Privileged Logics 2024 Conference: Highlights from a Research Ethics Workshop

 

At the Privileged Logics 2024 Conference, various participants shared what was being done at their institutions regarding research ethics. Training ranged from nothing and bare minimum CITI modules focused on compliance for those with federally funded grants, to monthly town halls and resources provided across campus. Some included weekly face-to-face trainings to supplement CITI required courses for all researchers, whether or not they are federally funded. The most comprehensive program resulted from disciplinary action by a federal granting agency.

Examples of research ethics topics most directly related to privilege included sexual harassment and Indigenous student mentoring. But there was wide agreement that the orientation to understanding and addressing privilege was largely absent from most institutional training.

A narrow focus on research integrity ignores the social benefits of research and equity and generally leads to rather superficial topics and a focus on compliance. The emphasis on 'sins' of commission versus omission is also rooted in a liability attitude.

Participants thought historical background and the case study method were valuable if done right, but they had also seen ineffective uses of such strategies. Other problems included pushback from privileged professors who think they don’t need or have time for RCR training. Disregard for research impacts was linked to a “pure science” philosophy (though participants noted that caring about impacts and caring about pure science are not mutually exclusive). 

Suggestions for improving RCR training included:

• Becoming more transparent about the origins of research ethics training in harms to marginalized communities
• Emphasizing cultural humility in instruction regarding historical background
• Higlighting how these problems are still relevant for institutions

For assessment, this group liked the idea of a pre-test using a qualitative approach to test changing language and attitudes about topics such as "what is evidence?"

There was a desire to move beyond online-only experiences such as CITI to at least supplement those trainings with in-person learning community meetings. For example, you can’t move on to the next CITI module until/unless you attend an in-person learning community meeting to process/reflect on that module. These kinds of interventions also could take the form of internal conferences inside labs to discuss good lab practices. This group also thought it was important for researchers to attend “booster” F2F meetings on an annual basis.