Views of Advisors About Students’ Knowledge on Scientific Research Ethics an Example from Sakarya University

Özcan Erkan AKGÜN, Nazire Burçin HAMUTOĞLU, Ezgi Pelin YILDIZ
2.410 325

Abstract


In this study the views of graduate thesis advisors at Sakarya University, Institute of Educational Sciences (5 Male, 4 Female) are analysed regarding their students’ knowledge on scientific research ethics (SRE). This was done via phenomenology, one of the qualitative research methods. The data were collected with structured interview questions and also additional probe questions when needed.  The questions were written by the researchers after performing a comprehensive literature study. Expert opinions were asked for after the interview form was prepared. The experts evaluated the suitability of the questions in terms of scope and language and found them to be sufficient. Moreover, three advisors were chosen randomly among the target group to be asked the questions in order to check clarity and expediency before data collection.   The findings of the research showed that knowledge about the SRE of most of the students was insufficient, and the educational need for this matter was provided by the advisors. It was also reported by the advisors that most of the students’ knowledge about the SRE was learnt by direct experiences while preparing their thesis and their levels of awareness about the importance of the subject were very low before the thesis stage.  The advisors also mentioned that the curricula do not directly include a course on the scientific research ethics; a limited content is taught within the research methods course.  It was stated that real life cases, examples and experiences might be effective in enhancing students' awareness levels regarding the SRE. Developing empathy was mentioned as an important technique for creating awareness. Consequently it is thought that taking the findings of this study into account may improve students' levels of awareness on codes of ethics. Research teams could be created within universities and they could focus on providing research and writing support to the students who are at thesis stage. Regarding systematic approach, the awareness regarding plagiarism should be increased from the undergraduate level to post graduate studies. 


Keywords


Ethics, Scientific Research Ethics, Plagiarism, Views of the Academic Staff.

Full Text:

PDF


DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.19126/suje.53006

References


Engle, T. J. and Smith, J. L. (1990). The ethical standards of accounting academics. Issues in Accounting Education, 5(1), 7-29.

Köklü, N. (2003). Akademisyenlerin Bilimsel Araştırma Etiği Konusundaki Görüşleri. Eğitim Bilimleri ve Uygulama, 2 (4), 137-151.

Maya, İ. (2013). Akademisyenlerin meslek ahlakına aykırı olan davranışlara ilişkin algıları. (ÇOMÜ eğitim fakültesi örneği).Turkish Studies, 8(6), 491-509.

Öncü, Ö. (2010). Fikir ve Sanat Eserleri Hukukunda İktibas ve Sınırları. Yetkin Yayınevi: Ankara

Özder, H., Işıktaş, S. and Erdoğan F. (2014). Öğretim Elemanlarının Akademik Kurallardan Haberdar Olma ve Onaylama Dereceleri. Intertational Journal Of New Trends In Arts, Sports & Science Education, 3(1), 22-37.

Pınar, İ. (2002). Akademisyenlerin etik değerleri üzerine bir araştırma. İstanbul Üniversitesi İşletme Fakültesi İşletme İktisadı Enstitüsü Dergisi, 13(43), 5-19.

Sevim, O. (2014). Akademik Etik Değerler Ölçeğinin Geliştirilmesi: Güvenirlik ve Geçerlik Çalışması. International Periodical For The Languages, Literature and History of Turkish or Turkic 9(6), 943-957.

Uçak, N. and Birinci H. (2008). Bilimsel Etik ve İntihal. Türk Kütüphaneciliği 22(2), 187-204.

Tavşancıl, E. and Aslan, E. (2001). İçerik analizi ve uygulama örnekleri. İstanbul: Epsilon Yayıncılık.

Türkiye Bilimler Akademisi Bilim Etiği Komitesi. (2002). Bilimsel araştırmada etik ve sorunlar. Ankara: Türkiye Bilimler Akademisi Yayınları.

Türkyılmaz, E. and Kaygısız, O. (2012). Bilimsel yayıncılıkta etik sorunlar ve akademisyenlerin intihale bakışı. Atatürk Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi, Bilgi ve Belge Yönetimi Bölümü, Erzurum.

Yıldırım, A. and Şimşek, H. (2006). Nitel araştırma yöntemleri. Ankara: Seçkin Yayınevi.

Reyes, I. G., Kim, W. T. and Weaver, G. (2016). Teaching ethics in business schools: A conversation on disciplinary differences, academic provincialism, and the case for integrated pedagogy. Acad manag learn edu. doi:10.5465/amle.2014.0402.

Joly, Y., So, D., Osien, G., Crimi, L., Bobrow, M., Chalmers, D., Wallace, S. E., Zeps, N. and Knoppers, B. (2016). A decision tool to guide the ethics review of a challenging breed of emerging genomic projects. European Journal of Human Genetics. doi:10.1038/ejhg.2015.279.

Ammar,M. B. S., Mandil, A. and El-Feky, S. (2016). Ethics in health practice and research: an EMR perspective. Eastern Mediterranean Health Journal, 22(1).

Corley, E. A., Kim, Y. and Scheufele, Y. A. (2016). Scientists’ Ethical Obligations and Social Responsibility for Nanotechnology Research. Science and Engineering Ethics, 22( 1), 111–132.

Hamutoğlu, N. B. Yıldız, E. P. and Akgün, Ö. E. (2015). Lisansüstü Öğrencilerinin Bilimsel Araştırma Etiği İle İlgili Görüşleri Sakarya Üniversitesi Örneği. VII. Ulusal Lisansüstü Eğitim Sempozyumu Bildiriler Kitabı (ULES-7), 54-62.

Hollander, R. (Ed.). (2009). Ethics education and scientific and engineering research: What’s been learned? What should be done? Summary of a workshop. Washington, DC: Center for Engineering, Ethics, and Society. National Academy of Engineering. The National Academies Press.

Engel, J. C. (2016). Ethical Standards of Scientific Research for Beginning Accounting Scholars.Business and Economic Research, 6 (1), ISSN 2162-4860.

Zhang, H. Y. (2015). Promoting Awareness of Publication Ethics: Against Plagiarism: Part of the series Qualitative and Quantitative Analysis of Scientific and Scholarly Communication, 99-104.

Pruzan, P. (2016). Ethics and Responsibility in Scientific Research. Research Methodology, 273-306.

Gastel and Day (2016). How to write and publish a scientific paper (eighth edition). Greenwood: California Santa Barbara.

Zhang, J. C. and Zhu, Y. (2016) China’s graduate students need better education in scientific writing and publishing. Journal of Zhejiang University-SCIENCE B (Biomedicine & Biotechnology, 17(5), 409-412.

Yuan, B.T., Wang, C.Y., Wu, Q. (2015). An empirical research on postgraduates’ academic contributions. Res. High. Educ. Eng., 1, 154-160 (in Chinese).

Steneck, N. H. (2004). Introduction to the responsible conduct of research. Washington, DC: Government Printing Office.

Briggle, A., Holbrook, J. B., Oppong, J., Hoffmann, J., Larsen, K. E. and Pluscht, P. (2016). Research Ethics Education in the STEM Disciplines: The Promises and Challenges of a Gaming Approach. Science and Engineering Ethics, 22(1), 237–250.

Schienke, E., Tuana, N., Brown, D., Davis, K., Keller, K., Shortle, J., et al. (2009). The role of the NSF broader impacts criterion in enhancing research ethics pedagogy. Social Epistemology, 23, 317–336.

Schienke, E., Baum, S., Tuana, N., Davis, K., and Keller, K. (2010). Intrinsic ethics regarding integrated assessment models for climate management. Science and Engineering Ethics: DOI. doi:10.1007/s11948-010-9209-3.

Tuana, N. (2010). Leading with ethics, aiming for policy: New opportunities for philosophy of science. Synthese, 177(3), 471–492.




Sakarya University Journal of Education | 2011 ISSN: 2146-7455