Transcript Abbreviated Cases

Promoting Integrity in the
Next Generation of Researchers
A Curriculum for Responsible Conduct of Research in
Occupational Therapy (2005)
Funded by the Office of Research Integrity through the
American Association of Medical Colleges
Abbreviated Cases – Part 1
Human Subjects
Data Management
Conflicts of Interest
Peer Review
Collaborative Science
PROTECTION OF HUMAN SUBJECTS
Subject Recruitment 1 - Kissima Martin



Study is nearly complete. Has a homogeneous
sample.
Potential subject who is diverse contacts
interested in entering study.
Participation of this subject will complicate
study treatment and data analysis.
Questions for Protection of Human Subjects –
Subject Recruitment 1 - Kissima Martin
1. Describe Kissima’s dilemma in terms of
beneficence, autonomy, and justice?
2. What should Kissima do regarding the
interested person?
3. Could Kissima allow the person to attend
sessions, but not include his data or report his
participation in the study?
4. Is there anything that could have controlled or
prevented this dilemma?
PROTECTION OF HUMAN SUBJECTS
Subject Recruitment 2 - Rodney Manoweh




Trouble recruiting parents into a pediatric study
leaves Rodney feeling that his job and his thesis
plans are at risk.
Rodney asks help from a clinician friend at a local
research hospital.
The friend gives Rodney a list of interested potential
participants.
Rodney calls and recruits these potential
participants into the study.
Questions for Protection of Human SubjectsSubject Recruitment 2- Rodney Manoweh
1.
Rodney has his participants and his friend has
helped a friend. Are there any procedural or ethical
problems with the recruitment? If so, what?
2. What conflicts of interest are possible in Rodney
being both a student and employee of his advisor?
PROTECTION OF HUMAN SUBJECTS
Data Collection - Anita Manosaen


The PI forgot to gather the height and weight data
needed for her study, and now must get this data two
months after the fact.
A colleague outlines the options. She can get the
data by:
1) Reviewing participants’ current medical charts to which
she has access, as a clinical therapist.
2) Calling participants’ parents and asking them.
3) Mailing participants’ parents a request for the height and
weight, with return-address and pre-stamped envelope.
Or…that Anita can toss current data and recollect.
Questions for Protection of Human Subjects
Data Collection - Anita Manosaen
1. What other options are there? Which options
are/aren’t ethically sound? Why?
2. Does Anita need to contact anyone before she enacts
her decision?
3. Is gathering the needed data more or less ethical than
starting the project anew? Consider what a
researcher owes his or her participants.
4. In future articles or presentations, does Anita need to
inform her audience that the weight and height data
were collected after the fact?
PROTECTION OF HUMAN SUBJECTS
Unexpected Event - Julie White



During an interview about a job placement
program, a participant (Amy) discloses
unrelated physical abuse to Julie White, a
relatively inexperienced researcher and asks
for her help.
Julie asks Amy for permission to call her back
after checking with a supervisor.
Amy gets angry and hangs up without giving
this permission.
Questions for Protection of Human Subjects
Unexpected Event - Julie White
1. What could Julie have done differently?
2. What are the potential positive and negative
consequences for each of Julie’s option?
3. How would Julie’s options differ if Amy’s disclosure
had occurred in occupational therapy treatment
instead of during a research interview? Why?
4. How could a principal investigator reduce the
likelihood that another interviewer would face a
similar situation?
DATA MANAGEMENT
Data Collection- Laura Schmidt




Laura is gathering qualitative interview data on job
experiences of persons with disabilities. Participants
are paid $30 per interview for 5 interviews in 1 year.
Laura and Jay (a study participant) begin dating.
Laura continues to interview Jay and to pay him for
the interviews.
Toward the end of Jay’s participation in the study,
Laura informs her advisor about the relationship, by
announcing that she and Jay are engaged to be
married.
Questions for Data Management
Data Collection - Laura Schmidt
Is there anything wrong with Jay and Laura’s
relationship?
2. Now that the advisor knows about the relationship,
what are her obligations?
3. What should become of Jay’s data? Can it be retained
in the study?
4. Are there any agencies that need to be informed about
Jay and Laura’s actions?
5. What could have prevented or stopped the issues that
you see in this case?
1.
DATA MANAGEMENT
Data Storage - Elena Jevehirjian



Elena is conducting an itinerant study.
When she finishes work on Friday, she stores study
materials from 3 participants in her car’s locked
trunk.
Returning after the weekend, she finds that her car
was burglarized and the briefcases in which she kept
her data (e.g., taped interviews, transcriptions),
participant demographic, screening forms, and
addresses with MapQuest™ instructions are missing
or damaged.
Questions for Data Management
Data Storage - Elena Jevehirjian
1. What went wrong? Is there a policy of behavior that
would have protected against this?
2. Under what conditions is it acceptable to keep data
outside of a research clinic or office?
3. Do Elena and the principal investigator need to
inform any persons or agencies of this theft? If so –
whom?
4. Can Elena ‘re-interview’ these 3 participants or ‘reconstitute’ the data from her recollection, so that the
information is not lost ?
DATA MANAGEMENT
Data Cleaning - Michael Marshall


Michael is analyzing a database on assistive
technology (AT) choices, costs, and satisfaction.
He finds and alters several discrepancies in the data:



Cases where cost is atypically high and the data
collector has a history of not including notation. He
alters entries of $25000 to read as $250.00
Cases where data on satisfaction is missing, and data
forms are illegible. He inserts a neutral (middle)
option.
Cases where there are illogical responses, e.g., people
state that they were very unsatisfied with AT but
would definitely refer others to the agency. He alters
data to indicate very satisfied.
Questions for Data Management
Data Cleaning - Michael Marshall
1. What do you think of Michael’s approach to data cleaning?
Are any of Michael’s choices more or less responsible?
2. What other options could have been used to address the
questionable items (i.e., costs and satisfaction ratings)?
3. Michael later discovers that his actions were not reasonable
or responsible and inappropriately altered the study findings:
a. Is there any action that Michael should take now?
b. Who else is responsible for the situation? What
actions should they take?
c. What actions could have helped avoid the problems?
DATA MANAGEMENT
Data Reporting - A Collaborative Group


A collaborative study used two methods of sampling.
The group argues how they should describe their
sampling process in the article they are writing:
 Dr. Grove thinks they should say they used a convenience
sample (claiming nothing but the weakest form, without
noting that some subjects were otherwise sampled).
 Dr. Lou thinks that the change in sampling is a fatal
problem, and that the work should not be published
 Jan suggests reporting the estimated numbers of each
sample based on the approximate dates for each sampling.
 Bridget suggests that they avoid mentioning their
sampling technique unless a reviewer requires it.
Questions for Data Management
Data Reporting – A Collaborative Group
1. Are any of the options more or less responsible?
Why?
2. Are there better alternatives for describing the study’s
data sampling?
3. How should a researcher determine which research
weaknesses or problems to disclose when
disseminating?
4. How could the current problems have been avoided
by better data management and project planning?
DATA MANAGEMENT
Dissemination - Connie Friedland

Connie studied the effects of services received by
women living in a shelter. Each participant is at risk
of violence from her former partner.

Connie submits her serial case study to an AMA
journal, disguising the shelter’s location and
participants’ names and other data.

The editor discovers Connie’s use of false
descriptors, and characterizes it as falsification of
data.
Questions for Data Management
Dissemination - Connie Friedland
1. Is it ethical for Connie to seek participants’ permission to
publish data, if she fears it increases the risk to these
women?
2. Is it responsible for Connie to eliminate the fabricated
data if it deadens the potency of her findings?
3. Are there any changes needed for the article if Connie
decides to withdraw her manuscript from the first journal
and submit it to a non-AMA journal?
4. Is it responsible for Connie to withdraw the work, as
described in #3, if this reduces the influence that her
study is likely to have on policy?
DATA MANAGEMENT
Data Retention - Nick Ramcharan





Nick completed his degree 2 years ago and copublished his master’s thesis with his advisor 13
months ago.
Before moving, he gave his advisor the study
consent documents and data collection forms.
Nick and his advisor have been accused of
plagiarizing their model.
Nick has thrown out the draft diagrams and notes
that show their process of model development.
The advisor is angry at Nick’s data storage and
retention. Nick is confused and defensive.
Questions for Data Management
Data Retention - Nick Ramcharan
1. What constitutes “data” in research?
2. Nick and Dr. Johns published over a year ago. For
how long should research materials be kept?
3. What responsibility do Nick and his advisor each
have for the materials that are missing?
4. What can Nick and Dr. Johns do, now that the needed
materials are not available?
5. What strategies could help avoid this type of problem
and still avoid drowning in paper (as Nick phrases it)?
DATA MANAGEMENT
Data Sharing - Virginia Mathers




Virginia got federal funding for her dissertation
study of the effects of a wellness program on falls in
community elderly.
The intervention used a commercial DVD on tai chi,
donated by its creator at no cost.
Virginia has published her outcome data. Focus
group data have not been published.
Two groups want access to Virginia’s raw data:


Researchers want to compare Virginia’s data to their own
study of a more costly program.
A company that makes tai chi DVDs want to use the focus
group transcriptions to improve and competitively market
their product for home use by the elderly.
Questions for Data Management
Data Sharing - Virginia Mathers
1. What should Virginia do?
2. Is Virginia under any obligation to share her
data with either or both of these requesting
groups?
3. Is Virginia under any obligation not to share
her data with the DVD company that
competes with the one used in the study?
CONFLICTS OF INTEREST
Industry-based Research - Marlene Manella




Marlene works collaboratively with a school and a w/c
company to study the effects of the company’s stairclimbing wheelchair (w/c)
The company analyzes the data and finds, unexpectedly,
that the stairclimbing w/cs have limited effects.
Knowing that this could limit their w/c sales, Marlene
selectively publishes only the positive finding.
With the company’s support, Marlene gathers additional
data and presents their positive findings at a national
conference
Questions for Conflicts of Interest
Industry-based Research - Marlene Manella
1. What actions are ethically questionable in this case?
2. How do the different missions and cultures of the
manufacturer and researcher mesh? How do they conflict?
3. How would you handle the friendships that naturally
develop when individuals with different responsibilities
collaborate closely?
4. Would the case be different if the same parties were
involved, but the study was funded by Marlene out of
pocket, or by government or a non-profit research agency?
5. Could Marlene meet the need for disclosure by noting that
there were other study data that were not being reported?
CONFLICTS OF INTEREST
Article Review - Charlotte Guthrie






Dr. Guthrie is a rare expert on a topic, and has a publicly
known bias against the other major theory.
When asked to review an article written from the other
perspective, Dr. Guthrie assumes that the editor knows about
her bias and therefore says nothing.
Dr. Guthrie writes a thorough and objective review,
recommending that the researcher add opposing
interpretations for his or her findings.
The author complains to the editor, arguing that the reviewer
had a known bias against her theoretical model.
The editor chastises Dr. Guthrie for not disclosing her bias.
Dr. Guthrie is hurt and angry, and considers refusing further
review requests.
Questions for Conflicts of Interest
Article Review - Charlotte Guthrie
1. Where could a different action have resulted in a
more reasonable outcome?
2. If Dr. Guthrie held the same view, but had never
publicly disagreed on the theory, would conflict of
interest still be an issue?
3. If Dr. Guthrie’s review was objective, is there any
reason to worry about the conflict of interest?
4 . How could this journal’s review protocol be changed
to protect against future conflicts of interest?
5. What do you think of Dr. Guthrie’s plan to avoid
problems by not reviewing articles again?
CONFLICTS OF INTEREST
Classroom Peer Review - Carla LeBeck




Carla is assigned as the peer reviewer for Dan Claven’s
thesis. Dan is a friend with a history of not accepting
constructive, but negative, input.
Afraid to anger or hurt Dan, Carla’s critiques have been
inappropriately mild.
The instructor warns Carla that unless her critiques
become more scholarly, her grade will be a “C”.
Carla doesn’t think that’s fair, and also worries that Dan
will not accept a turnaround in her critical form.
Questions for Conflicts of Interest
Classroom Peer Review - Carla LeBeck
1.What conflicts of interest do you see in this case?
2.What is the faculty role in Dan and Carla’s conflict? Was
the instructor responsible to prevent or help resolve the
conflict?
3. In what ways could Dan help resolve the issue? How
would he know that there is a problem, and should he be
more directly informed?
4. How could the conflicts described in #1 have been
avoided by action by the participants or by a change in
the protocol (i.e., the mechanisms of the assignment and
the peer review)?
PEER REVIEW
Learning by Doing - Kayla Thomas




Dr. Cefalu is asked to peer review a manuscript
toward publication in professional journal.
Dr. Cefalu is mentoring Kayla Thomas, a doctoral
OT student, and invites her to write her own review.
Kayal sends electronic copies of the article to her
dissertation discussion/support group, who agree to
critically analyze the work at their next meeting.
Kayla summarizes her input on the manuscript,
including ideas from her discussion group. Dr.
Cefalu incorporates many of these observations into
her own review, and sends the work to the journal.
Questions for Peer Review
Learning by Doing - Kayla Thomas
1. It sounds like everyone benefited from the
experience. Is there any issue here?
2. What do you think of Dr. Cefalu’s handling of
the review? Why?
3. What do you think of Kayla’s handling of the
review? Why?
4. Are there variations that would have made
everyone’s actions more appropriate?
PEER REVIEW
A Well-Timed Peer Review - Sherry White




As a class assignment, Sherry reviews a singlemasked journal manuscript.
Sherry is so impressed by the manuscript that she
adopts its theoretical model and one of the questions
in its Future Research section for her own thesis.
Sherry’s committee approve the thesis proposal, not
realizing that her ideas came from a manuscript in
review.
When the thesis proposal is approved for funding,
Sherry’s summary explaining the theory and her
research are published, without references, on the
funder’s website.
Questions for Peer Review
A Well-Timed Peer Review - Sherry White
1. In what way did Sherry deviate from
acceptable peer-review behavior?
2. Have Sherry’s actions caused any harm to the
author of the original manuscript? To the
journal to which that manuscript was sent for
review?
3. Are there any corrective actions that need to
be taken?
COLLABORATIVE SCIENCE
A School Project - Chenoa Bo




Chenoa and a school district are collaborating to research
rural teenagers’ risk-taking behaviors. The school district
hopes that the data will help them design a risk management
curriculum.
The research group includes members of the school board,
the school superintendent, a high school principal, and two
high school teachers who instruct on health and biology.
When Chenoa pilot’s one of her measures, its frank phrasing
about sexual risk-taking shocks the students participants and
their parents. The parents complain to the principal.
The principal ends the study before it begins and tells Chenoa
she is no longer welcome at the high school.
Questions for Collaborative Science
A School Project - Chenoa Bo
1. How would you describe the current problem facing
this community-based participatory research project?
2. What actions should Chenoa take immediately? Who
should these actions involve?
3. Community-based participatory research assumes
community investment. Were there people or types
of participation that were missing from this case that
might have prevented the problem?
COLLABORATIVE SCIENCE
Participatory Action Research (PAR)- Carmen Washington





Carmen, an OT with a disability, is collaborating with a
consumer advisory board to conduct a study on community
integration post-discharge from rehabilitation.
The board includes members with a variety of physical and
cognitive impairments.
Many board members oppose taking the required training on
protection of participants. They believe that it is unnecessary
because they are themselves disabled. In addition, they point
out that the training is not adapted to persons with cognitive
impairments and will divide the group into those able and
those unable to perform the research.
Board members who do not take the training cannot perform
paid work in the study or access to the database.
This is tearing apart the group.
Questions for Collaborative Science
Participatory Action Research (PAR)- Carmen Washington
1. How could training be made more accessible and
more acceptable for the board?
2. Should all board members have equal right to access
to the database? Why?
3. Could the board resolve the issue by withdrawing
from the auspices of the hospital? Does this create
new problems?
4. Issues of privacy and confidentiality often arise in
PAR, especially if cognition is an issue. What
protections could minimize these risks? How is this
different for PAR research vs other forms of research?
COLLABORATIVE SCIENCE
Data Ownership - Camilo Montoya





Camilo is working to publish his dissertation work with his ex-advisor
(Dr. Kim). Camilo will be first author and Dr. Kim second.
A new student working with Dr. Kim has increased Camilo’s original
database and further developed the theoretical model.
Dr. Kim refuses to publish with Camilo, preferring to wait and publish the
new student’s work, with Camilo as second author.
Camilo submits his manuscript as sole author and it is accepted.
Dr. Kim asks the journal to rescind its offer to publish. She argues that:

The work is jointly owned, so Camilo can’t publish as sole author.

The work is incomplete, so the journal should wait for the better
version, and

Not publishing is the only way to protect herself from an unwanted
association with the work.
Questions for Collaborative Science
Data Ownership - Camilo Montoya
1. What should the editor do?
2. Do either of the parties (Camilo or Dr. Kim) have a
more ethical claim to their viewpoint and behavior?
3. Were there turning points where different decisions or
behaviors could have potentially avoided problems?
Abbreviated Cases – Part 2
Authorship
Publication Issues
Mentorship
Fiscal Responsibility
Research Misconduct and Whistleblowing
AUTHORSHIP
Determining Authorship/Acknowledgment - Case 1- Latisha Doe


Latisha is studying the effects of a device that controls upper
extremity tremors and dyskinesias during feeding.
The project has been helped by:
 Cathy – the clinical OT who screened potential subjects, and
helped gather consent and orient participants to device.
 Dr. Lange – who heads the clinic and authorized space to
store the devices. He is listed as institutional-PI on the IRB.
 Mary who developed the first prototype.
 Dr. Jones –Latisha’s research advisor who helped plan the
study.
 Alice – an engineering student who helped design and
manufacture 3 prototypes of the study’s device
 Darnell, the project’s paid statistician
Questions for Authorship
Determining Authorship/Acknowledgment - Case 1- Latisha Doe
1. Who should be an author and who should be
acknowledged? Be ready to discuss your reasoning
for each choice.
2. Did you award anyone authorship as a gift or out of
fear of repercussions? Why not take the attitude of
the more the merrier?
3. Is Latisha the only one who should decide about
authorship? Who else should be consulted? Why
4. Latisha feels pressure to list persons as authors who
do not, in her opinion, deserve it. Could this have
been avoided? How?
AUTHORSHIP
Determining Authorship/Acknowledgment -Case 2 - Barbara Chan




As a paid student research assistant on Dr. Meyer’s
study of a new handwriting assessment, Barbara
assesses 300 sets of data.
When Dr. Meyer reports the study’s findings, she
lists Barbara and another student data collector as 2nd
and 3rd authors on the article.
Barbara doesn’t understand the statistics used by Dr.
Meyer, but does understand what the findings
indicate.
Barbara conducts her own thesis is on a totally
different topic using a different method of data
collection and analysis.
Questions for Authorship
Determining Authorship/Acknowledgment -Case 2 - Barbara Chan
1.
Do you see any problems or issues in the case? What?
When interviewing for a staff position at a
community clinic, Barbara learns that they are
especially interested in her because they believe that
her research experience with Dr. Meyer may help
them evaluate outcome measures for their clinic.
During the interview lunch, the therapist asks
Barbara to explain why specific statistical analyses
were chosen.
2. What should Barbara do? Who is responsible for this
dilemma?

AUTHORSHIP
So You Want to be Sole Author - Etta Thurn




As Etta finishes her thesis, she asks how she can publish
it as sole author.
Her school’s policy encourages faculty to include
students in publications, but does not address sole
publication by a student.
Etta argues that her advisor’s input did not warrant
authorship, and that Etta could have gotten much of the
same information by independently reading the advisor’s
published work. And, that she had worked more
independently had she known that it would allow her to
be sole author.
The advisor feels that she deserves authorship because
she helped Etta design and analyze her study, and
assisted in many other ways on the project.
Questions for Authorship
So You Want to be Sole Author - Etta Thurn
1. What do you think of Etta’s reasoning? Why?
2. Neither Etta nor Dr. D’Alessandro discussed
authorship as an issue early in the process. Each
made her own assumptions. Does this affect who
should be author?
3. Can Etta change advisors to avoid this problem?
4. What, if anything, should be done about the school’s
policy or about Dr. D’Alessandro’s approach to
advising?
AUTHORSHIP
Author Order - Valentine Quin & Aggie Bickford





Valentine Quin, designs, conducts, and analyzes a study on
the effects of a fatigue management program for people with
HIV, using a single group pre-post design. Her findings on 8
participants are promising.
Aggie Bickford, another OT student working with the same
advisor, continues the project. She gathers and analyzes data
on an additional 42 persons (total n=50). The findings for
this larger group are exciting.
Valentine and Aggie are committed to publishing their work.
Their advisor will be final author. Both new graduates reason
that they deserve to be first author.
Aggie plans to start a PhD.
The targeted journal does not permit authors to explain their
author order.
Questions for Authorship
Author Order- Valentine Quin & Aggie Bickford
1. Who should be first author? What criteria did
you use?
2. Who should be making this authorship
decision? Why?
3. What, if anything, could have helped prevent
this dilemma at this late point in the process?
PUBLICATION ISSUES
A Quick Publication - Olivia Eggert




Olivia and her advisor planned to publish Olivia’s thesis in a peer
reviewed journal.
Last week, the advisor was surprised to find an article listing
herself and Olivia as co-authors in a non-refereed journal. She is
upset because:
 She never read the manuscript and did not know that it had been
submitted.
 The literature review is out of date and the Discussion and
Conclusion sections make unreasonable assertions.
 The journal is not peer reviewed.
Another faculty member was acknowledged by name without that
faculty’s permission.
Olivia does not understand that there is a problem. She wanted to
publish something quickly and didn’t want to bother her advisor.
She still plans to work with her advisor to publish the research in a
peer reviewed journal.
Questions for Publication Issues
A Quick Publication - Olivia Eggert
1. How would you define the issues facing the advisor,
the person cited for her help, Olivia, and nonrefereed journal? Do you think that they are minor
or substantive? Why?
2. Does publishing the study in this journal affect future
publication in a more rigorous journal?
3. Can anything be done about the overstatements made
in the piece? Would statistical errors in the article be
addressed in some way?
4. What safeguards could have prevented this situation?
PUBLICATION ISSUES
Multiple Publications - Teresa Garcia Ramirez

Teresa used a two-group randomized controlled design to
study the effects of a program for persons with amyotrophic
lateral sclerosis. One group received the program, and the
other group spent the same amount of time in a support
group. There were several outcome measures.

Data were gathered at baseline (pre), at the end of the
program (post), and one month after the program ended
(follow-up), and at corresponding times for the control group.
Continued next slide
PUBLICATION ISSUES
Multiple Publications-Teresa Garcia Ramirez- Continued

Teresa derived 5 articles from her data, publishing in:
 An Internet-based psychology journal, describing the
intervention and reporting the changes in depression of the
treated group from pre to post.
 Two rehabilitation journals, one article comparing community
integration of the program and control groups at the end of the
intervention (post), and the other explaining the theoretical
basis of the treatment and reporting on all outcomes.
 AJOT, comparing the control and treatment groups’ follow-up
outcomes on depression, level of avocational activity, and level
of community integration.
 A nonrefereed nursing journal, advocating avocation and
describing the program in detail.
Questions for Publication Issues
Multiple Publications - Teresa Garcia Ramirez
1. Is there any problem with the way that Teresa
disseminated her research?
2. Would the problem be resolved if each article
reported on a different outcome?
PUBLICATION ISSUES
Group Work- Margaret Singer & Kerri Scopes




Margaret and Kerri are working on a proposal as a team. Both
are strong students. Together they search the literature, and
find, copy, and outline journal articles.
They are expected to write the proposal together, but instead
they divide the responsibilities. Kerri writes the literature
review and Margaret writes the rest of the proposal.
The literature review plagiarizes works, citing as paraphrase
when exact quotes are needed, and providing no citation for a
table taken verbatim from a Web source.
The professor is concerned about the plagiarism and also
worries that the students do not appear to know or understand
their topic’s literature.
Questions for Publication Issues
Group Work -Margaret Singer & Kerri Scopes
1. Who is responsible for the plagiarism in the
literature review? Why?
2. What do you think will happen to these two
students?
3. If a similar situation existed for a published
article, who would be responsible?
PUBLICATION ISSUES
A Literature Review - Cathy Schmidt




As part of her dissertation, Cathy conducted a systematic
literature review of a popular pediatric intervention.
She later presented her findings at a parents’ conference
and her findings were disseminated to the broader
community by a local television news and city
newspaper.
When Cathy submitted her work for publication, a peer
reviewer found several instances where Cathy confused
the data and reversed the findings.
There were so many errors that Cathy’s overall
interpretation and recommendations are wrong.
Questions for Publication Issues
A Literature Review - Cathy Schmidt
1.What should Cathy do about this major error in
her dissertation?
2. What should Cathy do about her past
presentation to the parent association? About
her past newspaper and television coverage?
About her formal paper that has not been
published, yet?
MENTORSHIP
Choosing an Advisor - Janet Kearns

Janet has selected Dr. Martin to replace her major advisor, who
is retiring. For her dissertation Janet is creating an outcome
tool for persons with UE amputations. Dr. Martin is an expert
in outcome tool development and has worked with Janet for
several months.

When Janet brings the paperwork to her department
chairperson, Dr. Fine, he asserts that he’d be a better major
advisor than Dr. Martin because he:





Uses a below-the-elbow prosthesis.
Holds a patent on an upper-extremity prosthetic device.
Has 3 years of experience in clinical prosthetics.
Has a broad academic network that will help when Janet looks for an
academic job.
Dr. Fine alters the forms to name himself as Janet’s major
advisor.
Questions for Mentorship
Choosing an Advisor - Janet Kearns
1. How can Janet respond to Dr. Fine’s actions?
What are the positive and negative outcomes
of these responses?
2. What characteristics should a student consider
when selecting an advisor? How are these
characteristics demonstrated in this case?
MENTORSHIP
Advisor Issues- Janet Kearns (continues)






Janet accepts Dr. Fine as her advisor, and finds that he does
not respond to inquiries nor attend scheduled meetings.
Janet asks Dr. Martin to talk to Dr. Fine, which she does.
At the next dissertation committee meeting, Dr. Fine
announces that Dr. Martin will work closely with Janet.
Dr. Martin does just that, and Janet completes her work and
graduates.
When Janet looks for a job, Dr. Fine writes a glowing generic
letter, and Dr. Martin writes a more specific glowing letter.
Janet gets a faculty job at another research university.
Questions for Mentorship
Advisor Issues - Janet Kearns (continues)
1. What were Dr. Fine’s responsibilities to Janet as his
doctoral advisee? Did he fulfill these?
2. What do you think of Dr. Martin’s actions?
3. Who would have been accountable if Janet had been
unsuccessful or had significant problems in her
dissertation?
4. What could Janet have done to resolve the problem
without relying on Dr. Martin’s unofficial
advisement?
MENTORSHIP
Separating from Advisement–Doris Collins




Doris is an ambitious but overcommitted student. Involved in
extra research activities and several student and professional
associations, Doris is failing to meet her core research
responsibilities.
When confronted by her mentor, Dr Williams, Doris promises
to focus her effort on her research obligations.
With that promise, Dr. Williams helps Doris to receive a postdoc fellowship at another institution.
In spite of her promise, Doris’ research performance
continues to decline.
Continues on next slide
MENTORSHIP
Separating from Advisement–Doris Collins - Continued


Dr. Williams realizes that Doris has manipulated her
dissertation committee, taken time off from her
research without permission, and falsely told the new
institution that it is the committee that is delaying
her graduation when it is really Doris’ own
unscheduled and unapproved vacation that is
responsible.
When, the post-doc institution contacts Dr. Williams
and asks when she will issue a final grade for Doris,
Dr. Williams does not know how to answer. She
feels betrayed by Doris’ behavior.
Questions for Mentorship
Separating from Advisement–Doris Collins
1. What went wrong in this case? What could Dr.
Williams have been done to change the process and
outcome of this case?
2. Does Dr. Williams have an ethical obligation to
address her concerns with Doris? Does she have an
obligation to express or withhold information from
the post-doctoral institution?
3. What concerns would you have about Doris’ career as
a researcher?
MENTORSHIP
Conflicting Roles–Laura Tung





Dr. Hammer is Laura’s employer, research mentor, and thesis
advisor. They meet formally and informally to discuss research.
Originally, Laura’s job was to supervise data entry, perform
statistical analyses, and draft the preliminary report of findings.
Her work was designed to improve Laura’s understanding of
statistics and earn her second authorship on the study publications.
When the study’s consulting statistician changes the statistical plan,
Dr. Hammer decides to hire a statistician to analyze the data and
write the preliminary report. Laura’s job changes to data entry.
Laura does not complain, but she is unhappy with her new work.
She disconnects from the study, and no longer meets with Dr.
Hammer.
When it is time to publish, Dr. Hammer writes the report and Laura
makes a minor comment. The paper is published with Dr. Hammer
as first author, the statistician as second, and Laura as third.
Questions for Mentorship
Conflicting Roles–Laura Tung
1. How do you define the problem (s) in the
case?
2. How did Dr. Hammer’s and Laura’s roles as
employer/employee and mentor/trainee
contribute to these problem(s)? How could
these roles have helped avoid the problem(s)?
3. What can be done to put the mentorship and
employment on track?
FISCAL RESPONSIBILITY
A Series of Studies –Orlando Sims





Dr. Sims gets a 3 year grant from Attending 2 Attention Deficit
(A2A) foundation to study an intervention called Cog+Sens.
Midway through the grant, Dr. Sims applies for and gets a
second grant, from Best Attention! (another ADHD
foundation). The new study examines CASP, an intervention
developed by Dr. Sims, based on the original Cog+Sens,
integrating the changes suggested by Dr.Sims’ A2A study.
Dr Sims included the A2A study’s first year’s findings in his
application to Best Attention!.
The study shows that CASP improves children's’ behaviors.
Dr. Sims patents and markets the treatment, sharing royalties
with his college.
A2A and Best Attention! are furious that their grants and A2A’s
original product are being sold for profit by Dr. Sims.
Questions for Fiscal Responsibility
A Series of Studies –Orlando Sims
1. Did Dr. Sims have the right to apply for a grant from
a second organization while still working on the first
grant?
2. There are four entities in the current mess: A2A, Best
Attention!, Dr. Sims, and the college. Who owns Dr.
Sims’ data from the first study? Is this different
from the entity owning data from the CASP study?
3. What could Dr. Sims do now to address the issues,
assuming he wants to continue researching ADHD?
4. How could Dr. Sims have conducted his studies so
that all parties were content with the final outcome?
FISCAL RESPONSIBILITY
Multisite Project, First 3 months - Anchieta Angelina



Dr. Angelina is conducting a 2 year study of an afterschool program at 4 inner city, rural, county, and private
schools spread across the state. Sites are coordinated by
monthly virtual meetings using real time interactions, and
monthly written reports by the onsite coordinators (OCs)
The OC at the Rural site is not an active participant in the
virtual meetings, is tardy in her 2nd and 3rd month written
reports, and is too ill to attend a face-to-face meeting in the
3rd month.
Efforts to reach the Rural OC by telephone fail to connect.
After she missed the 3rd month meeting, she emailed that
everything was going well and that she would attend the
next meetings.
Questions for Fiscal Responsibility
Multisite Project, First 3 months - Anchieta Angelina
1. Is anything going wrong in the study?
2. Is it reasonable for Dr. Angelina to press the
OC from Rural about her less meaningful
participation or missed report deadlines?
Would you press these issues?
3. What is the relationship between Dr.
Angelina’s fiscal responsibilities to the funder
and her supervision of site OCs?
FISCAL RESPONSIBILITY
Multisite Project, 9 Months into the Grant (continued)




At the 9 month point, the OC’s at Inner City, County and
Private schools have strong recruitment and data
collection.
The Rural OC’s monthly reports show low recruitment
(n=2) and no data collected.
The Rural OC reports several reasons for poor progress,
including that she has not had the time originally
planned because a colleague is battling cancer and the
OC is responsible for both her own and the other
teacher’s work.
In her email communication, the Rural OC promises to
catch up and asks that Dr. Angelina not bring this issue
to the attention of the OC’s administrator.
Questions for Fiscal Responsibility
Multisite Project, 9 Months into the Grant (continued)
4. Are Rural’s OC’s explanations for delayed
recruiting and programming reasonable?
5. What issues must Dr. Angelina weigh before
acting?
6. What action(s) should she take?
FISCAL RESPONSIBILITY
Multisite Project, 12 Months into the Grant (continued)



In spite of Dr. Angelina’s frank discussion and
explicit expectations, the Rural OC has recruited
only 3 of the 10 participants needed for the study’s
first year.
It is unlikely that the Rural site will meet its
commitment of 20 participants for the 2 year study.
Dr. Angelina meets with the Rural OC and her
administrator. Both acknowledge that the OC has
not had suitable work time allotted for the study.
The administrator guarantees Dr. Angelina that the
OC will have the time originally planned, plus some
additional time to help her catch up on the project.
Questions for Fiscal Responsibility
Multisite Project, 12 Months into the Grant (continued)
7. What are Dr. Angelina’s fiscal responsibilities at this
point?
8. How should Dr. Angelina weigh her investment in
this Rural site vs. the prospective productivity of the
site?
9. What actions do you think Dr. Angelina should take
about the Rural site?
10. How should Dr. Angelina report the study’s
recruitment to the funder?
FISCAL RESPONSIBILITY
Multisite Project, 18 Months into the Grant (continued)

Things have improved only slightly at the Rural site. Data
have been gathered on 4 participants, with 1 participant in
process (total n = 5). The Rural OC reports that she has a
number of participants almost recruited.

Dr. Angelina decides to terminate her current contract, and
recruit a different rural school to conduct the program and
gather data for the remaining 15 participants

The Rural OC and administrator are unhappy. They feel that
they tried to meet the study’s needs, and that the study must
offer the program to the students who are almost recruited.

When Dr. Angelina requests that Rural return 50% of the
money paid to Rural, the administrator counters with an offer
to continue to collect data at the original site at a reduced rate.
Questions for Fiscal Responsibility
Multisite Project, 18 Months into the Grant (continued)
11. Is Rural obliged to return Dr. Angelina’s money to
permit the study to be completed elsewhere?
12. What obligations does Dr. Angelina have to the final
participant at the current Rural setting? What obligations
does she have to students who were interested in starting
but had not yet formally committed to the program?
13. Who must be informed of the site’s termination? Why?
14. Is Dr. Angelina obligated to find another rural site to
complete her study? If so, how would she fund this
replacement program now that a significant proportion
of the money has been spent?
FISCAL RESPONSIBILITY
Fiscal Stewardship - Adara Manoukarakis




Adara has worked all summer as a paid research assistant for
Dr. Pella, who is also her research advisor.
The study is ending and Dr. Pella does not need all of Adara’s
remaining time. Not wanting to renege on her employment,
Dr. Pella assigns Adara to assist other researchers and the OT
Office staff.
As Adara is signing her pay request, she realizes that her
signature verifies that she has “performed X hours of work on
the project listed”.
Adara brings her concern to Dr. Pella, noting that she did nonstudy work for about 10% of her summer time, and more
recently about 25% of her time was spent on non-study work.
Continued on next slide
FISCAL RESPONSIBILITY
Fiscal Stewardship - Adara Manoukarakis


Dr. Pella assures Adara that signing the form is okay.
That the funder will care only that the study is done.
Adara hesitates to sign and Dr. Pella gets irritated.
He gives her the option, “If you don’t feel
comfortable signing the form, you can change the
numbers of hours for this last two weeks. But, I
don’t have any way to pay you for unlisted hours, so
you’ll get less pay. It’s your choice.”
Adara doesn’t think signing is right, but she needs
the money.
Questions for Fiscal Responsibility
Fiscal Stewardship - Adara Manoukarakis
1. Dr. Pella sees the alternatives as a) pay Adara for no work, b) stop
paying Adara when there was no work, c) pay Adara for necessary
but unrelated work. Dr. Pella chose the last alternative as the most
responsible option.
What does this tell you about Dr. Pella’s priorities? Do you
believe that the decision is reasonable and responsible? Why?
2. Compare options that Dr. Pella did not consider regarding Adara’s
work and payment. Which alternatives are more or less
responsible?
3. What option should Adara take?
Should she sign or not sign the pay request?
Should she discuss the issue – and with whom?
What are each options’ outcomes, benefits, and costs?
RESEARCH MISCONDUCT & WHISTLEBLOWING
Among Friends - Fumiko Kobayashi & Leslie Bakker





Fumiko and Leslie are close friends and are working
together on a study supervised by Dr. Beesla.
Fumiko has gathered her portion of the data. Leslie
has been under several stressors lately, and has fallen
behind in her recruitment of participants.
When Fumiko enters their shared office, she
discovers Leslie in the act of forging a participant’s
consent and fabricating data.
Leslie assures Fumiko that all of the her other study
data are real, that this was a first desperate act, and
that she’ll never do it again!
She asks that Fumiko keep her secret.
Questions for Research Misconduct and Whistelblowing
Among Friends - Fumiko Kobayashi & Leslie Bakker
1. What are Fumiko’s options and what are the
ramifications of each if Leslie is telling the
truth? If she is not telling the truth?
2. To whom is Fumiko responsible?