نوع مقاله : مقاله علمی - پژوهشی

نویسنده

استادیار، گروه علوم تربیتی، دانشگاه بین المللی امام رضا (ع)، مشهد، ایران

10.22047/ijee.2021.291201.1842

چکیده

 پژوهش حاضر با هدف بررسی و اعتبار یابی مقیاس اخلاق پژوهش در دانشجویان تحصیلات تکمیلی مهندسی صورت پذیرفت. روش پژوهش، توصیفی_ پیمایشی و جامعه آماری شامل تمام دانشجویان تحصیلات تکمیلی رشته‌های فنی_مهندسی دانشگاه‌های دولتی تهران، هرمزگان، فردوسی مشهد و گیلان در نیمسال اول سال تحصیلی 1399-1400 بود. با توجه به گستردگی جامعه آماری و ماهیت پژوهش، نمونه‌ای به حجم 402 نفر در پژوهش شرکت و مقیاس اخلاق پژوهش سیلور (1997) را به‌صورت الکترونیکی تکمیل نمودند. تحلیل آماری داده‌ها با نرم‌افزارهای Spss24 و Lisrel8.5 انجام شد. روایی مقیاس اخلاق پژوهش از دو جنبه محتوایی و سازه مورد قرار گرفت و شاخص‌های برازش تحلیل عاملی تأییدی نشان داد که الگوی تأییدی از برازش قابل قبولی برخوردار می‌باشد 
(2843/52 =χ2، 09/0 =RSMEA، 92/0=RFI، 74/0=GFI، 96/0=CFI). در فرایند بررسی اعتبار نیز از روش همسانی درونی و همبستگی هر خرده مقیاس با نمره کل استفاده شد. جهت احراز همسانی درونی، ضرایب آلفای کرونباخ برای کل مقیاس 95/0 و برای چهار خرده مقیاس صداقت شخصی، روش‌شناسی، تحلیل داده و انتشار به ترتیب 84/0، 74/0، 76/0 و 90/0 به دست آمد. همچنین، ماتریس ضرایب همبستگی بین خرده مقیاس‌ها با نمره کل اخلاق پژوهش حاکی از روابط درونی قوی و همبستگی مثبت معنادار بود (P< 0/001). 

کلیدواژه‌ها

عنوان مقاله [English]

INVESTIGATING RESEARCH ETHICS SCALE IN ENGINEERING GRADUATE STUDENTS

نویسنده [English]

  • Hamideh Pakmehr

Assistant Professor, Department of Educational Science, Imam Reza International University, Mashhad, Iran

چکیده [English]

The aim of this study was to investigate and validate research ethics in engineering graduate students.  The research method was descriptive-survey and the statistical population included all postgraduate students of technical-engineering fields at government universities of Tehran, Hormozgan, Ferdowsi and Gilan in the first semester of the academic year 2020-2021. Due to the size of the statistical population and the nature of the research, a sample of 402 people participated in the research and completed the Sailor Research Ethics Scales (1997) electronically. Statistical analysis of data was performed with SPSS 24 and Lisrel 8.5 software. The validity of the research ethics scale was examined from both content and structure aspects and the fit indices of confirmatory factor analysis showed that the confirmation model has an acceptable fit (χ2 = 52.2843, RSMEA = 0.09, RFI = 0.92, GFI = 0.74, CFI = 0.96). The reliability process was used the internal consistency method and the correlation of each subscale with the total score. Cronbach’s alpha coefficients for internal consistency, were 0.95 for the whole scale and 0.84, 0.74, 0.76, 0.90 for the four personal integrity, methodology, data analysis and publication. Also, the matrix of correlation coefficients between the subscales with the total score of research ethics indicated strong internal relationships and a significant positive correlation (P <0.001). Finally, in order to compare the results of future research with the norm group in Iranian culture were reported the mean and standard deviation of the subscales of the research ethics scale. 

کلیدواژه‌ها [English]

  • Research ethics
  • engineering students
  • validity
  • reliability
  • standardization
Ababneh, M A.,  Al-Azzam, S I., Alzoubi, K., Rababa’h, A., & Al Demour, S. (2021). Understanding and attitudes of the jordanian public about clinical research ethics, Research Ethics, 17 (2), 228-241.
Amin Mozaffari, F., & Shamsi, L. (2011). The study of methods and approaches to commercialization of university research, case study: tabriz university, Journal of Ethics in Science and Technology, ۳(۴), ۱۵-۲۹ [in Persian].
Bitter, Cindy C., Ngabirano, Annet Alenyo., Simo,n Erin., Taylor, David McD. (2020). Principles of research ethics: a research primer for low- and middle-income countries, African Journal of Emergency Medicine, 10 (2), 125-129.
Breslin, S., Shareck , M., & Fuller, D. (2019). Research ethics for mobile sensing device use by vulnerable populations, Social Science & Medicine, 232: 50-57.
Caramello, C., Denece, D., & Feaster, K. (2017). Research ethics education in graduate international collaborations. Washington, DC: Council of Graduate Schools.
Caswell, G., &Turner, N.(2021). Ethical challenges in researching and telling the stories of recently deceased people,  Research Ethics, 17 (2), 162-175.
Chiumento, A., Rahman, A., & Frith, L. (2020). Writing to template: researchers’ negotiation of procedural research ethics, Social Science & Medicine, 255, 11-29.
Chou, C P., & Bentler, P M. (1995). Estimates and tests in structural equation modeling. In R. H. Hoyle (Ed.), Structural equation modeling: Concepts, issues, and applications (p. 37-55).
Ellemers, N.,  Toorn, J . , Paunov , Y ., &Leeuwen , Th . (2019).  The psychology of morality: a teview and tnalysis of empirical studies published from 1940 through 2017, Pers Soc Psychol Rev, 23(4), 332-366.
Farasatkhah, M. (2005). Scientific ethics: The key to promoting higher education: the position and mechanisms of professional scientific ethics in ensuring the quality of higher education in iran, Ethics in Science and Technology Quarterly, 1, 96-62 [in Persian].
George, A J. T. (2016). Research ethics, Medicine, 44 (10), 615-618.
Ioannidis, J., Klavans, R., & Boyack, KW. (2018).  Thousands of scientists publish a paper every five days, Nature, 561(7722): 167-169.
Jackson, B. (2018). The changing research data landscape and the experiences of ethics review board chairs: implications for library practice and partnerships, The Journal of Academic Librarianship, 44 (5), 603-612.
Karshki, Hossein., & Bahmanabadi, Somayeh. (2013). Assessing the components and factor structure of research self-efficacy in graduate students, Research and Planning in Higher Education, 19 (2), 91-114. [in Persian].
Khani Jazani, J., Jafari, S., Arab, A. (2019). Identifying and prioritizing the indicators of professional ethics in research, Journal of Ethics in Science and Technology, 14 (3): 99-107. [in Persian].
Khoshsaligheh, M.,  Mehdizadkhani, M., & Keyvan, S. (2017). Severity of types of violations of research ethics: perception of iranian master’s students of translation, Journal of Academic Ethics,  15, 125-140 [in Persian].
Koljatic, M. (2021). Unconsented acknowledgments as a form of authorship abuse: what can be done about it,  Research Ethics, 17 (2), 127-134.
Kruk, J. (2013). Good scientific practice and ethical principles in scientific research and higher education, Central European Journal of Sport Sciences and Medicine, 1, 25-29.
Löfström, E. (2012).  Students’ ethical awareness and conceptions of research ethics. Ethics & Behavior, 22 (5), 349-361. 
Mallia, Pierre. (2018).  Ethics approval for a research study (1), Early Human Development, 124, 46-48.
Qasemzadeh, N., Nik Ravanfard, N., Rahimi Rad, M H., Mousavipour, S., & Faramarzi Razini, F. (2013). The degree of observance of ethics standards in research in research projects, Ethics and History of Medicine, 6 (2), 67-85 [in Persian].
Rutjens BT, & Heine SJ (2016) The Immoral landscape? Scientists are associated with violations of morality. PLoS ONE, 11(4),15-27.
Sailor,P (1997). The relationship between graduate student education in research ethics and their attitudes toward research misconduct. A dissertation submitted in doktor of philsophy, Utah State Univresity: Utah.
Sandy, W., & Shen, H. (2019). Publish to earn incentives: how do indonesian professors respond to the new policy, High Education, 77(2), 247-263.
Seghatol-Islami A. (2019). A process for developing an Internet research ethic based on the action research method, Ethics in Science and Technology, 14 (2), 1-7 [in Persian].
Shamoo, A., & Resnik, D. (2015). Responsible conduct of research (2 edition). New York: Oxford University Press.
Souza, Anne D., & Vaswan,i Vina. (2020). Diversity in approach to teaching and assessing ethics education for medical undergraduates: A scoping review, Annals of Medicine and Surgery, 56: 178-185.
Sterling, S., & Gass, S. (2017). Exploring the boundaries of research ethics: Perceptions of ethics and ethical behaviors in applied linguistics research, System, 70: 50-62.
To , W M., & Yu , B . (2020). Rise in higher education researchers and academic publications, Emerald Open Research, 1 (2), 1-15. 
Tubig, P.,  & McCusker, D. (2021). Fostering the trustworthiness of researchers: SPECS and the role of ethical reflexivity in novel neurotechnology research,  Research Ethics, 17 (2), 143-161. 
Ulrich, C M., Demiris, G., Kennedy, R., & Rothwell, E. (2020).  The ethics of sensor technology use in clinical research, Nursing Outlook, 68 (6), 720-726.
Viswanath, B., Jayarajan, Rajan N., Chandra, PS., & Chaturvedi, S K. (2018). Supplementing research ethics training in psychiatry residents: a five-tier approach. Asian Journal of Psychiatry, 34: 54-56.
Weinbaum, C., Landree , E., Blumenthal , M S., Piquado , T. & Gutierrez , C. (2019). ethics in scientific research an examination of ethical principles and emerging topics, Santa Monica: RAND Corporation.