erika löfström ethics in doctoral supervision what is it ... · education at the university of...

Kasvatustieteellinen tiedekunta

ETHICS IN DOCTORAL SUPERVISION

– WHAT IS IT AND HOW DOES IT MATTER?

ETHZ DOCTORAL SUPERVISION SYMPOSIUMJANUARY 24-25, 2019

1/26/2019

Erika Löfström

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rU232NPDVtQ&list=PL89BA3B68F463D809&index=1&feature=plpp_video


CONTENTS

- What’s an ethical dilemma in supervision?

- Why should we care about ethical aspects in

supervision?

- How can we handle the ethics of supervision?

1/26/2019


• Supervision is activity nested in the research community;

it is rooted within various contexts of a scholarly

community (Pyhältö et al., 2012).

• Supervision is one of the central determinants of doctoral

experience. It contributes to degree completion, time to

candidacy, student well-being and satisfaction, and

competence development (Meyer et al., 2005; Case, 2008;

Pyhältö et al., 2011)

• A variety of factors – social, contextual AND ETHICAL - may

affect how a supervision relationship plays out (Pyhältö et al.,

2011; Löfström & Pyhältö, 2012)

26.1.20193

SUPERVISION - A COLLECTIVE AND NESTED ENTERPRISE


ETHICS IN SUPERVISION

• Ethical issues in supervision may become ethical problems.

• These include:

• inadequate supervision

• abandonment

• intrusion of supervisor views and values

• abuse

• exploitation

• dual relationships

• encouragement to fraud

• authorship issues

(Goodyear, Crego, & Johnston, 1992; Mahmud & Bretag, 2013)


WHAT’S AN ETHICAL DILEMMA IN SUPERVISION?

• A situation or circumstance that puts at stake or compromises

values that are fundamental to ourselves or to the academic

community

• Know your values

• Relate them to those generally associated with scientific ethics

• Not all dilemmas are primarily ethical in nature, e.g. can be

methodological, legal etc.

1/26/2019


ETHICAL PRINCIPLES IN RESEARCH

Respect for autonomy

• Respecting the right of individuals to make choices regarding theirown lives

Doing no harm (non maleficence)

• Avoiding harm, mostly psychological or social

Benefiting others (beneficence),

• Contributing to the well-being of others

Being just (justice)

• Being fair and objective, respecting equality

Being faithful (fidelity)

• Keeping promises, being honest and truthful

(Kitchener, 1985; Kitchener, 2000)

1/26/2019


http://www.allea.org/allea-

publishes-revised-edition-

european-code-conduct-

research-integrity/

World Conference on

Research Integrity:

- Singapore Statement 2010

- Montreal Statement 2013

26.1.20197

http://www.allea.org/allea-publishes-revised-edition-european-code-conduct-research-integrity/


BREACHES OF ETHICAL PRINCIPLESAND THEIR MANIFESTATION IN PRACTICE

Principle at stake Ethical issues

Avoiding harm Exploitation and abuse, dual relationships

Beneficence Lack of competence, inadequacy of support,

blurred boundaries of supervisor role

Respect for autonomy Intrusion of supervisor views and values, failure

to support students’ independence

Fidelity Supervision abandonment, failure to provide

supervision

Justice Inequity, unfair treatment

(Löfström & Pyhältö 2012)


SUPERVISORS AND PHD STUDENTS EXPERIENCE ETHICS DIFFERENTLY

Supervisors PhD students

f (%) f (%)

Non-maleficence 29 (53) 17 (17)

Beneficence 12 (21) 35 (34)

Autonomy 5 (9) 12 (12)

Fidelity 7 (13) 26 (25)

Justice 2 (4) 12 (12)

Total 55 (100) 102 (100)

(χ²(4, 42) = 23.375, p < .000)

Natural and social sc. (Löfström & Pyhältö, 2015)

1/26/2019


SUPERVISORS AND PHD STUDENTS EXPERIENCE ETHICS DIFFERENTLY

• Differences in expectations of what supervision should

focus on.

• Fit between doctoral students and supervisors perceptions about

supervision contributes to student satisfaction with their supervision

and studies (Pyhältö, Vekkaila & Keskinen, 2012; 2014).

• The expectations of supervisors and doctoral students

clash in ways that potentially could cause

misunderstandings and discouraging experiences,

eventually conceptualized as ethical challenges and

problems by the PhD student, if not handled

adequately early enough (Löfström & Pyhältö, 2017).

1/26/2019


WHAT DATA FROM NATURAL SCIENCES SUGGEST:

• Ethical issues manifested primarily as supervisors’ concern for

project management and doctoral students as workers. The

supervisors found themselves juggling numerous commitments

and responsibilities as project leaders and employers of Ph.D.

students and other staff.

• The doctoral students, however, hoped for and expected their

supervisors to be concerned about them as persons in both

personal and work-related ways.

• Also more experiences of exploitation compared to soc.sc., likely

because of the way of working around, sometimes multiple,

projects with sometimes undefined tasks, expectations and

supervisory roles.

(Löfström & Pyhältö, 2015)

1/26/2019


ETHICAL LEADERSHIPDILEMMA MODEL

• Authority and distance: being approachable, while

maintaining a necessary distance

• Cultivating a relationship, but not too deep and private

• Considering what is in the interest of the team or group

(of doctoral students) while attending to indvidual needs

(Colnerud, 2017)

• Direct instruction versus letting the Ph.D. student figure

things out

1/26/2019


WHY SHOULD WE CARE ABOUT ETHICAL ASPECTS IN SUPERVISION?

• Supervision is rooted in context of a scholarly community (Pyhältö et al. 2011). In the supervisory relationship, PhD students learn disciplinary traditions, practices, cultures, and norms, including ethical codes, norms, and practices of how the research community deals with ethical issues (Kitchener, 1992).

• The supervisory relationship provides a context, not only for developing students’ academic expertise, but also for developing ethical awareness and learning ethical problem-solving.

• Most students learn ethical standards of conduct from their supervisors and other seniors (Anderson et al., 1994; Goodyear et al., 1992; Alfredo & Hart, 2011; Löfström, Trotman, Furnari & Shephard, 2015)

• Researchers not well integrated into the research community apply more often ethically poor practices (e.g. True et al., 2011)

• But also students who collaborate most closely with faculty are most frequently exposed to unethical behavior (Anderson et al., 1994).

1/26/2019


THE EVIDENCE

Ethical Issues in Supervision Scales

• Based on a set of qualitative studies (Löfström & Pyhältö, 2012;

2014; 2015; 2017), in which ethical issues in doctoral supervision

were categorised according to five ethical principles (cf. Kitchener

1985; 2000)

Doctoral Study Survey (Pyhältö, Stubb & Tuomainen, 2011)

• Burnout (exhaustion, cynicism and inadequacy), 11 items

• Engagement (energy, dedication, and absorption, 9 items

(developed based on Schaufeli et al., 2002; Maslach et al., 2001)

• Satisfaction with a) doctoral studies, b) supervision

• Attrition intentions

N = 236

1/26/2019


ETHICAL ASPECTS IN SUPERVISION MATTER TO PH.D. STUDENTS (LÖFSTRÖM & PYHÄLTÖ, 2017)

1/26/2019


HOW DO THE ETHICS MATTER? - THE MECHANISM

• We know from prior research that both emotions and dynamics in

the educational environment are important factors in the study

experience (e.g. Pekrun, Goetz, & Frenzel, 2007; Golde, 2005;

Pyhältö, Vekkaila, & Keskinen, 2012).

• Ethics of supervision contribute to the Ph.D. students’ experiences,

and most importantly, they do so in different ways:

‒ supporting or breaching certain ethical principles contribute

through an affective domain (autonomy, beneficence)

‒ while some through the perceived person-learning

environment fit (non-maleficence, fidelity, justice)

1/26/2019


HOW TO DEAL WITH ETHICAL DILEMMAS AS A SUPERVISOR?

• Recognise the ethical issue

o Which fundamental value/principle does the situation jeopardize?

• Understand different perspectives

o How might the situation look like from the PhD students perspective?

• Understand the expectations and needs of the PhD student

o What do students expect/ need? How does that fit with the structure and

support offered?

• Find colleagues with whom you can discuss the issue

o What are the additional perspectives or lenses through which we might

consider an ethical issue?

1/26/2019


HOW TO DEAL WITH ETHICAL DILEMMAS IN SUPERVISION AS A RESEARCH COMMUNITY?

• Understanding ethics and integrity in a systemic perspective (ethicalclimate, cultures around ethics and integrity) (e.g. Bertram Gallant & Kalichman, 2011)

o Identifying the community’s fundamental values and how they are reflected in the discourses, norms, leadership and cultures in supervision

o Introducing ethics as part of the culture and discourse; Safe to talk aboutethical issues?

o Recognise that the research community has a responsibility for ethics; Neither supervision nor ethics are individual matters

• Adopting a proactive approach to ethics

o Spaces for discussing supervision and sharing experiences of supervision practices and dilemmas

o Recognition of different supervision practices and dilemmas is a bufferagainst group think

o Training (rules are not enough if values discussion is missing)

1/26/2019


OUR RESOURCES

• Supervision of doctoral dissertations and their review process in

Finland with a special emphasis on research integrity.

Recommendations to universities. Finnish Advisory Board on

Research Integrity and Universities Finland UNIFI. (2017).

https://www.tenk.fi/en/tenk-guidelines

• Agreeing on authorship. Recommendation for research

publications (2018). Finnish National Board on Research

Integrity. https://www.tenk.fi/en/tenk-guidelines

• Responsible Research. (2018). Finnish Advisory Board on

Research Integrity & Board for Public Information.

https://www.vastuullinentiede.fi/en

• Ethical principles of teaching and studies at the University of

Helsinki. https://www.helsinki.fi/en/university/ethical-principles-of-

studying-and-teaching

1/26/2019


http://www.tenk.fi/sites/tenk.fi/files/TENK_suositus_tekijyys.pdf


https://www.vastuullinentiede.fi/en

https://www.helsinki.fi/en/university/ethical-principles-of-studying-and-teaching


References

Alfredo, K., & Hart, H. (2011). The university and the responsible conduct of research: Who is responsible for what? Science and Engineering Ethics, 17, 447-457.

Anderson, M. S., Louis, K. S., & Earle, J. (1994). Disciplinary and departmental effects on observations of faculty and graduate student misconduct. Journal of Higher Education, 65, 331-350.

Bertram Gallant, T. & Kalichman, M. (2011). Academic Ethics. A systems approach to understanding misconduct and empowering change in the Academy. In In T. Bertram Gallant. (Ed.) Creating the Ethical Academy. A systems approach to understanding misconduct and empowering chane in Higher Education (pp. 27-44). New York, NY: Routledge.

Case, J. (2008). Alienation and engagement: Development of an alternative theoretical framework for understanding student learning. Higher Education 55 (3): 321–332.

Colnerud, G. (2017). Läraryrkets etik och värdepedagogiska praktik (The ethics and value pedagogical foundation of the teaching profession). Stockholm. Liber.

Golde, C. M. (2005). The Role of the Department and Discipline in Doctoral Student Attrition: Lessons from four Departments. Journal of Higher Education 76 (6): 669–700.

Goodyear, R. K., Crego, C. A. & Johnston, M W. (1992). Ethical issues in the supervision of student research: A study of critical incidents. Professional Psychology: Research and Practice 23 (3): 203–210.

1/26/2019


References

Kitchener, K. S. (1985). Ethical principles and ethical decisions in student affairs. In New directions for student services: Applied ethics in student services edited by H. J. Canon and R. D. Brown, 17–29. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Kitchener, K. S. (2000). Foundations of ethical practice, Research, and Teaching in Psychology. Lawrence Erlbaum.

Löfström, E., & Pyhältö, K. (2012). The supervisory relationship as an arena for ethical problem-solving. Education Research International, Article ID 961505.

Löfström, E., & Pyhältö, K. (2014). Ethical issues in doctoral supervision. The perspectives of PhD students in the natural and behavioural sciences. Ethics & Behavior 24 (3): 195–214.

Löfström, E., & Pyhältö, K. (2015). “I don’t even have time to be their friend!” Ethical dilemmas in PhD supervision in hard sciences. International Journal of Science Education 37 (16): 2721–2739.

Löfström, E. & Pyhältö, K. (2017). Ethics in the supervisory relationship: supervisors’ and doctoral students’ dilemmas in the natural and behavioural sciences. Studies in Higher Education, 42(2), 232-247.

Löfström, E. & Pyhältö, K. (2017). What are ethics in doctoral supervision, and how do they matter? Presented at European Association for Research on Learning and Instruction Conference in Tampere August 29-September 2.

Löfström, E., Trotman, T., Furnari, M. & Shephard, K. (2015). Who teaches academic integrity and how do they do it? Higher Education, 69(3), 435-448.

1/26/2019


References

Maslach, C., Schaufeli, W. B., & Leiter, M. P. (2001). Job burnout. Annual Review of Psychology 52 (1): 397–422.

Meyer, J. H. F., Shanahan, M. P. & Laugksch, R. C. (2005). Students’ conceptions of research. I: A qualitative and quantitative analysis. Scandinavian Journal of Educational Research 49 (3): 225–244.

Mustajoki, H. & Mustajoki, A. (2017). A New Approach to Research Ethics. Using guided dialogue to strengthen research communities. Routledge.

Pekrun, R., Goetz, T., & Frenzel, A. C. (2007). Perceived learning environment and students' emotional experiences: A multilevel analysis of mathematics classrooms. Learning and Instruction 17 (5): 478–493.

Pyhältö, K., Stubb, J., & Tuomainen, J. (2011). International evaluation of research and doctoral education at the University of Helsinki – To the top and out to society. Summary report on doctoral students’ and principal investigators’ doctoral training experiences. University of Helsinki.

Pyhältö, K., Vekkaila, J., & Keskinen, J. (2012). Exploring the fit between doctoral students’ and supervisors’ perceptions of resources and challenges vis-á-vis the doctoral journey. International Journal of Doctoral Studies 7: 395–414.

Schaufeli, W. B., Martinez, I., Pinto, A. M., Salanova, M. & Bakker, A. (2002). Burnout and engagement in university students: A cross-national study. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology 33 (5): 464–481.

True, G., Alexander, L. B. & Richman, K. A. (2011). “Misbehaviors of Front-Line Research

Personnel and the Integrity of Community-Based Research.” Journal of Empirical Research

on Human Research Ethics 6: 3–12.1/26/2019


Thank you for your attention

[email protected]

The research has been funded by the Academy of Finland and the

University of Helsinki

mailto:[email protected]

erika löfström ethics in doctoral supervision what is it ... · education at the university of...

Documents