Rather than wrapping up a team meeting with a standard question asking if anyone has queries, a professor from UT Arlington proposes a more proactive approach: asking attendees to consider potential pitfalls related to the discussed plan.
“This approach encourages participants to reflect on who might be adversely affected or if there are overlooked aspects of the project,” stated Logan Watts, an assistant professor of psychology at UT Arlington and the primary author of a recent study investigating ethical decision-making in group settings. “By doing this, team members can address potential challenges before they escalate into ethical concerns.”
Traditionally, research on ethical decision-making has centered around individual researchers. However, collaboration is the norm in research environments, and psychological studies indicate that individuals behave and think differently in team settings as opposed to working alone. Therefore, understanding the dynamics within teams is essential.
“The reliability of scientific research significantly relies on trust that researchers will adhere to ethical standards,” Watts noted, emphasizing that this trust can diminish swiftly when researchers engage in misconduct, such as data fabrication, plagiarism, failing to disclose conflicts of interest, or practicing substandard research methods that could harm others.
To gain deeper insights into ethical decision-making within teams, Watts collaborated with fellow psychology assistant professor Michelle MartÃn-Raugh and graduate students Sampoorna Nandi and Rylee Linhardt to interview scientists at a public research university about their encounters with ethical dilemmas in research.
After conducting interviews, the researchers transcribed and analyzed the data to identify recurring themes. A prominent issue highlighted was research misconduct, with 75% of participants indicating they had faced challenges related to data fabrication, falsifying results, or plagiarizing another researcher’s work.
The second most frequently reported ethical challenge involved the protection of human subjects. About 55% of researchers expressed having encountered situations where a team member failed to adhere to ethical standards affecting the rights and welfare of research participants. Participants reported that these situations could become uncomfortable, particularly if the unethical individual held more authority within the group.
Although this study served as an exploratory endeavor and requires further research for validation through experimental methods, Watts highlighted several strategies that might enhance ethical practices within teams. One notable suggestion is the introduction of an “ethical champion”—someone who helps ensure that the group avoids both deliberate and unintentional ethical lapses and serves as a role model for peers.
“Our research unveiled that in several teams, an individual naturally emerged as the ethical champion. This wasn’t an official title, but a person who actively advocated for ethical values and principles,” Watts remarked. “In certain groups, some members may become overly focused on achieving results without considering the ethical implications of their decisions or the potential harm to individuals. The ethical champion is the one who speaks up when they notice something concerning.”
Watts also underscored the importance of cultivating an atmosphere where every group member feels secure in expressing their concerns.
“It is vital for research teams to foster a culture of psychological safety so that those with less power feel encouraged to voice their thoughts,” Watts concluded.
