Curricular Approaches in Research Ethics Education: Reflecting on More and Less Effective Practices in Instructional Content

ABSTRACT

Over the past decade, the effectiveness of ethics education programs has increased with regard to trainee outcomes, such as knowledge, awareness, and ethical decision making. However, despite the overall improvement in training effectiveness, considerable variability still exists across programs. One potential source of variability arises from the substantial range in instructional training content utilized across ethics training courses. The goal of the present effort was to clarify which approaches in ethics education result in positive training outcomes through the identification of instructional content themes. Through a qualitative review of ethics training courses, we identified key themes in instructional content curriculum associated with effective courses: domain-general, domain-specific, standard compliance, professionalism, and process-based. In addition, we identified key themes associated with less effective courses: mixed-specificity, narrow coverage, and idealized ethics. Descriptions and key characteristics of each theme along with example courses are provided. Implications of the content themes for ethics education are discussed.

KEYWORDS:

• Ethics
• ethics content
• ethics education
• ethics training
• instructional content
• responsible conduct of research

Acknowledgments

We would like to thank Kelsey Medeiros, Logan Steele, Alison Antes, Jason Borenstein, Jeffrey Engler, Michael Kalichman, Brian Martinson, and Michael Verderame for their contributions to the present effort.

Funding

This research was supported by grant number ORIIR140010-01-00 from the Office of Research Integrity. The contents of this publication are solely the responsibility of the authors and do not necessarily represent the official views of the Office of Research Integrity.

Additional information

Funding

This research was supported by grant number ORIIR140010-01-00 from the Office of Research Integrity. The contents of this publication are solely the responsibility of the authors and do not necessarily represent the official views of the Office of Research Integrity.