| Title |
A Comparison of the Effects of Ethics Training on International and US Students
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Science and Engineering Ethics, July 2015
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s11948-015-9678-5 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Logan M. Steele, James F. Johnson, Logan L. Watts, Alexandra E. MacDougall, Michael D. Mumford, Shane Connelly, T. H. Lee Williams |
| Abstract |
As scientific and engineering efforts become increasingly global in nature, the need to understand differences in perceptions of research ethics issues across countries and cultures is imperative. However, investigations into the connection between nationality and ethical decision-making in the sciences have largely generated mixed results. In Study 1 of this paper, a measure of biases and compensatory strategies that could influence ethical decisions was administered. Results from this study indicated that graduate students from the United States and international graduate students studying in the US are prone to different biases. Based on these findings, recommendations are made for developing ethics education interventions to target these decision-making biases. In Study 2, we employed an ethics training intervention based on ethical sensemaking and used a well-established measure of ethical decision-making that more fully captures the content of ethical judgment. Similar to Study 1, the results obtained in this study suggest differences do exist between graduate students from the US and international graduate students in ethical decision-making prior to taking the research ethics training. However, similar effects were observed for both groups following the completion of the ethics training intervention. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Australia | 1 | 33% |
| United States | 1 | 33% |
| Unknown | 1 | 33% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 3 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 44 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 1 | 2% |
| Unknown | 43 | 98% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 7 | 16% |
| Researcher | 5 | 11% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 5 | 11% |
| Professor > Associate Professor | 4 | 9% |
| Lecturer | 3 | 7% |
| Other | 10 | 23% |
| Unknown | 10 | 23% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Social Sciences | 7 | 16% |
| Business, Management and Accounting | 6 | 14% |
| Engineering | 5 | 11% |
| Psychology | 5 | 11% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 2 | 5% |
| Other | 9 | 20% |
| Unknown | 10 | 23% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 12. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 26 August 2015.
All research outputs
#2,791,032
of 23,911,072 outputs
Outputs from Science and Engineering Ethics
#231
of 947 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#35,383
of 265,376 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Science and Engineering Ethics
#8
of 30 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,911,072 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 88th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 947 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 12.3. This one has done well, scoring higher than 75% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 265,376 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 86% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 30 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 70% of its contemporaries.