Ethics & Integrity

Assessment Academic Professional

Theo Wubbels on the 25th of October 2017 at 19:00 at the Educatorium in Theatron

Theo Wubbels is a former vice-dean at the faculty of Social Sciences of the University of Utrecht and a renowned Professor of education. How did he come to well-considered policymaking in the area of education? How did he combine his own insights as an academic on proper education with a reality that is not easy to change? Theo Wubbels will talk us through his own experience as board member, professor and policymaker on how to cope with corporate pressure and different interests and what this means for your position as an academic professional.

Theo started off with some dilemmas for us to think about. What is the right thing to do? Theo Wubbels stated that he endured different ethical dilemmas as an experienced researcher. According to Theo, taking all stakeholders into account when making decisions is the hardest part within a research process. He discussed the different forces that put pressure on him while he’s doing his research. These pressures come from colleagues, colleague universities, organizations, students, the ministry, university staff, scientific or scholarly authority (headmaster), executive boards, parents, members of parliament, media etcetera. Theo Wubbels really would like to bridge the gap between these academic, practical and professional worlds. Theo states that discussions about integrity, pressures, interests and boundaries don’t make life easy, but they create a nice playground. During his lecture, Theo often referred to the VSNU Code of Conduct for Academic Purpose in The Netherlands, in which the following principles are critical values in scientific integrity: 1) honesty and scrupulousness, 2) reliability, 3) verifiability, 4) impartiality (only academic interest), 5) independence and 6) responsibility. In the introduction of this code the autonomous setting (academic freedom) of researchers is presumed; however this assumption is complete bullshit! Every researcher should be independent indeed, nevertheless pressures coming from different parties make this difficult to realize. Pressure is not only directed to the researcher, it is also directed to respondents (students in this case). For example, is a university success rate of 50% allowed? No, because this isn’t the responsibility of the university alone, it is also dependent of the way teachers rate their students (sufficiently or not) and student performance. Another dilemma in education is the question of ‘criterion referenced assessment’ or ‘norm referenced assessment’. Because of different factors influencing the end result, it is hard to make the right decision combining pressures and perspectives. In conclusion, could we state that the code of conduct is useless then? No, the code of conduct states good principles, which can be used as proper guidelines, but we have to realize that there are always exceptions. The goldon tip of Theo that he gave at the end was:

“To resolve ethical issues regarding many pressures, you should talk about it.”

Sinan Cankaya on the 7th of March 2018 at 19:30 at the Educatorium in Theatron

Dr. Sinan Cankaya is a researcher in the public domain. When a scientific researcher has a strong personal commitment on the research subject, how should this be handled? Sinan Cankaya explained the difficulties that can emerge, but also the possibilities of such commitment. He discussed different choices and dilemmas that are part of the scientific practice. He spoke from his own experiences.

After a Cola Zero and a Pasta Bolognese in the canteen of the University, it was time for the last lecture of the year of Sinan Cankaya on the 7th of March from 19:30 till 21:00 in Theatron. I expected a lecture in which the engagement with research subjects was going to be discussed. How did Sinan, as part of the Amsterdam Police Force for five years now, prevented personal commitment to the research organization while he was doing research within this Police organization? I would like to quote him during his introduction in which he said:

“I became the subject of my own research.”

Due to this, he came across many ethical and methodological dilemmas. When a scientific researcher has a strong personal commitment on the research subject, how should this be handled? Sinan Cankaya explained the difficulties that can emerge, but also stated the possibilities of such commitment. He discussed different choices and dilemmas that are part of the scientific practice. Sinan did ethnographic fieldwork in the back of a police car for four hours one day. An escalation happened with some Moroccan guys about a parking issue of some cars. The police car drove away without Sinan! The police officer came back and picked him up with the apology “Sorry, we thought you were one of them”. Specific moments like this are constructed as an outsider. This story about inclusion, exclusion and racial profiling became his PhD Research. In this case, he became the subject of his own research. Sinan doesn’t believe that we, as academics, can live outside of social reality. Sinan as an empiricist is more in favor of the robust way of doing research, based on interviews and other research methodologies. Sinan introduced the concept 'public scholarship'. I scoured the internet for a good definition of 'public scholarship', and found that the term is so potentially confusing that universities have had to form committees just agree on just what they mean by this concept. Public scholarship means optimizing the extent to which University research informs and is informed by the public good, maximizes the generation and transfer of knowledge and technology, educates the public about what research the University does, and listens to the public about what research needs to be done. I’m really in favor of this concept. I did my graduation research as well as my internship in a realistic environment and from these experiences I noticed that science used to make socially applicable adjustments in society (in a public environment) is much more valuable than ‘just writing another scientific paper’. Because Sinan has Turkish parents, although he is born in Nijmegen, this led to the following accusation:

“his background was inherently blocking scientific objectivity.”

Researchers with an ethical minority background get these questions and accusations. Sinan is mad about this, because qualitative research is research about stories and anecdotes. He as a researcher with an ethical minority background can also be asked to share his own experiences and anecdotes. Different findings because of your identity as a researcher are logical because of YOUR unique point of view and your own personal experiences. This belongs in the constructive way of research! Everybody has to be included in an open dialogue. Gaining trust is essential in this matter.

Ethics in Research

Food for thought

The usefulness and uselessness of ethics in research made its appearance in the ethics lecture series within the course ‘Academic Professional’, which is one of the courses at Faculty level at the University of Utrecht. This series is specifically designed for all one year master’s programs at the Faculty of Social and Behavioral Sciences. These interdisciplinary lectures are an important part of my Master study in Education Sciences with regard to the recently increased awareness of ethical issues. I appreciate the possibility as a student to be able to question dilemmas about academic integrity that will (also) be relevant as an Academic Professional after graduation.

I attended the lectures of Theo Wubbels and Sinan Cankaya. Several ethical dilemmas were discussed during the lectures. I summarized the stories of Theo and Sinan (above) to be able to reflect on these stories and add meaning to them. I recognized many of the anecdotes, especially some of Sinan, in which dilemmas are developing in ‘real’ social situations while doing ‘formal’ and ‘scientific’ research, where different opinions of different parties could crash in the field of an academic professional. The pressures resulting from these predicaments cause the consideration of many stakeholders, which was the main topic of discussion during the lecture of Theo Wubbels. 

When I compare the opinions of Theo and Sinan to each other it’s rather interesting to see that Theo used a more general and sociological perspective and Sinan took a more individualistic perspective. There are differences between various disciplines such as psychology, sociology and education regarding these dilemmas. Everybody designs his or her own way acting professionally as a researcher. This could create a tension between the specific academic background of a researcher and the requirements of the field the research is conducted in. Personally, I can relate with this vision of Sinan, because I believe that, as he stated it, the researcher has to be the one in control over his or her own research (regardless of the opinions of some opponents). When I link these insights to my own personal experiences, I also endured the tension between corporate interests (as an employee) and different pressures during the conduction of my master thesis (as a master student doing a research project). It’s difficult to take everybody’s interest into account during a research process. I wrote my master thesis within an international corporate organization about internal learning opportunities for young professionals (e.g. graduates). To reflect on my expectations and my goals in comparison with the expectations and goals of the research organization, I tried to consider what this research would mean for both parties. Developing proper data management plans is a critical task within this process. I came to a well-considered decision to act professionally by taking a broader perspective, like a helicopter view. By doing this, my master thesis, which included the secure data storage, anonymity and bureaucratic decision making processes, gave more meaning in the ‘real world’ instead of adding something to ‘scientific literature’ only.

You could say that ethical dilemmas are more of a rule than an exception while doing research. This is the main lesson I learned during the lectures. I will translate these lessons to my future field of work, by linking the ethical dilemmas addressed in the lectures to my own experiences and insights (for instance from my internship in Barcelona). The thing is, you can’t learn from other people’s mistakes. On the contrary, you have to learn from your own experiences. However, being confronted with different stories about ethical issues gave me a different perspective. It’s not only about your own experiences to get some insights; it’s about following the correct research process and protocol to get insights from the experiences of your respondents. Moreover, it’s important to understand that deviations may be justified under particular circumstances. Everything is context related of course! Hopefully, the stories of Theo and Sinan helped me in building my own ethical compass to make the right (ethical) decisions in the future as an academic professional.

Jessica Meijer | 18-03-2018 | Published on: LinkedIn