|
Article Excerpt
Although much has been written on the subject of research misconduct (e.g., Frankel, 1994; Institute of Medicine, 2002; Steneck, 2003; Weed, 1998), a paucity of literature exists within the field of counseling regarding the ethical practice of research. This is surprising given the emphasis in the counseling profession on conducting research to inform evidence-based practice. Research in the field of counseling is conducted by a variety of individuals within the field, including researchers, educators, students, and practitioners. Although counseling emphasizes research (e.g., McLeod, 2003; Sexton, Whiston, Bleuer, & Walz, 1997), there have been no empirical data to examine the prevalence, varieties, or correlates of either research misconduct or questionable research practices (QRPs) that exist in the field; nor has the counseling literature addressed the concept of research integrity, with the exception of the profession's ethical codes (see American Counseling Association [ACA], 2005; National Board for Certified Counselors, 2002) that speak to appropriate behaviors for researchers in counseling. The current pilot study was designed to begin exploring the prevalence of QRPs in the field of counseling, as well as to begin to examine certain personality and other demographic correlates of QRPs.
* Research Integrity in the Field of Counseling
In the field of counseling, there has been increased skepticism from the general public, government, and consumers about the provision of services, programs, and education for which no positive results or success have been demonstrated (Houser, 1998). Houser declared that "we [as a profession] can attempt to ignore the criticisms or we can attempt to address them in the practice of our profession" (p. 230). Because of the increased skepticism and the need to provide services that have proven to be effective and successful, there continues to be a drive in the field of counseling to provide evidence-based services. This drive leads counseling professionals to engage in research to provide data that either support or refute the value of their services. Despite the amount or type of research being conducted in counseling, Whiston (1996) noted that counselors are not trained to demonstrate accountability in the provision of their services. It is probably safe to assume that even less has been done to acknowledge or address research misconduct or QRPs in the counseling field. QRPs are defined as times when researchers engage in activities that depart "from accepted practices of the relevant research community" (Steneck, 2003, p. $24l). Examples of these practices include sloppy or careless research, statistical errors, inappropriate allocation of authorship, and inaccurate references.
The few publications that have discussed research ethics within the field of counseling cover the topic minimally or have focused only on specific issues, such as informed consent (e.g., Corey, Corey, & Callanan, 2003; Houser, 1998; Robinson & Gross, 1986), with a lack of attention regarding other ethical issues surrounding research such as data management, data collection and analysis, publication and authorship, and reporting results of research. Not only is there a lack of literature that focuses on research integrity in the counseling profession but there is also a scarcity of empirical research that examines research misconduct or QRPs in counseling. According to Steneck (2003), very little has been done to examine the prevalence of research misconduct within the social and behavioral sciences, in general. However, this does not mean that research misconduct, QRPs, and the lack of research integrity, do not exist. Overall, it has been found that QRPs are not uncommon. Results from the highly controversial Acadia survey suggested 44% of students and 50% of faculty reported having been exposed to at least one case of each of two types of misconduct (Shafir & Kennedy, 1998). Although overstated, these results do speak to a problem in the research community.
Even though notorious cases of research misconduct have not been announced throughout the field of counseling education, it does not mean that the profession is exempt from QRPs or research misconduct. Steneck (2003) suggested that, on the whole, occurrences of QRPs (e.g., statistical errors, improper authorship, duplicate publications, and sloppy research) range from around 10% to 40%. He reported that every form of questionable research practice runs counter to well-established rules, which ultimately compromises research. Moreover, QRPs are undoubtedly more prevalent than outright research misconduct such as fabrication, falsification, and plagiarism, and consequently can actually be more damaging to the research community than the more serious and easily identifiable misconduct itself (Alberts & Shine, 1994). For example, once an article is published with inaccurate information or statistical errors, it is difficult to remove this publication from the research literature. Even if a retraction of the article is printed, other researchers continue to cite the inaccurate information in their own research and publications.
It is imperative that an examination is begun of the prevalence of QRPs and that knowledge surrounding research ethics and integrity is expanded to address the needs of the profession, especially if counselor educators and counselors are to continue using research findings to influence practice in educating students and counseling clients. Therefore, one of the purposes of the current study was to explore the occurrence of QRPs among professionals in the field of counseling.
* Possible Correlates of QRPs
There are numerous opinions in the literature that mental or emotional disorders underlie at least some instances of research misconduct and QRPs (e.g., Frankel, 1994; Weed, 1998). Implicit in such a conjecture is the question, What scientists in their right mind would purposely fudge data or plagiarize? Researchers have proposed a variety of individual and personal characteristics, including emotional disturbances (Broad & Wade, 1982); psychiatric illnesses (Royal College of Physicians, 1991); and ego, vanity, and narcissism (Mumford, Connelly, Helton, Strange, & Osburn, 2001). In an effort to identify individual characteristics related to unethical acts, Mumford and Helton (2002) conducted an extensive review of clinical, social-personality, management ethics, and criminological literature. Narcissism emerged as one of the seven characteristics related to socially destructive, unethical behavior. Relatedly, Campbell, Reeder, Sedikides, and Elliot (2000) conducted several studies and reported that narcissists frequently engage in self-enhancing behavior. The authors confirmed earlier findings that associated self-enhancement with self-destructive behavior, such as competitiveness and hostility.
Thus, engaging in research misconduct would be deemed as one of the more extreme forms of attaining self-enhancement. Where a premium is placed on evidence of scholarly productivity, narcissists may take ethical shortcuts in an effort to self-enhance or as a result of their sense of entitlement. Such behavior is ultimately self-destructive inasmuch as those found guilty of research misconduct often lose their jobs or otherwise damage their careers (Zuckerman, 1977). Using the threatened egotism hypothesis (Baumeister, Bushman, & Campbell, 2000; Baumeister, Smart, & Boden, 1996; Bushman & Baumeister, 1998; Bushman, Bonacci, van Dijk, & Baumeister, 2003), one can posit that narcissists in academia may be more likely to engage in some of the more indirect forms of aggression as outlined by Salmivalli (2001). In scientific research, these might include the falsification of data or credentials, or plagiarism.
In response to the increasing interest in research misconduct and QRPs, universities and other research institutions receiving Federal research money have been forced to formally address what is now referred to as the "responsible conduct of research." One problem with current efforts to educate researchers about the responsible conduct of research is that the pathways are not yet known through which researchers become irresponsible by engaging in misconduct. Do disordered individuals enter scientific careers and later decide to break science's code of ethics, or do psychologically healthy individuals who are familiar with science's norms engage in misconduct only after succumbing to structural, organizational, or situational pressures? Is it possible that there are multiple pathways to an instance of scientific misconduct? Davis (2003) proposed theorizing...
|
