Available online at www.sciencedirect.com
Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences 81 (2013) 72 – 78
1st World Congress of Administrative & Political Sciences (ADPOL-2012)
Institutional Responsibility vs Individual Responsibility: Ethical
Issues in the Management of Research Performance
a
a
a*1
Mykolas Romeris University, Ateities str . 20, LT-08303 Vilnius, Lithuania
Abstract
Universities experience a myriad of transformations due to the challenging environment. The confrontation of institutional and
individual interests in the management of research performance is one of them. The imperative of responsibility is under the
spotlight of discussion in terms of what our actions bring in improving the management of research performance, what raison
make it sophisticated. Adapting the main arguments of normative stakeholder theory we expose a particular attention to the
ethical issues of institutional and individual responsibilities in the management of research performance. From a method
perspective, academics were interviewed using semi-structured questions. The results of the research show that the nonfunctionality reasons of the responsibility of the university and academic derive from the incompatibility of interests and p oorly
developed culture of responsibility, particularly in the management of research performance from the ethical point of view;
however,
findings do not suggest how to measure the degree of impact on synergy of interests.
byPublished
Elsevier Ltd.
©2013
2013 Published
The Authors.
by Elsevier Ltd.
Selection and peer review under the responsibility of Prof. Dr. Andreea Iluzia Iacob.
Selection and peer review under the responsibility of Prof. Dr. Andreea Iluzia Iacob.
Keywords: Institutional Responsibility, Individual Responsibility, University, Management of Research Performance, Ethics;
1. Introduction
Shaping its strategy, universities focus on sustainable research and higher education system which is generally
grounded by the development of the knowledge society, growth of the knowledge economy and the sustainable
e, social and economic welfare.
Likewise, the university helps in the training of a creative, educated, dignified, ethically responsible, civic,
independent and entrepreneurial personality. Due to global processes, universities suffer numerous transformations
which raise new challenges. In this regard, the duties of the university are under question and new solutions for
safeguarding the nature to create the public good are pursued.
The study is based on one of the main Kantism ideas that the individual takes responsibility for possible
consequences of his/er actions, and does not transfer these consequences on somebody: on God, unfavorable
circumstances and so on (Baranova, 2007, p. 150). The moral philosopher H. Jonas, elaborating the Kantism
arguments, analyzed the imperative of responsibility in ethics. He stressed that, nevertheless, the priority should be
* Corresponding author:
E-mail address: loratauginiene@hotmail.com
-680-76293
1877-0428 © 2013 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd.
Selection and peer review under the responsibility of Prof. Dr. Andreea Iluzia Iacob.
doi:10.1016/j.sbspro.2013.06.390
Jolanta Urbanovič and Loreta Tauginienė / Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences 81 (2013) 72 – 78
given not to the form of action, but to its content (Jonas, 1984, p. 85). That what we choose to transfer by our actions
goes from the human being it-self, his/er feeling of duty. In this context, we seek to develop the subject on
responsibility in the perspective of ethical research performance.
diversification of
In this paper, we show the ratio between the institutional and individual responsibilities and reasons for its nonfunctionality in the management of research performance. First, we analyze the ratio between university and
researcher responsibility. It demonstrates how responsible university and researcher behavior balance. Second, we
examine deviations which give impetus for caused effects of these deviations. Third, we explore ethical issues of
responsibility as the hardly resolved in management of research performance.
Empirical research refers to the qualitative study in the paradigm of social construction, which allows perceiving
the sense of reality by individuals and a group through their mutual creation (Berger & Luckman, 1999; Brown &
Baker, 2007, p. 87-90), i.e. how the social phenomenon is formulated, institutionalized and then may become
tradition. In the context of social construction we self-construct the common meanings through mutual interaction,
using them in everyday life and interpreting elements of our social and cultural life. Notwithstanding, this does not
suggest individuals always have a unanimous agreement on each element of life, i.e. the myriad of subjective and
controversial perceptions, based on a certain validity and its competitiveness in social situations, exists.
Consequently, facts and not meanings address the principal focus in order to understand the surrounding
environment.
2. The interaction of institutional and individual responsibilities
Frequently, needs satisfaction of both individual and the society is considered as a key university mission in
, p. 51), and the creation
terms of the development of knowledge and the assurance of excellence
of knowledge-driven competitive advantage (Atakan & Eker, 2007; Leja, 2010). On the one hand, the university
mission establishes its social function which exposes through such dimensions as the implementation of democratic
the process of reaching not only self-interest (Gasca-Pliego & OlveraGarcia, 2011). Taking this into consideration, academia should raise epistemological questions. Why is it teaching?
What is the audience? What scientific knowledge is it going to communicate? How is it going to communicate
scientific knowledge? On the other hand, the mutation of the university should be based on both competition and
global processes (Gasca-Pliego & Olvera-Garcia, 2011, p. 49), i.e. university should be by side of, as well as within,
society. The university is an organization which helps to direct the society in public policy, economy and social
policy (Carbal Herrera, Garrido Puello, Garcia Gomez & Quesada Iriarte, 2010). Realizing the nature and purpose of
the university, the scope of its institutional responsibility becomes dependent on various factors (for example,
societal needs, state funding), which influence the behavior of university. These aspects reflect the exceptional
responsibility the university has towards society.
Considering institutional responsibility, based on the provision of high-level education services for societal
growth and developing professionals, the university has an essential role in generating and enabling social
transformation (Hill, 2004;
, p. 86). The university seeks to educate the society, concentrate and develop intellectual
potential. Consequently, the modern university should be able to transform, anticipate changes and create such
environment that would satisfy not only stakeholder expectations, but also contribute to the development of the
knowledge society. Tierny, Leja and Gaete Quezada refer to the socially responsible university (Gaete Quezada,
2011; Leja, 2010)
2008).
Elaborating on the dimension of individual responsibility, first, it is necessary to emphasize that employees are a
particular group with certain psychological needs to belong, to become a legitimate member of the value-driven
social group, to give sense to his/er existence (Huo, Smith, Tyler & Lind, 1996; Tyler & Degoey, 1995). In this
regard, individual responsibility occurs not only at the moment of becoming a member of a given organization, but
actually before such involvement. Hence, the individual shapes his/er different experiences, and anchors his/er
values. Therefore, depending on what people the university selects, that sets the image society sees.
The personnel found among university academia are primarily classified into functional categories:
administrative, scientific, pedagogical (sometimes the scientific and pedagogical personnel combine in one
73
74
Jolanta Urbanovič and Loreta Tauginienė / Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences 81 (2013) 72 – 78
academic personnel category) and technical. The scientific personnel (paid most attention) are distinguished by the
need for
professional nature. The values are identical to any profession: vocation, competence, character and courage (Poff,
2004, p. 212). The latent fair, distrust, lack of information, limited communication, limited career development, poor
. The scientific
system of rewards and other factors all influ
personnel ingenuously collaborate with other personnel, which assist and facilitate the implementation of their ideas.
We set interactions in university academi
, p. 103). Its distinctive
attribute is that the motivation for such traditional encouragements as promotion, salary increase is extremely low.
Rather the room where they spend all workday and the recognition corresponds to their creativity and innovation.
They are likely to commit to their specialization and profession than to remain loyal to an organization.
It is specific in the culture because of the level of their intellectual knowledge (Becher, 1989, p. 22-35). This
attribute premises that it is complicated to implement the cultural changes in the organization due to two reasons
, 2012, p. 67-68):
- A risk for the autonomy and freedom of professional activity (the scientific personnel consider suspiciously the
institutionalization of a new phenomenon);
- The critical thinking on any phenomenon or text.
Moreover, specialized subcultures settle in subunits, for example, in a department or in a scientific field. The
identity of scientific personnel is distinguished not only by the use of given language and environment, but also by
conventional norms. According to the specificity of the scientific personnel, their management demands lots of
endeavors of top management to understand and to act in a certain organizational culture, particularly
institutionalizing the university social responsibility.
In search of the equilibrium between institutional and individual responsibilities, the university inevitably solves
various issues. For example, from a management perspective the disproportion between university autonomy and
accountability to the state is constantly at the centre of discussions of academia and society as well as found in case
law. Another example is found in the confrontation of different levels (institutional and individual) of interests: the
university seeks efficient research performance (since it determines the amount of state subsidy), while researchers
pursue quality in the research performance (since it even affects his/er salary). A researcher should behave
responsibly in front of his/er colleagues, and his/er contribution to a scientific work demonstrates his/er
responsibility for the submitted text, expressed ideas (individual responsibility). The consequence of such behavior
determines the annual ranking which affects the salary for the scientific productivity and, in general, the university
reputation. In all these cases, we can make decisions; however, our norms, rules and values restrict us. Therefore, we
can delegate work rather than responsibility, and decisions taken without the prospective impact often turn out to be
unethical decisions. According to Donaldson and Preston, the interests of stakeholders are value-based. The values
lead to the direct relation to organizational interests (Donaldson & Preston, 1995).
The conflict between subjects of responsibility shows up when one or other action, procedure does not function
as expected. In this case, we see issues with the implementation of the principle of academic integrity in the
management of research performance. Endeavors of both the university and individual, based on the congruence of
university and individual values and reciprocal responsibility, are by necessity resolving these issues.
At international level we had identified several cases on the aforesaid issues: Illmensee case (1983), Rylander
case (2001), Doctor X case (2003) and Professor Hwang Woo-suk case (2005). All cases were identified in
medicine, and biomedicine sciences. For example, Rylander case (Baier & Dupraz, 2007, p. 31-33) took legal
proceedings when the Swiss academy of medicine sciences has initiated an investigation on ethical and
administrative infringements. Acting on behalf of the academia, contracting with a private sector (tobacco industry)
on study performance with
on researchers. In this respect, the Swiss federal tribunal issued an opinion that top management of the university,
fostering university and industry partnerships, should anticipate measures for monitoring the development of such
partnerships. Accordingly, the university and its faculties should have established explicit guidelines on research
integrity (Baier & Dupraz, 2007, p. 33). Subsequently, considering the recommendations of the tribunal, the Swiss
academy of medicine sciences expressed the position: if the third party funds a study, the scope of investor influence
Jolanta Urbanovič and Loreta Tauginienė / Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences 81 (2013) 72 – 78
on research should be clearly detailed (planning, implementation, evaluation and publication). In sum, the lack of
communication shows the incongruity of institutional and individual responsibilities.
In 2011, the worldwide scientific community heard on the fraud of Diederik Stapel, dean of Social and
Behavioral Sciences School, Tilburg University (Netherlands) (Callaway, 2011; Interim report, 2011). Accused in
publishing fraudulent research findings, he is under prosecution. The scientific community of social psychology
recognized him as a trustworthy young researcher. This confidence derived from the highly cited published papers,
plenty awards and expertise. Few committees investigated this case, i.e. in Tilburg University (where he was
working) and the previous Groningen and Amsterdam universities (where he used to work). The committees
emphasized
science and the funding. This case shows the consequences of low individual responsibility not only for the
institutions, but also for the whole scientific community.
In 2012, in the Lithuanian academic sphere the precedent case took place on academic integrity Kaunas
University of Technology revoked a 2002
suggested
was
plagiarized (Jacke
. Until 2010 when the new edition of Regulations of Doctoral Studies in Science
came into force, there was not any legal rule which would empower defending the principle of academic integrity in
the supra-institutional level. Hereby, legal rules supplemented the spectrum of university ethical instruments and
helped motivate the university to take courageous steps towards fighting academic dishonesty. This reveals how
legal rules contribute to the congruence of individual and institutional responsibilities.
Examining the recent cases, we notice that levels of university and individual responsibilities differ. The poor
communication of university expectations and the one-way flow of individual responsibility caused it. Hence, it is
necessary to estimate positive and negative consequences of the interaction between both responsibilities and the
fulcrum of values equilibrium within this interaction, especially in the management of research performance.
3. Methodology
According to the main arguments of the normative stakeholder theory, stakeholders are individuals or groups
with the legitimate interests in the procedural and/or independent performance aspects (stakeholders are identified
through their interest in organization regardless of whether the organization has the functional concern to them); the
overall interests of stakeholders are the internal values (Donaldson & Preston, 1995; Wijnberg, 2000).
Notwithstanding the critique on the normative stakeholder theory for the lack of clarity on ethical principles and for
the certainty on the ratio of institutional and individual responsibilities, this theory helps to find the answer to the
question why should we pay attention to the interests of stakeholders? (Wijnberg, 2000, p. 339-341). The learning
responsibilities. Considering the normative basis of stakeholder theory, the research question is how responsibility
of researchers is built at university. The research question refers to the issues on the management of research
performance and their values-driven aspects.
The data was collected using semi-structured interviews. The sample was selected through the targeted selection
of purposive sampling. 11 informants were interviewed: heads of Doctoral committees in social sciences and
humanities, heads of Research units and Doctoral studies units. The informants represent at least three state
universities (see Table 1).
Table 1. Informants
Informants
Heads of Doctoral committees
Heads of Research, Doctoral studies units
Number of universities
3
5
Number of informants
5
6
The collected data was then analyzed in qualitative perspective, in terms of the grounded theory. This theory
2008, p. 268).
75
76
Jolanta Urbanovič and Loreta Tauginienė / Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences 81 (2013) 72 – 78
4. Findings
The data analysis shows that two conceptions on institutions prevail regarding the ratio between institutional and
individual responsibilities:
1) Alive organism; where the individual represents the institution even in informal environments;
2) Lifeless organism; where the category of institutional responsibility is denied because responsibility as moral
category is assigned only to human beings.
Basing on the analysis of informants reflections, some aspects of the conception of responsibility should be
stressed:
1) The responsibility is formal. The member of academia feels responsible for his/er actions and their
consequences as much as the responsibilities are legitimate in the scope:
(R3). Furthermore, the formal responsibility manifests at the national and supranational levels, for example,
commitment to conduct research in EU funded projects.
2) The responsibility is declarative. It reveals in the event of a conflict situation; then the responsibility is thrown
of the vague subject of responsibility or attempts to
for supervisors that these things should be ensured as some kind of control, surely, cannot be accomplished by
the Committee. Here, the supervisor must ensure this thing. Undoubtedly, the second subject, which must
ensure it, is the defens
3) The responsibility is personified. The decision formation is based on the experience and competence of one
drafts of decisions are designed by myself <...>, and then offered to the Committee for a talk. Anyhow, the first
reflections com
Regardless of what attributions the responsibility has, formal responsibility is appropriate to the university and
is mainly responsible to the society for the organization of doctoral studies and the training of researchers; formally
After examination of the context of research object, we noticed that from the beginning of joint endeavors to
implementation of doctoral studies by a few university consortia, the overall responsibility has increased. The
responsibility appeared within a university as well as between universities joined for doctoral studies. It means that
the responsibility refers to commitments and changes to the behavior of researchers, and not only to interpersonal
moods.
From the managerial point of view, each university creates the medium management levels which insufficiently
ensure the formation and culture of responsibility. We assume that the main subject of responsibility is an
individual, academic member, who bases decisions on individual beliefs, ethical principles and consciousness rather
it is not
case, the
university as an institution that
These statements show that the role of the university and its contribution to the formation of responsibility of
academia members are disproportionate to the scope of commitments, for example, to achieve X result. However,
we notice the university endeavors to operationalize the individual responsibility, for example, installation of antiplagiarism systems, establishment of a unit responsible for mentoring the procedural quality of research
performance, and introduction and application of financial penalties. The university members understand the
. However, the academia activity is scarcely
following these values in everyday academic life. The continuity of institutional values also invokes how academic
members
77
Jolanta Urbanovič and Loreta Tauginienė / Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences 81 (2013) 72 – 78
ecause
(R2). The aforesaid contradictions emphasize the distinction between normative and facts-based discourses.
Institutionally, the university trusts researchers and takes actions only when conflict situations occur, or some
facts on dishonest behavior and its consequences emerge. Such actions-based consequences lead to the individual
behavior rehabilitation through the above-mentioned institutional initiatives.
5. Discussion and conclusions
The empirical data analysis refers to the theoretical framework on the formation of a responsibility culture
. The first stage relates to the identification of issues, the search of common solutions and sharing
of responsibility. At the current stage, some responsibility is delegated to academia, and institutionalized by certain
documents, legal acts, procedures (superficial responsibility). At the second stage, new teams, new skills and
responsibilities form (intermediate responsibility). The last stage is the most profound level of responsibility culture.
Here, the responsibility culture is adopted and applied in everyday academic performance (thoughtful
responsibility).
The framework is based on reciprocal relations between individual and institutional responsibilities. The
institutional environment for the formation of individual behavior is vital. Hence, we suggest that a favorable
institutional environment determines the responsible behavior of the individual, i.e. only the responsible attitude of
institutions inspires the responsible behavior of the individual. If so, the institution is intolerant to the irresponsible
behavior of individuals and sooner or later such cases are given attention. Where the institution transposes its
responsibility on the individual and his/er interpretations, then a conducive environment is created for irresponsible
and dishonest behavior.
The research findings demonstrate that the formation of university academic responsibility refers namely to the
individual responsibility. The approach that societal values, brought by individuals to the institution, form a
responsibility culture dominates. The honest behavior depends on individual moral values. Therefore, individuals
create the university academia that builds the content of institutional responsibility. The formation of institutional
responsibility culture is in the position of laissez-faire. On the one hand, we can interpret such a situation as the
confidence in university academia, however, on the other hand, as institutional passivity or even indifference.
In this context, it is essential to stress that the changing university role in society also transforms the role of its
scientific personnel. A researcher gains more functions (Gordon & Whitchurch, 2007, p. 157) that alternate his/er
academic habits. Therefore, many conflicting factors and these ones influencing the development of research
performance, environment direct imperceptibly the behavior of researchers from the universal norms of behavior
and cause various infringements, ranging from ethical to legal ones. Institutionally shaped objective norms of
behavior could reduce the risk of infringements.
Also, the research findings indicate that although the university is passive in the formation of responsible
researcher behavior, it becomes more active when the deviations of behavior occur. It demonstrates the evasion of
institutional responsibility and herewith endeavors sharing it.
Summing up, the highest degree of responsibility culture increases the institutional consciousness and shapes
many new institutional skills necessary for the realization of assigned commitments. This leads to society,
particularly stakeholders, with an opinion on university and its performance. If universities manage to form the
positive image within society and stakeholders, then it is easier to manage not only the internal processes, but also
gain the confidence of external participants.
References
Atakan, M. G. S., & Eker, T. (2007). Corporate Identity of a Socially Responsible University A Case from the Turkish Higher Education
Sector. Journal of Business Ethics, 76, 55-68.
Baier, E., & Dupraz, L. (2007). Individual and Institutional Liability of Researchers in the Case of Scientific Fraud: Values and Ethics. Higher
Education Management and Policy, 19(3), 27-41.
Problemos, 72, 145-155.
Becher, T. (1989). Academic Tribes and Territories: Intellectual Enquiry and the Cultures of Disciplines. Milton Keynes: The Society for
Research into Higher Education.
78
Jolanta Urbanovič and Loreta Tauginienė / Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences 81 (2013) 72 – 78
Berger, P. L., & Luckman, T. (1999).
. Vilnius: Pradai.
Bi
Brown, B. J., & Baker, S. (2007). Philosophies of Research into Higher Education. London, New York: Continuum International Publishing
Group.
Callaway, E. (2011). Report finds massive fraud at Dutch universities. Nature, 479, 15.
Carbal Herrera, A., Garrido Puello, N., Garcia Gomez, D., & Quesada Iriarte, M. (2010). La Responsabilidad Social Universitaria. Proceso de
Saber, Ciencia y Libertad, 5(1), 95-108.
Caudron, S. (1994). Motivating creative employees calls for new strategies. Personnel Journal, 73(5), 103-106.
Donaldson, T., & Preston, L. E. (1995). The Stakeholder Theory of the Corporation: Concepts, Evidence, and Implications. Academy of
Management Review, 20(1), 65-91.
perior: el caso de
, 109-133.
Gasca-Pliego, E., & Olverael siglo XXI. Convergencia. Revista de Ciencias Sociales, 56, 37-58.
fonctions et ses
, 19(2), 151-175.
Hill, R. P. (2004). The Socially-Responsible University: Talking the Talk while Walking the Walk in the College of Business. Journal of
Academic Ethics, 2, 89-100.
Huo, Y. J., Smith, H. J., Tyler, T. R., & Lind, E. A. (1996). Subordinate identification, subgroup identification, and justice concerns: Is
separatism the problem; is assimilation the answer? Psychological Science, 7(1), 40-45.
Interim report regarding the breach of scientific integrity committed by prof. D. A. Stapel. Tilburg, 31 October 2011. Retrieved from
http://www.tilburguniversity.edu/nl/nieuws-en-agenda/commissie-levelt/interim-report.pdf
http://www.delfi.lt/archive/print.php?id=58693301
Jonas, H. (1984). The Imperative of Responsibility: In Search of an Ethics for the Technological Age. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
Leja, K. (2010). A Socially Responsible University an Attempt to Approach the System. Contemporary Management Quarterly, 2-3, 21-33.
responsabilidad social. Retrieved from http://www.virtualeduca.info/ponencias2009/389/EDUCA%202009.%20ARG.doc
LIBERABIT, 17(1), 85-92.
R. (1999). Managing Scientific and Technical Personnel. Public Works Management & Policy, 3(3), 241-254.
Poff, D. C. (2004). Challenges to Integrity in University Administration: Bad Faith and Loyal Agency. Journal of Academic Ethics, 2, 209-219.
,
4(1), 61-74.
Ekonomika, 80, 51-69.
Engineering Economics, 4(59), 53-58.
Tyler, T. R., & Degoey, P. (1995). Collective restraint in social dilemmas; Procedural justice and social identification effects on support for
authorities. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 70, 913-930.
Mokyklos autonomijos valdymo modelis = The model of school autonomy management. (Doctoral dissertation in
management and administration). Vilnius: Mykolas Romeris University.
Wijnberg, N. M. (2000). Normative Stakeholder Theory and Aristotle: The Link Between Ethics and Politics. Journal of Business Ethics, 25,
329-342.