professor frederick k.s. leung director of education and …. monday may... · 2017-06-22 · aims...

5th World Conference on Research Integrity

May 28 – 31, 2017, Amsterdam

Professor Frederick K.S. Leung Director of Education and Development for Research Integrity The University of Hong Kong

“Research Integrity is the central and guiding principle for all the University’s scholarly activities”

Research Ethics course for Graduate Students:

Compulsory for all MPhil and PhD students to complete within the first 1-1.5 years of study

5 Faculty-based courses to select from

12 hours including lecture and in‐class, case‐based discussion

Students learn essential vocabulary, principles, and practices conducive to the promotion of RI in general and in their relevant disciplines

Aims of the survey

1. To evaluate first- and second-year research postgraduate students’ attitude towards and knowledge about research integrity; and

2. Whether there is any change in their attitude and awareness after taking the compulsory Research Ethics course in 2016/17

The anonymized survey questionnaire is divided into 2 parts

Part I (completed at the first/second lesson of the course)

Students state their name/alias on the first page

Students spend 5-10 minutes to complete Part I (they may choose to terminate the survey at any time without negative consequence

Part II (completed at the last/second to last lesson of the course)

Students locate their own questionnaire and continue with Part II

1st page with name/alias will be removed when the form is completed

Data analysis (only done after completion of the whole questionnaire; all collected information remained strictly confidential, and access to the data was permitted

only by the Principal Investigator and his designates)

Same questions asked in Part I to find out if there is any change in attitude and awareness after the Research Ethics course

Additional question asked in Part II

Additional question asked in Part II

Same question asked in Part I

Target Faculty group Course code No. of

enrollment

No. of

questionnaires

completed

(Part I)

No. of

questionnaires

completed

(Part I & II)

Response rate

(Part I & II)

Business & Economics,

Education, Law and

Social Sciences

GRSC6029A 89 55 33 37%

GRSC6029B 63 47 38 60%

Arts and Architecture GRSC6030A 61 43 27 44%

Dentistry and Medicine GRSC6031A 185 165 86 46%

Science

GRSC6033A 88 74 54 61%

GRSC6033B 37 22 15 41%

Engineering GRSC6032A 150 27 0 0%

Total 673 433 253 38%

Gender

Male Female

207

(48%) 226

(52%)

1 (0%)

44 (10%)

96 (22%)

159 (37%)

4 (1%)

27 (6%)

39 (9%)

6 (1%)

11 (3%)

31 (7%)

15 (4%)

0 50 100 150 200

Independent Centre

Social Sciences

Science

Medicine

Law

Engineering

Education

Dentistry

Business & Economics

Arts

Architecture

151

(35%) 282

(65%)

MPhil

PhD

Programme

Faculty

379

(88%)

26

(6%)

3

(1%)

25

(6%)

0 100 200 300 400

1st year

2nd year

3rd year

4th year

Year of Study

136

(54%)

117

(46%)

Male Female0 (0%)

27 (11%)

69 (27%)

83 (33%)

3 (1%)

0 (0%)

28 (11%)

3 (1%)

10 (4%)

20 (8%)

10 (4%)

0 20 40 60 80 100

Independent Centre

Social Sciences

Science

Medicine

Law

Engineering

Education

Dentistry

Business & Economics

Arts

Architecture

Faculty

82

(32%) 171

(68%)

MPhil

PhD

Programme

230

(91%)

8

(3%)

1

(0%)

14

(6%)

0 100 200 300

1st year

2nd year

3rd year

4th year

Year of Study

Gender

3,26

3,15

2,98

2,59

3.42

2.95

2,82

2,31

2 2,2 2,4 2,6 2,8 3 3,2 3,4 3,6

Responsible conduct of research

Publication-related conduct

Care and safety of all human research subjects

Care and safety of all animal research subjects

Proper handling of research data

Disclosure of conflict of interest

Ethics approval process

How to report irresponsible research practice

How familiar are you with the following concepts of

research integrity? (n = 433) – 1st Lesson

Not at all familiar/Not applicable

Slightly familiar

Moderately familiar

Very familiar

Extremely familiar

1 2 3 4 5

Mean score

Score assigned to the 5-point likert scale:

4,28

4,31

4,11

3,75

4,34

4,04

4,06

3,96

3,5 3,7 3,9 4,1 4,3 4,5









How important are the following issues to you

personally? (n = 433) – 1st Lesson

Not important

Rather important

Neutral Quite important

Very important

1 2 3 4 5

Mean score


3,3

3,22

2,94

2,49

3,45

2,91

2,74

2,28

3,91

3,91

3,72

3,53

4,06

3.95

3,83

3,71

2 2,5 3 3,5 4









How familiar are you with the following

concepts of research integrity? (n = 253 )

Mean score of

Last lesson

Mean score of

1st lesson

Mean score Not at all familiar/Not applicable

Slightly familiar

Moderately familiar

Very familiar

Extremely familiar

1 2 3 4 5


4,36

4,38

4,12

3.75

4,49

4,08

4,08

4,02

4,42

4,45

4,17

3,91

4,51

4,38

4.32

4,26

3,6 3,7 3,8 3,9 4 4,1 4,2 4,3 4,4 4,5 4,6










personally? (n = 253)

Mean score

Mean score of

Last lesson

Mean score of

1st lesson

Not important

Rather important


Very important

1 2 3 4 5


2.72

2,81

2,49

2.20

2,94

2,62

2.77

2.46

2 2,1 2,2 2,3 2,4 2,5 2,6 2,7 2,8 2,9 3









Have you discussed the following issues with your

supervisor since you joined this University as a research

postgraduate student? (n = 253) – Last lesson

Not at all/Not applicable

Briefly In some depth

In great depth

1 2 3 4

Mean score Score assigned to the 4-point likert scale:

1,58%

1,19%

1,58%

0,79%

1,98%

1,58%

1,19%

1,58%

1,58%

1,98%

1,19%

3,95%

3,95%

5,53%

2,37%

7,11%

3,95%

2,77%

4,74%

5,14%

5,14%

7,11%

28,06%

32,81%

27,27%

30,04%

36,76%

32,81%

35,97%

38,34%

41,11%

44,27%

49,41%

66,40%

62,45%

66,01%

67,19%

55,34%

61,66%

60,47%

55,73%

52,57%

49,01%

42,29%

-10% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70%

Breaching of the relevant laws, or safety and health

guidelines

Infringement of another person's copyright, patents,

trade-marks, computer software etc

Non-compliance with conditions of ethical approval

Non-disclosure of potential conflict of interest

Improper ascription of authorship

Unauthorised use of data

Unethical collection of data

Falsification of data

Fabrication of data

Self-plagiarism

Plagiarism

I heard about it

I have been a witness

I have been involved

Since you joined this University as a research postgraduate student, did you come across

the following forms of questionable research practices/research misconduct? (n = 253)

I have not heard about it

No

96

(38%)

No

67

(26%)

Yes

157

(62%)

Yes

186

(74%)

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Part 1 Part 2

Are you aware of any trusted person in the Department

/Faculty/ University whom you can currently approach

for counsel concerning research misconduct? (n = 253)

Paired Samples T-test

t df Sig. (2-tailed)

How familiar are you with the

following concepts of research

integrity?

-17.190 252 .000

How important are the following

issues to you personally? -3.647 252 .000

1. There is a significant difference before the course and after the course (p<0.001).

Comparison between STEM vs Non-STEM Faculties

10

(10%)

20

(20%)

10

(10%) 28

(29%)

3

(3%)

27

(28%)

Architecture Arts

Business & Economics Education

Law Social Sciences

Non-STEM Faculties (n=98) STEM Faculties (n=155)

3 (2%)

83

(54%) 69

(44%)

Dentistry Medicine

Science

3,34

3,32

2,9

2,75

3,61

3,02

2,75

2,4

3,24

3,05

2,99

2,08

3,19

2,72

2,7

2,1

1,8 2 2,2 2,4 2,6 2,8 3 3,2 3,4 3,6 3,8










research integrity? (n = 98 for non-STEM students; n

= 155 for STEM students) – 1st Lesson

Not at all

familiar/Not

applicable

Slightly

familiar

Moderately

familiar

Very familiar Extremely

familiar

1 2 3 4 5

Mean score of Non-STEM students Mean score of STEM students Score assigned to the 5-point likert scale:

Mean score

4,35

4,39

4,05

3,97

4,58

4,01

4,06

4,01

4,36

4,37

4,23

3,44

4,36

4,18

4,11

4,03

3,3 3,5 3,7 3,9 4,1 4,3 4,5










personally? (n = 98 for non-STEM students; n =

155 for STEM students) – 1st Lesson

Not important

Rather important


Very important

1 2 3 4 5

Mean score


Mean score of Non-STEM students Mean score of STEM students

3,91

3,94

3,66

3,75

4,08

3,9

3,85

3,77

3,9

3,85

3,81

3,17

4,01

4,03

3,81

3,6

3 3,2 3,4 3,6 3,8 4 4,2










research integrity? (n = 98 for non-STEM students;

n = 155 for STEM students) – Last lesson

Not at all

familiar/Not

applicable

Slightly

familiar

Moderately

familiar

Very familiar Extremely

familiar

1 2 3 4 5

Mean score

Mean score of Non-STEM students Mean score of STEM students Score assigned to the 5-point likert scale:

4,39

4,45

4,09

4,12

4,52

4,33

4,27

4,23

4,47

4,46

4,3

3,58

4,49

4,47

4,38

4,3

3,4 3,6 3,8 4 4,2 4,4 4,6










personally? (n = 98 for non-STEM students; n =

155 for STEM students) – Last lesson

Not important

Rather important


Very important

1 2 3 4 5


Mean score


2,82

2,92

2,58

2,56

3,13

2,75

2,81

2,7

2,53

2,65

2,34

1,62

2,65

2,41

2,76

2,09

1,4 1,6 1,8 2 2,2 2,4 2,6 2,8 3 3,2 3,4









Have your discussed the following issues with your

supervisor since you joined this University as a research

postgraduate student? (n = 98 for non-STEM students;

n = 155 for STEM students) – Last lesson

Not at all/Not applicable

Briefly In some depth

In great depth

1 2 3 4


Mean score


The T-test analysis shows that: 2. There is no significant difference between STEM and non-STEM students (p>0.05) regarding their towards research integrity.

1. At the 1st lesson, most students rated the RI issues as quite important to very important (mean score between 4 and 5); but there was a lack of understanding on these concepts – from slightly to moderately familiar (mean score between 2 and 3)

2. Most students’ understanding on RI concepts has significantly improved after taking the course, all mean scores are close to 4 (very familiar)

3. Most supervisors have briefly discussed/ discussed in some depths on RI issues with RPg students in the 1st year

4. A small portion of students (around 5–10%) have witnessed/been involved in questionable research practices/research misconduct

5. More than half of the students are aware of trusted person in the Department/ Faculty/ University whom they can approach for counsel concerning research misconduct

6. No significant difference is observed from the responses of the STEM and non-STEM students

As Part II of the questionnaire was completed at the last/second to last lesson after students completed another questionnaire on Student Evaluation of Teaching and Learning (SETL), students might experience questionnaire fatigue, which might lead to lower response rate

Respondents may make rush decisions as the questionnaire was conducted toward the end of the lesson

As the Research Ethics courses were conducted over 1 or 2 months only, the questionnaire only manages to analyse students’ change in attitude and knowledge on research integrity over a relatively short period of time

1. Encourage supervisors and departments to have better communication on RI concepts and issues with students, including how to report irresponsible research practices

2. Measure the change in attitudes and understanding on RI concepts over a longer time span (e.g. 1st year vs last year of study)

3. Invite other tertiary institutions to conduct the questionnaire, to get an overall picture of the situation in Hong Kong

My email address:

[email protected]

professor frederick k.s. leung director of education and …. monday may... · 2017-06-22 · aims...

Documents