Vol.7, No.2 July 2001
Editorial | Contents
Ethics of Research for Educational Administrators
Refereed Article
Author
Linda S. Smith, DSN, RN
Assistant Professor
Oregon Health Sciences University School of Nursing
3201 Campus Drive SN-OIT
Klamath Falls, OR 97601-8801; USA
Email: smithli@oit.edu; Fax: 541-885-1855
Key words: Ethics, educational administrators, nursing research
Abstract
Administrators of nursing education divisions, as leaders and nurse scientists, have professional, ethical, institutional, and legal boundaries under which to make supervisory decisions and conduct nursing science. Certainly, deciding who (why and how) will receive precious research resources is a constant struggle. Four processes guide an administrator’s decisions. First, the project with the greatest potential for additional funding would be an important consideration. Second, the quality of the investigator’s writing. Third, the investigator’s preparation and ability to do the identified research. Fourth, important administrator time and effort requirements. Weighing and prioritizing values, with the aid of the ANCI Code of Ethics, will guide and support administrative decisions.
The problem of our age is the proper administration of wealth, so that the ties of brotherhood may still bind together the rich and poor in harmonious relationship. (Beck 1980: 621)
Introduction
Deciding who (and why, and how) will get precious research resources is a constant struggle for educational administrators. The ANCI (Australian Nursing Council, Inc.) Code of Ethics for Nurses in Australia (2000) includes several points directly applicable to administrators of educational units. First, the Code states that "Research is necessary to the development of the profession of nursing," and that this research must be ethically defensible (Value statement 3 #4). Second, perspectives and expertise of each healthcare team member are recognized and respected (Value statement 5#2). Third, nurses "value participation in the development, implementation, and monitoring of policies and procedures which promote safe and efficient use of resources," (Value statement 6#2) (ANCI, 2000).
Unfortunately, these ethical considerations may not always merge. Issues surrounding the principles of beneficence and nonmaleficence, autonomy, justice, fidelity, and veracity -- as applied to faculty-subordinates in tenure and tenure-track positions -- surface daily. So again the question: How does an educational leader weigh the ramifications of research involvement and resource allocation, especially within a research-focused university (linked to the Germanic Model where the central focus is research) (Langston, Cowling & McCain 1999)? How do research topics proposed by faculty improve care or teaching or institutional image (and to what extent)? Will topics unite or divide faculty members within and outside the nursing unit or is it the funding or non-funding that unites or divides? Most important of all, what will be the direct and indirect costs (versus benefits) of proposed research endeavors? These endeavors might encompass faculty release time, administrator time and effort, space/equipment allocation, support staff salaries, and conference presentations, for example.
[top]
Difficult ethical decision-making is not a crisis only rarely endured activity. Rather, for educational administrators, ethically generated decisions are day-to-day interactions and demonstrations of commitment toward institutional missions and goals (Marck 2000). Faculty and administrators within educational units with doctoral programs must conduct original theory testing and theory generating research. The administrative leader will have the responsibility for fund generation and allocation. How does this happen without the perception of bias, elitism, and favoritism? (Yeaworth 1997) The ethics of justice (acting in a fair and impartial manner) includes the allocation of resources in ways that provide for the most benefit without imposing prejudice, discrimination, or bias. Within the framework of the ethics of justice, persons and groups cannot be treated unfairly. Thus, strategies for ethical resource allocation developed by parent organizations are critically important to administrators of nursing educational units. When these strategies are vague and unstructured, when decisions are required without power and autonomy to actually choose from a number of possible alternatives, and when individual rather than team-based decisions are expected, the manager has a difficult time weighing conflicting ethical concerns. One possible solution is the development of a management ethics framework, a kind of decisional template that begins with a delineation of the underlying philosophy and continues with a clear description of the problem including clarification of inherent values, recognition of perceived barriers, proposed solutions, and evaluation timelines and outcomes. (Meslin 1997)
Similar to the ethics of justice, the ethics of fidelity for administrators of educational units includes a loyalty to subordinates as well as to the institution. Unfortunately, with regard to research dollars, conflict between these loyalties may occur. When research allocation problems occur, do managers fear supervisory retribution if they speak out? When opposing organizational policy, are managers perceived as helpful or hurtful to the organization? Difficulties occur when truthful communication may indeed cause harm and inflict psychological pain. This would be the case if a junior researcher proposes a study perceived by the university to be inappropriate. Hence, the ethics of beneficence (the promotion of good) and nonmaleficence (doing no harm) may also conflict.
[top]
Autonomy is another ethical issue encountered frequently by administrators of educational programs designed to educate nurses. Do faculty subordinates have the right to be fully informed about how and why decisions are made about funding? Can they make autonomous decisions about their own research projects? Can an administrator coerce and cajole faculty into research trajectories they would otherwise choose to avoid? May faculty truly practice a self-determined, freely chosen and fully autonomous research program when dollars for scholarly inquiry are scarce and educational units are economizing (some threatened with elimination)? (Yeaworth 1997) This is the juggling act that must be performed by university deans and administrators of nursing divisions.
Research is never performed in isolation -- research is contextual and is influenced by societal, political, professional, and institutional pressures. Thus, the role of the administrator is to 1) share these influences truthfully and clearly with all current and potential faculty, 2) specify all covert and overt influences, 3) prioritize based on pre-stated philosophies and goals, and 4) allocate resources accordingly. Perhaps this role could be likened to that of a NHMRC grant reviewer who removes names from the proposals and calls for expressions of interest and evaluates based on goals and available funds. Once research decisions are made, educational administrators, like NHMRC and WHO grant reviewers, can advocate for and on behalf of potential grantees. Administrators also follow (and promote) the ANCI Code of Ethics for Nurses in Australia as a powerful mechanism that (though not intended as a direction for resolving specific ethical concerns) enhances ethical conduct for all nurses, including leaders of nursing education programs. Leaders also clearly communicate expectations to subordinates and assume the responsibility for maintained performance. Most of all, administrators can role model strict ethical behaviors and standards with regards to scientific inquiry.
How is it feasible to evaluate proposed research studies based on goals and available funds? Perhaps it is never really possible to guide the allocation of precious research resources in the total absence of partiality, bias, and favoritism. It is easy to speak of fidelity, justice, and nonmaleficence but how does the administrator of an educational unit blend ethics and reality when considering research proposals?
[top]
Four processes guide an administrator’s decisions. First, the project with the greatest potential for additional funding would be an important consideration. However, as a professional discipline, nurse educators want and need nursing education research. Yet funding and reward opportunities for education-oriented research are meager (Tanner 1999). Second, the quality of the investigator’s writing. An investigator with good writing skills is likely to prepare clear, well-written, fundable proposals. Additionally, administrators should examine the employee's ability and willingness to face and overcome research obstacles (Denham 2000). Third, an administrator must consider the investigator’s preparation and ability to do the identified research. Whether qualitative or quantitative, the investigator must have a proven research track record, preferably at the doctoral and post-doctoral levels. Faculty should be encouraged to join as co-investigators with other, more seasoned researchers, prior to identifying themselves as a Principle Investigator (PI) on a major grant proposal. The question, of course: Can the investigator accomplish that which is being proposed? Fourth, important time and effort requirements will be placed onto unit leaders by unit faculty involved in research. For example, if a new investigator needs additional help, support, and encouragement in order to complete a proposal and study, the administrator will be required to provide this support directly or indirectly. Thus the question becomes: How much time and energy do I have to train and coach a new investigator? The administrator’s time must always be a consideration within the management ethics framework.
Conclusion
Issues surrounding the principles of beneficence and nonmaleficence, autonomy, justice, fidelity, and veracity -- as applied to faculty-subordinates in tenure or tenure-track positions – are constant concerns for administrators of education programs. Weighing and prioritizing values, when conflict and competition occurs within the education department, is a key strategy. As with other resources, research assets, whether human, technical, or financial, are a finite commodity, which must be carefully considered by leaders of educational units during all ethical resource allocation deliberations. Clearly, there is a huge difference between activity and productivity (Johnson 1998). Emphasis (and resources) needs to be placed on the most productive, forward-moving, growth-producing research endeavors.
[top]
Acknowledgement
The author wishes to acknowledge the information and kind assistance provided by Laura Cox Dzurec, PhD, RN, CS, Dean, School of Nursing, University of Connecticut, USA.
List of references
Australian Nursing Council, Inc., 3 December 2000 [last update]. ANCI Code of Ethics for Nurses in Australia. Online.A.N.C.I.-Australian Nursing Council, Inc. Available: http://www.anci.org.au/codeofethics.htm 15 Jan. 2001.
Beck, E M (ed.) 1980, Familiar quotations John Bartlett. 15th ed. Little, Brown, and Company, Boston, MA, pp621.
Denham, S. A. 2000 'Managing scholarship in the faculty role', The Journal of Continuing Education in Nursing, vol. 31, no. 2, pp78-82.
Johnson, S. 1998, Who Moved my Cheese?, G. P. Putnam's Sons, New York
Langston, N. F., Cowling, W. R. and McCain, N. L. 1999 'Transforming academic nursing: from balance through integration to coherence', Journal of Professional Nursing, vol. 15, no. 1, pp28-32.
Marck, P. B. 2000 'Recovering ethics after 'technics': developing critical text on technology', Nursing Ethics, vol. 7, no. 1, pp5-14.
Meslin, E. M. 1997 'An ethics framework for assisting clinical-managers in resource allocation decision-making'. Hospital and Health Services Administration vol. 42, no.1, pp33-48.
Tanner, T. 1999 'Developing the new professorate', Journal of Nursing Education, vol. 38, no. 2, pp51-52.
Yeaworth, R. C. 1997.'Ethics and research priorities in academic administration',. Journal of Professional Nursing, vol.13, no 2,pp69-75.
[top]
Last modified on: Monday, 23-Jul-2007 10:56:03 EST
