Study suggests simple steps that may improve team ethics

Instead of ending a group meeting asking if anyone has any questions, a professor at UT Arlington suggests asking participants if they can think of anything that might go wrong with the plan discussed.

“It helps get people thinking about who could potentially be harmed or if there is a part of the project we’re just not thinking about,” said Logan Watts, an assistant professor of psychology at UT Arlington and lead author on a new study exploring ethical decision-making within teams. “This helps people focus on potential issues before they can become ethical problems.”

The research is published in the journal Science and Engineering Ethics.

Historically, studies on ethical decision-making have focused on individual researchers. However, researchers rarely work alone. Plus, studies on the psychology of groups have shown that people think and behave differently when they work as part of a team rather than alone, so it’s important to understand team dynamics.

“The integrity of scientific enterprises depends a great deal on faith that researchers will ‘play by the rules,'” said Watts. “But that trust can erode quickly when researchers are caught fabricating data, plagiarizing work, failing to disclose conflicts of interest, or engaging in poor research practices that can harm others.”

To better understand the ethics of team decision-making, Watts and fellow psychology assistant professor Michelle Martín-Raugh, along with graduate students Sampoorna Nandi and Rylee Linhardt, interviewed scientists working at a public research university, asking them about their experiences and observations with ethical dilemmas within research.

After recording the interviews, the team transcribed and coded all the data to look for common themes. The most prevalent dilemma reported was research misconduct, with 75% of participants reporting issues around data fabrication, falsifying information, or copying work from another researcher.

The second most reported ethical dilemma was around the protection of human subjects, with 55% of researchers saying they had experienced an issue where a team member was not following ethical procedures surrounding the protection of the rights and welfare of study participants. The participants said that issues could become awkward if the person acting unethically had more seniority over the other members.

Although the current study was exploratory in nature and needs additional research to validate the findings using an experimental design, Watts said it revealed a few tactics that may help teams perform more ethically. One takeaway is the idea of an “ethical champion” who can help the group ensure they are not deliberately or accidentally making ethical mistakes and can also serve as role models for other group members.

“Our study showed that in many groups, a person stepped up to be the ethical champion. This wasn’t a formal designation, but rather, a person who was willing to speak up about ethical values and norms,” Watts said. “In some groups, a team member may be more focused on results, not thinking about some decisions being right or wrong or whether someone could potentially be harmed. This ethical champion was someone who was willing to say something if they saw something amiss.”

Watts also emphasized the importance of fostering an environment where everyone feels empowered to voice concerns.

“It’s important for teams to create a culture of psychological safety within the research group so that people without power feel comfortable speaking up,” Watts said.