|
Thanks Dan! To add to these concerns,
5.3 (p.3) "Failing to meet the requirements of a relevant Funding Organization or failure to comply with other applicable law, policies, rules, guidelines, contractual obligations, or standards constitutes Research Misconduct and is a Breach of this policy."
This seems so broad that even submitting a report after a due date or choosing a different methodology according to local needs, etc could constitute a Breach? There seems to be no room for researcher discretion and autonomy when the actual work requires shifting from the funding agreement (eg research grant?) as it so often must because contexts change and/or it is the ethically sound thing to do, to Annie's point.
Best Suzanne
Suzanne
Smythe, PhD. she/her(s)
Associate Professor, Adult Literacy and Adult Education
Academic Coordinator, Languages, Cultures and Literacies
Faculty Teaching Fellow
Faculty of Education, Simon Fraser University
Harbour Centre 7363, Vancouver, BC.
sksmythe@sfu.ca Faculty Website: www.sfu.ca/education/ssmythe
I am privileged to live and work on the traditional and unsurrendered territories of the Səlil̓wətaɬ (Tsleil-Waututh), Skwxwú7mesh (Squamish), and xʷməθkwəy̓əm (Musqueam) Nations
From: Dan Laitsch <dlaitsch@sfu.ca>
Sent: October 28, 2021 8:48 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
|