Abstract
There is an expectation that all researchers will act ethically and responsibly in the conduct of research involving humans and animals. While research ethics is mentioned in quality indicators and codes of responsible researcher conduct, it appears to have little profile in doctoral assessment. There seems to be an implicit assumption that ethical competence has been achieved by the end of doctoral candidacy and that there is no need for candidates to report on the ethical dimensions of their study nor for examiners to assess this integral aspect of researcher development. In the context of ensuring that institutions are fulfilling their responsibility of producing ethically sensitive and competent researchers, it is salient to investigate whether doctoral thesis examiners make comment about ethical issues in their reports. This study analysed an archive of examiner reports to identify the frequency, magnitude and nature of examiner comment about ethics. Although comment was rare (5% of reports) examiners provided: prescriptive instruction on ethical review processes; formative instruction on the design, conduct, and reporting of research projects; and positive or negative judgments about a candidate's ethical competence, the latter often aligned with meeting, or not meeting, 'doctoral standards'. The scarcity of ethics in examination criteria and examiner reports implies a silence that needs to be addressed to ensure graduating candidates are prepared to conduct ethical and responsible research.
Similar content being viewed by others
Change history
03 August 2017
An erratum to this article has been published.
References
Allen, G. (2008). Getting beyond form filling: The role of institutional governance in human research ethics. Journal of Academic Ethics, 6, 105–116. doi:10.1007/s10805-008-9057-9.
Blume, K., & Blume, A. (2009). Ethics instruction increases graduate students’ responsible conduct of research knowledge but not moral reasoning. Accountability in Research, 16, 268–283. doi:10.1080/08989620903190323.
Bourke, S., & Holbrook, A. (2013). Examining PhD and research masters theses. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 38(4), 407–416. doi:10.1080/02602938.2011.638738.
Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 3(2), 77-101. Retrieved from: http://eprints.uwe.ac.uk/11735
Brooks, R., te Riele, K., & Maguire, M. (2014). Ethics and education research. London: BERA Sage.
Cantwell, R., Bourke, S., Scevak, J., Holbrook, A., & Budd, J. (2017). Doctoral candidates as learners: A study of individual differences in responses to learning and its management. Studies in Higher Education, 42(1), 47–64. doi:10.1080/03075079.2015.1034263.
Carter, B., & Whittaker, K. (2009). Examining the British PhD viva: Opening new doors or scarring for life. Contemporary Nurse, 32(1–2), 169–178. doi:10.5172/conu.32.1-2.169.
Caruth, G. (2015). Toward a conceptual model of ethics in research. Journal of Management Research, 15(1), 23–33.
Clement, N., Lovat, T., Holbrook, A., Kiley, M., Bourke, S., Paltridge, B., Starfield, S., Fairbairn, H., & McInerney, D. (2015). Exploring doctoral examiner judgements through the lenses of Habermas and epistemic cognition. Theory and Method in Higher Education Research, Book Series, 3, 213–233.
Fisher, C., Fried, A., & Feldman, L. (2009). Graduate socialization in the responsible conduct of research: A national survey on the research ethics training experiences of psychology doctoral students. Ethics & Behavior, 19(6), 496–518. doi:10.1080/10508420903275283.
Gallagher A. (2006). The teaching of nursing ethics: Content and method. In: A. Davis, V. Tschudin & L. de Raeve L (Eds.) Essentials of teaching and learning in nursing ethics: perspectives and methods (pp. 223-239). London, UK: Churchill Livingstone.
Gardner, H. (1993). Frames of mind. New York: Basic Books.
Gilbert, R. (2009). The doctorate as curriculum. A perspective on goals and outcomes of doctoral education. In D. Boud & A. Lee (Eds.), Changing practices of doctoral education (pp. 54–68). Oxon: Routledge.
Goleman, D. (1995). Emotional Intelligence. New York: Basic Books.
Gould, J. (2016). Future of the thesis. Nature, 535(7), 26–28.
Gray, P., & Jordan, S. (2012). Supervisors and academic integrity: Supervisors as exemplars and mentors. Journal of Academic Ethics, 10(4), 299–311. doi:10.1007/s10805-012-9155-6.
Guillemin, M., & Gillam, L. (2004). Ethics, reflexivity, and “ethically important moments” in research. Qualitative Inquiry, 10(2), 261–280. doi:10.1177/1077800403262360.
Halse, C., & Honey, A. (2005). Unraveling ethics: Illuminating the moral dilemmas of research ethics. Signs: Journal of Women in Culture and Society, 30(4), 2141–2162.
Hammersley, M. (2015). On ethical principles for social research. International Journal of Social Research Methodology, 18(4), 433–449. doi:10.1080/13645579.2014.924169.
Holbrook, A., Bourke, S., Lovat, T., & Dally, K. (2004). Investigating PhD thesis examination reports. International Journal of Educational Research, 41(2), 98–120. doi:10.1016/j.ijer.2005.04.008.
Holbrook, A., Bourke, S., Lovat, T., & Fairbairn, H. (2008). Consistency and inconsistency in PhD thesis examination. Australian Journal of Education, 52(1), 36–48.
Holbrook, A., Bourke, S., Fairbairn, H., & Lovat, T. (2014). The focus and substance of formative comment provided by PhD examiners. Studies in Higher Education, 39(6), 983–1000. doi:10.1080/03075079.2012.750289.
Holley, K. (2009). Animal research practices and doctoral student identity development in a scientific community. Studies in Higher Education, 34(5), 577–591. doi:10.1080/03075070802597176.
Hsieh, H., & Shannon, S. (2005). Three approaches to qualitative content analysis. Qualitative Health Research, 15(9), 1277–1288. doi:10.1177/1049732305276687.
Jackson, C., & Tinkler, P. (2001). Back to basics: A consideration of the purposes of the Ph.D. Viva. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 26(4), 355–366. doi:10.1080/02602930120063501.
Jagger, S. (2011). Ethical sensitivity: A foundation for moral judgment. Journal of Business Ethics Education, 8(1), 13–30. doi:10.5840/jbee2011813.
Jones, M. (2013). Issues in doctoral studies: Forty years of journal discussion: Where have we been and where are we going? International Journal of Doctoral Studies, 8, 83–104.
Kelly, F. (2010). Reflecting on the purpose of the PhD oral examination. New Zealand Journal of Educational Studies, 45(1), 77–83.
Kjellström, S., & Fridlund, B. (2010). Status and trends of research ethics in Swedish nurses’ dissertations. Nursing Ethics, 17(3), 383–392. doi:10.1177/0969733009355541.
Kjellström, S., Ross, N., & Fridlund, B. (2010). Research ethics in dissertations: Ethical issues and complexity of reasoning. Journal of Medical Ethics, 425–430. doi:10.1136/jme.2009.034561.
Komić, D., Marušić, S., & Marušić, A. (2015). Research integrity and research ethics in professional codes of ethics: Survey of terminology used by professional organizations across research disciplines. PloS One, 10(7), e0133662. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0133662.
Kyvik, S. (2014). Assessment procedures of Norwegian PhD theses as viewed by examiners from the USA, the UK and Sweden. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 39(2), 140–153. doi:10.1080/02602938.2013.798395.
Kyvik, S., & Thune, T. (2015). Assessing the quality of PhD dissertations. A survey of external committee members. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 40(5), 768–782. doi:10.1080/02602938.2014.956283.
Löfström, E., Trotman, T., Furnari, M., & Shephard, K. (2015). Who teaches academic integrity and how do they teach it? Higher Education, 69, 435–448. doi:10.1007/s10734-014-9784-3doi:10.1007/s10734-014-9784-3.
Lovat, T., Holbrook, A., Bourke, S., Fairbairn, H., Kiley, M., Paltridge, B., & Starfield, S. (2015). Examining doctoral examination and the question of the viva. Higher Education Review, 47(3), 5–23.
Lovitts, B. (2007). Making the implicit explicit: Creating performance expectations for the dissertation. Sterling: Stylus.
Macfarlane, B., Zhang, J., & Pun, A. (2014). Academic integrity: A review of the literature. Studies in Higher Education, 3(2), 339–358. doi:10.1080/03075079.2012.709495.
McAreavey, R., & Muir, J. (2011). Research ethics committees: Values and power in higher education. International Journal of Social Research Methodology, 14(5), 391–405. doi:10.1080/13645579.2011.565635.
McGagh, J., Marsh, H., Western, M., Thomas, P., Hastings, A., Mihailova, M., & Wenham, M. (2016). Review of Australia’s research training system. Report for the Australian Council of Learned Academies. Published at www.acola.org.au.
Mullins, G., & Kiley, M. (2002). It’s a PhD, not a Nobel prize: How experienced examiner assess research theses. Studies in Higher Education, 27(4), 369–386. doi:10.1080/0307507022000011507.
Narvaez, D., & Endicott, L. G. (2009). Ethical sensitivity, Nurturing character in the classroom, Ethex series book 1. Notre Dame: Alliance for Catholic Education Press.
Powell, S., & Green, H. (Eds.). (2007). The doctorate worldwide. Maidenhead: SRHE and Open University Press.
Shaw, M., & Green, H. (1996). Benchmarking the PhD – A tentative beginning. Quality Assurance in Education, 10(2), 116–124. doi:10.1108/09684880210423609.
Shelley-Egan, C., & Rodrigues, R. (2015). Ethics assessment and guidance at the European Union Level. Annex 5a. Ethical assessment of research innovation: A comparative analysis of practices and institutions in the EU and selected other countries, Deliverable 1.1. Published at http://satoriproject.eu/media/5.a-EA-and-Guidance-at-the-EU-level.pdf
The National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC). (2007). National Statement on Ethical Conduct in Human Research 2007 (Updated May 2015). The National Health and Medical Research Council, the Australian Vice-Chancellors’ Committee. Commonwealth of Australia, Canberra. Published at https://www.nhmrc.gov.au/_files_nhmrc/publications/attachments/e72_national_statement_may_2015_150514_a.pdf Accessed March 19 2017
Tinkler, P., & Jackson, C. (2004). The doctoral examination process: A handbook for students, examiners and supervisors. Berkshire: Open University Press and McGraw-Hill International.
Titus, S., & Ballou, J. (2014). Ensuring PhD development of responsible conduct of research behaviors: Who’s responsible? Science and Engineering Ethics, 20, 221–235. doi:10.1007/s11948-013-9437-4.
Tolich, M. (2016). A narrative account of ethics committees and their codes. New Zealand Sociology 31(4), 43-55. Published at https://search.informit.com.au/fullText;dn=339416648664968;res=IELNZC
Trafford, V., & Leshem, S. (2008). Stepping stones to achieving your doctorate: Focusing on your viva from the start. Berkshire: Open University Press McGraw-Hill Education.
Wellington, J. (2013). Searching for ‘doctorateness’. Studies in Higher Education, 38(10), 1490–1503. doi:10.1080/03075079.2011.634901.
Weyrich, L., & Harvill, E. (2013). Teaching ethical aptitude to graduate student researchers. Accountability in Research, 20, 5–12. doi:10.1080/08989621.2013.749742.
Williams, K. (2010). ‘guilty knowledge’. The (im)possibility of ethical security in social science research. In P. Thomson & M. Walker (Eds.), The Routledge doctoral student’s companion (pp. 256–269). Oxon: Taylor & Francis.
Acknowledgements
We would like to acknowledge co-investigators on one of the studies used in this paper (ARCDP110103007) Dr. Margaret Kiley, Professor Brian Paltridge and Professor Sue Starfield.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Human Research Ethics Committee Approval Numbers: H-973-100; H-639-1107; H-2011-0109. Approval from the Human Research Ethics Committee requires evidence of informed consent.
Funding
This work was supported by funding from the Australian Research Council Discovery Grant Scheme: DP343462; DP0880092; DP110103007
Conflict of Interest
The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.
Additional information
The original version of this article was revised: Due to an oversight by the Publisher during the typesetting stage, an uncorrected version of the paper was published. The revisions submitted by the author had not been carried out. The paper has now been updated and includes all the author’s corrections. The Publisher apologizes for this error.
An erratum to this article is available at https://doi.org/10.1007/s10805-017-9287-9.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Holbrook, A., Dally, K., Avery, C. et al. Research Ethics in the Assessment of PhD Theses: Footprint or Footnote?. J Acad Ethics 15, 321–340 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10805-017-9276-z
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10805-017-9276-z