Transcript INTEGRIDAD ACADEMICA UNOS APUNTES

INTEGRIDAD
ACADEMICA:
UNOS APUNTES
Halley D. Sanchez
UPRM
24 de enero de 2004
Integridad es una característica
esencial y determinante de una
institución de educación superior
Integridad va mucho mas allá de los
asuntos de plagio y de cometer trampa
• Adherencia a estádares éticos en general,
incluyendo
• justicia (“fairness)
• debido proceso de ley (due process)
• respeto a seres humanos
En adición al asunto de honestidad
académica, integridad incluye, por ejemplo:
• El derecho a consentimiento libre e informado
• Trato respetuoso
• Procesos justos e imparciales sobre tales asuntos
como
» contrataciones
» evaluaciones
» admisiciones
» despidos
» quejas (“grievance procedures”)
• Respeto para libertad intelectual y académica
Del manual de MSCHE
Standard 6 Integrity
In the conduct of its programs and
activities involving the public and the
constituencies it serves, the institution
demonstrates adherence to ethical
standards and its own stated policies,
providing support to academic and
intellectual freedom. (p. 18)
Algunos Hallazgos
• UPRM es una institución básicamente honesta
• Existe cierto disgusto entre los constituyentes
sobre varios asuntos o procedimientos
• contrataciones
• evaluación
• ascensos
• suficiencia de información sobre lo que se
espera del empleado (tanto docente como no
docente)
• información sobre proceso de registrar quejas
• como se ha trabajado con deshonestidad
académica
Resumen de datos – evaluación y ascenso
• 49.2 % de la facultad, 50% de los senadores electos y
26.9% de los directores respondieron en lo negativo a
la pregunta sobre la justicia (“fairness”) del proceso
de evaluación
• Cuatro de cinco de los decanos academicós opinaron
que el proceso de evaluació es anacrónico y
deficiente, y que necesita ser mejorado.
• 38.3% de la facultad y 33.3% de los senadores
electos respondieron en lo negativo sobre la justicia
del proceso de permanencia.
• 45.5% de la facultad y 33.3% de los senadores
electos responded en lo negativo conciernente a la
justicia (“fairness”) del proceso de ascenso.
De la encuesta de profesores
Fairness, respectfulness and
due process of
% yes % no % other or
n/a
Evaluation procedures
48.2
49.2
2.5
Tenure procedures
54.3
38.3
7.5
Promotion procedures
47.8
45.3
7
Discipline procedures
33.8
36.9
29.3
Grievance procedures
44
37
19
De la Enquesta de los Senadores Electos
Fairness, respectfulness and %
due process of
yes
Evaluation procedures
% no % other or
n/a
50
50
---
Tenure procedures
66.7
33.3
---
Promotion procedures
66.7
33.3
---
Discipline procedures
25
50
25
Grievance procedures
50
50
---
Opinión de Directores de Departamentos
Fairness, respectfulness
and due process of
evaluation, tenure,
promotion, discipline,
and grievance
procedures
%
yes
46.2
Somewhat/ %
hedged yes no
26.9
26.9
%
other
or
n/a
---
Algunos comentarios de Directores
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
not totally objective
instruments of evaluation are out of date
sometimes biased
evaluation modules used are not fair
better evaluation modules are required; current
modules need to be updated
should be more objective
modules are deficient; need to be improved.
evaluations are not conducted periodically as needed
forms need revising
• our evaluation procedures need to be revised to
put them up to date
• evaluation forms are obsolete and are in fact
impossible to use
• yes, in part, but there is a need to modify the
documents for evaluation, all needs to be more
clear, specific and more objective
• It is difficult to evaluate since there are no
standards set on the faculty requirements. No
specific tasks are assigned when faculty is
recruited for further evaluation.
• A nivel departamental se trata de que los
procedimientos sean lo más justos posibles. A
nivel institucional la inestabilidad
administrativa hace que los criterios y normas
se cambien dependiendo de la administración
de turno y las decisiones finales las toma la
Junta Administrativa, usando a menudo
criterios que son desconocidos para el
Departamento. Los módulos son demasiado
subjetivos y extensos, no miden la
productividad de los profesores.
• At the level of the Junta Administrativa, I
believe that the procedures and practices are
fair, and in accordance with due process and
respect for the individual. At the department
level the process leaves much to be desired
and at times it is unlikely that the respect of the
individual is taken into account. There is a
tendency towards the objectification of the
individual based on individual PC [personnel
committee] members subjectivity and the
ambiguous wording of the evaluation forms.
• It depends. Regulations are followed.
However, these regulations need to be updated.
They are past due of being revisited.
Unfortunately these norms were developed 20
years ago and the actual faculty priorities are
far distant from what are the typical priorities
for the faculty and the department. I feel there
is still a big gap providing formative instead of
punitive evaluations. For example there is no
way of providing rewards to those going far
beyond their expected loads and achievements.
• I believe in general these are fair and respectful.
However, the evaluation of faculty is very subjective
and based on criteria that hold equal weight when
faculties or departments might prefer more weight
given to some criteria over others. For example, a
professor who is in a science department should be
judged with more emphasis on his research and
publication record than a professor in a department
that that is principally a non-research department. In
addition, professors that are primarily teaching should
be judged more on their teaching and less on the
research. It would be nice to be able to make the
process more objective by gathering data that can be
analyzed numerically.
• With respect to my unit, this is essentially answered
above. Due processes are a function of the integrity
of the director and the dean. According to the “style”
of the upper administration (dean and chancellor) the
units have had directors for which due process was a
function of their own political or personal agenda. In
general, issues related to real professional
accomplishments and service to the institution are not
really addressed. Very often non-productive faculty
members are tenured easily and if the issues
concerning their productivity are raised, most people
feel offended and singled out. In order to keep peace
within the units, personnel committees tend to be
overly lenient in their assessments.
Hallazgo 6
A large percentage of faculty do not
believe that they are sufficiently
provided with specific information of
what is expected of them in terms of
teaching and research.
From the Faculty suvey
Sufficiency of the information
regarding
% yes % no % other or
n/a
Evaluation procedures
76.6
26.4
Tenure requirements
71.5
27.5
1
Promotion requirements
68.2
30.8
1
Teaching expectations
55.7
43.8
0.5
Research expectations
50.5
47.5
2
Advising expectations
36.3
58.7
5
Service expectations
40.8
58.2
1
Disciplinary procedures (for
faculty)
44.5
54
1.5
Dismissal procedures (for faculty)
36
62.5
1.5
From the Elected Senators questionnaire
Sufficiency of the information
regarding
Expectations (performance)
Evaluation procedures
Tenure requirements
Promotion requirements
Disciplinary procedures (for
faculty)
Dismissal procedures (for
faculty)
%
yes
58.3
41.7
50
41.7
16.7
% no % other or
n/a
40.7
50
8.3
41.7 8.3
58.3 8.3
75
8.3
25
66.7
8.3
Hallazgo 7
A large percentage, and sometimes the
majority, of non-teaching employees do
not believe that they are adequately
informed about what is expected of them,
evaluation procedures, and discipline and
dismissal procedures.
Specific negative responses are 44.9 %,
55.2%, and 64.2 % respectively.
From the Non-teaching Employee Survey
Sufficiency of the information
regarding
Performance (job) expectations
Evaluation procedures
Disciplinary procedures
%
yes
33.8
41.7
39.2
% no % other or
n/a
44.9 1.4
55.2 2.1
56.6 4.3
Dismissal procedures
29.4
64.2
6.5
Plagio y Deshonestidad Académica
There exists an ambiguity among respondents
to the questionnaires and surveys regarding
whether there exists a specific policy to deal
with cheating and plagiarism.
Finding 11: The specific institutional
procedures to deal with cheating and plagiarism
are incomplete. As a result, opinion tends to be
divided as to their existence.
Existence of a specific policy to
deal with cheating and
plagiarism
% yes
Academic deans
60
Directors
65.4
Faculty – faculty survey
%yes/ % no
no
% other or n/a
40
11.5
7.7
15.4
54.1
36.1
9.8
Faculty – academic senators
50
36.7
8.3
Academic counselors
71.4
19
9.6
Opinión del Decano de Estudiantes –
sobre la existencia de una medida para
trabajar con deshonestidad académica
(“cheating” = trampa)
No. No existe una política seperada
del proceso de deshonestidad
académica. Se descansa en el proceso
descrito en el Reglamento General de
Estudiantes junto a otras conductas
sujetas a sanciones disciplinarias.
Del Reglamento General de Estudiantes
– Artículo 14 – de la Conducta Sujeta a
Sanciones Disciplinarias
A.2 La obtención de notas o grados acadé-
micos valiéndose de
•falsas y fraudulentes simulaciones, o
• haciéndose pasar por otra persona, o
• mediante treta o engaño, o
• copiando total o parcialmente la labor
académica de otro estudiante, o
• copiando total o parcialmente las
respuestas de otro estudiante a las pregunts
de un examen, o
• haciendo o consiguiendo que otro tome
en su nombre cualquier prueba o examen
oral o escrito.
Penadilades (del Artículo 15)
1. Amonestación
2. Probatoria por tiempo definido durante el
cual otra violación de cualquier norma tendrá
consecuencia de suspensión o separación.
3. Suspensión de la Univesidad por un tiempo
definido. …
4. Separación definitiva de la Universidad.
5. … [posible reparación de daños]
6. Cualquier otra sanción que se especifique en
el Reglamento de Estudiantes del Recinto. …
Casos que pueden resultar en
suspensión o mayor penalidad
• Notificación Formal
• Vista administrativa
• Junta de Disciplina
• 2 senadores, 2 estudiantes, representante del Rector
•
•
•
•
Estudiante podrá contar con un consejero o asesor
Podrá utilizarse un oficial examinador
Rector recibe informe y toma decisión
Estudiante podrá apelar decisión al Presidente
Del Artículo 16 – Procedimiento de
Disciplina
• A.1. Los casos de infracciones a este
Reglamento que puedan resultar en la
imposición de penalidades inferiores a la
suspensión, serán atendidos directamene
por las autoridades administrativas
correspondientes. Emplearán un
procedimiento informal …
Del Artículo 18
De la Disciplina Académica
En lo que concierne a la disciplina en el
salón de clase y a la conducta estudiantil
relacionada con labores académicos, tales
como participación en tareas diarias,
preparaciones, trabajos de laboratorio,
exámenes, entrevistas, calificaciones y
otras actividades similares, el profesor
tendrá jurisdicción.
Decano de Estudiantes – existencia de política
institucional para prevenir deshonestidad
académica (trampa) y plagio
No, a nivel Institucional del Decanato de
Estudiantes; sin embargo el proceso que se lleva
a cabo cuando un estudiante es entrevistado por
conducta de deshonestidad académica es una
educativo y de análisis de principios éticos
envueltos en el caso. Recientemente se nombró
un Comité institucional que está trabajando con
este asunto.
Existen cuatro comités relacionado
• Comité de Integridad Académica
• Comité de Integridad de Investigación
(“Research Integrity”)
• Comité Institucional Protección Seres
Humanos en la Investigación (“IRB =
Institutional Review Board”)
• IACUC – comité que trata del trato que se le
da a los animales usados en investigaciones
Comité de Integridad Académica
Resumen – Plan de Acción
• Promover discusión y conocimiento del tema
de deshonestidad académica
• Establecer un programa de educación y
orientación
• Desarrollar guías  posible futura política
institucional
Comité de Integridad Académica
Algunas actividades planificadas
• Módulo para el curso UNIV
• Módulo para taller CEP para profesores nuevos
• Recurso externo para ayudar con guías y
diseminación de información
• Actividades para el mes de febrero: “Mes de la
Integridad Académica”
• Taller para profesores
Posibles Talleres
Equipo del
Centro para la Ética en las
Profesiones
• Ética a lo largo de currículo
• Ética de investigación (“research
ethics”)
• Otros talleres especializados sobre
ética o integridad
Halley D. Sanchez
[email protected]
José A. Cruz
[email protected]
William J. Frey
[email protected]
Jorge Ferrer
[email protected]
The task force believes that in general the negative
opinions regarding procedures and due process at
UPRM stem from the informal and improvisational
nature of many of these procedures, dating back to a
time when the university was much smaller, much
less complex, and many details were best handled in
a more familiar, informal manner. The task force
sees evidence that UPRM is still undergoing a
transition from a smaller, paternalistic institution to
a larger more professional institution in which
procedure and due process take precedence over
more personal, familial relations.
Gracias
Halley D. Sanchez
UPRM
24 de enero de 2004
Preview
Responsible Research
• What should be avoided
– Failure to exercise due care: negligent or
reckless research
– Deceptive Research: Trimming, Cooking,
Forging, Plagiarism
Lack of Due Care
• Negligent Research: “insufficient care in a matter
where one is morally obliged to be careful.”
• Reckless: “acts in professional practice [that] ignore
dangers that should be obvious to a minimally
competent professional so the acts themselves create
a presumption of willfully ignoring those dangers
together with failing to give them due attention and
care”
•
Whitbeck, Ethics in Engineering Practice and Research (1998), Cambridge Press,
215-216
Irresponsible Research
• Trimming: “the smoothing of irregularities to
make the data look extremely accurate and
precise.”
• Harris, Pritchard, & Rabins, 125-128
• Sigma Xi, Honor in Science (1986), 11-18
Irresponsible Research
• Cooking: “retaining only those results that fit
the theory and discarding others.”
• Look up the Millikan case
• Harris, Pritchard, & Rabins, 125-128
• Sigma Xi, Honor in Science (1986), 11-18
Irresponsible Research
• Forging: “inventing some or all of the
research data that are reported, and even
reporting experiments to obtain those data that
were never performed.”
• Harris, Pritchard & Rabins cite the Goodrich
case (reported by Vandivier)
• Harris, Pritchard, & Rabins, 125-128
• Sigma Xi, Honor in Science (1986), 11-18
Irresponsible Research
• Plagiarism: “the use of the intellectual
property of others without proper
acknowledgement or credit.”
• Responsibility of giving due credit to others
• Developing habits of proper documentation
• Harris, Pritchard, & Rabins, 125-128