generally used as a repository of “lessons learned.” What has been lacking from this conversation is how the lessons of responsible conduct of research are imparted in the first place to graduate students, especially those in technical fields such as engineering. Nor has there been much conversation about who is responsible for what (...) in training students in Responsible Conduct of Research or in allocating blame in cases of misconduct. This paper explores three seemingly disparate cases of misconduct—the 2004 plagiarism scandal at Ohio University; the famous Robert Millikan article of 1913, in which his reported data selection did not match his notebooks; and the 1990 fabrication scandal in Dr. Leroy Hood’s research lab. Comparing these cases provides a way to look at the relationship between the graduate student (or trainee) and his/her advisor (a relationship that has been shown to be the most influential one for the student) as well as at possibly differential treatment for established researchers and researchers-in-training, in cases of misconduct. This paper reflects on the rights and responsibilities of research advisers and their students and offers suggestions for clarifying both those responsibilities and the particularly murky areas of research-conduct guidelines. (shrink)