See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/7574780

Use and abuse of the Internet for teaching research ethics - Commentary on
"Misconceptions and realities about teaching online"

Article  in  Science and Engineering Ethics · August 2005

DOI: 10.1007/s11948-005-0003-6 · Source: PubMed

CITATIONS READS

6 86

1 author:

Michael W Kalichman
University of California, San Diego
89 PUBLICATIONS   1,403 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Michael W Kalichman on 17 May 2014.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Science and Engineering Ethics (2005) 11, 341-345

Use and Abuse of the Internet for Teaching

Research Ethics
Commentary on “Misconceptions and Realities about
Teaching Online” (J. E. Sieber)

Michael Kalichman
Director, Research Ethics Program, University of California, San Diego, USA

Keywords: Instruction, Pedagogy, Responsible Conduct of Research, Training, Web

A role for the Internet in delivering instruction in research ethics is neither clear nor
certain. As discussed by Joan Sieber,1 teaching online is occurring more frequently, but
that is no guarantee that such programs are the best use of time for either the instructors
or the students. For those who teach research ethics (or the responsible conduct of
research [RCR]), the allure of Internet-based instruction is particularly potent. Students
for such courses are almost invariably adults (graduate students, medical students,
postdoctoral researchers, research staff, and faculty); many of those in biomedical
research also have clinical responsibilities, and all are extraordinarily busy. The
possibility that an obligation to teach research ethics can be met without the necessity
for regularly attending course meetings is attractive to teachers, administrators, and
students. However, just because it can be done, does not mean either that it is
necessarily of value or that it should be done. To assess the effectiveness of online
instruction, it is essential to identify the possible goals of research ethics education,
then to identify the aspects of online education that might promote those goals.

Goals

If all goes well, an instructor will have a positive impact on the future behavior of
students. However, for many reasons, long-term changes in behavior tend to be
relegated to the category of desirable outcomes that are not readily measured. Instead,
the immediate purposes of educational experiences can be broadly divided into three
main outcomes: knowledge, skills, and attitudes. The distinctions in the field of ethics

Address for correspondence: Michael Kalichman, Ph.D., Adjunct Professor of Pathology, Director,
Research Ethics Program, University of California, San Diego, La Jolla, CA 92093-0612, USA;
Email: kalichman@ucsd.edu.
Acknowledgements: Dr. Lawrence Hinman (University of San Diego) is thanked for reading this
manuscript and helpful comments. The author is supported in part by the National Institutes of Health
(K01 AI01591).
1353-3452 © 2005 Opragen Publications, POB 54, Guildford GU1 2YF, UK. http://www.opragen.co.uk

Science and Engineering Ethics, Volume 11, Issue 3, 2005 341

M. Kalichman

are readily apparent. Ethical conduct depends first on information. Knowledge and
awareness of rules, standards, and resources are essential foundations and, therefore,
appropriate outcomes for effective ethics education. Similarly, the skill to make
defensible ethical decisions depends on practice in carrying out the process of ethical
decision-making. Finally, it is not enough to have knowledge and to know how to use
it; it is necessary to also have a positive disposition or attitude towards ethical conduct.
While the successful inculcation of knowledge, skills, and attitudes is not a
guarantee of ethical behavior, it is a necessary prerequisite. Assuming ethical behavior
is a desirable outcome, it is worth considering the extent to which Internet-based
instruction might have a role in promoting responsible conduct of research through
improvements in knowledge, skills, or attitudes.

Knowledge. The Internet is unequivocally a source of information. This is as true for

the topic of research ethics as for any other subject. The Google search engine yields
over 42,000 hits for the phrase “responsible conduct of research,” 590,000 hits for the
phrase “research ethics,” and over 64,000,000 hits for the word “ethics.” The
overwhelming number of hits is a reminder both of the wealth of available information
and the challenge of sorting out what is useful. If the challenge is to teach about ethics,
is it most important to know about rules and regulations, about published guidelines,
about unwritten standards of conduct in research, or about where to find information
when it is needed? Or all of the above? There is no doubt that vast quantities of
information can be delivered on all of these questions, but that does not mean that the
information will be received. As for classroom teaching, less is more. However, the
Internet can provide both less and more. It is possible to provide the absolute
essentials, but to also tempt learners to learn more when and if desired or needed.

Skills. The value of the Internet for teaching a skill, such as ethical decision-making, is
not as certain as for information delivery. Moreover, conveying information about the
process of ethical decision-making is not the same as teaching the skill of effective
decision-making. A student might learn a great deal about the elements and advantages
of good decision-making, but as with other skills, people tend to learn by doing.
Without actively engaging students in the process of analysis and reasoning, it is
unlikely that they will undergo significant improvement in their own decision-making
skills. In a classroom setting, it is easy and common to practice ethical reasoning skills.
This is accomplished both when students verbalize their own analyses and when they
hear others do the same. With the Internet, a student can be challenged with a tough
ethical case, but this is likely to do little to promote ethical reasoning if there is no
requirement for interacting with an instructor or other students. On the other hand, it is
plausible that skills for ethical reasoning can be fostered through the written medium of
Internet discussion forums (e.g., email, discussion boards, chat rooms). Although
Internet discussions are different from those that occur in the “in person” setting of a
classroom, the two main goals of “speaking” (expressing oneself) and “listening” (or
attending to the ideas of others) are both possible.

342 Science and Engineering Ethics, Volume 11, Issue 3, 2005

 Use and Abuse of the Internet for Teaching Research Ethics

Attitudes. Promoting a positive attitude toward the responsible conduct of research is

arguably a more important goal than the teaching of either knowledge or skills.
Without a positive attitude, the combination of extensive knowledge and expertise in
ethical decision-making will be insufficient to ensure high standards of conduct.
However, while attitude is distinct from knowledge or skills, it is not necessarily a
distinct component of a curriculum. The choice of information taught, the exercises
used to illustrate ethical decision-making, the methods used for teaching, and the
attitude of the instructor are all presumably important in shaping attitudes of students.
Even the medium can be the message. If the sole mechanism of delivering instruction
in responsible conduct of research is a brief tutorial, requiring no discussion and little
time, then the message is likely to be that this topic is of limited importance to the
institution. Rather than promoting a positive attitude about research ethics, the end
result could be neutral at best and reinforcing cynicism at worst.

Elements of Internet-based Instruction

Although the Internet can be used badly, it provides elements with great potential value
for instruction in research ethics: delivery of information, promotion of discussion, and
assessment of outcomes. Information delivery on the Web is generally similar to print
media. The quantity of information can be large or small, the presentation can be spare
or elaborate, and the writing can be clear or obtuse. However, the Web also has
distinctive limitations and advantages. The most obvious limitation is the way in which
the Web is likely to be used. For many reasons, some cultural and some practical, it is
best to assume that users will not take the time or care to read large quantities of text.
While a long and dense textbook might be accessed in bits and pieces over time, a
similar presentation on the Web is more likely to go completely unread. The content of
Web pages will ideally focus on essential information, rather than risk dilution and loss
of the central message.

Discussion. If the Web is used only for information delivery, it can be the equivalent of
merely reading lecture notes to a class of students. At the very least, effective writing,
graphics, thoughtful questions, and engaging design of Web pages can help make
information more accessible. However, it is now widely recognized that active learning
is essential to achieve many educational goals. In the case of research ethics, this
means that students are engaged in discussion about contrived or real cases,
challenging thought questions, relevant fictional or non-fictional selections from print
or video, or surveys about topics in research ethics. With appropriate guidelines and
monitoring of such discussion, the result can be an active learning experience that will
reinforce the learning of information, develop improved skills for ethical reasoning,
and foster a positive attitude toward research ethics.

Assessment. The assessment of outcomes is as important for Internet-based instruction

as for any other instruction. The method of assessment should reflect the intended
goals of the instruction. If the goal is dissemination of minimal information, it may be

Science and Engineering Ethics, Volume 11, Issue 3, 2005 343

M. Kalichman

enough to simply know that the users/students have accessed the relevant Web page(s)
or reported that they have done so. However, if it is necessary to also assess whether
the basic information has been learned, this can be accomplished through automated
delivery of multiple choice questions. A well-designed system of information delivery,
assessment, and tracking of completion can run independently without the ongoing
need for an instructor. Such systems can certainly work, and are widely used, but they
are associated with a number of shortcomings. Some kinds of information may not
easily be covered with multiple choice questions; such an assessment would not be
ideal for changes in decision-making skills or attitudes; and if this is the only method
of teaching research ethics, it is likely to support the view that the topic is of little
significance. On the other hand, if the goal is to change skills or attitude, then as a
minimum it may be enough to simply ensure that the process of active learning takes
place. In other words, the assessment would simply be the verification that students had
completed the requirement to discuss assigned material with other students and
prepared written summaries of their deliberations. Still better, if time permits, the
assessment could be further formalized by feedback from the course instructor on each
of the submitted assignments.

Recommendations

The choice of methods should depend on the goals to be accomplished. In Table I,

elements of course instruction are listed with requirements for interaction with a course
instructor or other students. In Table II, the goals of knowledge, skills, and attitudes are
listed with elements and formats for Internet-based instruction. If the goal is simply to
ensure that all researchers are exposed to a limited amount of information, then a brief
Internet-based tutorial is likely to be sufficient. In this case, it is important that this
minimal approach is supplemented with a variety of other institutional activities to
avoid the impression that research ethics is merely a regulatory inconvenience rather
than an integral part of good science. If the goal is to encourage effective ethical
decision-making, then the answer is the same as that for a classroom course: active
learning through rigorous discussion of tough cases is essential.

REFERENCES

1. Sieber, Joan E. (2005) Misconceptions and Realities about Teaching Online, Science and
Engineering Ethics 11 (3): 329-340.

344 Science and Engineering Ethics, Volume 11, Issue 3, 2005

 Use and Abuse of the Internet for Teaching Research Ethics

Table I. Uses of Internet with and without an instructor and for single or multiple
student participants.

NO INSTRUCTOR INSTRUCTOR

STUDENT PARTICIPANTS: Single Multiple Single Multiple

Basic information, links to additional Yes Yes Yes Yes

resources, and multiple choice questions

Thought questions Yes Yes Yes Yes

Thought questions with required No No Yes Yes

submission

Questions for group discussions No Yes No Yes

Group discussion assignments with No No No Yes

required submission

Table II. Uses of the Internet to meet the goals of increases in knowledge, skills, and
attitudes.

Goal Elements of Instruction Course Requirements

Knowledge • Basic information • Course content posted to Web

• Links to additional resources • No requirement for interaction

with instructor or other students
• Multiple choice and thought
questions

Skills • Thought questions with • Course content and assignments

required submission posted to Web

• Group discussion assignments • Required interaction with

instructor and/or other students

Attitudes • Combination of elements used • Course content and assignments

to promote knowledge and posted to Web
skills
• Required interaction with
instructor and/or other students

• Clear evidence that course is only

part of a larger commitment to
integrity in science

Science and Engineering Ethics, Volume 11, Issue 3, 2005 345

View publication stats