Differences in Biases and Compensatory Strategies Across Discipline, Rank, and Gender Among University Academics

作者：Giorgini Vincent^*; Gibson Carter; Mecca Jensen T; Medeiros Kelsey E; Mumford Michael D; Connelly Shane; Devenport Lynn D

来源：Science and Engineering Ethics, 2015, 21(6): 1551-1579.

DOI：10.1007/s11948-014-9615-z

• Ethics
• Cross-field
• Biases
• Compensatory strategies
• Cross-rank
• Ethical decision making

The study of ethical behavior and ethical decision making is of increasing importance in many fields, and there is a growing literature addressing the issue. However, research examining differences in ethical decision making across fields and levels of experience is limited. In the present study, biases that undermine ethical decision making and compensatory strategies that may aid ethical decision making were identified in a series of interviews with 63 faculty members across six academic fields (e.g. biological sciences, health sciences, social sciences) and three levels of rank (assistant professor, associate professor, and full professor) as well as across gender. The degree to which certain biases and compensatory strategies were used in justifications for responses to ethical situations was compared across fields, level of experience, and gender. Major differences were found across fields for several biases and compensatory strategies, including biases and compensatory strategies related to use of professional field principles and field-specific guidelines. Furthermore, full professors tend to differ greatly from assistant and associate professors on a number of constructs, and there were differences in the consistency with which biases and compensatory strategies were displayed within these various groups. Implications of these findings for ethics training and future research are discussed.

• 出版日期2015-12