Re: Administrative overreach, again?

Most concerning is this heavy-handed right to all my research data and materials:

p. 11/20: The "Investigation Committee" can "obtain written or electronic materials relevant to the Allegation(s) such as laboratory notebooks, manuscripts, files and records." So basically all research data and materials.

BTW, the "Investigation Committee" = "VPRI will instruct the RIO [Research Integrity Officer] to appoint an Investigation Committee...The Investigation Committee will include members who have the necessary expertise to assess the Allegation and to conduct the Investigation, and who are without Conflict of Interest. The Investigation Committee shall include at least one external member with no current affiliation with the University."

SFU retains all the power to decide what constitutes "necessary expertise". As if any given RIO would know what that looks like for all of our disciplines and all of our professional standards.

In what is proposed, both the allegation 'discovery' process and the adjudication are stacked.

Thanks, Dan, for bringing this to our attention. A last question: Why this effort? Is it a response? Have there been a rash of research ethics breeches at SFU?

Susan Erikson

From: Dan Laitsch <dlaitsch@sfu.ca>
Sent: October 28, 2021 8:48:43 AM
To: academic-discussion@sfu.ca
Subject: Administrative overreach, again?

Hi all,

Senate will be reviewing an update to the Research Ethics policy on Monday. In reviewing the policy update, I’m concerned that once again the policy is being written in such a way as to give the University unlimited disciplinary power [see the discussion around the travel policy that used the same language]. That said, I thought I’d run the policy by this list for your thoughts as well. The policy proposal can be found at: https://docushare.sfu.ca/dsweb/Get/Document-1748527/S.21-112.pdf.

My concerns are three-fold—at the lower end, I’m concerned about the overuse of meaningless value words in a policy document. For example:

• 5.2.2 [Each person who engages in Research] is expected and required to be thoroughly familiar with and to comply with the scholarly standards and practices that are generally accepted in the academic community and their scholarly field, and to comply with those standards honestly, accountably, openly, and fairly. <— These words add no value to the statement, which calls for compliance. Whether that compliance to standards is honest, accountable, open and fair really doesn’t matter (and would arguably be a matter of conjecture).

Of slightly more concern is use of the phrase, "scholarly standards and practices that are generally accepted in the academic community.” Scholarly standards and practices are important, and “minimum” standards are defined in Section 1.1. That said, generally accepted standards are not defined anywhere in the document and would seem to embrace an expansion beyond “minimum” but inclusive of some debate (as they are not “universally" accepted, just, “generally" accepted).

Of primary concern, however, is section 5.9, Consequences:

• Consequences

• 5.9 Individuals found to have Breached this policy may lose the privilege of conducting Research and may also be subject to sanctions or discipline or other action under this or other University policies and procedures, applicable collective agreements, and applicable law.

Here we once again threaten faculty with undefined, and therefore, unlimited "sanctions or discipline or other actions”. Later in the document they expand on possible sanctions, but note that other undefined sanctions might still be applied: “7.3 ...Sanctions may include but are not limited to: reprimand, suspension, and/or dismissal.”

Finally, while appeal is permitted under the policy, appeal is only possible if there was a procedural error or a factual error. The appropriateness of the sanctions are not a grounds for appeal:

• 9.3 The grounds for an appeal to the President under section 9.2 are:

• 9.3.1 procedural deficiencies occurred of sufficient magnitude that it may reasonably be said to have affected the fairness of the process or altered the outcome of the case; or

• 9.3.2 a factual error of sufficient magnitude was made that it may reasonably be said to have altered the outcome of the case.

We all want to adhere to the highest ethical standards in our work, but those standards should be clearly defined, fairly adjudicated, and reasonably enforced. Unlimited and unappealable punishments should not be ensconced in policy.

I’m happy (hoping?) to be told I’m wrong, but to me this seems like sloppy policy work and administrative overreach. Thoughts?

Dan