Search for: All records

Abstract Efforts to promote responsible conduct of research (RCR) should take into consideration how scientists already conceptualize the relationship between ethics and science. In this study, we investigated how scientists relate ethics and science by analyzing the values expressed in interviews with fifteen science faculty members at a large midwestern university. We identified the values the scientists appealed to when discussing research ethics, how explicitly they related their values to ethics, and the relationships between the values they appealed to. We found that the scientists in our study appealed to epistemic and ethical values with about the same frequency, and much more often than any other type of value. We also found that they explicitly associated epistemic values with ethical values. Participants were more likely to describe epistemic and ethical values as supporting each other, rather than trading off with each other. This suggests that many scientists already have a sophisticated understanding of the relationship between ethics and science, which may be an important resource for RCR training interventions. 

Researchers across all scientific disciplines routinely face ethical decisions in their work, from addressing conflicts of interest to deciding whether and how to make data available for reproducibility. To help strengthen their ethical reasoning skills, they are encouraged to take online training programs like the CITI program. Ethics training is insufficient for improving ethical behavior. Better understanding of how scientists make decisions and reason about ethics is needed. To develop that understanding, we need expanded, asset-based measures of ethical reasoning that can be applied to open-ended responses and discussions. As part of a year-long intervention on a group of fifteen scientists' value-based reasoning, we conducted pre/post interviews that included open-ended questions about ethical scenarios. For this paper, we explore an application of three theories of ethical and stakeholder reasoning to those answers, and determine that we can use them to examine quality, principles, and subjects of their reasoning in open responses. 

Research based assessments have a productive and storied history in PER. While useful for conducting research on student learning, their utility is limited for instructors interested in improving their own courses. We have developed a new assessment design process that leverages three-dimensional learning, evidence-centered design, and self-regulated learning to deliver actionable feedback to instructors about supporting their students' learning. We are using this approach to design the Thermal and Statistical Physics Assessment (TaSPA), which also allows instructors to choose learning goals that align with their teaching. Perhaps more importantly, this system will be completely automated when it is completed, making the assessment scalable with minimal burden on instructors and researchers. This work represents an advancement in how we assess physics learning at a large scale and how the PER community can better support physics instructors and students.