Вы находитесь на странице: 1из 25

SIS 680 FINAL PAPER

Academic Ethics as a Cultural Construction


Proposal for Future Research
Samuel Ross ID #2526997

Samuel Ross SIS 680 Final Paper

Introduction "Nothing can with greater propriety be called a man's property than the fruit of his brain. - Waring v. Dunlea 1 For my research project and final thesis at American University, I am interested in studying the concept of academic integrity as a cultural construction. In recent years, various academic publications have sounded the alarm to the epidemic nature of international academic misconduct in China and Japan. Chinese scholars, for example, have developed such a reputation for duplicating and falsifying data that internationally respected magazines such as The Economist, Forbes and prominent western journals have explicitly taken note on its extensive spread in that country. Scholars, both Chinese and Western, according to The Economist, say that fraud [in China] remains rampant and misconduct ranges from falsified data to fibs about degrees, cheating on tests and extensive plagiarism.2 Elsewhere in Asia, according to L.M. Dryden, A surprising number of Western and Japanese colleagues also have also reportedeven more serious lapses in attribution in the published writings of some Japanese scholars in which large-scale cribbing of foreign-language texts might even occur during the process of translation into Japanese.3 Japanese and Chinese scholars are perceived to face little punishment for their co-option of outside research; if anything, they may even profit from it.4 Often, the identification and critique of this behavior is coupled with moral judgments to a perceived lack of or inappropriate reaction to faults in the norms for academic integrity. Steven Stearns, a professor who taught briefly at Peking University, made waves in 2007 when a letter he wrote to his Peking students in reaction to the level of plagiarism he encountered
1

Samuel Ross SIS 680 Final Paper

was republished online. In his letter, he accuses three students of plagiarism in their term essays, with allegations they were trying to deceive him, and that similar behavior fit into a larger pattern of behavior he observed in China. No one in China seems to care, Stearns writes. The fact that I have encountered this much plagiarism tells me something about the behavior of other professors and administrators here. They must tolerate a lot of it, and when they detect it, they cover it up without serious punishment5 More recently, The Lancet journal also published a scathing editorial after 70 Chinese contributions to an international science journal in 2010 turned out to be completely fabricated. Like Stearns, the Journal claims that such behavior had become typically expected of Chinese scholars.6 As Stearns, The Lancet and others condemn the actions while being skirting around the examination of motivating factors, a consistent theme is a failure of institutions on a schoolwide or national level to take these perceived breaches of academic integrity seriously. The Lancet for example, cites the failure of the Chinese Government to reinvigorate standards for teaching research ethics and for the conduct of research itself, as well as establishing robust and transparent procedures for handling allegations of scientific misconduct to prevent further instances of fraud.7 Dryden argues of a similar failure in Japan, where plagiarism is no real transgressiontherefore no significant penalty gets meted out with any consistency.8 Gary Wheeler agrees, commenting that Certainly, plagiarism is not a forefront issue in Japanese universities. It is, for example, the rare university in Japan that offers any sort of official guidelines on the topic.9 The suggestion is that cheating on exams, which are held to greater importance in the Japanese school system, is seen as more of a crime than plagiarism, whereas both would be held to similar offensive standards.
2

Samuel Ross SIS 680 Final Paper

What all these accounts suggest indirectly is that there is an ethical failing in how research is conducted in China and Japan and that scholars and academic institutions in those countries are seemingly unapologetic in their flagrant violations. Furthermore, as Stearns, Dryden and others have suggested, this is further a reflection of some kind of cultural dysfunction; a tolerance for plagiarism in academia is just part of the same attitude that allows for corrupt industrial, political, and economic practices in both countries. It is this view that I will explore the validity of in my thesis, as it promotes a culture or societal element which is inherently responsible for behavior which, according to critics is universally recognized as morally reprehensible. While I also will delve into international research practice, my own research will differ in two aspects from those presented above. First, I intend to look at foreign language commentary and contribution to this controversy over methods and behavior, and generally additional sources from non-western researchers, who have thus far been underrepresented in English sources on this topic from my research. Furthermore, unlike much of the critics above, I wish to focus less on the idea of culture governing research methods, and more on how it may govern expected standards for research methods and concepts of ethics. Theoretical Exploration of the Topic and Arguments Primarily, Sriram et. als compendium Surviving Field Research: Working in violent and difficult situations must be credited for the concept behind the creation of this proposal, through several essays which serve as an excellent introduction to the existence of and arguments for and against established academic ethics and institutions. In particular, the essays highlight the murkiness of defining and employing ideas of ethics within a variety of different contexts. For example, Judy Hemmings recounting of her experiences with how the sociological
3

Samuel Ross SIS 680 Final Paper

biases of the Institutional Review Board (IRB) prevented her from conducting research in the productive manner she outlined based on facts on the ground. In reviewing Hemmings application for research on Thai sex workers, the IRB decided that she was obligated to provide compensation to participants based on a taken-for-granted assumption that these [Thai] women were economically dependent because of their presumed poverty and the subsequent entrapment in prostitution.10 This, Hemming noted, was false, based on the facts she had observed and doing so not only ignored information in her application, but would have resulted in the subjects telling her what they thought she wanted to hear. Stories like the about in the Sriram et. al book heavily focused on the history of the IRB and the standards and institutions they were meant to protect. Academia, like all many disciplines has adopted certain established standards of how one does research in order to fulfill a perceived need to logistically and moralistically balance the pursuit of knowledge in a way that could verify said knowledge and minimize harm. On the larger scale, this is left up to higher institutions; the IRB in the west, and the Ministries of Education in Japan and China. These organizations and governmental institutions create basic guidelines, which are then specified further on the private level. For example, one would be hard-pressed to find an institution of higher learning in the United States today that has not developed a code of integrity, or something similarly worded which students and researchers who perform studies under its auspices are meant to uphold at all times. To further understand the importance of these rules one only has to inspect the most recent version of American Universitys Academic Integrity Code, which is over 10 pages in length and specific detail. These stipends are meant to establish the universitys perspective on honorable conduct, outlines attendant rights and
4

Samuel Ross SIS 680 Final Paper

responsibilities, and describes procedures for handling allegations of academic misconduct, with interpretations of the perspective to be solely interpreted by the provost. 11 These standards that the code establishes are defined primarily though their violations, which are recognized generally as issues of plagiarism, dishonesty, interference in others work, and coercion to commit fraud. There is also a blanket stipend that argues that No specific set of rules or definitions can embrace every act of academic misconduct. Therefore, A student who employs any form of academic deceit has violated the intellectual enterprise of the university.12 Like Supreme Justice Potter Stewarts famous ruling in 1964, "I know it when I see it" in reference to what qualified as obscenity, American University may not always attempt to predict the form academic misconduct will take, but reserves the right to rule on previously undefined ways that it perceives harmful based on pre-established violations. Many Western institutions today also have a mandated Institutional Review Board set up which investigates research conducted by members of the community, and have the power to restrict federal funding to the university if unethical research is found to have been conducted. IRBs provide a sense of legitimacy and balance over the perceived appropriateness of the study. In this vein, IRBs (at least in the United States, have been empowered by Federal Law to reserve the right to require modifications to or outright block research where it believes the risks to integrity and ethics outweigh the benefits. Similar organizations and institutions exist in many other nation-states, such as IRBs in Australia which are organized under the National Health and Medical Research Council.13 The primary focus of the IRB, as argued by Carolyn Gallaher in Researching Repellent Groups, has always been correspondence to the concept of ethical behavior which is defined
5

Samuel Ross SIS 680 Final Paper

and operationalized with reference to the rights of those being researched. The goal is to protect the research subject from the researcher.14 In other words, guaranteeing the members of the study whose rights to privacy, safety, security and informed decision may be impacted by any given study. The need for such balance was demanded on an international scale shortly after the revelations of ghoulish medical experiments conducted by the Nazis on live subjects during World War II, often heavy with torture and abuse with little scientific value. The release of this information, combined with a number of questionable experiments in the United States, such as the Tuskegee Syphilis experiment the Stanford Prison experiment, lead to the creation of the Nuremberg Code of guidelines for medical ethics and the Belmont Report on behavioral research, the latter of which still defines much of the basis of U.S. Government funded research on human subjects.15 IRBs were formed on the basis of these codes, using interpretations of the guidelines set out by the Nuremberg Code and Belmont Report as the basis of their judgments on the appropriateness of research. While some of the forms of what IRBs define as exploitative research are tangible, i.e. taking advantage of economically disadvantaged groups, IRBs and educational institutions also have to deal with the more theoretically-based ethical quandaries such as intellectual property, such as issues of plagiarism. According to Bruce Berg, Ironically, depending on the source, you are likely to find a range of meanings and definitions for the term plagiarism (emphasis preserved).16 He then provides his own summation of the term as passing off the ideas and words of others as your own without clearly acknowledging the actual source, and further expounds that the majority of cases can be classified under innocent or just stupid plagiarism.17 Bergs initial definition before classification bears much similarity across the
6

Samuel Ross SIS 680 Final Paper

spectrum for other western researchers18, but for that reason, highlights a major oversight in the Western conception of academic ethics. For example, as argued by Stearns, Dryden above, academics in China and Japan flagrantly commit what Berg called stupid plagiarism. But to argue that this and other violations of ethics in non-western cultures can be boiled down to an insufficient knowledge or effort to apply whats viewed as appropriate research and citation techniques ignores the that the western experience is not the universal experience. What qualifies as plagiarism across cultures is varied and multi-faceted. Lise Buranen, for example, cites an interview with a Chinese colleague who saw differences between the discourses in which research is conducted in China and the U.S. In China, the colleague argued, Being able to quote or cite the work of the masters is a way of demonstrating ones own learning or accomplishment. One need not formally document such references in footnotes or bibliographies, because the assumption is that any knowledgeable reader or audience knows the source.19 This would be considered a form of plagiarism in the U.S. as the sources were not documented. But frequently, other authors who have written on this topic, such as Greenblatt20 agree, pushing that it is not a failure of morals, but one of norms. To create an association between academic practices and a lack of moral values on the side of society and culture ignores the possibility of different standards and expectations across societies. This is reflected in survey done by Buranen, in which (among other criteria) she asked students from multiple countries of origin if opinions toward plagiarism or copying were different in the US compared to their home country. A majority of respondents were in agreementthat plagiarism was unequivocally bad and wrong, and that people who engage in
7

Samuel Ross SIS 680 Final Paper

it are to be either censured or pitied.21 In other words, ethical behavior exists, but as Buranens Chinese colleague established above, there is a difference in perspective of how to employ that behavior. I would hypothesize that much of the popular critical analysis of the state of international academic integrity is flawed, on the basis that it ignores a number of important factors, primarily cultural experience and the influence of current oversight institutions in both the West and East Asia. The argument that ethics dont exist in Japan and China is an argument that strikes of ethnocentricity at best, and stereotypical at worst; implying a quality of dishonesty for personal gain that appears more commonly among East Asian cultures than among Western. It also ignores the practices and institutions that do exist in these countries to ethically conduct research, and it presumes that all ethical standards for research in the west are/should be universal. As shown by Hemmings and others, this cultural bias may even extend to the practices of the IRB, which has a dramatic effect on the topics and quality of research that is conducted in the West. Therefore, to look at the nature of these issues, it will be primarily important to understand how different societies are defining academic integrity, where those definitions derive from, and how they are effecting international research today. Methodology and Ethics To understand how Academic ethics function across cultures, particularly comparing the United States, Japan and China, I intend to employ a case study methodology. Specifically, I plan to create what Berg defines as a descriptive case study in which the investigator presents a descriptive theory, which establishes the overall framework for the investigator to follow throughout the study.22 This is necessary because I will have to delve further into the
8

Samuel Ross SIS 680 Final Paper

nature of academic ethics and how both it and the international conflicts over it are defined to further develop my theory that culture plays a role and that standards are not universal. To accomplish this, I will pursue a number of intrusive and unobtrusive methods to gather data, including an extensive ethnography, a literature review, archival research, and possibly an anonymous survey. For the initial ethnography, I plan to interview a number of academics, administrators, and individuals connected to oversight organizations like the IRB, both in the US and abroad. This will help me to develop an understanding of how academic ethical standards are defined, applied and policed locally, internationally and through those oversight organizations. This will not be a critical ethnography; one that takes an advocacy or valueladen approach.23 My intention is to gather as much information and collect as many viewpoints on this topic from as many different parties as possible, ranging from the administrative to the student level. There are several aspects of the ethnography which may lead to some consternation. The first, ironically, will be to get IRB approval of my choice of topic for human research. As a researcher publishing through an American institution, I will be required to seek approval for some of my interviews to make sure they comply with the boards expectations of respect for persons, beneficence, and justice as set down in the Belmont Report.24 This will require me to write an application similar to some of the sections in this paper where I detail the topic of my study, how I plan to conduct it, and the merits and risk of this research. One key advantage I have in this area is the argument that all of my subjects, by being enrolled or participating in higher education are not of a vulnerable group and would therefore not be subject to any sort of disadvantage if they agreed to participate with the research. 25 However, where some
9

Samuel Ross SIS 680 Final Paper

problems may lie is in IRB requirements for written forms of consent from all those interviewed. The topic of this research could be somewhat of a sensitive nature; people will be less likely to open up about plagiarism and institutions related to academic ethics if they perceive some harm to their own status or if they are currently seeking approval for their own research. Not all the interview subjects will necessarily share this concern. For example, there will be safer interviews with public officials in domestic and international universities whose job it is to give me the official perspective on their own institutional requirements. Likewise, academics who have done research similar to what I intend to focus on will likely be eager to share their experience and knowledge of the topic. I still intend to interview members from other groups (i.e. assorted students, professors, researchers), but recognize that I may have a slightly more difficult time securing IRB approval to do so, unless they do qualify as being under IRB exemptions for human subject research.26 Assuming I seek proper consent from all interview subjects and design appropriate questions, and that I appropriately adapt and reapply to conform to IRB standards, I dont foresee approval generally being difficult to obtain for this particular topic however. Going back to the process of the ethnography, in order to prepare for and supplement interviews with officials, I intend to do some preliminary archival research within the institutions records, which should serve as helpful preparation for coming up with more effective interview questions on background and official policy and adding helpful background to my IRB application. As to academics who have done research on these topics before, I

10

Samuel Ross SIS 680 Final Paper

research some of their positions through previous works they may have published (such as books, articles, papers) as sources and seek interviews with them about their experiences. In addition to administrators of higher institutions of learning generally, I have several particular organizations and individuals in mind to conduct interviews with. This includes a number of scholars at universities in DC, of whom several faculty members at American University have already recommended to me and offered to provide an introduction. One such scholar would be Zachary M. Schrag of George Mason University, who recently published a book, entitled Ethical Imperialism: Institutional Review Boards and the Social Sciences, 19652009, which is very relevant to my focus. I would also be very motivated to secure interviews with individuals at The Center for Academic Integrity, a national non-profit consortium of over 360 higher education institutions out of Clemson University that seeks to identify, affirm, and promote the values of academic integrity among students, faculty, teachers and administrators.27 I also plan to use some of the contacts Ive made during my time in academia as a source for additional interviews both locally and abroad. For example, in addition to the extensive list of instructors and administrators I have worked with in the US, I also have personal relationships with several instructors at universities in China, who would not only provide for a valuable source of information through their own experience, but would likely also be able to provide links to other relevant people to interview within the country. In Japan, I also have connections to several people in prominent educational positions, including the Director of the C.V. Starr-Middlebury School at the International Christian University (ICU), a prominent university in Tokyo. I foresee much of my interviews abroad being facilitated
11

Samuel Ross SIS 680 Final Paper

through the crucial skill known in Chinese as guanxi (loosely translated as networking) which plays a much more extensive role in relationships generally across East Asia. In fact, I will be more likely to have better luck with acquiring information through interviews abroad by continuously working to develop more contacts through the people I already know from my experience in that region. Admittedly, one of the difficulties inherent to the process of interviewing abroad will be conducting interviews in another language. While my skills in some Asian languages are passable (particularly in Japanese, but developing in Chinese as well), I will most likely require a translator for a few of the interviews I plan to conduct and to help understand some of the responses I receive. Once again, using the contacts I already have though, I dont foresee a great deal of difficulty in recruiting the assistance of friends and colleagues to assist me in this effort on occasion when necessary. It does make various logistical aspects, such as scheduling interviews more difficult, so in order to cover all of the bases on this issue, I will have to also explore the options available to me, including (but not limited to) hiring a professional translation service. I can also ameliorate this need further by continuing my language studies. As mentioned, I also plan to utilize some unobtrusive methods during the course of this case study. For example, a more extensive literature review than the one done in the theoretical section will also be necessary in order to look at the origins of how different countries and cultures have defined the concepts of academic ethics and put them into practice. It will also allow a glimpse into the international discourse over these topics and to get a scope of the issues surrounding them. Part of this will entail additional archival research to get a sense of the historical definition of plagiarism; how what is today considered as
12

Samuel Ross SIS 680 Final Paper

appropriate academic ethics in different institutions came to be so. If nothing else, doing this literature review and archival research will offer a respectable broader view of the issues surrounding academic integrity compared to the more individually focused ethnography. Like the ethnography, however, the literature review and archival research will require a respectable level of diversity, including (but not limited to) sources from China and Japan. If scholars in the US discuss these issues extensively in the wake of academic scandals, such as the Lancet editorial cited in the introduction of this paper, it seems very likely that it would garner some attention on the East Asian side as well. And if no such articles or books to that exist, that may also say something about the institutions; i.e. a cover-up or a lack of recognition of the importance of the issue on international relations in academia. Similar to the ethnographic interviews, this will require the full extent of my own Japanese and Chinese reading ability to develop and in some ways will take more effort than English sources to apply appropriately. This means I will again have to seek some assistance from the community of people I maintain some kind of relationship with, which I have already begun to set up. For example, one of my friends from China, who has parents who both work in academia in that country, has already offered to assist me in finding and deciphering resources in Chinese. Hopefully, I will also have the opportunity to learn from and with other friends and acquaintances as well. Should I have time, it may also behoove me to conduct an anonymous qualitative written survey. This would be conducted among students in multiple academic settings, domestically and internationally, in order to compel perspectives on different types of actions that are considered to violate western standards towards academic integrity. The primary goal
13

Samuel Ross SIS 680 Final Paper

in doing this would to be to get a sense of the standards which students from different areas of the world find to be important and tend towards and compare that to the ones they reject. I have thus far ignored distance, one of the primary issues inherent in all the intrusive and unobtrusive methods I have listed here which incorporate international feedback and information. Should I be unable to secure funding to go abroad and conduct research in person, it becomes complicated to conduct interviews, much less distribute a survey. Technology serves as a substitute for some of this; interviews can be done over Skype (although they are more difficult to set up on occasion depending on the subject), and archival/literature review can be done through the internet and international shipping. However, conducting a survey become more difficult when one is not there to pass it out and collect and analyze the results directly. Even here, there are alternatives. For example, I could use the existing data that has been gathered by other social scientists that have studied topics similar to mine, such as Wheelers survey of Hokkaido University (Japan) students attitudes towards plagiarism.28 This may also involve some significant effort, for as Albert Park argues, If one decides to use survey data collected by others as a main part of ones research, it makes sense to invest in learning more about the data.29 In other words, while not expending the effort to conduct the survey personally, which would give me the opportunity to match it to my research interests more personally, I will also have to develop background on outside data in order to accommodate for the authors bias and discover the validity of the material. Overall, the importance of incorporating all of the aforementioned intrusive and unobtrusive methods in the course of this case study is to create as clear a window as possible into continued study and contribution toward at the issues. My goal in exploring this research
14

Samuel Ross SIS 680 Final Paper

through a case study method is to avoid ascribing morality on one standard or another or even be hung up on the notion that culture plays a role. As Andrew Schrank explains, Case based researchers are frequently engaged, not in a misguided effort to use inappropriate methods to make invalid casual inferencesbut in a pre inferential attempt to develop the conceptual underpinnings of future social scientific inquiry.30 Through my research, I am solely trying establish the possible validity of the idea that cultural and societal references play a role in academic integrity and enforcement. The case study format allows me to take a comprehensive look at that position and re-write my hypothesis and methods as necessary based on the results I receive. Data As discussed in the section above, much of the fieldwork data I develop will depend very much on whether or not I can secure funding, either privately or through public grants, to travel abroad. For this reason, I will initially look at the data gathering strategies I might pursue should I receive the funding, and then those under the eventuality that I do not. Should I travel to Asia, I should definitely want to take advantage of the opportunity available to me to conduct a written survey of students as to value judgments on different forms of actions connected with the terms academic integrity in any context, as well as the need for institutions to oversee and (potentially) police such actions. After I had deployed the survey and compiled the results, I would also want to conduct what Berg defines as Semistandardized interviews of students, professors, researchers, and academics, which would involve the implementation of a number of predetermined questions and special topics *During which+ the interviewers are permitted (in fact, expected) to probe far beyond the answers to their prepared standardized
15

Samuel Ross SIS 680 Final Paper

questions.31On the structural level, it is essential for my purposes that the questions in this survey are worded to be devoid of any value laden language as much as possible, as I hope to get that information from the participants rather than provide any bias that might affect their responses. To that extent, any survey I distributed would largely be very standardized. The following Semistandardized interviews would heavily complement and clarify the data gathered by the survey, since they would allow me to collect greater detailed and uniquely focused perspectives than could be achieved solely by the survey results. One example of this would be if over the course of the survey, I learned that students in one country generally considered cheating on an exam to be more morally reprehensible than copying a written work. By employing the Semistandardized format, I would then be able to not only incorporate questions about whether the student view corresponds with the accepted norms, but also leave the possibility open to pursue a discourse with the interview subject about the topic if one arose. The advantage of the interviews over the survey is that it is more personal, and therefore promotes a more in-depth look at the topic; in this example, potentially drawing out detailed, analytical and/or societal reasons as to why this mentality existed among students. The survey would be intended to collect a generalized broad spectrum of ideas and values across students of different ages and nationalities. The first step will be to define an appropriate sample frame for it. This may be rather difficult due to all the variables inherent to human subjects. Park offers economic inequality as a often unconsidered influence in research through surveys, and recommends great care be taken to create a sampling design which balances research goals and the costs of conducting a survey.32 The availability of economic could have an impact on the responses from my survey participants, as could the overall
16

Samuel Ross SIS 680 Final Paper

ranking of the individual educational institution they are a member of. Therefore, my survey would be marketed to a random sample of as many respondents as possible in comparably resourced educational institutions, further divided relatively equally by general age group. A large sample is important, as it decreases the probability that that any relationship between the variables surveyed is due to chance. Park advocates that sample sizes of fewer than 200 observations often make it challenging to employ appropriate empirical methods or to produce results that are statistically significant.33 As a result, I will have to make an effort to secure the cooperation of the educational institution abroad whose students are used as respondents in order to develop a sample size of 200 or higher with my personally limited resources. In addition, the survey would have to be translated to the target language of the subjects being interviewed, which would require a professional translators assistance, or at least proofreading in Asia. While in theory I have the technical ability to look up unknown words and translate all the questions myself, it would be important that the language of the survey be as formal, impersonal, and natural sounding as possible. As a result, as mentioned previously, it would be necessary to recruit the services of the multiple native speaker contacts in academia abroad I have cultivated or the services of a professional translation company to assure the accuracy of the questions and the data afterwards. Respondents must be able to understand the survey questions, and the subtext and format of those questions has to be as straightforward and correct (in context) as possible. In other words, the content and language of the survey must be appropriate and accessible to all who take it. Some of the sample questions asked then might be variations on the following:
17

Samuel Ross SIS 680 Final Paper

1) When copying material to be incorporated in a paper of your own, what information about the source (if any), do you include? 2) How often (if ever), did you receive formal training in an educational setting of how to cite information from outside sources? 3) How often do you collaborate with others when writing a paper? 4) Under what situation do you think you would need approval from the government or a higher body to perform research? 5) Rank each the following actions on a scale of 1-5, with 1 being something you would be very likely to do, and 5 being something you would not do when writing a paper: (ask the professor for help, copy information from the professors book, compare notes with other students in the class, etc.) Semi-standardized interviews would be based on a similar sampling frame, but with a decreased focus on students in order to also get the perspectives of researchers and administrators. Because of the different statuses of the respondents, questions would have to be adjusted across occupation. In non-anonymous interviews (as discussed in the above section), I may also face the problem of evasion in responses due to the uncomfortable nature of discussing personal perspectives on ethics, especially if respondents believe they had to avoid incriminating themselves. Fujii recognizes this behavior as metadata or information that people communicate about their interior thoughts and feelingsand indicators of how reliable the data are and what answers they provide.34 Fujii is speaking particularly here in regards to encountering reticence, falsehoods, and evasion of the topic, when interviewing subjects in post-conflict zones; people who may have been victims or instigators of violence.
18

Samuel Ross SIS 680 Final Paper

However, meta-data also exists in every form of field work experience, and as Fujii explains that failing to attend to meta-data can have clear consequences for the studys findings.35 From this perspective, conducting Semi-Standardized Interviews is very beneficial because it allows for flexibility in the direction of the questions, based on the responses one receives. Perhaps Fujiis most valuable recommendation for accommodating for meta-data is to conduct systematic self-reflection in the field.36 While she suggests this for in between interviews, self-reflection and awareness processing of the nature of the information one is receiving in the field is valuable when done dynamically over the course of an interview. 37 For example, misdirection, where one could claim that they had friends who have been accused of unethical behavior in research, but skip over themselves would suggest something about attitudes toward cheating from a certain perspective, as would flat-out denial that it exists. As a result, it would be important to accommodate for this in the phrasing of follow-up questions. With this in mind, the following are five sample questions that could be asked of participants with potential follow-ups based on the answers received: 1. Could you tell me about a time when you or someone you know got in trouble for breaking the rules for writing a paper or taking a test? 2. What kind of process does a person have to go through at your school in order to conduct independent research? 3. What kind of topics would someone have difficulty doing research on in your country? Why? 4. What ethics are important to consider when conducting research?

19

Samuel Ross SIS 680 Final Paper

5. When doing research, is it more important to come up with something original or to build on someone elses idea? Why? Where all this potential fieldwork runs into some difficulty is if I fail to secure funding for my research; severely limiting my ability to a variety of desired locales, particularly East Asia. Thankfully, modern technology, specifically email, social media and web conferencing programs can provide some respite if necessary. As a few examples, surveys could be distributed through Facebook, and interviews with subjects (especially considering some of my pre-existing international connections) could be set up through email and conducted through either that medium or preferably through Skype. The advantage of Skype is that it would allow me to see the subject face-to-face and actively engage them. Not only does this offer the opportunity to gather more information quicker, but it also allows me to pick up on some of their non-verbal meta-data and form better conclusions about the nature of the information theyre giving me though visual and audio observations. Admittedly, there are also significant inconveniences to being limited to technology; survey information can be left incomplete or falsified, and interviews must be worked around schedules and a significant time difference to name a few. Furthermore, my access to non-obtrusive sources, such as foreign language articles on the topic may be harder to gather without physical access to local libraries and repositories in the country of research. Nevertheless, these issues are less of obstacles to research than they are inconveniences, and are fairly surmountable given a long enough period of time. Conclusion Much of the research on International issues of academic integrity so far has focused on the myriad of ways that Chinese and Japanese academics are seen to violate that code by not
20

Samuel Ross SIS 680 Final Paper

corresponding to western models of appropriate conduct. Rather than draw motivation from action as many of these critics have done through baseless or stereotypically biased suppositions, I intend to look at the other side of the coin; at the ethical behavior scholars in these countries believe they are incorporating into their research, rather than focusing on what theyre not. I also intend to look at the moralistic reasoning behind ethical standards in the West and East Asia, with a side-concentration on how they developed and the supportive organizations that have formed with them, such as the IRB. In doing so, I hope to bring a greater understanding towards how different countries are performing research and help facilitate the creation of better cooperative international research strategies.

Works Cited: (All citations in Turabian format) Berg, Bruce L. Qualitative Research Methods for the Social Sciences. 7th ed. Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon, 2009. Buranen, Lise. ""But I Wasn't Cheating: Plagiarism and Cross-Cultural Mythology." In Perspectives on Plagiarism and Intellectual Property in a Post-Modern World, edited by Lise Buranen and Alice M. Roy, 63-74. Albany, NY: State University of New York Press, 1999. Curran, Sara R. "Research Ethics Are Essential." In A Handbook for Social Science Field Research: Essays and Bibliographic Sources on Research Design and Methods, edited by Ellen Perecman and Sara R. Curran, 197-216. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, 2006. Dryden, L.M. "A Distant Mirror or through the Looking Glass?" In Perspectives on Plagiarism and Intellectual Property in a Postmodern World, edited by Lise Buranen and Alice M. Roy, 75-85. Albany, NY: State University of New York Press, 1999. "Exempt Research Catagories", American University http://www.american.edu/irb/IRB-Exempt.cfm (accessed April 27 2011). Fujii, Lee Ann. "Interpreting Truth and Lies in Stories of Conflict and Violence." In Surviving Field Research: Working in Violent and Difficult Situations, edited by Chandra Lekha Sriram, John C. 21

Samuel Ross SIS 680 Final Paper King, Julie A. Mertus, Olga Martin-Ortega and Johanna Herman, Routledge, 147-162. London and New York, 2009. Gallaher, Carolyn. "Researching Repellent Groups." In Surviving Field Research: Working in Violent and Difficult Situations, edited by Chandra Lekha Sriram, John C. King, Julie A. Mertus, Olga MartinOrtega and Johanna Herman, 127-146. London and New York: Routledge, 2009. Greenblatt, Sidney L. "Culture and Academic Norms: An Exploration of the Import of Cultural Difference on Asian Students' Understanding of American Approaches to Plagiarism." In Pedagogy, Not Policing: Positive Approaches to Academic Integrity at the University, edited by Tyra Twomey, Holly White and Ken Sagendorf, 97-106. Syracuse, NY: The Graduate School Press of Syracuse University, 2009. Hemming, Judy. "Exceeding Scholarly Responsibility." In Surviving Field Research: Working in Violent and Difficult Situations, edited by Chandra Lekha Sriram, John C. King, Julie A. Mertus, Olga MartinOrtega and Johanna Herman, 21-37. New York and London: Routledge, 2009. Park, Albert. "Using Survey Data in Social Science Research in Developing Countries." In A Handbook for Social Science Field Research: Essays and Bibliographic Sources on Research Design and Methods, edited by Ellen Perecman and Sara R. Curran, 117-141. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, 2006. Registrar, Office of the, "Academic Regulations: 80.00.00 Academic Integrity Code", American University http://www.american.edu/provost/registrar/regulations/reg80.cfm (accessed April 19th 2011). "Replicating Success: Widespread Academic Fraud May Hamper a Drive for Innovation." The Economist (Jul 22 2010). http://www.economist.com/node/16646212 [accessed Apr 21 2011]. Schrank, Andrew. "Case Studies: Case Based Research." In A Handbook for Social Science Field Research: Essays and Bibliographic Sources on Research Design and Methods, edited by Ellen Perecman and Sara R. Curran, 21-45. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, 2006. "Scientific Fraud: Action Needed in China." The Lancet 375, no. 9709 (2010). http://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736%2810%2960030-X/fulltext? [accessed 21 Apr 2011]. Stearns, Laurie. "Plagiarism, Process, Property, and the Law." In Perspectives on Plagiarism and Intellectual Property in a Postmodern World, edited by Lise Buranen and Alice M. Roy, 5-17. Albany, NY: State University of New York Press, 1999. Stearns, Steven, "A Letter About Plagiarism by Professor Steve Stearns (Yale)", Republished on Harvard Law Blogs http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/guorui/2007/12/21/a-letter-about-plagiarism-byprofessor-steve-stearns-yale/ (accessed Apr 21 2011). "Welcome to the Center for Academic Integrity ", Center for Academic Integrity http://www.academicintegrity.org/ (accessed Apr 26 2011).

Samuel Ross SIS 680 Final Paper Wheeler, Greg. "Plagiarism in the Japanese Universities: Truly a Cultural Matter?" Journal of Second Language Writing 18, no. 1 (2009): 17-29.

As quoted by Laurie Stearns, "Plagiarism, Process, Property, and the Law," in Perspectives on Plagiarism and Intellectual Property in a Postmodern World, ed. Lise Buranen and Alice M. Roy(Albany, NY: State University of New York Press, 1999). 12 2 "Replicating Success: Widespread Academic Fraud May Hamper a Drive for Innovation," The Economist (Jul 22 2010). http://www.economist.com/node/16646212 (accessed Apr 21 2011). 3 L.M. Dryden, "A Distant Mirror or through the Looking Glass?," in Perspectives on Plagiarism and Intellectual Property in a Postmodern World, ed. Lise Buranen and Alice M. Roy(Albany, NY: State University of New York Press, 1999). 76 4 "Replicating Success: Widespread Academic Fraud May Hamper a Drive for Innovation." 5 Steven Stearns, "A Letter About Plagiarism by Professor Steve Stearns (Yale)", Republished on Harvard Law Blogs http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/guorui/2007/12/21/a-letter-about-plagiarism-by-professor-steve-stearns-yale/ (accessed Apr 21 2011). 6 "Scientific Fraud: Action Needed in China," The Lancet 375, no. 9709 (2010). http://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736%2810%2960030-X/fulltext? (accessed 21 Apr 2011). 7 Ibid. 8 Dryden. 76 9 Greg Wheeler, "Plagiarism in the Japanese Universities: Truly a Cultural Matter?," Journal of Second Language Writing 18, no. 1 (2009). 9 10 Judy Hemming, "Exceeding Scholarly Responsibility," in Surviving Field Research: Working in Violent and Difficult Situations, ed. Chandra Lekha Sriram et al.(New York and London: Routledge, 2009). 28 11 Office of the Registrar, "Academic Regulations: 80.00.00 Academic Integrity Code", American University http://www.american.edu/provost/registrar/regulations/reg80.cfm (accessed April 19th 2011). 12 Ibid. 13 Hemming. 14 Carolyn Gallaher, "Researching Repellent Groups," in Surviving Field Research: Working in Violent and Difficult Situations, ed. Chandra Lekha Sriram et al.(London and New York: Routledge, 2009). 134 15 Ibid. 131 16 Bruce L. Berg, Qualitative Research Methods for the Social Sciences, 7th ed. (Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon, 2009). 379 17 Ibid. 18 Plagiarism is a broad concept that includes the copying of words and thoughts in a variety of forms - Stearns, "Plagiarism, Process, Property, and the Law." 9 19 Lise Buranen, ""But I Wasn't Cheating: Plagiarism and Cross-Cultural Mythology," in Perspectives on Plagiarism and Intellectual Property in a Post-Modern World, ed. Lise Buranen and Alice M. Roy(Albany, NY: State University of New York Press, 1999). 69 20 The fact that modern pedagogy and English language training is now in the offing throughout Asia does nothing to ensure that students learn about American academic norms and expectations. Sidney L. Greenblatt, "Culture and Academic Norms: An Exploration of the Import of Cultural Difference on Asian Students' Understanding of American Approaches to Plagiarism," in Pedagogy, Not Policing: Positive Approaches to Academic Integrity at the University, ed. Tyra Twomey, Holly White, and Ken Sagendorf(Syracuse, NY: The Graduate School Press of Syracuse University, 2009). 102 21 Buranen. 68 22 Berg. 327 23 Ibid. 199

Samuel Ross SIS 680 Final Paper

24

Sara R. Curran, "Research Ethics Are Essential," in A Handbook for Social Science Field Research: Essays and Bibliographic Sources on Research Design and Methods, ed. Ellen Perecman and Sara R. Curran(Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, 2006). 202 25 Ibid. 204 26 Research conducted in established or commonly accepted educational settings, involving normal educational practices, such as (i) research on regular and special education instructional strategies, or (ii) research on the effectiveness of or the comparison among instructional techniques, curricula, or classroom management methods. - "Exempt Research Catagories", American University http://www.american.edu/irb/IRB-Exempt.cfm (accessed April 27 2011). 27 "Welcome to the Center for Academic Integrity ", Center for Academic Integrity http://www.academicintegrity.org/ (accessed Apr 26 2011). 28 Wheeler. 29 Albert Park, "Using Survey Data in Social Science Research in Developing Countries," in A Handbook for Social Science Field Research: Essays and Bibliographic Sources on Research Design and Methods, ed. Ellen Perecman and Sara R. Curran(Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, 2006). 121 30 Andrew Schrank, "Case Studies: Case Based Research," in A Handbook for Social Science Field Research: Essays and Bibliographic Sources on Research Design and Methods, ed. Ellen Perecman and Sara R. Curran(Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, 2006). 23 31 Berg. 107 32 Park. 125 33 Ibid. 127 34 Lee Ann Fujii, "Interpreting Truth and Lies in Stories of Conflict and Violence," in Surviving Field Research: Working in Violent and Difficult Situations, ed. Chandra Lekha Sriram et al.(London and New York: 2009). 148 35 Ibid. 160 36 Ibid. 161 37 Fuji also recommends multiple interviews and allowing the subjects to engage the interviewer with their own questions. While I heartily agree with the latter, as it may evoke greater involvement and more information (and Meta-Data) from the subject, the former may be difficult to accomplish in my case based on funding and time limitations.