Show simple item record

dc.contributor.authorRichard H. McCuen
dc.date.accessioned2017-05-08T21:19:21Z
dc.date.available2017-05-08T21:19:21Z
dc.date.copyrightJanuary 1990
dc.date.issued1990
dc.identifier.other%28asce%291052-3928%281990%29116%3A1%2827%29.pdf
dc.identifier.urihttp://yetl.yabesh.ir/yetl/handle/yetl/46988
dc.description.abstractBecause of the apparent increase in unprofessional conduct, oversight of research is being considered as an alternative for enhancing professional integrity in research. Since those who have been involved in unprofessional conduct often cite pressure as the driving force underlying their conduct, two types of pressure, overt and perceived, are defined. The use of rationalization in defending unethical behavior is also discussed. A recent Institute of Medicine report has proposed a number of oversight mechanisms for medical research. Because similar oversight mechanisms may be given consideration in engineering research, the pros and cons of institutional oversight are addressed. Discussions on the responsibility for oversight and the initiation of oversight are provided. Four forms of oversight are discussed: Organizational codes of ethics; appointment of an ombudsman for oversight; value education; and supervision and mentoring. The voluntary adoption of internal oversight programs can reduce the likelihood of mandatory external oversight programs.
dc.publisherAmerican Society of Civil Engineers
dc.titleInstitutional Oversight to Enhance Integrity in Research
dc.typeJournal Paper
dc.journal.volume116
dc.journal.issue1
dc.journal.titleJournal of Professional Issues in Engineering
dc.identifier.doi10.1061/(ASCE)1052-3928(1990)116:1(27)
dc.treeJournal of Professional Issues in Engineering:;1990:;Volume ( 116 ):;issue: 001
dc.contenttypeFulltext


Files in this item

Thumbnail

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record