Advertisement

What Explains Associations of Researchers’ Nation of Origin and Scores on a Measure of Professional Decision-Making? Exploring Key Variables and Interpretation of Scores

  • Alison L. Antes
  • Tammy English
  • Kari A. Baldwin
  • James M. DuBoisEmail author
Original Paper
  • 17 Downloads

Abstract

Researchers encounter challenges that require making complex professional decisions. Strategies such as seeking help and anticipating consequences support decision-making in these situations. Existing evidence on a measure of professional decision-making in research (the PDR) that assesses the use of decision-making strategies revealed that NIH-funded researchers born outside of the U.S. tended to score below their U.S. counterparts. To examine potential explanations for this association, this study recruited 101 researchers born in the United States and 102 born internationally to complete the PDR and measures of basic personal values, values in scientific work, discrimination between the seriousness of rules in research, exposure to unprofessional research practices, and acculturation to American culture. Several variables were associated with PDR scores—discrimination between types of rules in research, exposure to unprofessional research practices, acculturation, and the basic personal values of power, security, and benevolence. However, only security, benevolence, acculturation, and rule discrimination were also associated with nation of origin. In multivariate models, the variance explained by these variables in accounting for the association of nation of origin and PDR scores was somewhat overlapping, thus, only security and benevolence remained as unique, statistically significant predictors. Thus, this study identified some important variables in the association of nation of origin and PDR, but more research is needed. In a secondary analysis to examine the “clinical significance” (the practical importance) of scores on the PDR, this study examined aggregated PDR score data from the present sample and past samples of investigators. This analysis identified scores that may suggest a concern versus those scores that may be interpreted as excellent, proficient, or marginal. Implications for training and mentoring, along with considerations for future research are discussed.

Keywords

Professionalism Decision-making Nation of origin Culture 

Notes

Acknowledgements

This research was funded by the U.S. Office of Research Integrity, ORIIR140009 (JMD), and in part by a National Center for Advancing Clinical and Translational Science Award, UL1 TR002345. The effort of ALA was supported in part by the National Human Genome Research Institute, K01HG008990.

Compliance with Ethical Standards

Ethics Approval

This study was reviewed and approved by the Institutional Review Board at Washington University in St. Louis (ID#201511060) and was conducted in accord with the standards for ethical research with human participants.

Conflict of interest

The authors have no conflicts of interest to declare.

References

  1. Adams, J. (2013). The fourth age of research. Nature, 497(7451), 557–560.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Adams, L. G. (2014). Putting together a scientific team: Collaborative science. Trends in Microbiology, 22(9), 483–485.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tim.2014.05.001.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Anderson, M. S., Horn, A. S., Risbey, K. R., Ronning, E. A., De Vries, R., & Martinson, B. C. (2007). What do mentoring and training in the responsible conduct of research have to do with scientists’ misbehavior? Findings from a National Survey of NIH-funded scientists. Academic Medicine, 82(9), 853–860.  https://doi.org/10.1097/ACM.0b013e31812f764c.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Anderson, M. S., & Louis, K. S. (1994). The graduate student experience and subscription to the norms of science. Research in Higher Education, 35(3), 273–299.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Antes, A. L., Chibnall, J. T., Baldwin, K. A., Tait, R. C., Vander Wal, J. S., & DuBois, J. M. (2016). Making professional decisions in research: Measurement and key predictors. Accountability in Research, 23(5), 288–308.  https://doi.org/10.1080/08989621.2016.1171149.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Antes, A. L., English, T., Baldwin, K. A., & DuBois, J. M. (2018). The role of culture and acculturation in researchers’ perceptions of rules in science. Science and Engineering Ethics, 24(2), 361–391.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11948-017-9876-4.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Aycan, Z., & Gelfand, M. (2012). Cross-cultural organizational psychology. In S. W. J. Kozlowski (Ed.), The Oxford handbook of organizational psychology (Vol. 2). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  8. Bardi, A., & Schwartz, S. H. (2003). Values and behavior: Strength and structure of relations. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 29(10), 1207–1220.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Benderly, B. L. (2012). Ethics across borders. Science.  https://doi.org/10.1126/science.caredit.a1200122.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Boer, D., & Fischer, R. (2013). How and when do personal values guide our attitudes and sociality? Explaining cross-cultural variability in attitude-value linkages. Psychological Bulletin, 139(5), 1113.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Crowe, E., & Higgins, E. T. (1997). Regulatory focus and strategic inclinations: Promotion and prevention in decision-making. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 69(2), 117–132.  https://doi.org/10.1006/obhd.1996.2675.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. De Vries, R., Anderson, M. S., & Martinson, B. C. (2006). Normal misbehavior: Scientists talk about the ethics of research. Journal of Empirical Research on Human Research Ethics, 1(1), 43–50.  https://doi.org/10.1525/jer.2006.1.1.43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Dose, J. J. (1997). Work values: An integrative framework and illustrative application to organizational socialization. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 70(3), 219–240.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. DuBois, J. M., & Antes, A. L. (2018). Five dimensions of research ethics: A stakeholder framework for creating a climate of research integrity. Academic Medicine, 93(4), 550–555.  https://doi.org/10.1097/ACM.0000000000001966.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. DuBois, J. M., Chibnall, J. T., Tait, R. C., & Vander Wal, J. S. (2016a). Misconduct: Lessons from researcher rehab. Nature, 534(7606), 173–175.  https://doi.org/10.1038/534173a.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. DuBois, J. M., Chibnall, J. T., Tait, R. C., & Vander Wal, J. S. (2017). The Professionalism and Integrity in Research Program: Description and preliminary outcomes. Academic Medicine.  https://doi.org/10.1097/acm.0000000000001804.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. DuBois, J. M., Chibnall, J. T., Tait, R. C., Vander Wal, J. S., Baldwin, K. A., Antes, A. L., et al. (2016b). Professional Decision-Making in Research (PDR): The validity of a new measure. Science and Engineering Ethics, 22(2), 391–416.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11948-015-9667-8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Earley, P. C., & Mosakowski, E. (2004). Toward culture intelligence: Turning cultural differences into a workplace advantage. The Academy of Management Executive, 18(3), 151–157.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. English, T., Antes, A. L., Baldwin, K. A., & DuBois, J. M. (2018). Development and preliminary validation of a new measure of values in scientific work. Science and Engineering Ethics, 24(2), 393–418.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11948-017-9896-0.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Fischer, R. (2009). Where is culture in cross cultural research? An outline of a multilevel research process for measuring culture as a shared meaning system. International Journal of Cross Cultural Management, 9(1), 25–49.  https://doi.org/10.1177/1470595808101154.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Glover, S. H., Bumpus, M. A., Logan, J. E., & Ciesla, J. R. (1997). Re-examining the influence of individual values on ethical decision making. Journal of Business Ethics, 16, 1319–1329.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Greshko, M. (2017). Nearly 900 people have won Nobel prizes. Only 48 were women. National geographic. https://news.nationalgeographic.com/2017/2010/nobel-prize-winners-laureates-charts-graphics-science/.
  23. Heitman, E. (2014). Cross-cultural considerations in U.S. research ethics education. Journal of Microbiology and Biology Education, 15(2), 130–134.  https://doi.org/10.1128/jmbe.v15i2.860.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Heitman, E., & Litewka, S. (2011). International perspectives on plagiarism and considerations for teaching international trainees. Urologic Oncology, 29(1), 104–108.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.urolonc.2010.09.014.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. InterAcademy Partnership. (2016). Doing global science: A guide to responsible conduct in the global research enterprise. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  26. Johnson, R. E., King, D. D., Lin, S. H., Scott, B. A., Walker, E. M. J., & Wang, M. (2017). Regulatory focus trickle-down: How leader regulatory focus and behavior shape follower regulatory focus. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 140, 29–45.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.obhdp.2017.03.002.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Kent, M. M. (2011). More U.S. scientists and engineers are foreign-born. Population reference Bureau. http://www.prb.org/Publications/Articles/2011/usforeignbornstem.aspx.
  28. Kim, H., & Markus, H. R. (1999). Deviance or uniqueness, harmony or conformity? A cultural analysis. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 77(4), 785.  https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.77.4.785.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Knafo, A., Roccas, S., & Sagiv, L. (2011). The value of values in cross-cultural research: A special issue in honor of Shalom Schwartz. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 42(2), 178–185.  https://doi.org/10.1177/0022022110396863.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Kung, F. Y., Kim, Y.-H., Yang, D. Y.-J., & Cheng, S. Y. (2016). The role of regulatory fit in framing effective negative feedback across cultures. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 47(5), 696–712.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Leikas, S., Lonnqvist, J. E., Verkasalo, M., & Lindeman, M. (2009). Regulatory focus systems and personal values. European Journal of Social Psychology, 39(3), 415–429.  https://doi.org/10.1002/ejsp.547.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Levin, S. G., & Stephan, P. E. (1999). Are the foreign born a source of strength for U.S. science? Science, 285(5431), 1213–1214.  https://doi.org/10.1126/science.285.5431.1213.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Libaers, D. P. (2007). Role and contribution of foreign-born scientists and engineers to the public U.S. nanoscience and technology research enterprise. IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management, 54(3), 423–432.  https://doi.org/10.1109/tem.2007.900789.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Markus, H. R., & Kitayama, S. (1991). Culture and the self: Implications for cognition, emotion, and motivation. Psychological Review, 98(2), 224.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Mendenhall, M., & Oddou, G. (1985). The dimensions of expatriate acculturation: A review. The Academy of Management Review, 10(1), 39–47.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Mumford, M. D., Connelly, S., Brown, R. P., Murphy, S. T., Hill, J. H., Antes, A. L., et al. (2008). A sensemaking approach to ethics training for scientists: Preliminary evidence of training effectiveness. Ethics and Behavior, 18(4), 315–339.  https://doi.org/10.1080/10508420802487815.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Mumford, M. D., Connelly, S., Murphy, S. T., Devenport, L. D., Antes, A. L., Brown, R. P., et al. (2009a). Field and experience influences on ethical decision making in the sciences. Ethics and Behavior, 19(4), 263–289.  https://doi.org/10.1080/10508420903035257.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Mumford, M. D., Devenport, L. D., Brown, R. P., Connelly, S., Murphy, S. T., Hill, J. H., et al. (2006). Validation of ethical decision making measures: Evidence for a new set of measures. Ethics and Behavior, 16(4), 319–345.  https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327019eb1604_4.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Mumford, M. D., Waples, E. P., Antes, A. L., Murphy, S. T., Connelly, S., Brown, R. P., et al. (2009b). Exposure to unethical career events: Effects on decision-making, climate, and socialization. Ethics and Behavior, 19(5), 351–378.  https://doi.org/10.1080/10508420903035356.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. National Institues of Health. (2012). ACD biomedical workforce working group data. Data on postdocs by citizenship. http://report.nih.gov/investigators_and_trainees/ACD_BWF/data_postdocs_citizenship.aspx.
  41. National Science Foundation. (2015). National Center for Science and Engineering Statistics. Postdoctoral appointees in science, engineering, and health in all institutions, by field: 1979–2015. Survey of graduate students and postdoctorates in science and engineering. https://ncsesdata.nsf.gov/datatables/gradpostdoc/2015/html/GSS2015_DST_27.html.
  42. National Science Foundation. (2016). National Science Board. Science and engineering indicators, chapter 5: Academic research and development. https://www.nsf.gov/statistics/2016/nsb20161/#/report.
  43. Nho, H.-J. (2016). Research ethics education in Korea for overcoming culture and value system differences. Journal of Open Innovation: Technology, Market, and Complexity, 2(1), 1–11.  https://doi.org/10.1186/s40852-016-0030-3.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. No, Y., & Walsh, J. P. (2010). The importance of foreign-born talent for US innovation. Nature Biotechnology, 28(3), 289–291.  https://doi.org/10.1038/nbt0310-289.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Reynolds, W. M. (1982). Development of reliable and valid short forms of the Marlowe-Crowne Social Desirability Scale. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 38, 119–125.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Robertson, C., & Fadil, P. A. (1999). Ethical decision making in multinational organizations: A culture-based model. Journal of Business Ethics, 19(4), 385–392.  https://doi.org/10.1023/a:1005742016867.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Ros, M., Schwartz, S. H., & Surkiss, S. (1999). Basic individual values, work values, and the meaning of work. Applied Psychology, 48(1), 49–71.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1464-0597.1999.tb00048.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Sabharwal, M. (2011). High-skilled immigrants: How satisfied are foreign-born scientists and engineers employed at American universities? Review of Public Personnel Administration, 31(2), 143–170.  https://doi.org/10.1177/0734371x11408572.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Sam, D. L., & Berry, J. W. (2010). Acculturation: When individuals and groups of different cultural backgrounds meet. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 5(4), 472–481.  https://doi.org/10.1177/1745691610373075.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Schwartz, S. H. (1994). Are there universal aspects in the structure and contents of human values? Journal of Social Issues, 50(4), 19–45.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Schwartz, S. H. (2012). An overview of the Schwartz theory of basic values. Online Readings in Psychology and Culture, 2(1), 11.  https://doi.org/10.9707/2307-0919.1116.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Schwartz, S. H., & Bilsky, W. (1990). Toward a theory of the universal content and structure of values: Extensions and cross-cultural replications. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 58(5), 878.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Schwartz, S. H., & Boehnke, K. (2004). Evaluating the structure of human values with confirmatory factor analysis. Journal of Research in Personality, 38(3), 230–255.  https://doi.org/10.1016/s0092-6566.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Schwartz, S. H., Cieciuch, J., Vecchione, M., Davidov, E., Fischer, R., Beierlein, C., et al. (2012). Refining the theory of basic individual values. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 103(4), 663.  https://doi.org/10.1037/a0029393.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Schwartz, S. H., & Sagiv, L. (1995). Identifying culture-specifics in the content and structure of values. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 26(1), 92–116.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Soares, A. M., Farhangmehr, M., & Shoham, A. (2007). Hofstede’s dimensions of culture in international marketing studies. Journal of Business Research, 60(3), 277–284.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2006.10.018.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Steele, L. M., Johnson, J. F., Watts, L. L., MacDougall, A. E., Mumford, M. D., Connelly, S., et al. (2015). A comparison of the effects of ethics training on international and US students. Science and Engineering Ethics, 22(4), 1217–1244.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11948-015-9678-5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Steneck, N. H. (2013). Global research integrity training. Science, 340(6132), 552–553.  https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1236373.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Stenmark, C. K., Antes, A. L., Thiel, C. E., Caughron, J. J., Wang, X. Q., & Mumford, M. D. (2011). Consequences identification in forecasting and ethical decision-making. Journal of Empirical Research on Human Research Ethics, 6(1), 25–32.  https://doi.org/10.1525/jer.2011.6.1.25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Sugimoto, C. R., Garcia, N. R., Murray, D. S., Yegros-Yegros, A., Costas, R., & Lariviere, V. (2017). Scientists have most impact when they’re free to move. Nature, 550(7674), 29–31.  https://doi.org/10.1038/550029a.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Taras, V., Kirkman, B. L., & Steel, P. (2010). Examining the impact of culture’s consequences: A three-decade, multilevel, meta-analytic review of Hofstede’s cultural value dimensions. Journal of Applied Psychology, 95(3), 405–439.  https://doi.org/10.1037/a0018938.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Taylor, S. E., Sherman, D. K., Kim, H. S., Jarcho, J., Takagi, K., & Dunagan, M. S. (2004). Culture and social support: Who seeks it and why? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 87(3), 354.  https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.87.3.354.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Thiel, C. E., Bagdasarov, Z., Harkrider, L. N., Johnson, J. F., & Mumford, M. D. (2012). Leader ethical decision-making in organizations: Strategies for sensemaking. Journal of Business Ethics, 107(1), 49–64.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-012-1299-1.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Thiel, C. E., Connelly, S., & Griffith, J. A. (2011). The influence of anger on ethical decision making: Comparison of a primary and secondary appraisal. Ethics and Behavior, 21(5), 380–403.  https://doi.org/10.1080/10508422.2011.604295.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Triandis, H. C. (1989). The self and social behavior in differing cultural contexts. Psychological Review, 96(3), 506–520.  https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.96.3.506.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Tsai, J. L., Ying, Y.-W., & Lee, P. A. (2000). The Meaning of “being Chinese” and “being American” variation among Chinese American young adults. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 31(3), 302–332.  https://doi.org/10.1177/0022022100031003002.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Verplanken, B., & Holland, R. W. (2002). Motivated decision making: Effects of activation and self-centrality of values on choices and behavior. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 82(3), 434–447.  https://doi.org/10.1037//0022-3514.82.3.434.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Wong, E. C., Palaniappan, L. P., & Lauderdale, D. S. (2010). Using name lists to infer Asian racial/ethnic subgroups in the healthcare setting. Medical Care, 48(6), 540–546.  https://doi.org/10.1097/MLR.0b013e3181d559e9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature B.V. 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Division of General Medical SciencesWashington University School of MedicineSt. LouisUSA
  2. 2.Department of Psychological and Brain SciencesWashington UniversitySt. LouisUSA

Personalised recommendations