INTEGRIDADACADEMICA:

UNOS APUNTES

Halley D. SanchezUPRM

24 de enero de 2004

Integridad es una característica esencial y determinante de una institución de educación superior

Integridad va mucho mas allá de los asuntos de plagio y de cometer trampa

• Adherencia a estádares éticos en general, incluyendo

• justicia (“fairness)

• debido proceso de ley (due process)

• respeto a seres humanos

En adición al asunto de honestidad académica, integridad incluye, por ejemplo:

• El derecho a consentimiento libre e informado• Trato respetuoso• Procesos justos e imparciales sobre tales

asuntos como» contrataciones» evaluaciones» admisiciones» despidos» quejas (“grievance procedures”)

• Respeto para libertad intelectual y académica

Del manual de MSCHE

Standard 6 Integrity

In the conduct of its programs and activities involving the public and the constituencies it serves, the institution demonstrates adherence to ethical standards and its own stated policies, providing support to academic and intellectual freedom. (p. 18)

Algunos Hallazgos• UPRM es una institución básicamente honesta• Existe cierto disgusto entre los constituyentes

sobre varios asuntos o procedimientos• contrataciones• evaluación• ascensos• suficiencia de información sobre lo que se

espera del empleado (tanto docente como no docente)

• información sobre proceso de registrar quejas• como se ha trabajado con deshonestidad

académica

Resumen de datos – evaluación y ascenso

• 49.2 % de la facultad, 50% de los senadores electos y 26.9% de los directores respondieron en lo negativo a la pregunta sobre la justicia (“fairness”) del proceso de evaluación

• Cuatro de cinco de los decanos academicós opinaron que el proceso de evaluació es anacrónico y deficiente, y que necesita ser mejorado.

• 38.3% de la facultad y 33.3% de los senadores electos respondieron en lo negativo sobre la justicia del proceso de permanencia.

• 45.5% de la facultad y 33.3% de los senadores electos responded en lo negativo conciernente a la justicia (“fairness”) del proceso de ascenso.

Fairness, respectfulness and due process of

% yes % no % other or n/a

Evaluation procedures 48.2 49.2 2.5

Tenure procedures 54.3 38.3 7.5

Promotion procedures 47.8 45.3 7

Discipline procedures 33.8 36.9 29.3

Grievance procedures 44 37 19

De la encuesta de profesores

De la Enquesta de los Senadores Electos

Fairness, respectfulness and due process of

% yes

% no % other or n/a

Evaluation procedures 50 50 ---

Tenure procedures 66.7 33.3 ---

Promotion procedures 66.7 33.3 ---

Discipline procedures 25 50 25

Grievance procedures 50 50 ---

Opinión de Directores de Departamentos

Fairness, respectfulness and due process of evaluation, tenure, promotion, discipline, and grievance procedures

% yes

Somewhat/hedged yes

% no

% other or n/a

46.2 26.9 26.9 ---

Algunos comentarios de Directores

• not totally objective• instruments of evaluation are out of date• sometimes biased• evaluation modules used are not fair• better evaluation modules are required; current

modules need to be updated• should be more objective• modules are deficient; need to be improved.• evaluations are not conducted periodically as needed• forms need revising

• our evaluation procedures need to be revised to put them up to date

• evaluation forms are obsolete and are in fact impossible to use

• yes, in part, but there is a need to modify the documents for evaluation, all needs to be more clear, specific and more objective

• It is difficult to evaluate since there are no standards set on the faculty requirements. No specific tasks are assigned when faculty is recruited for further evaluation.

• A nivel departamental se trata de que los procedimientos sean lo más justos posibles. A nivel institucional la inestabilidad administrativa hace que los criterios y normas se cambien dependiendo de la administración de turno y las decisiones finales las toma la Junta Administrativa, usando a menudo criterios que son desconocidos para el Departamento. Los módulos son demasiado subjetivos y extensos, no miden la productividad de los profesores.

• At the level of the Junta Administrativa, I believe that the procedures and practices are fair, and in accordance with due process and respect for the individual. At the department level the process leaves much to be desired and at times it is unlikely that the respect of the individual is taken into account. There is a tendency towards the objectification of the individual based on individual PC [personnel committee] members subjectivity and the ambiguous wording of the evaluation forms.

• It depends. Regulations are followed. However, these regulations need to be updated. They are past due of being revisited. Unfortunately these norms were developed 20 years ago and the actual faculty priorities are far distant from what are the typical priorities for the faculty and the department. I feel there is still a big gap providing formative instead of punitive evaluations. For example there is no way of providing rewards to those going far beyond their expected loads and achievements.

• I believe in general these are fair and respectful. However, the evaluation of faculty is very subjective and based on criteria that hold equal weight when faculties or departments might prefer more weight given to some criteria over others. For example, a professor who is in a science department should be judged with more emphasis on his research and publication record than a professor in a department that that is principally a non-research department. In addition, professors that are primarily teaching should be judged more on their teaching and less on the research. It would be nice to be able to make the process more objective by gathering data that can be analyzed numerically.

• With respect to my unit, this is essentially answered above. Due processes are a function of the integrity of the director and the dean. According to the “style” of the upper administration (dean and chancellor) the units have had directors for which due process was a function of their own political or personal agenda. In general, issues related to real professional accomplishments and service to the institution are not really addressed. Very often non-productive faculty members are tenured easily and if the issues concerning their productivity are raised, most people feel offended and singled out. In order to keep peace within the units, personnel committees tend to be overly lenient in their assessments.

Hallazgo 6

A large percentage of faculty do not believe that they are sufficiently provided with specific information of what is expected of them in terms of teaching and research.

From the Faculty suvey

Sufficiency of the information regarding

% yes % no % other or n/a

Evaluation procedures 76.6 26.4

Tenure requirements 71.5 27.5 1

Promotion requirements 68.2 30.8 1

Teaching expectations 55.7 43.8 0.5

Research expectations 50.5 47.5 2

Advising expectations 36.3 58.7 5

Service expectations 40.8 58.2 1

Disciplinary procedures (for faculty)

44.5 54 1.5

Dismissal procedures (for faculty) 36 62.5 1.5

From the Elected Senators questionnaire

Sufficiency of the information regarding

% yes

% no % other or n/a

Expectations (performance) 58.3 40.7

Evaluation procedures 41.7 50 8.3

Tenure requirements 50 41.7 8.3

Promotion requirements 41.7 58.3 8.3

Disciplinary procedures (for faculty)

16.7 75 8.3

Dismissal procedures (for faculty)

25 66.7 8.3

Hallazgo 7

A large percentage, and sometimes the majority, of non-teaching employees do not believe that they are adequately informed about what is expected of them, evaluation procedures, and discipline and dismissal procedures.

Specific negative responses are 44.9 %, 55.2%, and 64.2 % respectively.

From the Non-teaching Employee Survey

Sufficiency of the information regarding

% yes

% no % other or n/a

Performance (job) expectations 33.8 44.9 1.4

Evaluation procedures 41.7 55.2 2.1

Disciplinary procedures 39.2 56.6 4.3

Dismissal procedures 29.4 64.2 6.5

Plagio y Deshonestidad Académica

There exists an ambiguity among respondents to the questionnaires and surveys regarding whether there exists a specific policy to deal with cheating and plagiarism.

Finding 11: The specific institutional procedures to deal with cheating and plagiarism are incomplete. As a result, opinion tends to be divided as to their existence.

Existence of a specific policy to deal with cheating and plagiarism

% yes %yes/no

% no % other or n/a

Academic deans 60 40

Directors 65.4 11.5 7.7 15.4

Faculty – faculty survey 54.1 36.1 9.8

Faculty – academic senators 50 36.7 8.3

Academic counselors 71.4 19 9.6

Opinión del Decano de Estudiantes – sobre la existencia de una medida para trabajar con deshonestidad académica

(“cheating” = trampa)

No. No existe una política seperada del proceso de deshonestidad académica. Se descansa en el proceso descrito en el Reglamento General de Estudiantes junto a otras conductas sujetas a sanciones disciplinarias.

Del Reglamento General de Estudiantes – Artículo 14 – de la Conducta Sujeta a

Sanciones Disciplinarias

A.2 La obtención de notas o grados acadé-micos valiéndose de

•falsas y fraudulentes simulaciones, o

• haciéndose pasar por otra persona, o

• mediante treta o engaño, o

• copiando total o parcialmente la labor académica de otro estudiante, o

• copiando total o parcialmente las respuestas de otro estudiante a las pregunts de un examen, o

• haciendo o consiguiendo que otro tome en su nombre cualquier prueba o examen oral o escrito.

Penadilades (del Artículo 15)1. Amonestación2. Probatoria por tiempo definido durante el

cual otra violación de cualquier norma tendrá consecuencia de suspensión o separación.

3. Suspensión de la Univesidad por un tiempo definido. …

4. Separación definitiva de la Universidad.5. … [posible reparación de daños]6. Cualquier otra sanción que se especifique en

el Reglamento de Estudiantes del Recinto. …

Casos que pueden resultar en suspensión o mayor penalidad

• Notificación Formal• Vista administrativa• Junta de Disciplina

• 2 senadores, 2 estudiantes, representante del Rector

• Estudiante podrá contar con un consejero o asesor• Podrá utilizarse un oficial examinador• Rector recibe informe y toma decisión• Estudiante podrá apelar decisión al Presidente

Del Artículo 16 – Procedimiento de Disciplina

• A.1. Los casos de infracciones a este Reglamento que puedan resultar en la imposición de penalidades inferiores a la suspensión, serán atendidos directamene por las autoridades administrativas correspondientes. Emplearán un procedimiento informal …

Del Artículo 18 De la Disciplina Académica

En lo que concierne a la disciplina en el salón de clase y a la conducta estudiantil relacionada con labores académicos, tales como participación en tareas diarias, preparaciones, trabajos de laboratorio, exámenes, entrevistas, calificaciones y otras actividades similares, el profesor tendrá jurisdicción.

Decano de Estudiantes – existencia de política institucional para prevenir deshonestidad

académica (trampa) y plagio

No, a nivel Institucional del Decanato de Estudiantes; sin embargo el proceso que se lleva a cabo cuando un estudiante es entrevistado por conducta de deshonestidad académica es una educativo y de análisis de principios éticos envueltos en el caso. Recientemente se nombró un Comité institucional que está trabajando con este asunto.

Existen cuatro comités relacionado

• Comité de Integridad Académica

• Comité de Integridad de Investigación (“Research Integrity”)

• Comité Institucional Protección Seres Humanos en la Investigación (“IRB = Institutional Review Board”)

• IACUC – comité que trata del trato que se le da a los animales usados en investigaciones

Comité de Integridad AcadémicaResumen – Plan de Acción

• Promover discusión y conocimiento del tema de deshonestidad académica

• Establecer un programa de educación y orientación

• Desarrollar guías posible futura política institucional

Comité de Integridad Académica Algunas actividades planificadas

• Módulo para el curso UNIV

• Módulo para taller CEP para profesores nuevos

• Recurso externo para ayudar con guías y diseminación de información

• Actividades para el mes de febrero: “Mes de la Integridad Académica”

• Taller para profesores

Posibles TalleresEquipo del

Centro para la Ética en las Profesiones

• Ética a lo largo de currículo• Ética de investigación (“research

ethics”)• Otros talleres especializados sobre

ética o integridad

Halley D. Sanchezhsanchez@uprm.edu

José A. Cruzjacruz@uprm.edu

William J. Freywfrey@uprm.edu

Jorge Ferrerjjferrersj@centennialpr.net

The task force believes that in general the negative opinions regarding procedures and due process at UPRM stem from the informal and improvisational nature of many of these procedures, dating back to a time when the university was much smaller, much less complex, and many details were best handled in a more familiar, informal manner. The task force sees evidence that UPRM is still undergoing a transition from a smaller, paternalistic institution to a larger more professional institution in which procedure and due process take precedence over more personal, familial relations.

GraciasHalley D. Sanchez

UPRM24 de enero de 2004

Preview

Responsible Research

• What should be avoided

– Failure to exercise due care: negligent or reckless research

– Deceptive Research: Trimming, Cooking, Forging, Plagiarism

Lack of Due Care• Negligent Research: “insufficient care in a matter

where one is morally obliged to be careful.”

• Reckless: “acts in professional practice [that] ignore dangers that should be obvious to a minimally competent professional so the acts themselves create a presumption of willfully ignoring those dangers together with failing to give them due attention and care”

• Whitbeck, Ethics in Engineering Practice and Research (1998), Cambridge Press, 215-216

Irresponsible Research

• Trimming: “the smoothing of irregularities to make the data look extremely accurate and precise.”

• Harris, Pritchard, & Rabins, 125-128

• Sigma Xi, Honor in Science (1986), 11-18

Irresponsible Research• Cooking: “retaining only those results that fit

the theory and discarding others.”

• Look up the Millikan case

• Harris, Pritchard, & Rabins, 125-128

• Sigma Xi, Honor in Science (1986), 11-18

Irresponsible Research• Forging: “inventing some or all of the

research data that are reported, and even reporting experiments to obtain those data that were never performed.”

• Harris, Pritchard & Rabins cite the Goodrich case (reported by Vandivier)

• Harris, Pritchard, & Rabins, 125-128• Sigma Xi, Honor in Science (1986), 11-18

Irresponsible Research• Plagiarism: “the use of the intellectual

property of others without proper acknowledgement or credit.”

• Responsibility of giving due credit to others

• Developing habits of proper documentation

• Harris, Pritchard, & Rabins, 125-128