doctoral thesis on ethics

• Youth Program
• Wharton Online

Ethics & Legal Studies

Wharton’s phd program in ethics and legal studies is unique: the only doctoral program in the world to focus on ethical and legal norms relevant to individual and organizational decision-making within business..

The Ethics & Legal Studies Doctoral Program at Wharton trains students in the fields of ethics and law in business. Students are encouraged to combine this work with investigation of related fields, including Philosophy, Law, Psychology, Management, Finance, and Marketing. Students take a core set of courses in the area of ethics and law in business, together with courses in an additional disciplinary concentration such as management, philosophy/ethical theory, finance, marketing, or accounting. Our program size and flexibility allow students to tailor their program to their individualized research interests and to pursue joint degrees with other departments across Wharton and Penn. Resources for current Ph.D. students can be found at http://www.wharton.upenn.edu/doctoral-inside/ .

Our world-class faculty take seriously the responsibility of training graduate students for the academic profession. Faculty work closely with students to help them develop their own distinctive academic interests. Our curriculum crosses many disciplinary boundaries. Faculty and student intellectual interests include a range of topics such as:

• Philosophy & Ethics : • philosophical business ethics • normative political philosophy • rights theory • theory of the firm •  philosophy of law • philosophy of punishment & coercion • philosophy of deception and fraud • philosophy of blame and complicity • climate change ethics • effective altruism • integrative social contracts theory • corporate moral agency
• Law & Legal Studies : • law and economics • corporate penal theory • constitutional law • bankruptcy • corporate governance • corporate law • financial regulation • administrative law • empirical legal studies • blockchain and law • antitrust law • environmental law and policy • corporate criminal law • corruption • negotiations.
• Behavioral Ethics : • neuroscience and business ethics • moral psychology • moral beliefs and identity • moral deliberation • perceptions of corporate identity

Our program prepares graduates for tenure-track careers in university teaching and research at leading business schools and law schools. We have an excellent record of tenure-track placements, including Carnegie Mellon University, Notre Dame University, and George Washington University.  Click here to see our placements .

Sample Schedule

Core Courses

In addition to the Wharton Doctoral course requirements, the student’s four-course unit core in the Legal Studies and Business Ethics Department consists of two required doctoral seminars, LGST 9200 Ethics in Business and Economics, and LGST 9210 Foundations of Business Law. The remaining two LGST courses may be selected from a list of LGST courses that the faculty coordinator has approved.

Students without basic law courses will be required to take LGST 1010 in their first semester. Students will take LGST courses, other than Ph.D. seminars, under an independent study number, meet with the instructor periodically outside class, and write a paper. These requirements should be satisfied through courses taught by members of the LGST standing faculty, though exceptions will be made in special circumstances. The requirements may be adjusted for students with law degrees.

Ethics and Law in Business Courses

Students must take four LGST courses, including these two core course seminars:

• Ethics in Business and Economics (LGST 9200)
• Foundations of Business Law (LGST 9210)

Major Disciplinary Cluster

The purpose of the cluster is to ground students in a single academic specialty other than Business Ethics. Clusters include the following:

Students must choose a disciplinary cluster during the first year, in consultation with a faculty advisor. Required courses may not be double-counted. For example, a student choosing Philosophy as the cluster may not use the two required courses in ethical theory as part of the five course cluster requirement.

Get the Details.

Visit the Ethics & Legal Studies website for details on program requirements and courses. Read faculty and student research and bios to see what you can do with an Ethics & Legal Studies PhD.

Ethics & Legal Studies Doctoral Coordinator Brian Berkey Associate Professor of Legal Studies & Business Ethics

Academic & Business Administrator Tamara English Legal Studies and Business Ethics Department Email: [email protected]

Information

• Author Services

Initiatives

You are accessing a machine-readable page. In order to be human-readable, please install an RSS reader.

All articles published by MDPI are made immediately available worldwide under an open access license. No special permission is required to reuse all or part of the article published by MDPI, including figures and tables. For articles published under an open access Creative Common CC BY license, any part of the article may be reused without permission provided that the original article is clearly cited. For more information, please refer to https://www.mdpi.com/openaccess .

Feature papers represent the most advanced research with significant potential for high impact in the field. A Feature Paper should be a substantial original Article that involves several techniques or approaches, provides an outlook for future research directions and describes possible research applications.

Feature papers are submitted upon individual invitation or recommendation by the scientific editors and must receive positive feedback from the reviewers.

Editor’s Choice articles are based on recommendations by the scientific editors of MDPI journals from around the world. Editors select a small number of articles recently published in the journal that they believe will be particularly interesting to readers, or important in the respective research area. The aim is to provide a snapshot of some of the most exciting work published in the various research areas of the journal.

Original Submission Date Received: .

• Active Journals
• Find a Journal
• Proceedings Series
• For Authors
• For Reviewers
• For Editors
• For Librarians
• For Publishers
• For Societies
• For Conference Organizers
• Open Access Policy
• Institutional Open Access Program
• Special Issues Guidelines
• Editorial Process
• Research and Publication Ethics
• Article Processing Charges
• Testimonials
• Preprints.org
• SciProfiles
• Encyclopedia

Article Menu

• Subscribe SciFeed
• Recommended Articles
• Google Scholar
• on Google Scholar
• Table of Contents

Find support for a specific problem in the support section of our website.

Please let us know what you think of our products and services.

Visit our dedicated information section to learn more about MDPI.

JSmol Viewer

Reflecting on ethical processes and dilemmas in doctoral research.

1. Introduction

• How can institutional ethics committees effectively support educational researchers throughout the life of a study?

1.1. Ethics Processes for Education in UK Universities

1.2. doctoral researchers in education, 1.3. metaphors of doctoral programmes, 2. materials and methods, 2.1. doctoral study research design, 2.1.1. ethical approval, 2.1.2. participants, 2.1.3. methods, 2.2. reflection on researcher experiences, 2.3. critical incidents analysis.

Critical incidents, therefore, are not necessarily sensational events involving a lot of tension. Rather they may be minor incidents, small everyday events that happen in every school and in every classroom. Their criticality is based on the justification, the significance, and the meaning given to them. [ 33 ] (p. 431)

3. Results and Discussion

3.1. critical incident 1: social media ‘likes’, 3.2. critical incident 2: researcher breakdown, 4. conclusions.

• ERBs and approval processes provide reassurance, but they are not designed to consider every eventuality and should be regarded as a safeguard, not a guarantee. Other processes are needed to support doctoral researchers post-approval.
• Normalising the occurrence of ethical dilemmas in doctoral research could bring about a research culture of shared dilemmas, around an ‘uncomfortable kitchen table’.

4.1. Supporting Doctoral Students—ERBs and Supervisors

4.2. using critical incidents as discussion points, institutional review board statement, informed consent statement, data availability statement, conflicts of interest.

• Philip, G.; Bell, L. Thinking critically about rapport and collusion in feminist research: Relationships, contexts and ethical practice. Women’s Stud. Int. Forum 2017 , 61 , 71–74. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ Green Version ]
• Stanley, L. Testicular substance implantation: Comments on some six thousand implantations. Calif. West. Med. 1931 , 35 , 411–415. [ Google Scholar ]
• Busher, H.; Fox, A. The amoral academy? A critical discussion of research ethics in the neo-liberal university. Educ. Philos. Theory 2021 , 53 , 469–478. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• British Educational Research Association. Ethical Guidelines for Educational Research. 2018. Available online: https://www.bera.ac.uk/researchers-resources/publications/ethical-guidelines-for-educational-research-2011 (accessed on 2 June 2022).
• Capewell, C.; Frodsham, S.; Paynter, K. Circumnavigating the revolving door of an ethical milieu. Educ. Sci. 2022 , 12 , 250. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Raykov, M. Education researchers’ perceptions of and experiences with the research ethics application process in Europe and beyond. Eur. Educ. Res. J. 2020 , 19 , 10–29. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Robertson, M. The case for ethics review in the social sciences: Drawing from practice at Queen Mary University of London. Res. Ethics 2014 , 10 , 69–76. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ Green Version ]
• Schrag, Z. The case against ethics review in the social sciences. Res. Ethics 2011 , 7 , 120–131. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Gardner, S.; Gopaul, B. The part-time doctoral student experience. Int. J. Dr. Stud. 2012 , 7 , 63. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ Green Version ]
• Li, F.; Wang, C.; Yue, X. Impact of doctoral student training process fit on doctoral students’ mental health. Int. J. Ment. Health Promot. 2022 , 24 , 169–187. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Keefer, J. Experiencing doctoral liminality as a conceptual threshold and how supervisors can use it. Innov. Educ. Teach. Int. 2015 , 52 , 17–28. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Rowley, H. Going beyond procedure: Engaging with the ethical complexities of being an embedded researcher. Manag. Educ. 2014 , 28 , 19–24. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Mantai, L. Feeling like a researcher: Experiences of early doctoral students in Australia. Stud. High. Educ. 2017 , 42 , 636–650. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Zhang, S.; Carroll, M.; Li, C.; Lin, E. Supporting part-time students in doctoral programs: A technology-based situated learning model. Stud. Grad. Postdr. Educ. 2021 , 12 , 190–205. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Higher Education Statistics Agency. What Do HE Students Study? 2022. Available online: https://www.hesa.ac.uk/data-and-analysis/students/what-study (accessed on 20 May 2022).
• Taylor, C.; Adams, G. Reconceptualizing doctoral students’ journeyings: Possibilities for profound happiness? Int. J. Educ. Res. 2020 , 99 , 101425. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Brailsford, I. Motives and aspirations for doctoral study: Career, personal, and inter-personal factors in the decision to embark on a history PhD. Int. J. Dr. Stud. 2010 , 5 , 15–27. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ Green Version ]
• Hawkes, D. Why do a professional doctorate?: Evidence from prospective EdD students. Int. J. Contin. Educ. Lifelong Learn. 2016 , 8 , 34–46. [ Google Scholar ]
• Sikes, P.; Hall, M. Too close for comfort?: Ethical considerations around safeguarding the emotional and mental wellbeing of researchers using auto/biographical approaches to investigate “sensitive” topics. Int. J. Res. Method Educ. 2020 , 43 , 163–172. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Gardner, S. Conceptualizing success in doctoral education: Perspectives of faculty in seven disciplines. Rev. High. Educ. 2009 , 32 , 383–406. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Gravett, K. Disrupting the doctoral journey: Re-imagining doctoral pedagogies and temporal practices in higher education. Teach. High. Educ. 2021 , 26 , 293–305. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Batchelor, D.; di Napoli, R. The doctoral journey: Perspectives. Educate 2006 , 6 , 13–24. [ Google Scholar ]
• Hammett, D.; Jackson, L.; Bramley, R. Beyond “do no harm”? On the need for a dynamic approach to research ethics. Area , 2022; 1–9. (in press) [ Google Scholar ]
• Quickfall, A. The Life Histories of Teacher Mothers: Exploring a Special Situation. Doctoral thesis, Sheffield Hallam University, Sheffield, UK, 2020. [ Google Scholar ]
• Sikkens, E.; van San, M.; Sieckelinck, S.; Boeije, H.; de Winter, M. Participant recruitment through social media: Lessons learned from a qualitative radicalization study using Facebook. Field Methods 2017 , 29 , 130–139. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Khatri, C.; Chapman, S.J.; Glasbey, J.; Kelly, M.; Nepogodiev, D.; Bhangu, A.; Fitzgerald, J.E. Social media and internet driven study recruitment: Evaluating a new model for promoting collaborator engagement and participation. PLoS ONE 2015 , 10 , e0118899. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ] [ Green Version ]
• Pillow, W. Confession, catharsis or cure? Rethinking the uses of reflexivity as methodological power in qualitative research. J. Qual. Stud. Educ. 2003 , 16 , 175–196. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Folkes, L. Moving beyond “shoppinglist” positionality: Using kitchen table reflexivity and in/visible tools to develop reflexive quali-tative research. Qual. Res. 2022; (in press). [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Gewirtz, S.; Cribb, A. What to do about values in social research: The case for ethical reflexivity in the sociology of education. Br. J. Sociol. Educ. 2006 , 27 , 141–155. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• McCormack, D. Trína chéile: Reflections on journaling in the border country of doctoral research. Null 2014 , 46 , 163–176. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Henwood, K.; Pidgeon, N. Remaking the link: Qualitative research and feminist standpoint theory. Fem. Psychol. 1995 , 5 , 7–30. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• The Academy of Critical Incidents Analysis. 2022. Available online: http://jcia.aciajj.org/volume-1-no-1/a-conceptual-model-for-critical-incident-analysis/ (accessed on 31 July 2022).
• Angelides, P. The development of an efficient technique for collecting and analyzing qualitative data: The analysis of critical incidents. Int. J. Qual. Stud. Educ. 2001 , 14 , 429–442. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Tripp, D. Critical Incidents in Teaching (Classic Edition): Developing Professional Judgement ; Routledge: London, UK, 2011. [ Google Scholar ]
• Tripp, D. Teachers’ lives, critical incidents, and professional practice. Qual. Stud. Educ. 1994 , 7 , 65–76. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Harrison, J.; Lee, R. Exploring the use of critical incident analysis and the professional learning conversation in an initial teacher education programme. J. Educ. Teach. 2011 , 37 , 199–217. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Mohammed, R. Critical incident analysis: Reflections of a teacher educator. Res. Teach. Educ. 2016 , 6 , 25–29. [ Google Scholar ]
• Quickfall, A. ‘Insiderness’ in my pilot study research. Hillary Place Pap. 2018 , 4 , 11–21. [ Google Scholar ]
• Samuel, G. “The Danger of Lurking”: Different conceptualizations of “User Awareness” in social media research. Am. J. Bioeth. 2017 , 17 , 25–26. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ Green Version ]
• Sellers, C.; Samuel, G.; Derrick, G. Reasoning “Uncharted Territory”: Notions of expertise within ethics review panels assessing research use of social media. J. Empir. Res. Hum. Res. Ethics 2020 , 15 , 28–29. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ] [ Green Version ]
• Parsell, M.; Ambler, T.; Jacenyik-Trawogerc, C. Ethics in higher education research. Stud. High. Educ. 2014 , 39 , 166–179. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Sikes, P.; Piper, H. Ethical research, academic freedom and the role of ethics committees and review procedures in educational research. Int. J. Res. Method Educ. 2010 , 33 , 205–213. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Brown, C.; Spiro, J.; Quinton, S. The role of research ethics committees: Friend or foe in educational research? An exploratory study. Br. Educ. Res. J. 2020 , 46 , 747–769. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]

Click here to enlarge figure

Share and Cite

Quickfall, A. Reflecting on Ethical Processes and Dilemmas in Doctoral Research. Educ. Sci. 2022 , 12 , 751. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci12110751

Quickfall A. Reflecting on Ethical Processes and Dilemmas in Doctoral Research. Education Sciences . 2022; 12(11):751. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci12110751

Quickfall, Aimee. 2022. "Reflecting on Ethical Processes and Dilemmas in Doctoral Research" Education Sciences 12, no. 11: 751. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci12110751

Article Metrics

Article access statistics, further information, mdpi initiatives, follow mdpi.

Subscribe to receive issue release notifications and newsletters from MDPI journals

Academia.edu no longer supports Internet Explorer.

To browse Academia.edu and the wider internet faster and more securely, please take a few seconds to  upgrade your browser .

Enter the email address you signed up with and we'll email you a reset link.

• We're Hiring!
• Help Center

Research ethics in dissertations: ethical issues and complexity of reasoning

2010, Journal of Medical Ethics

Related Papers

udo schuklenk

ABSTRACT This module will introduce you to the ethical concepts underlying applied ethical decision-making in the area of research involving human participants. We will also learn what the issues are that people involved in research on research ethics are concerned with. Ethics without an understanding of historical and legal context makes arguably little sense. It is for this reason that this module will begin with a brief history of research ethics and ends with a brief overview of the relevant national and international guidelines pertaining to ethical issues in research involving human participants.

Journal of Business Systems, Governance & Ethics

Anona Armstrong

Advanced Research

David Priede, MIS, Ph.D.

Scientific research must be conducted in accordance with ethical principles. This paper discusses how to ensure that all aspects of a doctoral research, from literature review to conducting research, to writing the dissertation manuscript will be done with care and integrity and will meet the ethical standards of scientific research. This paper will also justify all the steps a researcher will take to ensure the ethical integrity of a dissertation project and not simply describe standard practices. Furthermore, the paper also shows that a researcher must have his / her own clear set of ethical principles, and know how to apply them to their work as they move through the process of writing a thesis.

Shane Connelly

Dirce Bellezi Guilhem

Etică şi deontologie

Cristina Mihaela Salca Rotaru

Sadiq Isah Radda

SciDoc Publishers

International Journal of Dentistry and Oral Science (IJDOS)

Introduction: The research ethics provides guidelines to apply moral regulations and professional codes of conduct in the various steps of research. The research ethics plays a very vital role in the collection, analysis, reporting, and publication of details about research subjects, in particular active acceptance of participant’s right to privacy, confidentiality and the informed consent of the participant. Aims: To assess the Knowledge, awareness and attitudes about research ethics among the faculty and students of medical and dental colleges and the requirement for a regular teaching about research ethics among the faculty and students of medical and dental colleges. Materials & Methods: A cross-sectional study was conducted by assessing the responses to 39 selected basic questions regarding Knowledge, awareness and attitudes about research ethics among a total of 415 faculty members and post graduate students of the medical and dental institutions in Karnataka. The questionnaire was made into 5 categories. Chi-square tests was used to determine, in bivariate analyses, the association of each of the independent variables like their speciality, their academic position, prior ethics training, and their prior involvement with research with each of the main outcome of interest. The students t-test was done to assess the respondents scores on the 5-point Likert scale ranging from 1 to 5 (1-strongly disagree, 2-disagree, 3-not sure, 4-agree and 5-strongly agree). The average of their scores were compared among the various variable like their specialty and academic position by using the ANOVA test. Results: A total of 415 responses were obtained from the participants of the study. Out of this we had 273 respondents as female and 142 respondents as male. Among these 225 respondents were from the medical speciality and 190 from the dental speciality. The P value was kept at 0.05 for this study. Conclusion: The participants of the questionnaire survey showed that the institutional ethics committees would be very useful for promoting health research and are imperative for appraisal of the health research projects.The majority of the respondents agreed that they were well aware of the ethical guidelines governing the human research, but when we assess the respondent’s knowledge and attitudes towards research ethics there seems to be a lacuna in complete awareness and knowledge of research ethics. The results of the study also helped us to assess the requirement for a regular teaching about research ethics among the faculty and students of medical and dental colleges.

ABSTRACT The objective of this module is to cover ground that was not covered indepth in any of the other modules, including: scientific misconduct, issues concerning the publication and ownership of research results (authorship guidelines – who is eligible to be considered an author, or contributor to a scientific paper etc.), special problems occurring in social science and epidemiological research, and the problems pertaining to conflicts of interest the various players in biomedical research activities could encounter.

Loading Preview

Sorry, preview is currently unavailable. You can download the paper by clicking the button above.

RELATED PAPERS

Christopher Berg

AFBE JOURNAL

Bobbe Allen

International Res Jour Managt Socio Human

Mokhamad Anwar

Yasir Arafat

Mwirigi Kiula

Olutoye Olutayo

Criminal Behaviour and Mental Health

Tim Exworthy

Anthony Wrigley

Program of the 2nd International Congress of Qualitative Inquiry

David W Stinson

Journal of Humanities and Social Sciences Studies (JHSSS)

Nkongho A Arrey-Ndip

Christine Halse

Education Sciences

Aimee Quickfall

The American Journal of Bioethics

Michael Kalichman

British Journal of Nursing

Joan Murphy

Gary L Comstock

Umar Shehu Gabi

Fiona C. Ross , Deborah Posel

Marilys Guillemin

magendira mani vinayagam

Cambridge Journal of Education

Supervising and Writing a Good Undergraduate Dissertation

Moira Maguire

Scandinavian Journal of Primary Health Care

Eivind Meland

Developing World Bioethics

RELATED TOPICS

•   We're Hiring!
•   Help Center
• Find new research papers in:
• Health Sciences
• Earth Sciences
• Cognitive Science
• Mathematics
• Computer Science
• Academia ©2024

• USF Research
• USF Libraries

Digital Commons @ USF > College of Arts and Sciences > Philosophy > Theses and Dissertations

Philosophy Theses and Dissertations

Theses/dissertations from 2024 2024.

On the Possibility of Secular Morality , Zachary R. Alonso

An Ecofeminist Ontological Turn: Preparing the Field for a New Ecofeminist Project , M. Laurel-Leigh Meierdiercks

Theses/Dissertations from 2023 2023

Karl Marx on Human Flourishing and Proletarian Ethics , Sam Badger

The Ontological Grounds of Reason: Psychologism, Logicism, and Hermeneutic Phenomenology , Stanford L. Howdyshell

Theses/Dissertations from 2022 2022

Interdisciplinary Communication by Plausible Analogies: the Case of Buddhism and Artificial Intelligence , Michael Cooper

Heidegger and the Origin of Authenticity , John J. Preston

Theses/Dissertations from 2021 2021

Hegel and Schelling: The Emptiness of Emptiness and the Love of the Divine , Sean B. Gleason

Nietzsche on Criminality , Laura N. McAllister

Learning to be Human: Ren 仁, Modernity, and the Philosophers of China's Hundred Days' Reform , Lucien Mathot Monson

Nietzsche and Eternal Recurrence: Methods, Archives, History, and Genesis , William A. B. Parkhurst

Theses/Dissertations from 2020 2020

Orders of Normativity: Nietzsche, Science and Agency , Shane C. Callahan

Humanistic Climate Philosophy: Erich Fromm Revisited , Nicholas Dovellos

This, or Something like It: Socrates and the Problem of Authority , Simon Dutton

Climate Change and Liberation in Latin America , Ernesto O. Hernández

Anorexia Nervosa and Bulimia Nervosa as Expressions of Shame in a Post-Feminist , Emily Kearns

Nostalgia and (In)authentic Community: A Bataillean Answer to the Heidegger Controversy , Patrick Miller

Cultivating Virtue: A Thomistic Perspective on the Relationship Between Moral Motivation and Skill , Ashley Potts

Identity, Breakdown, and the Production of Knowledge: Intersectionality, Phenomenology, and the Project of Post-Marxist Standpoint Theory , Zachary James Purdue

Theses/Dissertations from 2019 2019

The Efficacy of Comedy , Mark Anthony Castricone

William of Ockham's Divine Command Theory , Matthew Dee

Heidegger's Will to Power and the Problem of Nietzsche's Nihilism , Megan Flocken

Abelard's Affective Intentionalism , Lillian M. King

Anton Wilhelm Amo's Philosophy and Reception: from the Origins through the Encyclopédie , Dwight Kenneth Lewis Jr.

"The Thought that we Hate": Regulating Race-Related Speech on College Campuses , Michael McGowan

A Historical Approach to Understanding Explanatory Proofs Based on Mathematical Practices , Erika Oshiro

From Meaningful Work to Good Work: Reexamining the Moral Foundation of the Calling Orientation , Garrett W. Potts

Reasoning of the Highest Leibniz and the Moral Quality of Reason , Ryan Quandt

Fear, Death, and Being-a-problem: Understanding and Critiquing Racial Discourse with Heidegger’s Being and Time , Jesús H. Ramírez

The Role of Skepticism in Early Modern Philosophy: A Critique of Popkin's "Sceptical Crisis" and a Study of Descartes and Hume , Raman Sachdev

How the Heart Became Muscle: From René Descartes to Nicholas Steno , Alex Benjamin Shillito

Autonomy, Suffering, and the Practice of Medicine: A Relational Approach , Michael A. Stanfield

The Case for the Green Kant: A Defense and Application of a Kantian Approach to Environmental Ethics , Zachary T. Vereb

Theses/Dissertations from 2018 2018

Augustine's Confessiones : The Battle between Two Conversions , Robert Hunter Craig

The Strategic Naturalism of Sandra Harding's Feminist Standpoint Epistemology: A Path Toward Epistemic Progress , Dahlia Guzman

Hume on the Doctrine of Infinite Divisibility: A Matter of Clarity and Absurdity , Wilson H. Underkuffler

Climate Change: Aristotelian Virtue Theory, the Aidōs Response and Proper Primility , John W. Voelpel

The Fate of Kantian Freedom: the Kant-Reinhold Controversy , John Walsh

Time, Tense, and Ontology: Prolegomena to the Metaphysics of Tense, the Phenomenology of Temporality, and the Ontology of Time , Justin Brandt Wisniewski

Theses/Dissertations from 2017 2017

A Phenomenological Approach to Clinical Empathy: Rethinking Empathy Within its Intersubjective and Affective Contexts , Carter Hardy

From Object to Other: Models of Sociality after Idealism in Gadamer, Levinas, Rosenzweig, and Bonhoeffer , Christopher J. King

Humanitarian Military Intervention: A Failed Paradigm , Faruk Rahmanovic

Active Suffering: An Examination of Spinoza's Approach to Tristita , Kathleen Ketring Schenk

Cartesian Method and Experiment , Aaron Spink

An Examination of John Burton’s Method of Conflict Resolution and Its Applicability to the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict , John Kenneth Steinmeyer

Speaking of the Self: Theorizing the Dialogical Dimensions of Ethical Agency , Bradley S. Warfield

Changing Changelessness: On the Genesis and Development of the Doctrine of Divine Immutability in the Ancient and Hellenic Period , Milton Wilcox

Theses/Dissertations from 2016 2016

The Statue that Houses the Temple: A Phenomenological Investigation of Western Embodiment Towards the Making of Heidegger's Missing Connection with the Greeks , Michael Arvanitopoulos

An Exploratory Analysis of Media Reporting of Police Involved Shootings in Florida , John L. Brown

Divine Temporality: Bonhoeffer's Theological Appropriation of Heidegger's Existential Analytic of Dasein , Nicholas Byle

Stoicism in Descartes, Pascal, and Spinoza: Examining Neostoicism’s Influence in the Seventeenth Century , Daniel Collette

Phenomenology and the Crisis of Contemporary Psychiatry: Contingency, Naturalism, and Classification , Anthony Vincent Fernandez

A Critique of Charitable Consciousness , Chioke Ianson

writing/trauma , Natasha Noel Liebig

Leibniz's More Fundamental Ontology: from Overshadowed Individuals to Metaphysical Atoms , Marin Lucio Mare

Violence and Disagreement: From the Commonsense View to Political Kinds of Violence and Violent Nonviolence , Gregory Richard Mccreery

Kant's Just War Theory , Steven Charles Starke

A Feminist Contestation of Ableist Assumptions: Implications for Biomedical Ethics, Disability Theory, and Phenomenology , Christine Marie Wieseler

Theses/Dissertations from 2015 2015

Heidegger and the Problem of Modern Moral Philosophy , Megan Emily Altman

The Encultured Mind: From Cognitive Science to Social Epistemology , David Alexander Eck

Weakness of Will: An Inquiry on Value , Michael Funke

Cogs in a Cosmic Machine: A Defense of Free Will Skepticism and its Ethical Implications , Sacha Greer

Thinking Nature, "Pierre Maupertuis and the Charge of Error Against Fermat and Leibniz" , Richard Samuel Lamborn

John Duns Scotus’s Metaphysics of Goodness: Adventures in 13th-Century Metaethics , Jeffrey W. Steele

A Gadamerian Analysis of Roman Catholic Hermeneutics: A Diachronic Analysis of Interpretations of Romans 1:17-2:17 , Steven Floyd Surrency

A Natural Case for Realism: Processes, Structures, and Laws , Andrew Michael Winters

Theses/Dissertations from 2014 2014

Leibniz's Theodicies , Joseph Michael Anderson

Aeschynē in Aristotle's Conception of Human Nature , Melissa Marie Coakley

Ressentiment, Violence, and Colonialism , Jose A. Haro

It's About Time: Dynamics of Inflationary Cosmology as the Source of the Asymmetry of Time , Emre Keskin

Time Wounds All Heels: Human Nature and the Rationality of Just Behavior , Timothy Glenn Slattery

Theses/Dissertations from 2013 2013

Nietzsche and Heidegger on the Cartesian Atomism of Thought , Steven Burgess

Embodying Social Practice: Dynamically Co-Constituting Social Agency , Brian W. Dunst

Subject of Conscience: On the Relation between Freedom and Discrimination in the Thought of Heidegger, Foucault, and Butler , Aret Karademir

Climate, Neo-Spinozism, and the Ecological Worldview , Nancy M. Kettle

Eschatology in a Secular Age: An Examination of the Use of Eschatology in the Philosophies of Heidegger, Berdyaev and Blumenberg , John R. Lup, Jr.

Navigation and Immersion of the American Identity in a Foreign Culture to Emergence as a Culturally Relative Ambassador , Lee H. Rosen

Theses/Dissertations from 2012 2012

A Philosophical Analysis of Intellectual Property: In Defense of Instrumentalism , Michael A. Kanning

A Commentary On Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz's Discourse on Metaphysics #19 , Richard Lamborn Samuel Lamborn

Sellars in Context: An Analysis of Wilfrid Sellars's Early Works , Peter Jackson Olen

The New Materialism: Althusser, Badiou, and Zizek , Geoffrey Dennis Pfeifer

Structure and Agency: An Analysis of the Impact of Structure on Group Agents , Elizabeth Kaye Victor

Moral Friction, Moral Phenomenology, and the Improviser , Benjamin Scott Young

Theses/Dissertations from 2011 2011

The Virtuoso Human: A Virtue Ethics Model Based on Care , Frederick Joseph Bennett

The Existential Compromise in the History of the Philosophy of Death , Adam Buben

Philosophical Precursors to the Radical Enlightenment: Vignettes on the Struggle Between Philosophy and Theology From the Greeks to Leibniz With Special Emphasis on Spinoza , Anthony John Desantis

The Problem of Evil in Augustine's Confessions , Edward Matusek

The Persistence of Casuistry: a Neo-premodernist Approach to Moral Reasoning , Richard Arthur Mercadante

Theses/Dissertations from 2010 2010

Dewey's Pragmatism and the Great Community , Philip Schuyler Bishop

Unamuno's Concept of the Tragic , Ernesto O. Hernandez

Rethinking Ethical Naturalism: The Implications of Developmental Systems Theory , Jared J.. Kinggard

From Husserl and the Neo-Kantians to Art: Heidegger's Realist Historicist Answer to the Problem of the Origin of Meaning , William H. Koch

Queering Cognition: Extended Minds and Sociotechnologically Hybridized Gender , Michele Merritt

Hydric Life: A Nietzschean Reading of Postcolonial Communication , Elena F. Ruiz-Aho

Descartes' Bête Machine, the Leibnizian Correction and Religious Influence , John Voelpel

Aretē and Physics: The Lesson of Plato's Timaeus , John R. Wolfe

Theses/Dissertations from 2009 2009

Praxis and Theōria : Heidegger’s “Violent” Interpretation , Megan E. Altman

On the Concept of Evil: An Analysis of Genocide and State Sovereignty , Jason J. Campbell

The Role of Trust in Judgment , Christophe Sage Hudspeth

Truth And Judgment , Jeremy J. Kelly

The concept of action and responsibility in Heidegger's early thought , Christian Hans Pedersen

Advanced Search

• Email Notifications and RSS
• All Collections
• USF Faculty Publications
• Open Access Journals
• Conferences and Events
• Theses and Dissertations
• Textbooks Collection

Useful Links

• Philosophy Department
• Rights Information
• SelectedWorks
• Submit Research

Home | About | Help | My Account | Accessibility Statement | Language and Diversity Statements

Privacy Copyright

• Who’s Teaching What
• Subject Updates
• MEng program
• Opportunities
• Minor in Computer Science
• Resources for Current Students
• Program objectives and accreditation
• Graduate program requirements
• Admission process
• Degree programs
• Graduate research
• EECS Graduate Funding
• Resources for current students
• Student profiles
• Instructors
• DEI data and documents
• Recruitment and outreach
• Community and resources
• Get involved / self-education
• Rising Stars in EECS
• Graduate Application Assistance Program (GAAP)
• MIT Summer Research Program (MSRP)
• Sloan-MIT University Center for Exemplary Mentoring (UCEM)
• Electrical Engineering
• Computer Science
• Artificial Intelligence + Decision-making
• AI and Society
• AI for Healthcare and Life Sciences
• Artificial Intelligence and Machine Learning
• Biological and Medical Devices and Systems
• Communications Systems
• Computational Biology
• Computational Fabrication and Manufacturing
• Computer Architecture
• Educational Technology
• Electronic, Magnetic, Optical and Quantum Materials and Devices
• Graphics and Vision
• Human-Computer Interaction
• Information Science and Systems
• Integrated Circuits and Systems
• Nanoscale Materials, Devices, and Systems
• Natural Language and Speech Processing
• Optics + Photonics
• Optimization and Game Theory
• Programming Languages and Software Engineering
• Quantum Computing, Communication, and Sensing
• Security and Cryptography
• Signal Processing
• Systems and Networking
• Systems Theory, Control, and Autonomy
• Theory of Computation
• Departmental History
• Departmental Organization
• Visiting Committee
• News & Events
• News & Events
• EECS Celebrates Awards

Doctoral Thesis: Evidence-based AI Ethics

32-G882 (Hewlett Room)

William Boag

Abstract: With the rise in prominence of algorithmic-decision making, and numerous high-profile failures, many people have called for the integration of ethics into the development and use of these technologies. In the past five years, the field of “AI Ethics” has risen to prominence to explore questions such as ‘how can ML algorithms be more fair’ and ‘are are tradeoffs when incorporating values such as fairness or privacy into models.’ One common trend, particularly by corporations and governments, has been a top-down, principles-based approach for setting the agenda. However, such efforts are usually too abstract to engage with; everyone agrees models should be fair, but there is often disagreement on what “fair” means. In this work, I propose a bottom-up alternative: Evidence-based AI Ethics. Learning from other influential movements, such as Evidence-based Medicine, we can consider specific projects and examine them for “evidence.” We draw from complementary critical lenses, one based on utilitarian ethics and on from intersectional feminism to analyze five case studies I have worked on, ranging from automatically-generated radiology reports to tech worker organizing.

• Date: Thursday, April 28
• Time: 12:30 pm - 2:00 pm
• Location: 32-G882 (Hewlett Room)

Additional Location Details:

Thesis Supervisor: Professor Peter Szolovits

• Request Info
• Browse Degrees
• Student Resources
• Faculty Resources
• Diversity, Equity & Inclusion
• Give to SLU
• Search & Directory

Health Care Ethics, Ph.D.

• Learning Outcomes
• Requirements
• Contact Info

Saint Louis University’s doctoral program in health care ethics prepares students for a successful career in academic, corporate, research or clinical bioethics settings.

Curriculum Overview

SLU’s Ph.D. in health care ethics is offered by the Albert Gnaegi Center for Health Care Ethics . The health care ethics Ph.D. integrates an interdisciplinary curriculum with several practica and offers four concentrations to further specialize your doctoral studies.

All students in the traditional Ph.D. in health care ethics program are required to complete 60 credits of coursework in five categories of courses:

• Foundations of Health Care Ethics (12 credits)
• Context of Health Care (12 credits)
• Disciplinary Lens (12 credits)
• Bioethics Content (12 credits)
• Dissertation Research (12 credits)

With the approval of the Ph.D. program director, up to 12 credits (in 5000-level courses or higher) from previous graduate coursework may count as advanced standing toward the disciplinary lens or bioethics content elective categories. Students pursuing the J.D./Ph.D., M.D./Ph.D., M.A./Ph.D. or the joint Ph.D. in theology and health care ethics follow a modified curriculum.

You may opt to complete a concentration in one of four areas: Catholic tradition, clinical ethics, empirical research methods or research ethics.

Catholic Tradition Concentration

Students enrolled in the Ph.D. program in health care ethics may take 15 credits of coursework with an emphasis on health care ethics in the Catholic tradition and write a dissertation (12 credits) in the Catholic tradition to develop expertise in the area of Catholic health care ethics. To enroll in the concentration in health care ethics in the Catholic tradition, students must already hold a master’s degree in theology or religious studies or be enrolled in the M.A./Ph.D. dual-degree program.

Clinical Ethics Concentration

Students enrolled in the Ph.D. program in health care ethics may take 15 credits of coursework with an emphasis on clinical ethics (12 credits). They'll also write a dissertation on a topic relevant to clinical ethics to develop clinical health care ethics expertise.

Empirical Research Concentration

With the approval of the concentration directors and the Ph.D. program director, students enrolled in the Ph.D. program in health care ethics may opt to complete this concentration to develop expertise in empirical research methods. This concentration prepares students to incorporate empirical methods into a normative dissertation and future research. The focus of the track will be on qualitative research methods (such as ethnography, interviews, focus groups, public deliberation, etc.), though, in consultation with the directors of the concentration, students will have the option of adopting quantitative or mixed methods approaches. Completion of the concentration is meant to indicate special competencies over and above those gained in the Ph.D. program, specifically those that pertain to qualitative empirical research in the field of bioethics.

Students must elect to pursue this concentration by the end of their first semester at the latest. A concentration director must approve the empirical concentration curriculum plan of each student. The concentration requires at least 12 hours of coursework.

Research Ethics Concentration

Students enrolled in the Ph.D. program in health care ethics may take 15 credits of coursework with an emphasis on research ethics and write a dissertation (12 credits) in research ethics to develop expertise in the area of human research ethics.

Fieldwork and Research Opportunities

All Ph.D. students take a three-semester, 150-hour clinical practicum to gain experience working in a clinical setting. Students interested in the clinical ethics concentration can complete an additional advanced practicum in which students are placed in active clinical ethics consultation services for 300+ hours. In addition to these fieldwork opportunities, most Ph.D. students graduate with two or more publications.

Professionals from the fields of law, medicine, nursing, public health, philosophy and religious studies have joined SLU’s Ph.D. program in health care ethics. Our graduates have been highly successful in finding excellent full-time positions both in education (teaching and conducting research in health care ethics) and in health care systems (as professional ethicists).

Admission Requirements

Students entering the Ph.D. program in health care ethics will have an undergraduate or graduate degree in a relevant field, for instance, philosophy, theology, a clinical field, social sciences or law. Successful applicants usually have a high GPA, high GRE percentiles (especially in the verbal and analytical writing categories), a strong normative writing sample and a demonstration of overall fit with the program’s educational objectives.

The Catholic Health Association has recommended that ethicists working in Catholic health care with an interdisciplinary Ph.D. degree should additionally hold an M.A. in theology. It is strongly recommended that students who do not already hold an M.A. in theology complete the dual-degree program, offered in collaboration with the Aquinas Institute of Theology. Alternately, students should plan on completing an M.A. prior to commencing work in Catholic health care.

Application Requirements

• Transcript(s)
• Three letters of recommendation
• Writing sample
• Professional goal statement
• Application deadline Dec. 1

Requirements for International Students 

All admission policies and requirements for domestic students apply to international students. International students must also meet the following additional requirements:

• Demonstrate  English Language Proficiency
• Courses taken and/or lectures attended
• Practical laboratory work
• The maximum and minimum grades attainable
• The grades earned or the results of all end-of-term examinations
• Any honors or degrees received.
• WES and ECE transcripts are accepted.
• A letter of financial support from the person(s) or sponsoring agency funding the student's time at Saint Louis University
• A letter from the sponsor's bank verifying that the funds are available and will be so for the duration of the student's study at the University

Assistantship Deadline

Applicants who are admitted to the Ph.D. program will be invited to submit a separate application for assistantship funding. Contact the Ph.D. program director for more information.

Review Process

Applications are reviewed by a committee of faculty members from the Albert Gnaegi Center for Health Care Ethics.

Additional charges may apply. Other resources are listed below:

Net Price Calculator

Information on Tuition and Fees

Miscellaneous Fees

Information on Summer Tuition

Scholarships, Assistantships and Financial Aid

For priority consideration for a graduate assistantship, apply by the program admission deadlines listed. Fellowships and assistantships provide a stipend and may include health insurance and a tuition scholarship for the duration of the award. 

Explore Scholarships and Financial Aid Options

• Graduates will be able to demonstrate a broad knowledge of the foundational disciplines, methods, topics and issues in health care ethics required for the scholarly analysis of issues in the field. 
• Graduates will be able to demonstrate proficiency in formulating original, normative arguments on topics related to health care ethics.
• Graduates will be able to demonstrate the ability to conceptualize, develop and bring to successful completion an original, sustained and coherent independent research project that contributes to the field (i.e. the dissertation).
• Graduates will be able to demonstrate an ability to generate appropriate job search materials (i.e. curriculum vitae, teaching portfolio, writing sample, etc.)

Non Course Requirements

Research tools.

These competencies are essential for success in health care ethics. Students may develop these competencies through different mechanisms.

• Competency in medical terminology
• Competency in library database skills
• Competency in reading statistics and study design

Comprehensive Examinations

The comprehensive examinations occur after completing all coursework and practica. 

Dissertation Proposal

The student will work closely with the dissertation chair to select a dissertation topic and plan the dissertation proposal in a timely manner. In the dissertation proposal, the student must present substantial evidence of the ability to develop and sustain an extended normative project on a bioethics topic. Once the chair is satisfied with the proposal, it will be sent to the two faculty readers for their comments. It is at this stage that the readers are expected to influence the general outline of the dissertation. The student will then address the comments of the readers and submit a revised proposal to the chair. This process may be repeated until the chair, readers and student are satisfied with the proposal.

Dissertations: Nontraditional Format

Ordinarily, doctoral candidates in the Ph.D. program in health care ethics will follow the traditional guidelines for dissertations. However, when appropriate, a student’s dissertation committee may permit the student to write a dissertation using a nontraditional format, the body of which consists of at least three thematically related original article-length manuscripts, at least two of which must be accepted for publication. As is always the case, all dissertation content must receive final approval by the student’s dissertation committee. The mere fact that a manuscript has been published or accepted for publication does not guarantee that it can be used toward a nontraditional dissertation. Ordinarily, if a faculty member serves as a co-author on one of the publications, this faculty member would not serve as the student’s dissertation chair. The nontraditional dissertation format requires that:

• The three incorporated articles be preceded by a substantive introduction chapter and followed by a substantive conclusion chapter, which will integrate the three manuscripts into a coherent whole.
• Ordinarily, the student is the sole or primary author of all three manuscripts.
• At least two of the three manuscripts must be fully accepted for publication and the third at least under review.
• Dissertations must satisfy the formatting requirements dictated by the "Policies and Procedures for Thesis, Project, and Dissertation Formatting."
• All articles incorporated into the dissertation must have been submitted while enrolled in the Ph.D. program.

Oral Defense of the Dissertation

Upon completion of the dissertation, students publicly present and defend their dissertation before their dissertation committee, CHCE faculty and doctoral students.

Continuation Standards

Students must maintain a cumulative grade point average (GPA) of 3.50 in all graduate/professional courses.

Empirical Research Methods Concentration

Roadmaps are recommended semester-by-semester plans of study for programs and assume full-time enrollment unless otherwise noted.  

Courses and milestones designated as critical (marked with !) must be completed in the semester listed to ensure a timely graduation. Transfer credit may change the roadmap.

This roadmap should not be used in the place of regular academic advising appointments. All students are encouraged to meet with their advisor/mentor each semester. Requirements, course availability and sequencing are subject to change.

Take either course depending on interest and career goals. May take both, with the second acting as an elective.

Take the “Consuming Empirical Literature” exam the first day of class.

Take the “Medical Terminology” exam the first day of class.

An introduction to graduate-level database and library search skills, taught by library faculty.

Complete the clinical shadowing eligibility requirements prior to beginning of class.

Program Notes

• Students are encouraged to concentrate elective courses in a primary methodological or content area, versus a broad sampling of courses. Common choices are 6xxx-level courses in theology and philosophy.
• Concentration in Research Ethics : Electives focus on topics related to research ethics, and the dissertation will be written on a research ethics topic. One elective will be in research methodology; one elective will be an Advanced Research Ethics Practicum; one elective will be a non-HCE elective related to research ethics and the elective in the final semester will be a directed reading on research ethics, preparing the student’s dissertation prospectus.
• Concentration in Catholic Tradition : Electives focus on topics related to Catholic health care ethics, and the dissertation will be written on a Catholic health care topic. One elective will be HCE 6310 Health Care Ethics: Catholic Tradition (3 cr) ; one elective will be an elective related to health care and the catholic tradition, usually in theology; the elective in the final semester will be a directed reading on Catholic health care ethics, preparing the student’s dissertation prospectus.
• Concentration in Clinical Ethics : Electives focus on topics related to clinical ethics, and the dissertation will be written on a clinical ethics topic. One elective will be HCE 6540 Advanced Clinical Ethics Practicum (3 cr) ; one elective will be a non-HCE elective related to clinical ethics and the elective in the final semester will be a directed reading on clinical ethics, preparing the student’s dissertation prospectus.
• Concentration in Empirical Research Methods in Ethics : Electives focus on topics related to empirical research methods, and the dissertation will be written using an empirical research method. Two (preferably three) electives will be graduate-level methods courses taught outside HCE and the elective in the final semester will be HCE 6520 Quantitative Research in Descriptive Ethics (3 cr) , preparing the student’s dissertation prospectus.

For additional information about our program, please contact:

Harold Braswell, Ph.D.  Graduate program coordinator, health care ethics [email protected]  

• The Open University
• Accessibility hub
• Guest user / Sign out
• Study with The Open University

My OpenLearn Profile

Personalise your OpenLearn profile, save your favourite content and get recognition for your learning

Addressing ethical issues in your research proposal

This article explores the ethical issues that may arise in your proposed study during your doctoral research degree.

What ethical principles apply when planning and conducting research?

Research ethics are the moral principles that govern how researchers conduct their studies (Wellcome Trust, 2014). As there are elements of uncertainty and risk involved in any study, every researcher has to consider how they can uphold these ethical principles and conduct the research in a way that protects the interests and welfare of participants and other stakeholders (such as organisations).  

You will need to consider the ethical issues that might arise in your proposed study. Consideration of the fundamental ethical principles that underpin all research will help you to identify the key issues and how these could be addressed. As you are probably a practitioner who wants to undertake research within your workplace, consider how your role as an ‘insider’ influences how you will conduct your study. Think about the ethical issues that might arise when you become an insider researcher (for example, relating to trust, confidentiality and anonymity).  

What key ethical principles do you think will be important when planning or conducting your research, particularly as an insider? Principles that come to mind might include autonomy, respect, dignity, privacy, informed consent and confidentiality. You may also have identified principles such as competence, integrity, wellbeing, justice and non-discrimination.  

Key ethical issues that you will address as an insider researcher include:

• Gaining trust
• Avoiding coercion when recruiting colleagues or other participants (such as students or service users)
• Practical challenges relating to ensuring the confidentiality and anonymity of organisations and staff or other participants.

(Heslop et al, 2018)

A fuller discussion of ethical principles is available from the British Psychological Society’s Code of Human Research Ethics (BPS, 2021).

You can also refer to guidance from the British Educational Research Association and the British Association for Applied Linguistics .

Ethical principles are essential for protecting the interests of research participants, including maximising the benefits and minimising any risks associated with taking part in a study. These principles describe ethical conduct which reflects the integrity of the researcher, promotes the wellbeing of participants and ensures high-quality research is conducted (Health Research Authority, 2022).  

Research ethics is therefore not simply about gaining ethical approval for your study to be conducted. Research ethics relates to your moral conduct as a doctoral researcher and will apply throughout your study from design to dissemination (British Psychological Society, 2021). When you apply to undertake a doctorate, you will need to clearly indicate in your proposal that you understand these ethical principles and are committed to upholding them.  

Where can I find ethical guidance and resources? 

Professional bodies, learned societies, health and social care authorities, academic publications, Research Ethics Committees and research organisations provide a range of ethical guidance and resources. International codes such as the Universal Declaration of Human Rights underpin ethical frameworks (United Nations, 1948).  

You may be aware of key legislation in your own country or the country where you plan to undertake the research, including laws relating to consent, data protection and decision-making capacity, for example, the Data Protection Act, 2018 (UK).  If you want to find out more about becoming an ethical researcher, check out this Open University short course: Becoming an ethical researcher: Introduction and guidance: What is a badged course? - OpenLearn - Open University  

You should be able to justify the research decisions you make. Utilising these resources will guide your ethical judgements when writing your proposal and ultimately when designing and conducting your research study. The Ethical Guidelines for Educational Research (British Educational Research Association, 2018) identifies the key responsibilities you will have when you conduct your research, including the range of stakeholders that you will have responsibilities to, as follows:   

• to your participants (e.g. to appropriately inform them, facilitate their participation and support them)
• clients, stakeholders and sponsors
• the community of educational or health and social care researchers
• for publication and dissemination
• your wellbeing and development

The National Institute for Health and Care Research (no date) has emphasised the need to promote equality, diversity and inclusion when undertaking research, particularly to address long-standing social and health inequalities. Research should be informed by the diversity of people’s experiences and insights, so that it will lead to the development of practice that addresses genuine need. A commitment to equality, diversity and inclusion aims to eradicate prejudice and discrimination on the basis of an individual or group of individuals' protected characteristics such as sex (gender), disability, race, sexual orientation, in line with the Equality Act 2010.  

The NIHR has produced guidance for enhancing the inclusion of ‘under-served groups’ when designing a research study (2020). Although the guidance refers to clinical research it is relevant to research more broadly.  

You should consider how you will promote equality and diversity in your planned study, including through aspects such as your research topic or question, the methodology you will use, the participants you plan to recruit and how you will analyse and interpret your data.    

What ethical issues do I need to consider when writing my research proposal?

You might be planning to undertake research in a health, social care, educational or other setting, including observations and interviews. The following prompts should help you to identify key ethical issues that you need to bear in mind when undertaking research in such settings.  

1.     Imagine you are a potential participant. Think about the questions and concerns that you might have:

• How would you feel if a researcher sat in your space and took notes, completed a checklist, or made an audio or film recording?
• What harm might a researcher cause by observing or interviewing you and others?
• What would you want to know about the researcher and ask them about the study before giving consent?
• When imagining you are the participant, how could the researcher make you feel more comfortable to be observed or interviewed? 

2.     Having considered the perspective of your potential participant, how would you take account of concerns such as privacy, consent, wellbeing and power in your research proposal?  

[Adapted from OpenLearn course: Becoming an ethical researcher, Week 2 Activity 3: Becoming an ethical researcher - OpenLearn - Open University ]  

The ethical issues to be considered will vary depending on your organisational context/role, the types of participants you plan to recruit (for example, children, adults with mental health problems), the research methods you will use, and the types of data you will collect. You will need to decide how to recruit your participants so you do not inappropriately exclude anyone.  Consider what methods may be necessary to facilitate their voice and how you can obtain their consent to taking part or ensure that consent is obtained from someone else as necessary, for example, a parent in the case of a child. 

You should also think about how to avoid imposing an unnecessary burden or costs on your participants. For example, by minimising the length of time they will have to commit to the study and by providing travel or other expenses. Identify the measures that you will take to store your participants’ data safely and maintain their confidentiality and anonymity when you report your findings. You could do this by storing interview and video recordings in a secure server and anonymising their names and those of their organisations using pseudonyms.  

Professional codes such as the Code of Human Research Ethics (BPS, 2021) provide guidance on undertaking research with children. Being an ‘insider’ researching within your own organisation has advantages. However, you should also consider how this might impact on your research, such as power dynamics, consent, potential bias and any conflict of interest between your professional and researcher roles (Sapiro and Matthews, 2020).  

How have other researchers addressed any ethical challenges?

The literature provides researchers’ accounts explaining how they addressed ethical challenges when undertaking studies. For example, Turcotte-Tremblay and McSween-Cadieux (2018) discuss strategies for protecting participants’ confidentiality when disseminating findings locally, such as undertaking fieldwork in multiple sites and providing findings in a generalised form. In addition, professional guidance includes case studies illustrating how ethical issues can be addressed, including when researching online forums (British Sociological Association, no date).

Watch the videos below and consider what insights the postgraduate researcher and supervisor provide  regarding issues such as being an ‘insider researcher’, power relations, avoiding intrusion, maintaining participant anonymity and complying with research ethics and professional standards. How might their experiences inform the design and conduct of your own study?

Postgraduate researcher and supervisor talk about ethical considerations

Your thoughtful consideration of the ethical issues that might arise and how you would address these should enable you to propose an ethically informed study and conduct it in a responsible, fair and sensitive manner. 

British Educational Research Association (2018)  Ethical Guidelines for Educational Research.  Available at:  https://www.bera.ac.uk/publication/ethical-guidelines-for-educational-research-2018  (Accessed: 9 June 2023).

British Psychological Society (2021)  Code of Human Research Ethics . Available at:  https://cms.bps.org.uk/sites/default/files/2022-06/BPS%20Code%20of%20Human%20Research%20Ethics%20%281%29.pdf  (Accessed: 9 June 2023).

British Sociological Association (2016)  Researching online forums . Available at:  https://www.britsoc.co.uk/media/24834/j000208_researching_online_forums_-cs1-_v3.pdf  (Accessed: 9 June 2023).

Health Research Authority (2022)  UK Policy Framework for Health and Social Care Research . Available at:  https://www.hra.nhs.uk/planning-and-improving-research/policies-standards-legislation/uk-policy-framework-health-social-care-research/uk-policy-framework-health-and-social-care-research/#chiefinvestigators  (Accessed: 9 June 2023).

Heslop, C., Burns, S., Lobo, R. (2018) ‘Managing qualitative research as insider-research in small rural communities’,  Rural and Remote Health , 18: pp. 4576.

Equality Act 2010, c. 15.  Available at:   https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2010/15/introduction   (Accessed: 9 June 2023).

National Institute for Health and Care Research (no date)  Equality, Diversity and Inclusion (EDI) . Available at:  https://arc-kss.nihr.ac.uk/public-and-community-involvement/pcie-guide/how-to-do-pcie/equality-diversity-and-inclusion-edi  (Accessed: 9 June 2023).

National Institute for Health and Care Research (2020)  Improving inclusion of under-served groups in clinical research: Guidance from INCLUDE project.  Available at:   https://www.nihr.ac.uk/documents/improving-inclusion-of-under-served-groups-in-clinical-research-guidance-from-include-project/25435  (Accessed: 9 June 2023).

Sapiro, B. and Matthews, E. (2020) ‘Both Insider and Outsider. On Conducting Social Work Research in Mental Health Settings’,  Advances in Social Work , 20(3). Available at:  https://doi.org/10.18060/23926

Turcotte-Tremblay, A. and McSween-Cadieux, E. (2018) ‘A reflection on the challenge of protecting confidentiality of participants when disseminating research results locally’,  BMC Medical Ethics,  19(supplement 1), no. 45. Available at:   https://bmcmedethics.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12910-018-0279-0

United Nations General Assembly (1948)  The Universal Declaration of Human Rights . Resolution A/RES/217/A. Available at:  https://www.un.org/en/about-us/universal-declaration-of-human-rights#:~:text=Drafted%20by%20representatives%20with%20different,all%20peoples%20and%20all%20nations . (Accessed: 9 June 2023).

Wellcome Trust (2014)  Ensuring your research is ethical: A guide for Extended Project Qualification students . Available at:  https://wellcome.org/sites/default/files/wtp057673_0.pdf  (Accessed: 9 June 2023).

More articles from the research proposal collection

Writing your research proposal

A doctoral research degree is the highest academic qualification that a student can achieve. The guidance provided in these articles will help you apply for one of the two main types of research degree offered by The Open University.

Level: 1 Introductory

Defining your research methodology

Your research methodology is the approach you will take to guide your research process and explain why you use particular methods. This article explains more.

Writing your proposal and preparing for your interview

The final article looks at writing your research proposal - from the introduction through to citations and referencing - as well as preparing for your interview.

Free courses on postgraduate study

Are you ready for postgraduate study?

This free course, Are you ready for postgraduate study, will help you to become familiar with the requirements and demands of postgraduate study and ensure you are ready to develop the skills and confidence to pursue your learning further.

Succeeding in postgraduate study

This free course, Succeeding in postgraduate study, will help you to become familiar with the requirements and demands of postgraduate study and to develop the skills and confidence to pursue your learning further.

Applying to study for a PhD in psychology

This free OpenLearn course is for psychology students and graduates who are interested in PhD study at some future point. Even if you have met PhD students and heard about their projects, it is likely that you have only a vague idea of what PhD study entails. This course is intended to give you more information.

Become an OU student

Ratings & comments, share this free course, copyright information, publication details.

• Originally published: Tuesday, 27 June 2023
• Body text - Creative Commons BY-NC-SA 4.0 : The Open University
• Image 'Pebbles balance on a stone see-saw' - Copyright: Photo  51106733  /  Balance  ©  Anatoli Styf  |  Dreamstime.com
• Image 'Camera equipment set up filming a man talking' - Copyright: Photo  42631221  ©  Gabriel Robledo  |  Dreamstime.com
• Image 'Applying to study for a PhD in psychology' - Copyright free
• Image 'Succeeding in postgraduate study' - Copyright: © Everste/Getty Images
• Image 'Addressing ethical issues in your research proposal' - Copyright: Photo 50384175 / Children Playing © Lenutaidi | Dreamstime.com
• Image 'Writing your proposal and preparing for your interview' - Copyright: Photo 133038259 / Black Student © Fizkes | Dreamstime.com
• Image 'Defining your research methodology' - Copyright free
• Image 'Writing your research proposal' - Copyright free
• Image 'Are you ready for postgraduate study?' - Copyright free

Rate and Review

Rate this article, review this article.

Log into OpenLearn to leave reviews and join in the conversation.

Article reviews

For further information, take a look at our frequently asked questions which may give you the support you need.

Ethics: A Guide for Doctoral Students

This guide highlights the university's policy and processes on ethics for doctoral researchers..

The University has introduced a new Research Ethics Governance and Digital System – from 3 April 2023 and, in the first phase, will be open to all staff and doctoral students. This Doctoral College page has been updated to reflect the doctoral specific aspects relating to the new university guidance. It is crucial that you reference the University ethics guidance and processes

• Your responsibilities

As a doctoral researcher at the University, you must ensure that your research is conducted according to appropriate ethical, legal and professional frameworks, obligations and standards.

All doctoral students must have full ethical approval before any data collection begins. All research projects must be assessed through the Ethics@Bath system.

Information on the Ethics@Bath system, and how research projects are assessed as well as how to get full ethical approval, can be found at Research integrity and ethics and on the Ethics at Bath SharePoint site .

Failure to comply with the University's research governance may prevent you from progressing with your programme of research.

It is your, and your supervisor’s, responsibility to ensure that all processes, and any subsequent applications requiring committee-level review are completed in good time.

It is also your responsibility to instigate discussions with your supervisor to re-evaluate ethical issues should the nature of your research change, or should your own circumstances change, during the course of your doctorate and, if necessary, submit the relevant research ethics amendment.

As well as considering the ethical implications of your research on others, it is also important to reflect on how the nature of your research may adversely affect you – known as Vicarious Trauma (VT) (and associated conditions). Indirect exposure to this trauma can produce a wide variety of symptoms of distress. Read more about Vicarious Trauma and how to prepare for and mitigate the risk.

Each department has a Departmental Research Ethics Officer who may be able to provide local advice.

• Ethics consideration at the start of your studies

(For those on programmes commencing with a taught stage, ethics consideration may be delayed until the commencement of the research stage, or when data may be collected during the taught stage – whichever is soonest.)

During the Candidature stage you are required to provide evidence of how you have commenced considering ethics and of any appropriate actions that have been identified. You are also expected to have started a form on the ethics@bath system.

Information on how to consider ethics and the actions that might be required are available on the University's research integrity and ethics page .

You must cite on your Candidature form which websites* you have consulted and whether you and your supervisor think that full ethical approval may be required. Failure to provide sufficient evidence may result in delays to approving Candidature. [*website might include relevant external public, professional or funding bodies’ webpages.]

• Ethics consideration during your studies

Completion of the Ethics@Bath system and, where necessary, obtaining appropriate formal ethical committee approval, must both be completed, and evidence provided, by either of the following deadlines (whichever is soonest):

• Before any data collection or research occurs.

Confirmation, for PhD students (where applicable).

The end of the first year of your research stage for the DBA in Higher Education Management, Doctorate in Health (DHealth), Doctorate in Policy Research & Practice (DPRP) and the Doctorate in Education (EdD).

For the Doctorate in Clinical Psychology (DClinPsy) see your Programme Handbook on Moodle .

Certain funders, such as Research Councils, may have additional expectations regarding ethical approval and so it is essential that you check with them or with your relevant University contacts.

Confirmation

If ethical approval has only been gained for part of the project at this stage, the supervisor must state on the confirmation form the reasons for this and the date by which it will be obtained.

Ask a Question or see our FAQs on the Ethics at Bath SharePoint site .

On this page

Research Ethics: Conducting Doctoral Research in One's Own Work Setting

• Institutional Review Board (IRB): Research Ethics
• Office Hours
• Research Ethics Review Process by IRB
• Tools and Guides
• Frequently Asked Questions
• Walden Research Ethics and Compliance Policies
• Walden University Participant Pool
• Red Flag Issues
• International Research
• Conducting Doctoral Research in One's Own Work Setting
• Educational Settings
• Clinical and Intervention Settings
• Collecting Data about Obligatory Referral Topics
• Guidance on Masking Partner Organizations in Walden Capstone Documents
• Previous Page: International Research
• Next Page: Educational Settings

Frequently asked questions for doctoral students conducting research in their own work settings

These FAQs are designed to help students in doctoral programs consider the ethical issues relevant to conducting doctoral research in one’s own work setting (e.g., in the researcher’s own organization or classroom). These FAQs will be most helpful to students early in the research planning process when they are considering potential research questions and designs.

Please note that there is a separate education research ethics guide that might be more specifically applicable to doctoral students who are educators. There are also research ethics guides that are specific to international and clinical research. Questions may be directed to [email protected] any time.

I would like my research to help inform best practices in my own organization but I am concerned about what is approvable. Would it help if I conduct my study at a different office/branch/school where I do not work?

Yes. While it is possible to have data collection approved in your own daily work setting, it would likely be less complicated, biased, and time-consuming for you to collect data at a sister site that is similar to your own. Collecting data from the colleagues/students/clients with whom you interact on a regular basis is likely to be fraught with the following methodological and ethical challenges:

• social desirability of responses due to friendships/loyalty (participants telling you what they think you want to hear; this does not help inform best practices meaningfully)
• social desirability of responses due to lack of anonymity (participants opting to not to share negative information because it might make them appear to be a negative person or because they fear the negativity might turn out to hurt them somehow in the future, i.e., if you were to become their supervisor or a key decision-maker in the future)
• biased responses due to cognitive priming (people in your workplace are more likely to have heard about the hypotheses/angle of your study in advance, which can bias their responses and threaten the study’s internal validity)
• biased responses due to personal agendas (participants’ responses might be biased by their own personal agendas and tainted by their perception of you as either an ally or an opponent on some issue)
• perceived coercion to participate (even if an invitee does not feel that participation would be in his/her best interest, that person may feel like s/he cannot decline without disrupting your professional relationship; this is particularly problematic when you are an authority figure in the organization and would go against the Belmont Report principle of respect for persons )
• confidentiality breaches (these are more common when boundaries between the study and the organization’s regular functioning are unclear and can result in harmful violations of research confidentiality; this also goes against the Belmont Report principles of respect for persons as well as the principle of beneficence (i.e.,  “do no harm.”)

If I am a leader/manager within my organization, will this impact data collection?

Yes. If you wield any authority (i.e., responsibilities regarding task assignments, performance reviews, promotions, bonuses, salaries, grades, or other type of evaluation), then you must take extra measures to ensure that your authority does not pressure invitees to participate in your study or pressure them to give certain types of responses that they might believe you are seeking.

You will need to design your study to prevent the following:

• that an invitee might be concerned about retaliation or “falling out of favor” due to declining to be part of the study
• that a respondent to be concerned about retaliation or “falling out of favor” due to responses she or he provides during data collection

The best solution to neutralizing authority dynamics is to make recruitment, informed consent, and data collection truly anonymous , which means:

• recruitment, informed consent, and data collection occurs in such a way that no one, not even you , knows who participated and who didn’t (e.g., you could use an online survey without tracking who responded, have them return completed surveys to a discreet location, and/or obtain implied consent (“click here to consent” or “return of the completed survey will indicate your consent”) rather than a consent signature or emailed consent
• there is no way to trace responses back to the determine the identity of the respondents by deductively examining demographics (i.e., triangulating an individual’s identity by looking at the reported gender, age, training, number of years with the organization, or other demographic variables associated with a particular response)

What if I want to interview my subordinates? (or my students? My patients?)

This is a common question. Doctoral researchers may not interview their own subordinates for their doctoral study. Not only would the validity of the data be suspect, but such a research invitation is likely to unethically strain the leader/subordinate relationship due to the fact that the leader will earn a doctoral degree (and a higher salary in many cases) as a result of the research. A subordinate will feel pressured to agree to the interview even if it is not in that person’s own best interest, and that goes against the fundamental research ethics principles of respect for persons . Further, subordinates interviewed by an authority figure are likely to feel conflict between responding honestly and responding in a manner that would enhance the authority figure’s professional perception of them. And even if the subordinate declines participation, the relationship has now been altered in a manner that is potentially harmful to the subordinate professionally and economically. These outcomes would conflict with the ethical principle of beneficence . The principles also apply to other professionals who have a trust/authority relationship with vulnerable individuals who are subordinate to the professional due to their dependence on the professional (i.e., teacher-student relationships, care provider-patient relationships).  

For the same reasons, subordinates may not be asked to provide focus group, observational, or survey data (unless the survey data can be collected 100% anonymously). And since a doctoral researcher is required to perform all data collection personally, it is not an option to employ a research assistant to collect data.

What options do I have for studying my own subordinates? (Or my students? My patients?)

Instead of interviews and focus groups, researchers in authority positions are encouraged to either conduct fully anonymous surveys or to perform secondary analysis of operations data that their subordinates generate* such as work output or other information maintained in an organization’s records.

Advantages of secondary analysis include the following:

• Since secondary analysis doesn’t involve asking each person to opt into extra tasks that solely serve research purposes, a secondary analysis approach often results in the researcher having a more complete and less biased dataset than an opt-in approach.
• Secondary analysis is often a more sustainable model for the organization to use/replicate in the future. In other words, it’s more feasible for an organization to repeat an analysis of operational records in subsequent years than to repeat a time-consuming interview or survey process.
• Students usually find that a secondary analysis of records is less time-consuming than using an opt-in approach to collect original data collection for research purposes only.
• Secondary analysis makes retrospective analyses possible whereas opt-in collection of original data limits the researcher to prospective analyses.

What kinds of data from my own subordinates may I incorporate into my doctoral research as a secondary analysis?

Researchers may analyze the following types of data from their OWN subordinates:

• work products/output
• operations data that the organization maintains (e.g., time/resources used for particular tasks, escalations)
• staff variables maintained in records (training, years experience)
• performance indicators (e.g., monthly sales, clients retained, outcomes)
• scores on assessments that are regularly administered by the organization for non-research purposes
• any type of data this is collected by the organization primarily for non-research purposes (with research being a secondary purpose)
• any other data that is generated as a byproduct of regular organization operations

Note that the appropriate gatekeeper at the organization must release such data to be released specifically for research purposes, via a Data Use Agreement of some sort (using our template or the organization’s own standard template).

What if I want to analyze data from a survey (or other dataset) that my organization utilizes beyond the scope of my doctoral study?

While it would not be ethical for a doctoral student to leverage his/her authority in the organization to coerce employees into providing data in order to achieve the personal goal of completing a doctoral degree, there are many situations in which it is ethically appropriate for a researcher’s doctoral study to consist of a secondary analysis of data that was primarily collected for the organization’s needs (for example continuous improvement, staff development, funding requests, etc.). A secondary data analysis of an organization-wide assessment might be possible if ALL of the following questions can be answered with a “yes.”

• Aside from your study, would the data be directly used by the organization in some way that will directly benefit the organization? (for example: as part of continuous improvement, staff development, funding requests, etc.?)
• Is the organization comfortable overseeing this type of data collection under its own policies and procedures (including the organization’s own consent form, if applicable)?
• Is it possible for you to conduct your study without recording any names or other identifiers of individuals in your research records?
• Is the organization’s research gatekeeper (i.e., C.E.O. or designee) comfortable signing a data use agreement releasing the de-identified survey data to you for research purposes?
• (If applicable) This question only applies to those studies in which the researcher proposes to adjust some aspect of the organization’s standard data collection practices in order to make the data more amenable to research (for example atypical timing of data collection, use of alternative or additional data collection tools, adding a reflective component, etc.):

Has the organization’s research gatekeeper explicitly approved any adjustments you propose to data collection that would depart from regular practices? Note that this explicit approval must be indicated in the organization’s letter of cooperation.

• (If applicable) This final question only applies to those studies examining the outcomes of an intervention (i.e., any system or program implemented to obtain desired outcomes):

Is the organization agreeing to fully sponsor and supervise the target intervention within the scope of its standard operations? Note that this explicit approval must be indicated in the organization’s letter of cooperation.

Tips for avoiding delays and problems in the research approval process

Below are the solutions to the most frequently occurring ethical challenges in doctoral research:

• Use anonymous methods if possible.

This is the simplest way to avoid pressuring subordinates, students, or any other vulnerable individuals to participate in your doctoral research.

• Qualitative researchers should consider collecting data at a site other than their own organization.

While not impossible, it is particularly difficult to adjust qualitative data collection and analysis to address socially desirable responses, bias, conflict of interest, and undue pressure to participate due to the fact that anonymity is not easily provided with qualitative approaches. However, studying a site unfamiliar (or less familiar) to the researcher is one way of addressing these ethical dynamics.

• Pay very close attention to alignment among the research question, planned analyses, and types of data collection proposed.

The IRB can only approve those specific components of data collection that show promise of effectively addressing the research question(s).

• Use existing data whenever possible.

This avoids burdening others with risky or time-consuming tasks just for the sake of research. When the collection of new data poses substantial time demands or privacy/safety risks to participants, the research design will be closely examined so that the potential benefits can be weighed against potential risks. 

• Use existing measures whenever possible.

Unless the dissertation is being conducted specifically to validate a new measure, creating a new instrument is typically beyond the scope of a dissertation.

Social Media

Connect with the office of research and doctoral services.

• Office of Student Disability Services

Walden Resources

Departments.

• Academic Residencies
• Academic Skills
• Career Planning and Development
• Customer Care Team
• Field Experience
• Military Services
• Student Success Advising
• Writing Skills

Centers and Offices

• Center for Social Change
• Office of Academic Support and Instructional Services
• Office of Degree Acceleration
• Office of Research and Doctoral Services
• Office of Student Affairs

Student Resources

• Doctoral Writing Assessment
• Form & Style Review
• Quick Answers
• ScholarWorks
• SKIL Courses and Workshops
• Walden Bookstore
• Walden Catalog & Student Handbook
• Student Safety/Title IX
• Legal & Consumer Information
• Website Terms and Conditions
• Cookie Policy
• Accessibility
• Accreditation
• State Authorization
• Net Price Calculator
• Cost of Attendance
• Contact Walden

Walden University is a member of Adtalem Global Education, Inc. www.adtalem.com Walden University is certified to operate by SCHEV © 2024 Walden University LLC. All rights reserved.

Profiles of doctoral students’ experience of ethics in supervision: an inter-country comparison

• Open access
• Published: 24 August 2022
• Volume 86 , pages 617–636, ( 2023 )

Cite this article

You have full access to this open access article

• Erika Löfström   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0002-0838-9626 1 ,
• Jouni Peltonen   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0001-7458-6532 2 ,
• Liezel Frick   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0002-4797-3323 3 ,
• Katrin Niglas   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0002-0867-9594 4 &
• Kirsi Pyhältö   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0002-8766-0559 1 , 3  

2846 Accesses

2 Citations

Explore all metrics

This article has been updated

The purpose of this study was to examine variation in doctoral students’ experiences of ethics in doctoral supervision and how these experiences are related to research engagement, burnout, satisfaction, and intending to discontinue PhD studies. Data were collected from 860 doctoral students in Finland, Estonia, and South Africa. Four distinct profiles of ethics experience in doctoral supervision were identified, namely students puzzled by the supervision relationship, strugglers in the ethical landscape, seekers of ethical allies, and students with ethically trouble-free experiences. The results show that the profiles were related to research engagement, satisfaction with supervision and studies, and burnout. Not experiencing any major ethical problems in supervision was associated with experiencing higher engagement and satisfaction with supervision and doctoral studies and low levels of exhaustion and cynicism. Similar profiles were identified across the countries, yet with different emphases. Both Estonian and South African PhD students were overrepresented in the profile of students with ethically trouble-free experiences, while the Finnish students were underrepresented in this profile. The Finnish PhD students were overrepresented among the seekers of ethical allies. Profiles provide information that can alert supervisors and administrators about the extent of the risk of burnout or discontinuing of PhD studies based on students’ negative experiences of the ethics in supervision.

Similar content being viewed by others

Clinical supervision for clinical psychology students in Uganda: an initial qualitative exploration

Establishing a Holistic Approach for Postgraduate Supervision

How do ethics translate identifying ethical challenges in transnational supervision settings, explore related subjects.

• Medical Ethics

Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.

Introduction

Supervision calls for pedagogical considerations of ethics as practiced in the student-supervisor relationship (Halse & Bansel, 2012 ). We have previously shown that Finnish PhD students’ experiences of ethics in supervision predict research engagement, satisfaction with doctoral studies and supervision, burnout, and intentions to discontinue studies (Löfström & Pyhältö, 2020 ). This indicates that sustainable experiences of ethics in the supervision relationship may not only provide a buffer against attrition (Cloete et al., 2015 ) and mental health problems documented in the literature on PhD students (Levecque et al., 2017 ; Reevy & Deason, 2014 ) but could provide a resource allowing doctoral students to flourish (Shin & Jung, 2014 ; Vekkaila et al., 2018 ) . In turn, negative experiences related to ethics in supervision may increase the risk of burnout and dropping out from doctoral studies (Jacobsson & Gillström, 2006 ). However, not much research is available on how doctoral students differ in their experiences of ethics in supervision and how these differences contribute to their research engagement, satisfaction, burnout, and intentions of discontinuing PhD studies. Even less is known about the variation in such experiences across different sociocultural contexts of doctoral education. This study provides insight into how doctoral students differ in their experiences of ethics in supervision and how these differences contribute to their research engagement, satisfaction, burnout, and discontinuing PhD studies and identifies variation in three distinct sociocultural contexts.

Theoretical underpinnings

• Ethics in supervision

Ethics in supervision consist of components of normative principles about acceptable and nonacceptable behavior (ethics) and values that are essential in everyday practices, such as honesty and transparency (integrity) (Jordan, 2013 ). Here, we use the term ethics in supervision to encompass both dimensions in doctoral supervision. Supervision includes both expectations regarding moral positions and acting on those positions. Questions of ethics and integrity are simultaneously present in expectations regarding how research ought to be carried out and how the relationship between a supervisor and a doctoral candidate is construed. We operationalized ethics in supervision through a set of principles familiar from codes of conduct for researchers, such as the Singapore Statement (World Conferences on Research Integrity, 2010 ), and the European Code of Conduct for Research Integrity (ALLEA, 2017 ), and research ethics guidelines, such as the Belmont Report (National Commission for the Protection of Human Subjects of Biomedical & Behavioral Research, 1979 ) and the Declaration of Helsinki (World Medical Association WMA, 2013 ), to name a few. These principles include respect for autonomy , beneficence , non-maleficence , justice , and fidelity .

Respect for autonomy is a fundamental ethical principle and refers to the respect for individuals’ right to make decisions concerning themselves (Kitchener, 1985 , 2000 ). In doctoral supervision, this refers to providing sufficient space for the doctoral student to make choices regarding his or her research (Löfström & Pyhältö, 2014 ). The autonomy experienced by doctoral students is shown to be a substantial source of engagement (Vekkaila et al., 2013 ). This does not mean that supervisors should not guide doctoral students in finding proper directions and helping them to make informed choices in the research process. If doctoral students’ freedom of choice or space to explore their own ideas are severely limited, or they feel that different options cannot be raised for discussion, it can infringe on their development in becoming independent researchers (Lee, 2008 ). There is evidence that students’ ethical views develop when supervisors show respect for the students’ own decisions regarding their research (Gray & Jordan, 2012 ). Furthermore, the lack of support that is experienced in the transition into an autonomous and independent researcher may expedite doctoral students’ decisions to discontinue PhD studies (Leijen et al., 2016 ).

Beneficence refers to an intention to do good for others. In supervisory relationships, this entails supporting the doctoral student in developing increased competence and independence and ultimately gaining a doctoral degree. Failure to provide benefits to the doctoral student can be a consequence of insufficient content, pedagogical, and supervisory competence including confusion about role expectations (Jairam & Kahl, 2012 ; Parker-Jenkins, 2018 ).

The principle of non-maleficence is compromised when the doctoral student or his or her rights are harmed in one way or another. In supervisory practices, this may take place as misappropriation or exploitation of a doctoral student’s work or through psychologically confounded relationships, involving a parent/child-like relations or an intimate relationship between a supervisor and a supervisee (Goodyear et al., 1992 ; Löfström & Pyhältö, 2014 ; Parker-Jenkins, 2018 ).

Supervisors use a range of strategies to level out the issues of power asymmetry in their pursuit of supporting doctoral students’ well-being and development (Elliot & Kobayashi, 2018 ). However, asymmetrical power relationships can cause breaches of the principle of justice (Kitchener, 1985 ). Doctoral students may find it difficult to assert themselves in situations in which seniority and expectations of gratitude influence ownership, authorship, or workload (Löfström & Pyhältö, 2014 ; Yarwood-Ross & Haigh, 2014 ).

The principle of fidelity is a vital basis for sustaining any relationship. It includes keeping promises and treating others with respect (Kitchener, 1985 ; 2000 ). In supervision, breaches of fidelity involve failure to keep a supervision promise. The reasons for discontinued supervision may be fully comprehensible, such as a supervisor retiring, moving away, taking parental leave, or falling ill (Löfström & Pyhältö, 2014 ; Wisker & Robinson, 2013 ; Yarwood-Ross & Haigh, 2014 ), but sometimes less so, that is, outright neglect (Johnson et al., 2000 ). In either case, the doctoral student may experience abandonment. Supervisor unavailability is one of the most disruptive aspects for progression in the doctoral journey (McAlpine, 2012 ). Insufficient supervision increases the risk of discontinuing doctoral studies (Pyhältö et al., 2012 ).

These five ethical principles converge on three thematic dimensions: first, the dimension ethical aspects in the research community, including social structures and programmatic aspects (FORM) , encompasses the principles of autonomy, beneficence, and fidelity. Second, the dimension fairness and adherence to common formal and informal rules as a means of ensuring equal treatment of doctoral students (RULE) encompasses justice, non-maleficence, and fidelity. Third, the dimension respect in personal relations (CARE) encompasses autonomy and beneficence. Positive experiences of these dimensions contribute to engagement and satisfaction while negative experiences contribute to burnout and intentions to drop out (Löfström & Pyhältö, 2020 ).

Combining these dimensions of ethics in supervision raises a question about the interrelation between the constructs (for approaches related to burnout and engagement, see Shirom, 2011 ; Larsen & McGraw, 2011 ; Shraga & Shirom, 2009 ). If these dimensions are independent, one may score high on one and low on the other dimensions. For instance, a PhD student might simultaneously experience high levels of fairness and equal treatment of doctoral students (RULE) and lack of respect in personal relations (CARE). Alternatively, they may be dependent, and a high score on one dimension would correlate with a high score on the other. Applying a person-centered approach to PhD students’ experiences of ethics in supervision allows us to explore the question in more detail.

Study engagement and study burnout

Study engagement has been suggested as being a hallmark of optimal doctoral experience, characterized by sense of vigor , dedication , and absorption (Vekkaila et al., 2018 ; see seminal work on work engagement by Bakker & Demerouti, 2008 ; González-Romá et al., 2006 ; Schaufeli et al., 2002 ). Such doctoral experiences encompass immersion in research, a feeling of time passing quickly, strong psychological involvement in research combined with a sense of significance, enthusiasm, inspiration, pride, positive challenge, and high levels of energy resulting in positive outcomes in post-PhD researcher careers (Shin & Jung, 2014 ; Vekkaila et al., 2018 ) . Doctoral students who receive sufficient supervisory and research community support are more likely to experience higher levels of engagement than their less fortunate peers (Pyhältö et al., 2016 ).

Problems in the supervisory relationship and lack of faculty support appear to be related to increased risk of burnout (Peluso et al., 2011 ). PhD burnout resulting from extensive and prolonged stress has two main symptoms, namely exhaustion characterized by a lack of emotional energy and feeling drained and tired of doctoral studies and cynicism comprising feeling that one’s research has lost its meaning and distancing oneself from the work and members of the research community (Maslach & Leiter, 2008 ). Research environment attributes, such as sufficient supervisory and research community support, sense of belonging, and good work-environment fit, have been found to be associated with reduced burnout risk and increased levels of engagement among doctoral students (Hunter & Devine, 2016 ). Burnout entails negative consequences including reduced research productivity, reduced engagement, reduced interest in research, study prolongation, and increased risk of discontinuing doctoral studies (Ali & Kohun, 2007 ; Pyhältö et al., 2018 ; Rigg et al., 2013 ).

Little is known about individual differences in doctoral students’ experiences of the ethics in supervision, and how these differences are related to supervision arrangements and student well-being or a lack thereof. The theoretical underpinnings and results from earlier studies in Finland (e.g., Löfström & Pyhältö, 2020 ) inspired us to hypothesize that the underlying structures concerning the experiences of ethics in supervision may be the same across different cultural contexts as similar problems have been described elsewhere (see Muthanna & Alduais, 2021 ). Therefore, we set out to identify profiles of doctoral students’ experiences of ethics in supervision and their association with engagement, burnout, and intentions to drop out in the historically diverse but culturally and regionally relatively similar contexts of Finland and Estonia, in comparison to the culturally and regionally rather different context of South Africa.

These countries have in common high levels of attrition and distress and exhaustion in addition to prolonged studies, insufficient supervision, and poor integration of doctoral students into the research community (ASSAf, 2010 ; Herman, 2011 ; Leijen et al., 2016 ; Stubb et al., 2011 ; Vassil & Solvak, 2012 ). There is evidence that 35–45% of Finnish doctoral students have considered discontinue studies (Pyhältö et al., 2016 ). In South Africa, the attrition rate amongst doctoral students is 22% nationally in the first year with less than half of candidates graduating within 7 years (Cloete et al., 2015 ). In Estonia, the reported attrition in the phase prior to planning our study was 34% (Vassil & Solvak, 2012 ). Outcomes such as exhaustion and attrition have been shown to be related to negative experiences of ethics in supervision (Löfström & Pyhältö, 2020 ). These shared problems in doctoral education and differences in the settings make it relevant to study the chosen countries from the perspective of ethics in supervision and compare the results in order to understand universal and context-specific aspects of doctoral students’ experiences of the ethics in supervision. Following the above, we posed the research questions:

How do Finnish, South African, and Estonian PhD students experience the ethics in supervision, engagement, burnout, and satisfaction with supervision and doctoral studies?

What kind of profiles do experiences of the ethics in supervision, engagement, burnout, and satisfaction with supervision and doctoral studies constitute among Finnish, South African, and Estonian PhD students?

Is there a relationship between the experiences of ethics in supervision profiles and supervisory arrangements (frequency of supervision, number of supervisors, and individual or group supervision)?

As profiles of doctoral students’ experiences of the ethics in supervision have not been identified before using a broad set of key variables of importance in the doctoral experience, we were interested in the profiles as such in the comparative context set out for our study.

In Finland, doctoral studies are research-intensive rather than course-centered, and research generally begins immediately (Pyhältö et al., 2012 ). In Estonia, the recent reform of doctoral studies introduced a substantial amount of course work to the curriculum and regardless of the emphasis put on research, the first year of a doctoral program is often devoted to course work, leaving less time for research activities. In South Africa, doctoral studies are research oriented. Although professional doctorates are now included in the South African Higher Education Qualifications Sub-framework (Council on Higher Education, 2014 ), doctoral programs continue predominantly to be by research only, with no credit-bearing coursework.

Tuition fees

In Finland, doctoral education is publicly funded, and there are no tuition fees for students. However, there is no automatic funding for studying at the doctoral level. Students apply for competitive funding from a number of foundations that support research or find employment at the university on various projects, or outside the university (Pyhältö et al., 2011 ). In addition, in Estonia, doctoral education is publicly funded (Lepp et al., 2016 ). Since 2012, every student who is granted a doctoral study place receives a grant for 4 years. Recently, several Estonian universities have introduced a policy by which they grant doctoral students an income comparable to the average salary, but the Estonian data were collected in 2016, before this policy came into existence, and the grant was substantially smaller. Consequently, there has been a tradition of finding additional employment in or outside the university. In South Africa, the doctoral education system is funded by a combination of government subsidies and student fees (Cloete et al., 2015 ). Many students are already employed when enrolling for a doctorate or are soon usurped into academic positions. However, in humanities, arts, and social sciences, many students receive little or no financial support, while funded full time doctoral study is more common in STEM.

Supervision arrangements

In Finland, doctoral students are expected to have two named supervisors. One of these is generally a full professor. It is common that doctoral students take part in research seminars organized by a supervisor (Pyhältö et al., 2012 ). In Estonia, doctoral students must have at least one named supervisor at the professorial level, but if the supervisor is less experienced, the doctoral program committee commonly assigns a senior supervisor to support the process. A similar practice of teaming up inexperienced supervisors with more experienced ones is in place in South Africa, although a supervisor does not need to be at a professorial level. Given the current lack of suitably qualified supervisory capacity in a variety of fields, inexperienced supervisors are often allocated to students, and single student-supervisor dyadic arrangements are still common (Cloete et al., 2015 ).

Types of doctoral dissertation

In both Finland and Estonia, a doctoral dissertation can be written either as a monograph or as an article compilation, with the latter being more prevalent in many fields. The articles are usually co-authored with the supervisors and sometimes with other senior researchers (Lepp et al., 2016 ; Pyhältö et al., 2012 ). In South Africa, doctoral dissertations follow a variety of formats, including both monographs and publication-based theses, or various permutations of these formats (Odendaal & Frick, 2017 ).

Participants

The data were collected at four universities in 2016 and 2017 as independent surveys. The universities included two in Finland, one in Estonia and one in South Africa. All four have an international profile and play important national and regional roles. All are research universities, but they are at different stages of building up their research profiles. The response rate in each country was 25–26%. The data set consisted of 860 doctoral students with a mean age of 37.59 (Table 1 ). The largest subset, namely the Finnish data, are representative of age and disciplines, with women slightly overrepresented among the respondents.

Participation in the study was voluntary and based on informed consent. No incentives were offered. No personal identifiers were collected. In Finland and Estonia, an ethics review is not required for anonymous survey research involving healthy volunteer adults (Finnish National Board on Research Integrity, 2019 ; Estonian Code of Conduct for Research Integrity, 2017 ). In South Africa, an ethics review was conducted according to the ethical code of conduct of the university.

We utilized the Ethical Issues in Supervision Scale (Löfström & Pyhältö, 2020 ), which contains 15 Likert-type items reflecting breaches of five ethical principles, namely respect of autonomy, beneficence, non-maleficence, justice, and fidelity. The items address exploitation, misappropriation, lack of collective culture, lack of well-being, supervision competence, narrowness of perspective, imposition of supervisor’s views and values, inadequate supervision, abandonment, inequality, and unfair authorship.

Items from the Doctoral Experience Survey (Pyhältö et al., 2011 , 2016 ) were included to measure burnout (exhaustion and cynicism, drawing on Maslach et al., 2001 ) and engagement (originally adapted from Schaufeli et al., 2002 ) (Pyhältö et al., 2018 ). These items utilized Likert-type response scales (1 = fully disagree, 7 = fully agree).

Additional background items with various response scales from the Doctoral Experience Survey included: number of primary supervisors (one supervisor/two supervisors/no supervisor/other individual or entity); intention to drop out (yes/no); supervision model (whether the student received supervision mainly individually/in a group/or both); frequency of supervision (daily/weekly/once a month/once in 2 months/once in 6 months/less frequently); satisfaction with (a) doctoral studies and (b) supervision (1 = very dissatisfied, 7 = very satisfied); considering changing supervisor (yes/no); actual change of supervisor (yes/no).

After an initial screening of data, exploratory factor analyses (EFA) were performed to investigate the factor structure of the three scales: ethical issues in supervision, exhaustion, and engagement. We carried out a series of EFAs with maximum likelihood extraction and both orthogonal and oblique rotations. We based the decision about the number of factors to retain on both the eigenvalues of the factors and the theoretical salience of the rotated factors (see Table 2 for scales used for EFA and their factor scores). The factor structure is similar to the three-factor structure in Löfström and Pyhältö ( 2020 ), in which the five theoretically informed ethical principles converged into three thematic dimensions. The analyses of the burnout scale and the engagement scale supported a two-factor and a one-factor solution, respectively (see Table 2 ).

Doctoral student profiles of ethical experiences in supervision were identified through K-means cluster analysis performed on the three Ethical Issues in Supervision subscale scores ( FORM, RULE and CARE ). We performed several analyses with one to five clusters and selected a four-cluster solution, which was the best model both content-wise and in terms of parsimony. For inter-country comparisons, we used one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) and suitable post hoc tests. Due to the differences in our subsample sizes, we used Gabriel’s test when we assumed that variances of three groups were homogenous and Tamhane’s T2 when this assumption was not supported by the data. We also used chi-square tests to detect any differences there might be in the student composition based on gender, format of doctoral dissertation, and supervisory arrangements as well as the differences between the countries in proportions in the profiles of ethical experiences.

The ethical experience profiles were analyzed in relation to experiences of engagement and burnout, satisfaction with supervision and doctoral studies, and intentions to drop out through ANOVA, again along with Gabriel’s and Tamhane’s T2 multiple comparison tests and chi-square test. We determined the magnitude of the effect sizes (Cohen’s d ) referring to Cohen ( 1988 ): small ( d  = 0.2), medium ( d  = 0.5), and large ( d  = 0.8) effect size.

There were differences between countries concerning the doctoral students’ experiences in all three dimensions of ethics in supervision, engagement, burnout, satisfaction to supervision, and satisfaction to doctoral studies (see Table 3 ).

Because the cell sizes are unequal, but the homogeneity of variance assumption was supported by the data, we used Gabriel’s post hoc test here for pairwise comparisons when we assumed that the variances of the groups included in the comparison were equal which was supported by the data. According to Gabriel’s test, Finland differed from Estonia ( p  < 0.01, d  = 0.30) and South Africa ( p  < 0.001, d  = 0.30) on the dimension ethical issues in the research community; including social structures and programmatic aspects (FORM ) in that the students exhibited lower scores, that is, a less positive experience. On the dimension fairness and adherence to common formal and informal rules as a means of ensuring equal treatment of doctoral students (RULE) , the South African experience differed slightly from that in Finland ( p  > 0.05, d  = 0.21) with higher scores, that is more positive experiences, while the Estonian score was in the middle indicating no statistically significant differences when compared to the results from the other two countries. On the dimension respect in personal relations (CARE) , Estonian doctoral students scored slightly lower, that is, more positive experiences, when compared to Finnish ( p  < 0.05, d  = 0.30) and South African ( p  < 0.05, d  = 0.29) PhD students.

South African doctoral students reported higher scores in engagement than their Finnish ( p  < 0.001, d  = 0.29) and Estonian ( p  < 0.05, d  = 0.31) colleagues. While the doctoral students from the three countries differed neither on cynicism nor drop out intentions, there was a difference between Finland and South Africa in exhaustion. South African students reported more exhaustion than their Finnish colleagues did ( p  < 0.05, d  = 0.46). However, Finnish doctoral students were less satisfied with supervision than South African students were ( p  < 0.001, d  = 0.23) and showed a lower satisfaction level in doctoral studies than both South African ( p  < 0.001, d  = 0.43) and Estonian students ( p  < 0.01, d  = 0.32).

In a joint cluster analysis, we identified four doctoral students’ profiles according to their experiences of ethics in supervision (Fig.  1 ).

Ethics in supervision profiles

Profile 1: Students puzzled by the supervision relationship (referred to as the puzzled ) ( n  = 160, 18.6%) had relatively high values on the FORM and RULE subscale scores, thus expressing an absence of ethical problems in terms of supervision arrangements, availability of supervisory support, and experiences of just and fair treatment. Nevertheless, they experienced challenges with the supervisory relationship, such as issues with the adequacy of the supervisory support and facilitation of independence.

Profile 2: Strugglers in the ethical landscape (referred to as strugglers ) ( n  = 96, 11.2%) expressed experiences of exploitation, misappropriation, lack of collective culture, lack of well-being, low supervisor competence, narrowness of perspective, imposition of supervisor’s views and values, inadequate supervision, abandonment, inequality, and unfair authorship. This profile stands out as having consistently the most negative experiences on all dimensions of the ethical landscape of supervision. We wish to remind the reader that low values, that is, an absence of problems, for the CARE variable indicate positive experiences.

Profile 3: Seekers of Ethical Allies (referred to as seekers ) ( n  = 192, 22.3%) had relatively high average scores on RULE but struggled somewhat with FORM. They expressed the view that there was a general absence of ethical problems in terms of supervision arrangements, availability of supervisory support, and experiences of just and fair treatment, but their experience with the ethical landscape was not entirely positive. Ethical problems are likely to be located at the structural and organizational levels and in the relationships within the research community. They feel taken care of in terms of the adequacy of the supervisory support, experiencing that their supervisors do care about their well-being and development. The profile suggests that supervisors are sufficiently experienced to be allies in any ethical confrontations with other parties.

Profile 4: Students with ethically trouble-free experience (referred to as the trouble-free ) ( n  = 412, 47.9%) had the highest scores on both FORM and RULE subscale scores and a low average score on the CARE subscale score, indicating an absence of ethical problems in terms of supervision arrangements, availability of supervisory support, and experiences of just and fair treatment. They feel taken care of in terms of the adequacy of the supervisory support, and their experience is that supervisors do care about their well-being and development.

The results of ANOVA tests revealed significant differences between the four profiles in engagement, exhaustion, cynicism, satisfaction with supervision, and satisfaction with doctoral studies (Table 4 ).

As a point of departure, we assumed that students in the four profiles diverge in their experiences of satisfaction with supervision and doctoral studies, engagement and burnout, and intentions to discontinue PhD studies. We performed ANOVAs with Gabriel’s or Tamhane’s T2 post hoc test. Pairwise comparisons with Tamhane’s T2 indicated that differences in engagement appeared between profiles. The puzzled and the strugglers ( p  < 0.05, d  = 0.35); the puzzled and the trouble-free ( p  < 0.001, d  = 0.57); the strugglers and the trouble-free ( p  < 0.001, d  = 0.87); and the seekers and the trouble-free ( p  < 0.001, d  = 0.60) differed from each other in engagement. Overall, the trouble-free were more engaged than the other profiles, but also the Puzzled deviated in a positive way. The effect size was large in the difference between the strugglers and the trouble-free .

As for exhaustion, Gabriels’s test indicated that differences appeared between the puzzled and the strugglers ( p  < 0.001, d  = 0.51); puzzled and the trouble-free ( p  < 0.001, d  = 0.61); strugglers and the seekers (p > 0.001, d = 0.73); strugglers and the trouble-free ( p  < 0.001, d  = 1.05); and the seekers and the trouble-free ( p  < 0.001, d  = 0.34). The strugglers exhibited the highest levels of exhaustion, and the trouble-free the lowest, with the puzzled and the seekers placing in between with relatively similar levels of cynicism. The effect size was large in the difference between the strugglers and the trouble-free .

We used Tamhane’s T2 to examine the differences between the groups on cynicism and found statistically significant differences between the puzzled and the strugglers ( p  < 0.05, d  = 0.41); the puzzled and the trouble-free ( p  < 0.001, d  = 0.88); the strugglers and the seekers ( p  < 0.01, d  = 0.45); the strugglers and the trouble-free ( p 0.001, d  = 1.18); and the seekers and the trouble-free ( p  < 0.001, d  = 0.77). The strugglers exhibited the highest levels of cynicism, and the trouble-free the lowest, with the puzzled and the seekers placing in between with relatively similar levels of cynicism. The effect size was large in the difference between the puzzled and the trouble-free .

Tamhane’s T2 indicated that in satisfaction with supervision all the profiles differed significantly from each other. The trouble-free were more satisfied than the puzzled ( p  < 0.001, d  = 0.97), the strugglers ( p  < 0.001, d  = 2.70) and the seekers ( p  < 0.001, d  = 1.46). The puzzled were more satisfied with supervision than the strugglers ( p  < 0.001, d  = 1.72) and the seekers ( p  < 0.001, d  = 0.65). The seekers were more satisfied with supervision than the strugglers were ( p  < 0.001, d  = 0.84). The effect sizes were large in the difference between the trouble-free and the puzzled and the seekers and between the puzzled and the strugglers .

Gabriel’s test suggested that the trouble-free were more satisfied with their doctoral studies than the puzzled ( p  < 0.001, d  = 0.65), the strugglers ( p  < 0.001, d  = 1.62), and the seekers ( p  < 0.001, d  = 0.89). The puzzled were more satisfied than the strugglers were ( p  < 0.001, d  = 1.01), and the seekers were more satisfied than the strugglers were ( p  < 0.001, d  = 0.71). The effect sizes were large in the difference between the trouble-free and the strugglers and the seekers and between the puzzled and the strugglers .

For comparisons on intentions to drop out and more detailed aspects of supervision, chi-square test was used (see Table 5 ). More often, the strugglers harbored ideas of dropping out and had considered a change of supervisor more often than the other profiles. The seekers , however, had the highest rate of actually changing supervisor. Gender and model of supervision were not statistically significantly related to profile membership.

The representation of students from the three countries varied in the four profiles. The chi-square test we used to examine the differences between countries showed ( χ 2 [6, N  = 860] = 24.094, p  < 0.001) that Estonian doctoral students were underrepresented among the puzzled (observed count = 7/expected count 16) and slightly overrepresented among the trouble-free (52/41) . Finnish students were under-represented in the trouble-free profile (214/249), while at the same time overrepresented in seekers (132/114) . South African students were underrepresented among the seekers (42/59) and overrepresented among the trouble-free (146/126) .

The results show four profiles of doctoral students’ experience of ethics in supervision. To our knowledge, this is the first study identifying profiles that combine experiences of supervision and ethics among PhD students in a cross-national design. The results indicate that the ethics in supervision profiles are distinct, yet related dimensions of the ethics in supervision experiences. Despite contextual differences in emphases, the same structure holds for the full data set, further strengthening the validity of the identified profiles beyond a single context, and at the same time suggests that despite cultural differences the underpinning structure of experiences of supervision in ethics are the same across the contexts. Had this not been the case, we presume it had been revealed in the results as we compared culturally and regionally relatively similar contexts (Finland and Estonia), and culturally and regionally rather different contexts (Finland/Estonia and South Africa). The profiles can help institutions to analyze the ethical landscape of doctoral education and to identify challenges. The profiles can provide information about the extent of the risk zone of burnout or dropout based on negative experiences of the ethics in supervision.

The ethics in supervision materialized through the doctoral students’ experiences of Ethical issues in the research community, including social structures and programmatic aspects (FORM ), Fairness and adherence to common formal and informal rules as a means of ensuring equal treatment of doctoral students (RULE) , and Respect in personal relations (CARE). The Finnish students’ experiences emerged in general as less positive than the experiences of their Estonian and South-African peers. Qualitative analyses of Finnish doctoral students’ experiences of the ethics in supervision indicate a high level of sensitivity about ethical aspects (Löfström & Pyhältö, 2014 , 2017 ), which may help explain why their answers were more critical. However, since we do not have comparison data from Estonia and South Africa, we can only speculate.

The profiles were the students puzzled by the supervision relationship; Strugglers in the ethical landscape ; seekers of ethical allies ; and the students with ethically trouble-free experiences . When the students did not experience major ethical problems in any of the ethical dimensions as in the case on the Trouble-free , this was related positively with engagement, low levels of exhaustion and cynicism, and high levels of satisfaction with supervision and doctoral studies. By contrast, the strugglers expressed challenges in all of the ethical dimensions. This was related negatively to engagement, high exhaustion and cynicism levels, low levels of satisfaction with doctoral studies and supervision, harboring thoughts of discontinuing studies, and considerations to change supervisors. This finding is in line with research showing that students who experience receiving insufficient supervisory support exhibit more burnout and are less satisfied with supervision and more likely to harbor thoughts about dropping out than their peers who experience receiving sufficient support (Peltonen et al., 2017 ).

While the puzzled showed indications of ethical challenges, they were in some regards “better off” than the seekers. Even if supervision failed to contribute to the doctoral students’ experiences of being fully respected in the supervision relation and supported in autonomy, the puzzled were more satisfied with the supervision than the seekers . Sound institutional structures and processes are important; particularly so in situations in which supervisors change, and the supervision relationship must be renegotiated (Wisker & Robinson, 2013 ) – something which was more common among the seekers than in the other profiles.

The consistent experiences of the two extremes and their relation to the outcome variables establish the importance of paying attention to doctoral students’ experiences ethics in supervision. It is important to keep in mind that the trouble-free represented the largest profile, suggesting that supervision generally takes place in a sound ethical landscape.

Differences emerged among the three countries. In Finland, the seekers and, in South Africa and in Estonia, the trouble-free were overrepresented. Research on Finnish doctoral students’ experiences of their main resources and challenges during their doctoral studies relate to supervision (resources), structures and programmatic features (challenges), and the apprenticeship nature of doctoral studies in Finland (Author et al., 2012), which may help explain why this profile is overrepresented. The emphasis is on seeking alliance with the supervisors while experiencing challenges with social structures and programmatic aspects. The relationship and importance of alliance with the supervisor is pronounced, perhaps at the expense of association with and involvement in doctoral programs. South African students have been reported as having high levels of burnout (ASSAf, 2010 ; Herman, 2011 ), and high levels of exhaustion were corroborated by our study. The conditions of the South African students are more demanding than for Finnish and Estonian students, in terms of tuition fees and economic matters. Yet, the South African students were highly engaged and satisfied with the supervision and their doctoral studies. For these students, there appears to be a balance between the perceived demands and the available resources (see Bakker & Demerouti, 2008 ), and a sense of fairness and care to mitigate against negative experiences of ethics in supervision. The Estonian students, in turn, exhibited relatively high levels of satisfaction, which may be a clue to understanding their overrepresentation in the trouble-free profile. Satisfaction has been shown to be related to positive experiences of ethics in supervision and indicative of a fit between the individuals and their learning-environment fit (Löfström & Pyhältö, 2020 ).

We acknowledge that there are limitations in the study. The response rate was 25–26%. It is possible that students who have experiences at the extremes of the dimensions we researched were more prone to respond than their peers whose experiences were neutral.

We propose future research to investigate what movements take place in and out of profiles and whether movement patterns differ across countries. A longitudinal approach would provide insight into the dynamics at the intersection of doctoral student experience, supervisory practice, and ethics. While our study was focused on an inter-country comparison, we recognize the possibility of intra-country differences and therefore encourage research with a larger number of institutions, first within a country and, second, across countries.

Change history

10 october 2022.

Missing Open Access funding information has been added in the Funding Note.

Academy of Science of South Africa (ASSAf). (2010). The PhD study: An evidence-based study on how to meet the demands for high-level skills in an emerging economy . Academy of Science of South Africa.  https://doi.org/10.17159/assaf.2016/0026

Ali, A., & Kohun, F. (2007). Dealing with social isolation to minimize doctoral drop-out - A four stage framework. International Journal of Doctoral Studies , 2, 33–49.https://doi.org/10.28945/56

ALLEA All European Academies. (2017). European code of conduct for research integrity . Revised edition. Retrieved July 10, 2019, from http://www.allea.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/04/ALLEA-European-Code-of-Conduct-for-Research-Integrity-2017.pdf

Bakker, A. B., & Demerouti, E. (2008). Towards a model of work engagement. Career Development International, 13 (3), 209–223. https://doi.org/10.1108/13620430810870476

Article   Google Scholar  

Cloete, N., Sheppard, C., & Bailey, T. (2015). South Africa as a PhD hub in Africa? In N. Cloete, P. Maassen, & T. Bailey (Eds.), Knowledge Production and Contradictory Functions in African Higher Education (pp. 75–108). African Minds Higher Education Dynamics Series.

Chapter   Google Scholar  

Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences . Routledge.

Google Scholar  

Council on Higher Education. (2014). South African higher education qualifications Sub-framework. Retrieved June 16, 2021 from https://www.gov.za/documents/national-qualifications-act-higher-education-qualifications-sub-framework

Elliot, D. L., & Kobayashi, S. (2018). How can PhD supervisors play a role in bridging academic cultures? Teaching in Higher Education, 24 (8), 911–929. https://doi.org/10.1080/13562517.2018.1517305

Estonian Code of Conduct for Research Integrity. (2017). Estonian research council. Retrieved December 21, 2021, from https://www.eetika.ee/sites/default/files/www_ut/hea_teadustava_eng_trukis.pdf

Finnish National Board on Research Integrity. (2019). The Ethical principles of Research with Human Participants and Ethical Review in the Human Sciences in Finland. Finnish National Board on Research Integrity TENK, Helsinki. Retrieved August 23, 2022, from https://tenk.fi/en/ethical-review

González-Romá, V., Schaufeli, W. B., Bakker, A. B., & Lloret, S. (2006). Burnout and work engagement: Independent factors or opposite poles? Journal of Vocational Behavior, 68 , 165–174. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvb.2005.01.003

Goodyear, R. K., Crego, C. A., & Johnston, M. W. (1992). Ethical issues in the supervision of student research: A study of critical incidents. Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, 23 (3), 203–210. https://doi.org/10.1037/0735-7028.23.3.203

Gray, P. W., & Jordan, S. R. (2012). Supervisors and academic integrity: Supervisors as exemplars and mentors. Journal of Academic Ethics, 10 (4), 299–311. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10805-012-9155-6

Halse, C., & Bansel, P. (2012). The learning alliance: Ethics in doctoral supervision. Oxford Review of Education, 38 (4), 377–392. https://doi.org/10.1080/03054985.2012.706219

Herman, C. (2011). Expanding doctoral education in South Africa: Pipeline or pipedream? Higher Education Research & Development, 30 (4), 505–517. https://doi.org/10.1080/07294360.2010.527928

Hunter, K. H., & Devine, K. (2016). Doctoral students’ emotional exhaustion and intentions to leave academia. International Journal of Doctoral Studies, 11 , 35–61. https://doi.org/10.28945/3396

Jacobsson, G., & Gillström, P. (2006). International Postgraduate Student Mirror: Catalonia, Finland, Ireland, and Sweden . Swedish National Agency for Higher Education. Retrieved July 10, 2020, from http://www.ub.edu/depdibuix/ir/0629R-shv_se-catalonia.pdf

Jairam, D., & Kahl, D. H. (2012). Navigating the doctoral experience: The role of social support in successful degree completion. International Journal of Doctoral Studies, 7 , 311–329. https://doi.org/10.28945/1700

Johnson, L., Lee, A., & Green, B. (2000). The PhD and the autonomous self: Gender, rationality and postgraduate pedagogy. Studies in Higher Education, 25 (2), 135–147. https://doi.org/10.1080/713696141

Jordan, S. R. (2013). Conceptual clarification and the task of improving research on academic ethics. Journal of Academic Ethics, 11 (3), 243–256. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10805-013-9190-y

Kitchener, K. S. (1985). Ethical principles and ethical decisions in student affairs. In H. J. Canon & R. D. Brown (Eds.), New directions for student services: Applied ethics in student services (pp. 17–29). Jossey-Bass.

Kitchener, K. S. (2000). Foundations of ethical practice, research, and teaching in psychology . Lawrence Erlbaum.

Larsen, J. T., & McGraw, A. P. (2011). Further evidence for mixed emotions. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 100 (6), 1095–1110. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0021846

Lee, A. (2008). How are doctoral students supervised? Concepts of doctoral research supervision. Studies in Higher Education, 33 (3), 267–281. https://doi.org/10.1080/03075070802049202

Leijen, Ä., Lepp, L., & Remmik, M. (2016). Why did I dropout? Former students’ recollections about their study process and factors related to leaving the doctoral studies. Studies in Continuing Education, 38 (2), 129–144. https://doi.org/10.1080/0158037X.2015.1055463

Lepp, L., Remmik, M., Leijen, Ä., & Leijen, D. A. J. (2016). Doctoral students’ research stall: Supervisors’ perceptions and intervention strategies. Sage Open, 6 (3), 1–12. https://doi.org/10.1177/2158244016659116

Levecque, K., Anseel, F., De Beuckelaer, A., Van der Heyden, J., & Gisle, L. (2017). Work organization and mental health problems in PhD students. Research Policy, 46 (4), 868–879. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2017.02.008

Löfström, E., & Pyhältö, K. (2014). Ethical issues in doctoral supervision - The perspectives of PhD students in the natural and behavioural sciences. Ethics & Behavior, 24 (3), 195–214. https://doi.org/10.1080/10508422.2013.830574

Löfström, E., & Pyhältö, K. (2017). Ethics in the supervisory relationship: Supervisors’ and doctoral students’ dilemmas in the natural and behavioural sciences. Studies in Higher Education, 42 (2), 232–247. https://doi.org/10.1080/03075079.2015.1045475

Löfström, E., & Pyhältö, K. (2020). What are ethics in doctoral supervision, and how do they matter? Doctoral students’ perspective. Scandinavian Journal of Educational Research, 64 (4), 535–550. https://doi.org/10.1080/00313831.2019.1595711

McAlpine, L. (2012). Identity-trajectories. Doctoral journeys from past to present to future. Australian Universities’ Review, 45 (1), 38–46.

Maslach, C., & Leiter, M. P. (2008). Early predictors of job burnout and engagement. Journal of Applied Psychology, 93 (3), 498–512. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.93.3.498

Maslach, C., Schaufeli, W. B., & Leiter, M. P. (2001). Job burnout. Annual Review of Psychology, 52 (1), 397–422. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.psych.52.1.397

Muthanna, A., & Alduais, A. (2021). A thematic review on research integrity and research supervision: Relationships, crises and critical messages. Journal of Academic Ethics, 19 , 95–113.

National Commission for the Protection of Human Subjects of Biomedical and Behavioral Research. (1979). The Belmont Report. Ethical Principles and Guidelines for the Protection of Human Subjects of Research. Office of the Secretary, U.S. Retrieved July 10, 2020, from https://www.hhs.gov/ohrp/regulations-and-policy/belmont-report/read-the-belmont-report/index.html

Odendaal, A., & Frick, L. (2017). Research dissemination and PhD thesis format at a South African university: the impact of policy on practice. Innovations in Education and Teaching International, 55 (5), 594–601.

Parker-Jenkins, M. (2018). Mind the gap: Developing the roles, expectations and boundaries in the doctoral supervisor-supervisee relationship. Studies in Higher Education, 43 (1), 57–71. https://doi.org/10.1080/03075079.2016.1153622

Peltonen, J., Vekkaila, J., Rautio, P., Haverinen, K., & Pyhältö, K. (2017). Doctoral students’ social support profiles and their relationship to burnout, drop-out intentions, and time to candidacy. International Journal of Doctoral Studies, 12 , 157–173. https://doi.org/10.28945/3792

Peluso, D. L., Carleton, R. N., & Asmundson, G. J. G. (2011). Depression symptoms in Canadian psychology graduate students: Do research productivity, funding, and the academic advisory relationship play a role? Canadian Journal of Behavioural Science, 43 (2), 119–127. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0022624

Pyhältö, K., Castelló, M., McAlpine, L., & Peltonen, J. (2018). The cross-country doctoral experience survey (C-DES) (p. 2018). Version: User’s Manual.

Pyhältö, K., Peltonen, J., Rautio, P., Haverinen., K., Laatikainen, M., & Vekkaila, J. (2016). Summary Report on Doctoral Experience in UniOGS Graduate School at the University of Oulu . Acta Universitatis Ouluensis. F, Scripta academica 11, Oulu, University of Oulu.

Pyhältö, K., Stubb, J., & Tuomainen, J. (2011). International evaluation of research and doctoral education at the University of Helsinki – To the top and out to society. In Summary Report on Doctoral Students’ and Principal Investigators’ Doctoral Training Experiences . University of Helsinki.

Pyhältö, K., Vekkaila, J., & Keskinen, J. (2012). Exploring the fit between doctoral students’ and supervisors’ perceptions of resources and challenges vis-á-vis the doctoral journey. International Journal of Doctoral Studies, 7 , 395–414.

Reevy, G. M., & Deason, G. (2014). Predictors of depression, stress, and anxiety among non-tenure track faculty. Frontiers in Psychology, 5 , 1–17. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2014.00701

Rigg, J., Day, J., & Adler, H. (2013). Emotional exhaustion in graduate students: The role of engagement, self-efficacy and social support. Journal of Educational and Developmental Psychology, 3 (2), 138–152. https://doi.org/10.5539/jedp.v3n2p138

Schaufeli, W. B., Martinez, I., Pinto, A. M., Salanova, M., & Bakker, A. (2002). Burnout and engagement in university students: A cross-national study. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 33 (5), 464–481. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022022102033005003

Shin, J. C., & Jung, J. (2014). Academics job satisfaction and job stress across countries in the changing academic environments. Higher Education, 67 , 603–620. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10734-013-9668-y

Shirom, A. (2011). Vigor as a positive affect at work: Conceptualizing vigor, its relations with related constructs, and its antecedents and consequences. Review of General Psychology, 15 (1), 50–64. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0021853

Shraga, O., & Shirom, A. (2009). The construct validity of vigor and its antecedents: A qualitative study. Human Relations, 62 (2), 271–291. https://doi.org/10.1177/0018726708100360

Stubb, J., Pyhältö, K., & Lonka, K. (2011). Balancing between inspiration and exhaustion: PhD students’ experienced socio-psychological well-being. Studies in Continuing Education, 33 , 33–50. https://doi.org/10.1080/0158037X.2010.515572

Vassil, K., & Solvak, M. (2012). When failing is the only option: Explaining failure to finish PhDs in Estonia. Higher Education, 64 (4), 503–516. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10734-012-9507-6

Vekkaila, J., Pyhältö, K., & Lonka, K. (2013). Focusing on doctoral students’ experiences of engagement in thesis work. Frontline Learning Research, 2 , 12–34.

Vekkaila, J., Virtanen, V., Taina, J., & Pyhältö, K. (2018). The function of social support in engaging and disengaging experiences among post PhD researchers in STEM disciplines. Studies in Higher Education, 43 (8), 1439–1453. https://doi.org/10.1080/03075079.2016.1259307

Wisker, G., & Robinson, G. (2013). Doctoral ‘orphans’: Nurturing and supporting the success of postgraduates who have lost their supervisors. Higher Education Research & Development, 32 (2), 300–313. https://doi.org/10.1080/07294360.2012.657160

World Conferences on Research Integrity. (2010). Singapore Statement on Research Integrity. Retrieved July 10, 2019, from https://wcrif.org/guidance/singapore-statement

World Medical Association WMA. (2013). Declaration of Helsinki- Ethical principles for medical research involving human subjects . Retrieved July 10, 2019, from https://www.wma.net/policies-post/wma-declaration-of-helsinki-ethical-principles-for-medical-research-involving-human-subjects/

Yarwood-Ross, L., & Haigh, C. (2014). As others see us: What PhD students say about supervisors. Nurse Researcher, 22 (1), 38–43. https://doi.org/10.7748/nr.22.1.38.e1274

Download references

Acknowledgements

The authors would like to thank the anonymous reviewers for their valuable comments on an earlier version of the manuscript.

Open access funding provided by University of Helsinki including Helsinki University Central Hospital.

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Faculty of Educational Sciences, University of Helsinki, Helsinki, Finland

Erika Löfström & Kirsi Pyhältö

Department of Educational Sciences and Teacher Education, University of Oulu, Oulu, Finland

Jouni Peltonen

Centre for Higher and Adult Education, Faculty of Education, Stellenbosch University, Stellenbosch, South Africa

Liezel Frick & Kirsi Pyhältö

Rectorate, and School of Digital Technologies, Tallinn University, Tallinn, Estonia

Katrin Niglas

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Erika Löfström .

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest.

The authors declare no competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher's note.

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ .

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Löfström, E., Peltonen, J., Frick, L. et al. Profiles of doctoral students’ experience of ethics in supervision: an inter-country comparison. High Educ 86 , 617–636 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10734-022-00917-6

Download citation

Accepted : 17 August 2022

Published : 24 August 2022

Issue Date : September 2023

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/s10734-022-00917-6

Share this article

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

• Doctoral studies
• Doctoral students
• Doctoral supervision
• Find a journal
• Publish with us
• Track your research

Edinburgh Research Archive

•   ERA Home
• Philosophy, Psychology and Language Sciences, School of

Philosophy PhD thesis collection

By Issue Date Authors Titles Subjects Publication Type Sponsor Supervisors

Search within this Collection:

The PhD theses in this collection must be cited in line with the usual academic conventions. These articles are protected under full copyright law. You may download it for your own personal use only.

Recent Submissions

Phronimo: an argument for the use of an ai bot to augment human moral reasoning , agency machine: motives, levels of confidence and metacognition , objectification of women: new types and new measures , wisdom as responsible engagement:how to stop worrying and love epistemic goods , prescribing the mind: how norms, concepts, and language influence our understanding of mental disorder , humean constitutivism: a desire-based account of rational agency and the foundations of morality , predictive embodied concepts: an exploration of higher cognition within the predictive processing paradigm , impacts of childhood psychological maltreatment on adult mental health , epistemic fictionalism , thinking for the bound and dead: beyond man3 towards a new (truly) universal theory of human victory , function-first approach to doubt , abilities, freedom, and inputs: a time traveller's tale , concept is a container , analysing time-consciousness: a new account of the experienced present , emotion, perception, and relativism in vision , justice as a point of equipoise: an aristotelian approach to contemporary corporate ethics , asymmetric welfarism about meaning in life , mindreading in context , economic attitudes and individual difference: replication and extension , mindful love: the role of mindfulness in willingness to sacrifice in romantic relationships .

• Cookies & Privacy
• GETTING STARTED
• Introduction
• FUNDAMENTALS

Getting to the main article

Choosing your route

Setting research questions/ hypotheses

Assessment point

Building the theoretical case

Setting your research strategy

Data collection

Data analysis

Research ethics

You may be able to learn about the ethical approach used in the main journal article (if this is discussed), but more often than not, it is better to focus on your own dissertation when it comes to setting out the approach towards research ethics you will take. At the undergraduate or master's level, the extent to which you will have to consider research ethics in your dissertation and the role that such ethics will play in shaping your research strategy will depend on a number of factors: (a) your dissertation and university ethics guidelines; (b) your chosen research method, the way that the research method is used, and the specific measures that are selected; and (c) your chosen sampling strategy, including the type of sampling technique used, your sample size, and the use of gatekeepers when selecting your sample.

• CONSIDERATION ONE: Your dissertation and university ethics guidelines
• CONSIDERATION TWO: The nature of the research method and measures you select
• CONSIDERATION THREE: The sampling strategy that you select

CONSIDERATION #1 Your dissertation and university ethics guidelines

Whilst ethical requirements in research can vary across countries, there are a number of basic principles of research ethics that you will be expected to follow. Broadly speaking, your dissertation research should not only aim to do good (i.e., beneficence ), but also avoid doing any harm (i.e., non-malfeasance ). The five main ethical principles you should abide by, in most cases , include: (a) minimising the risk of harm; (b) obtaining informed consent; (c) protecting anonymity and confidentiality; (d) avoiding deceptive practices; and (e) providing the right to withdraw. In the article, Principles of research ethics in the Research Ethics section of the Fundamentals part of Lærd Dissertation, we explain these five basic principles in more detail. It is worth reading this article before reading on.

Following these basic principles is not only important for ethical reasons , but also practical ones, since a failure to meet such basic principles may lead to your research being (a) criticised, potentially leading to a lower mark, and/or (b) rejected by your supervisor or Ethics Committee , costing you valuable time. We mention your supervisor and the university Ethics Committee because the extent of the ethical requirements that you have to take into account will differ considerably from dissertation to dissertation. As a starting point, your dissertation guidelines should indicate whether you are required to complete an Ethics Proposal and/or Ethics Consent Form , even at the undergraduate or master's level, and if so, whether this should first be passed by your supervisor to see if ethical approval from the university Ethics Committee will be necessary. Even if such an Ethics Proposal is not required, it is still advisable to discuss the ethical implications of your dissertation with your supervisor; something that we discuss in STAGE SEVEN: Assessment point . At the very least, you will have to consider the role that research ethics will play in shaping your research strategy .

CONSIDERATION #2 The nature of the research method and measures you select

Research ethics is not a one size fits all approach. The research strategy that you choose to guide your dissertation often determines the approach that you should take towards research ethics. When we talk about an approach to research ethics, we are referring to ethical choices that you may make that are specific to your dissertation. For example, many students will be able to obtain informed consent from participants to take part in their research. However, there may be reasons that you cannot obtain informed consent from participants to take part, perhaps because the research design guiding your dissertation and the research method you use make this difficult or impossible (e.g., an experimental research design and the use of covert structured observation to study people in a nightclub or an Internet chat room).

When you consider the five practical ethical principles you read about earlier, it may appear obvious that your dissertation should include these. However, there are many instances where it is not possible or desirable to obtain informed consent from research participants. Similarly, there may be instances where you seek permission from participants not to protect their anonymity. More often than not, such choices should reflect the research strategy that you adopt to guide your dissertation. The potential ethical issues raised by different research methods not only differ from one type of research method to the next (e.g., surveys versus structured observation), but also the way in which a research method is used (e.g., overt versus covert observation) and your choice of measures (e.g., the specific questions that you ask in a survey). In each of our articles on different research methods, you can read up on the potential issues that your choice of research method will have for your dissertation (see the Research Methods section of the Fundamentals part of Lærd Dissertation and click on the relevant research method; there is a section on research ethics in each article).

ThinkIR: The University of Louisville's Institutional Repository

Home > ETD > 361

Electronic Theses and Dissertations

A study in professional ethics..

Lewis William Dockery , University of Louisville

Date on Master's Thesis/Doctoral Dissertation

Document type.

Doctoral Dissertation

Degree Name

Professional ethics

Professional ethics does not differ in its essential nature from general ethics; both are concerned with problems of human conduct. The difference between the two is a difference of scope but not of nature. The scope of general ethics is as broad as the purposive acts of rational persons, while the scope of professional ethics is limited to the purposive acts of lawyers, physicians, teachers, clergymen, and other professional persons. The former includes all normal persons irrespective of their vocations; the latter includes only persons who are in professional life. Professional ethics takes the field of general ethics for granted; that is, it is assumed that professional men (using the term "mean" in the generic sense) should live according to the principles of ethics in general. The problems of professional ethics are those problems that are peculiar to the professions. For example, medical ethics deals with the problems of conduct that arise in the professional experiences of the physician. Legal ethics deals with the problems of conduct that arise in the professional life of the lawyer. Professional ethics may be thought of as general ethics applied to the life and work of professional men.

Recommended Citation

Dockery, Lewis William, "A study in professional ethics." (1922). Electronic Theses and Dissertations. Paper 361. https://doi.org/10.18297/etd/361

Since February 12, 2015

Advanced Search

• Notify me via email or RSS
• Collections
• Disciplines

Author Corner

• Collection Policy
• License Agreements
• ThinkIR Electronic Resource Guide
• Submit Research

Related Links

• Guidelines for the Preparation and Processing of Theses and Dissertations (School of Interdisciplinary & Graduate Studies) ( PDF )
• University of Louisville Libraries Research Assistance and Instruction
• Nonexclusive License to Electronically Disseminate UofL ETD ( PDF )
• Data Management Guides for Theses and Dissertations

Home | About | FAQ | My Account | Accessibility Statement

Privacy Copyright

Ethical Considerations

Ethical Considerations can be specified as one of the most important parts of the research. Dissertations may even be doomed to failure if this part is missing.

According to Bryman and Bell (2007) [1] the following ten points represent the most important principles related to ethical considerations in dissertations:

• Research participants should not be subjected to harm in any ways whatsoever.
• Respect for the dignity of research participants should be prioritised.
• Full consent should be obtained from the participants prior to the study.
• The protection of the privacy of research participants has to be ensured.
• Adequate level of confidentiality of the research data should be ensured.
• Anonymity of individuals and organisations participating in the research has to be ensured.
• Any deception or exaggeration about the aims and objectives of the research must be avoided.
• Affiliations in any forms, sources of funding, as well as any possible conflicts of interests have to be declared.
• Any type of communication in relation to the research should be done with honesty and transparency.
• Any type of misleading information, as well as representation of primary data findings in a biased way must be avoided.

In order to address ethical considerations aspect of your dissertation in an effective manner, you will need to expand discussions of each of the following points to at least one paragraph:

1. Voluntary participation of respondents in the research is important. Moreover, participants have rights to withdraw from the study at any stage if they wish to do so.

2. Respondents should participate on the basis of informed consent. The principle of informed consent involves researchers providing sufficient information and assurances about taking part to allow individuals to understand the implications of participation and to reach a fully informed, considered and freely given decision about whether or not to do so, without the exercise of any pressure or coercion. [2]

3. The use of offensive, discriminatory, or other unacceptable language needs to be avoided in the formulation of Questionnaire/Interview/Focus group questions.

4. Privacy and anonymity or respondents is of a paramount importance.

5. Acknowledgement of works of other authors used in any part of the dissertation with the use of Harvard/APA/Vancouver referencing system according to the Dissertation Handbook

6. Maintenance of the highest level of objectivity in discussions and analyses throughout the research

7. Adherence to Data Protection Act (1998) if you are studying in the UK

In studies that do not involve primary data collection, on the other hand, ethical issues are going to be limited to the points d) and e) above.

Most universities have their own Code of Ethical Practice. It is critically important for you to thoroughly adhere to this code in every aspect of your research and declare your adherence in ethical considerations part of your dissertation.

My e-book,  The Ultimate Guide to Writing a Dissertation in Business Studies: a step by step assistance  offers practical assistance to complete a dissertation with minimum or no stress. The e-book covers all stages of writing a dissertation starting from the selection to the research area to submitting the completed version of the work within the deadline. John Dudovskiy

[1] Bryman, A. &  Bell, E. (2007) “Business Research Methods”, 2nd edition. Oxford University Press.

[2] Saunders, M., Lewis, P. & Thornhill, A. (2012) “Research Methods for Business Students” 6th edition, Pearson Education Limited.

e-Publications@Marquette

Home > ARTSSCI > Theology > dissertations and theses

Theology Dissertations and Theses

The Theology Dissertations Series is comprised of dissertations authored by Marquette University's Theology Department doctoral students.

Theses/Dissertations from 2024 2024

The Beauty of a Good Appetite in a Social Media Age , Megan Heeder

Place in Luke-Acts: A Geocritical Reading of Synagogue, House, and Temple , Daniel Mueller

Theses/Dissertations from 2023 2023

The Universality of God in Amo’s Oracles and Creation: A Historical-Critical Approach within a Catholic Context , Alexandra Bochte

Trinitarian Theology as a Resource for the Theology of Education , Anne Bullock

Existential Thomism and the Ecstasy of the Sexed Body , Kathleen Cavender-McCoy

Ecumenical Traditions: Byzantine and Franciscan Theology in Dialogue , Gino G. Grivetti

Person and Society: The Trinitarian Anthropology of Henri de Lubac , Sara Hulse

MIRACLES AND LAWS OF SCIENCE: INSIGHTS FOR CONTEMPORARY DIALOGUE ON DIVINE ACTION FROM SAID NURSI AND THOMAS AQUINAS , Edmund Michael Lazzari

Moved to Compassion: Envisioning Parables in the Gospel of Luke , Patrick J. O'Kernick

In the Power of the Spirit: Toward an Agapeic Ethic of Spirit-Baptism , Caroline Rose Redick

Theses/Dissertations from 2022 2022

The Ethical Functions of Deuteronomic Laws in Early Second Temple Judaism , Paul Cizek

Finding Paul in the Fourth Gospel: John 8 and the Reception of the Apostle to the Gentiles , Jason Hitchcock

“Now I Will Recall the Works of God”: Allusion and Intertextuality in Sirach 42:15-43:33 , Gary Patrick Klump

The Human Person Fully Alive: The Transformation of the Body, Brain, Mind, and Soul of Humanity in the Encounter with the Divinity , Christopher Krall

Maximus the Confessor in Aquinas's Christology , Corey John Stephan

Rewriting the Ending: Malachi's Threat and the Destruction of the Temple in the Gospel of Mark , John Michael Strachan

Behold the Beasts Beside You: The Adaptation and Alteration of Animals in LXX-Job , James Wykes

Theses/Dissertations from 2021 2021

Biased in a World of Bias: A Cognitive and Spiritual Approach to Knowing Racial Justice , Stephen Calme

Where is Wisdom? Privileging Perspectives in the Book of Job , Israel McGrew

Being and Naming God: Essence and Energies in St. Gregory Palamas , Tikhon Alexander Pino

Theses/Dissertations from 2020 2020

Reception of the Economic Social Teaching of Gaudium et Spes in the United States from 1965-2005 , David Daniel Archdibald

Unity and Catholicity in Christ: The Ecclesiology of Francisco Suárez, S.J. , Eric DeMeuse

Filled with 'The Fullness of the Gifts of God': Towards a Pneumatic Theosis , Kirsten Guidero

Cathedrals of the Mind: Theological Method and Speculative Renewal in Trinitarian Theology , Ryan Hemmer

Fire in the Bread, Life in the Body: The Pneumatology of Ephrem the Syrian , David Kiger

Looks That Kill: White Power, Christianity, and the Occlusion of Justice , Wesley Sutermeister

Theses/Dissertations from 2019 2019

Beyond Slavery: Christian Theology and Rehabilitation from Human Trafficking , Christopher Michael Gooding

The Ambiguity of Being: Medieval and Modern Cooperation on the Problem of the Supernatural , Jonathan Robert Heaps

Widow As the Altar of God: Retrieving Ancient Sources for Contemporary Discussions on Christian Discipleship , Lisa Marin Moore

The New Day of Atonement: A Matthean Typology , Hans Moscicke

"The Present Evil Age": The Origin and Persistence of Evil in Galatians , Tyler Allen Stewart

A Sweet Influence: St. Bonaventure’s Franciscan Reception of Dionysian Hierarchy , Luke Vittorio Togni

Transforming the Foundation: Lonergan's Transposition of Aquinas' Notion of Wisdom , Juliana Vazquez Krivsky

Infideles Et Philosophi: Assent, Untruth, and Natural Knowledge of the Simple God , Jeffrey M. Walkey

Confessing Characters: Coming to Faith in the Gospel of John , Dominic Zappia

Theses/Dissertations from 2018 2018

Eighteenth-Century Forerunners of Vatican II: Early Modern Catholic Reform and the Synod of Pistoia , Shaun London Blanchard

The Media Matrix of Early Jewish and Christian Literature , Nicholas Andrew Elder

Imagining Demons in Post-Byzantine Jerusalem: John of Damascus and the Consolidation of Classical Christian Demonology , Nathaniel Ogden Kidd

Hoc Est Sacrificium Laudis: The Influence of Hebrews on the Origin, Structure, and Theology of the Roman Canon Missae , Matthew S. C. Olver

Reconciling Universal Salvation and Freedom of Choice in Origen of Alexandria , Lee W. Sytsma

Theses/Dissertations from 2017 2017

The Doubt of the Apostles and the Resurrection Faith of the Early Church , J. D. Atkins

The Two Goats: A Christian Yom Kippur Soteriology , Richard Barry

Exodus as New Creation, Israel as Foundling: Stories in the History of an Idea , Christopher Evangelos John Brenna

Christus Exemplar: the Politics of Virtue in Lactantius , Jason Matthew Gehrke

Image and Virtue in Ambrose of Milan , Andrew Miles Harmon

A God Worth Worshiping: Toward a Critical Race Theology , Duane Terrence Loynes Sr.

The Cry of the Poor: Anthropology of Suffering and Justice in Health Care From a Latin American Liberation Approach , Alexandre Andrade Martins

The First Thing Andrew Did' [John 1:41]: Readers As Witnesses in the Fourth Gospel , Mark L. Trump

Theses/Dissertations from 2016 2016

Creator Spirit, Spirit of Grace: Trinitarian Dimensions of a Charitological Pneumatology , Wesley Scott Biddy

The Economic Trinity: Communion with the Triune God in a Market Economy , David Glenn Butner Jr.

Judgment, Justification, and the Faith Event in Romans , Raymond Foyer

Primeval History According to Paul: "In Adam" and "In Christ" in Romans , Timothy A. Gabrielson

Scripture in History: A Systematic Theology of the Christian Bible , Joseph K. Gordon

Gary Dorrien, Stanley Hauerwas, Rowan Williams, and the Theological Transformation of Sovereignties , David Wade Horstkoetter

The Mystical and Political Body: Christian Identity in the Theology of Karl Rahner , Erin Kidd

Love the Stranger for You were Strangers: The Development of a Biblical Literary Theme and Motif , Helga Kisler

Theo-Dramatic Ethics: A Balthasarian Approach to Moral Formation , Andrew John Kuzma

No Sympathy for the Devil: The Significance of Demons in John Chrysostom's Soteriology , Samantha Lynn Miller

Truly Human, Fully Divine: The Kenotic Christ of Thomas Aquinas , Gregorio Montejo

Didymus the Blind, Origen, and the Trinity , Kellen Plaxco

ITE, MISSA EST! A Missional Liturgical Ecclesiology , Eugene Richard Schlesinger

From Modes of Production to the Resurrection of the Body: A Labor Theory of Revolutionary Subjectivity & Religious Ideas , Benjamin Suriano

Blinded Eyes and Hardened Hearts: Intra-Jewish Critique in the Gospel of John , Nathan Thiel

Monarchianism and Origen's Early Trinitarian Theology , Stephen Edward Waers

Sanctification as Virtue and Mission: The Politics of Holiness , Nathan Willowby

Theses/Dissertations from 2015 2015

The Word Became Flesh: An Exploratory Essay on Jesus’s Particularity and Nonhuman Animals , Andy Alexis-Baker

RENOVATIO: Martin Luther's Augustinian Theology of Holiness (1515/16 and 1535-46) , Phillip L. Anderas

Models of Conversion in American Evangelicalism: Jonathan Edwards, Charles Hodge and Old Princeton, and Charles Finney , Mark B. Chapman

The Kingdom of God and the Holy Spirit: Eschatology and Pneumatology in the Vineyard Movement , Douglas R. Erickson

The All-Embracing Frame: Distance in the Trinitarian Theology of Hans Urs von Balthasar , Christopher Hadley

"Make My Joy Complete": The Price of Partnership in the Letter of Paul to the Philippians , Mark Avery Jennings

The Unsettled Church: The Search for Identity and Relevance in the Ecclesiologies of Nicholas Healy, Ephraim Radner, and Darrell Guder , Emanuel D. Naydenov

Seeing Two Worlds: The Eschatological Anthropology of the Joint Declaration on the Doctrine of Justification , Jakob Karl Rinderknecht

Theses/Dissertations from 2014 2014

Palliative Care's Sacramental and Liturgical Foundations: Healthcare Formed by Faith, Hope, and Love , Darren M. Henson

"Now These Things Happened As Examples For Us" (1 Cor. 10:6):the Biblical-Narrative Depiction Of Human Sinfulness , Stephen Frederick Jenks

Love For God And Earth: Ecospirituality In The Theologies Of Sallie Mcfague And Leonardo Boff , Rebecca A. Meier-Rao

Stabilitas In Congregatione: The Benedictine Evangelization Of America In The Life And Thought Of Martin Marty, O.s.b. , Paul Gregory Monson

The Word Is An Angel Of The Mind: Angelic And Temple Imagery In The Theology Of John Mansur, The Damascene. , Elijah Nicolas Mueller

"heavenly Theologians": The Place Of Angels In The Theology Of Martin Luther , Christopher J. Samuel

"a Spreading And Abiding Hope": A. J. Conyers And Evangelical Theopolitical Imagination , Jacob Shatzer

Receptive Ecumenism And Justification: Roman Catholic And Reformed Doctrine In Contemporary Context , Sarah Timmer

Mary's Fertility As The Model Of The Ascetical Life In Ephrem The Syrian's Hymns Of The Nativity , Michelle Weedman

Theses/Dissertations from 2013 2013

The Church as Symbolic Mediation: Revelation Ecclesiology in the Theology of Avery Dulles, S.J. , Abraham B. Fisher

Christological Name Theology in three Second Century communities , Michael D. Harris

Transcending Subjects: Hegel After Augustine, an Essay on Political Theology , Geoffrey J.D. Holsclaw

Circumcision of the Spirit in the Soteriology of Cyril of Alexandria , Jonathan Stephen Morgan

Toward a Renewed Theological Framework of Catholic Racial Justice: A Vision Inspired by the Life and Writings of Dr. Arthur Grand Pré Falls , Lincoln Rice

Emerging in the Image of God: From Evolution to Ethics in a Second Naïveté Understanding of Christian Anthropology , Jason Paul Roberts

Isaac of Nineveh's Contribution to Syriac Theology: An Eschatological Reworking of Greek Anthropology , Jason Scully

Between Eden and Egypt: Echoes of the Garden Narrative in the Story of Joseph and His Brothers , Brian Osborne Sigmon

Rediscovering Sabbath: Hebrew Social Thought And Its Contribution To Black Theology's Vision For America , Christopher Taylor Spotts

Theses/Dissertations from 2012 2012

Opening First-World Catholic Theology to Third-World Ecofeminism: Aruna Gnanadason and Johann B. Metz in Dialogue , Gretchen Baumgardt

Love and Lonergan's Cognitional-Intentional Anthropology: An Inquiry on the Question of a "Fifth Level of Consciousness" , Jeremy Blackwood

Andrew G. Grutka, First Bishop of the Diocese of Gary, Indiana (1957 to 1984): "Where There is Charity, There is God." , Anthony Bonta

The Election Controversy Among Lutherans in the Twentieth Century: An Examination of the Underlying Problems , John M. Brenner

Yves Congar, O.P.: Ecumenist of the Twentieth Century , Paul Raymond Caldwell

Theo-Poetics: Figure and Metaphysics in the Thought of Hans Urs von Balthasar , Anne Carpenter

Sacrament and Eschatological Fulfillment in Henri de Lubac's Theology of History , Joseph Flipper

Spirit and Flesh: On the Significance of the Reformed Doctrine of the Lord's Supper for Pneumatology , Christopher Ganski

A Comparison of the Kenotic Trinitarian Theology of Hans Urs von Balthasar and Sergei Bulgakov , Katy Leamy

Advanced Search

• Notify me via email or RSS
• Collections
• Disciplines

Information about e-Pubs@MU

• General FAQ
• Theology Website

Home | About | FAQ | My Account | Accessibility Statement

Privacy Copyright

College of Arts & Sciences

PhD Dissertations

For more details, including abstracts and PDFs, please see our institutional repository, Digital Georgetown .

Mohamed Lamallam, Society, Religion and Political Power: The Theory of ulfa jāmi’a (Social Harmony) in the Socio-Political Works of al-Māwardī (d.450/1058). Advisor: Paul Heck.

Arunjana Das, A Hindu-Christian Approach Towards Peace-Making: How do Theological Discourse and Agency Emerge in Religious Systems? Advisor: Ariel Glucklich.

James Shelton Nalley, Towards a Holy Friendship: Reflecting on Interreligious Friendship with Thomas Aquinas and Ibn al-ʿArabī. Advisor: Stephen Fields.

Susan O’Neill Hayward, Enduring War and Enduring Peace: Religion, Resilience, and Resistance. Advisor: Jose Casanova.

Jordan Denari Duffner, Muḥammad’s Character as “Fruit of the Spirit”: Toward a Catholic Pneumatology of the Prophet of Islam. Advisor: Leo Lefebure.

Nan Kathy Lin, Religious Change as Seen Through Buddhist Environmentalism; 2023. Advisor: Francisca Cho.

Halla Attallah, Gender and (In)fertility in the Qur’ān’s Annunciation Type-Scenes ; 2023. Advisor: Julia Watts Belser.

Danielle Lynn Clausnitzer, The Roots of Rootwork: Addressing Contemporary Concerns of Hoodoo Practitioners ; 2023. Advisor: Joseph Murphy.

Kirsty Jones, Barren, Blind, Berserk: (Un)Assuming Disability and Madness in Judges 13-16 ; 2023. Advisor: Julia Watts Belser.

Nathan Chapman Lean, Journey to the One: Jazz as an Expression of Islam, 1940-1970 ; 2023. Advisor: Dan Madigan.

Ray Kim, Halal in Korea: The Social Constructions of a Contested Category in a Globalized World ; 2022. Advisor: Jose Casanova.

Teng Kuan Ng, Wisdom Cinema: Buddhism and Film in Contemporary China ; 2022. Advisor: Francisca Cho.

Theodore Dedon, Conciliarity, Nationalism, and the Roman Social Imaginary: A History of Political and Ecclesiastical Ideas on the Separation and Integration of Powers ; 2022. Advisor: Drew Christiansen.

Tasi B. Perkins, The Thirst, And The Sun, And The Bleeding”: Husayn As A Passible Liminal Figure in Pro-ʿAlid Hagiography ; 2022. Advisor: William Werpehowski.

Steven Matthew Gertz, Inter-Religious Relations in a Sectarian Milieu: Fatimid Rulers in Relationship to Their Melkite Christian Subjects in Palestine and Egypt ; 2020. Advisor: Dan Madigan.

Easten G. Law, Discerning a Lived Chinese Protestant Theology: Everyday Life and Encounters with the Other in Contemporary China ; 2020. Advisor: Peter Phan.

Joel David Daniels, Does the Wind Bend or Break the Grass? A Comparative Study of Pentecostal Spirituality and Chinese Religious Thought ; 2020. Advisor: Erin Cline.

Michael David Friedman, Our Problems and Our Future: Jews and America ; 2019. Advisor: Jonathan Ray.

Joshua Clark Mugler, A Martyr with Too Many Causes: Christopher of Antioch (d. 967) and Local Collective Memory ; 2019. Advisor: Paul Heck.

Peter Charles Herman, Overcoming Whiteness: A Critical Comparison of James Cone’s Black Liberation Theology and Shinran’s Jōdo Shinshū Buddhism ; 2019. Advisor: Peter Phan.

Stephanie Marie Wong, From Subjects to Citizens of the State and of God’s People: Frédéric-Vincent Lebbe (1877-1940) and the Project to Indigenize the Chinese Catholic Church in Republican China ; 2018. Advisor: Peter Phan.

Matthew Mitchell Anderson, Prohibited Speech and the Sacred: Critically and Constructively Engaging Taqī al-Dīn al-Subkī’s (d.756/1355) al-Sayf al-maslūl ‘alā man sabba al-rasūl ; 2018. Advisor: Paul Heck.

Joshua Canzona, Pierre Teilhard de Chardin and Muhammad Iqbal on Human Consciousness and Sociality: A Critical Comparison ; 2018. Advisor: Leo Lefebure.

Nicholas John Boylston, Writing the Kaleidoscope of Reality: The Significance of Diversity in the 6th/12th Century Persian Metaphysical Literature of Sanā’ī, ‘Ayn al-Quḍāt and ‘Aṭṭār ; 2017. Advisor: Paul Heck.

Rahel Fischbach, Politics of Scripture. Discussions of the Historical-Critical Approach to the Qur’an ; 2017. Advisor: Dan Madigan.

Matthew D. Taylor, Commonsense Scripturalism: The Textual Identities of Salafi Muslims and Evangelical Christians in America ; 2017. Advisor: Paul Heck.

Taraneh Rosanna Wilkinson, Dialectics Not Dualities: Contemporary Turkish Muslim Thought in Dialogue ; 2017. Advisor: Dan Madigan.

Jason Welle, Clarifying Companionship: Al-Sulamī’s (D. 412/1021) Kitāb Ādāb Al-Ṣuḥba ; 2016. Advisor: Paul Heck.

Pietro Lorenzo Maggioni, Comparative Theology: Toward a Semiotic Theological Foundation ; 2016. Advisor: Dan Madigan.

Gurbet Sayilgan, The Ur-Migrants: The Qur’anic Narratives of Adam and Eve and Their Contribution to a Constructive Islamic Theology of Migration ; 2015. Advisor: Dan Madigan.

Fuad S. Naeem, Interreligious Debates, Rational Theology, and the ʿUlamaʾ in the Public Sphere: Muḥammad Qāsim Nānautvī and the Making of Modern Islam in South Asia ; 2015. Advisor: Dan Madigan.

George Archer, A Place Between Two Places: The Qur’an’s Intermediate State and the Early History of the Barzakh ; 2015. Advisor: Dan Madigan.

Sara Singha, Dalit Christians and Caste Consciousness in Pakistan ; 2015. Advisor: Ariel Glucklich.

Jason M. VonWachenfeldt, Knowing the Known Unknown: Comparing the Religious Epistemologies of Edward Schillebeeckx and Gendun Chopel in Response to Modernity ; 2014. Advisor: Leo Lefebure.

Laura Tomes, Reforming Religion: Sabbath Schools and the Negotiation of Modern American Jewish Education, 1873-1923 ; 2014. Advisor: Jonathan Ray.

Melanie Elizabeth Trexler, Evangelizing Arabs: Baptists and Muslims in Lebanon, 1895-2011 ; 2014. Advisor: Yvonne Haddad.

Diego Sarrio Cucarella, The Mirror of the Other: Shihab al-Din al-Qarafi’s Splendid Replies ; 2013. Advisor: Paul Heck.

Peter Leo Manseau, Untying the Holy Tongue: the Transformation of Sacred Language in American Yiddish Literature ; 2013. Advisor: Tod Linafelt.

Jerusha Tanner Lamptey, Toward a Muslima Theology of Religious Pluralism: the Qur’an, Feminist Theology and Religious Diversity ; 2011. Advisor: Dan Madigan.

Erika B. Seamon, The Shifting Boundaries of Religious Pluralism in America Through the Lens of Interfaith Marriage ; 2011. Advisor: Chester Gillis.

Maureen L. Walsh, ‘Because they are no more’: Memorializing Pregnancy Loss in Japanese Buddhism and American Catholicism ; Advisor: Vincent J. Miller.

Center for Digital Scholarship

University-Wide Requirements for the Ph.D. Dissertation

Dissertations must comply with the specifications set by the Library, by the author's department, and by the University. Departments, divisions, and schools may have requirements in addition to those described in this booklet. Students are responsible for informing themselves of these additional requirements.

The Dissertation Office provides information on the University’s dissertation policies. We help doctoral students understand dissertation formatting and submission requirements, and we assist with the submission process. Students are welcome to contact us with questions.

Contact the Dissertation Office

Web: phd.lib.uchicago.edu Email: [email protected] Phone: 773-702-7404 Visit: Suite 104D, Center for Digital Scholarship, Regenstein Library

Routine Hours: Monday-Friday, 9:00 a.m. to 12:00 p.m. and 1:30 p.m. to 4:30 p.m. Actual hours vary to accommodate meetings, workshops, and training. The office is often closed during the interim between quarters.

Dissertation Requirements

Doctoral dissertations are original contributions to scholarship. As a condition for receipt of the doctorate, all students are required to submit their dissertations to Knowledge@UChicago, the University’s open access repository. If a dissertation includes copyrighted material beyond fair use, the author must obtain permission from the holder of the copyright.

The public sharing of original dissertation research is a principle to which the University is deeply committed, and dissertations should be made available to the scholarly community at the University of Chicago and elsewhere in a timely manner. If dissertation authors are concerned that making their research publicly available might endanger research subjects or themselves, jeopardize a pending patent, complicate publication of a revised dissertation, or otherwise be unadvisable, they may, in consultation with faculty in their field (and as appropriate, research collaborators), restrict access to their dissertation for a limited period of time according to the guidelines outlined by the Dissertation Office. If a dissertation author needs to renew an embargo at the end of its term or initiate an embargo after graduation, the author must contact the Dissertation Office with the embargo request. Embargo renewals may be approved only in rare instances, and in general no more than one renewal will be allowed.

All dissertations must follow the formatting and submission requirements stated in the University-Wide Requirements for the Ph.D. Dissertation , available from the Dissertation Office on the first floor of the Joseph Regenstein Library in the Center for Digital Scholarship.

University-Wide Requirements

Academic Policies

• National Security
• Matthew Continetti
• Men of the Year

• Men Of The Year

Vermont Health Department Discourages Saying 'Son' and 'Daughter' in Classrooms

Ethics Complaints Pile Up Against Eugene Vindman Over ‘Illegal’ Super PAC Coordination

‘i did fries’: kamala harris claims she worked at mcdonald's, but she never mentioned it until she ran for president. did she really toil beneath the golden arches, from 'israel has a right to defend itself' to 'immediate ceasefire': rep. susan wild caught sending contradictory letters to constituents, stating dueling views on war, biden-harris official behind green airplane push quietly reveals he owns an oil well, exclusive: leaked cnn interview questions reveal stunning partisan bias, robin diangelo plagiarized minority scholars, complaint alleges.

Robin DiAngelo, the best-selling author of White Fragility , is a big believer in citing minorities.

In an " accountability " statement on her website, which makes repeated reference to her Ph.D., DiAngelo, 67, tells "fellow white people" that they should "always cite and give credit to the work of BIPOC people who have informed your thinking."

It doesn't matter if their contribution is just a few words. "When you use a phrase or idea you got from a BIPOC person," DiAngelo says, referring to black, indigenous, and other people of color, "credit them."

But the white diversity trainer has not always taken her own advice. According to a complaint filed last week with the University of Washington, where DiAngelo received her Ph.D. in multicultural education, she plagiarized several scholars—including two minorities—in her doctoral thesis.

The 2004 dissertation , "Whiteness in Racial Dialogue: A Discourse Analysis," lifts two paragraphs from an Asian-American professor, Northeastern University's Thomas Nakayama, and his coauthor, Robert Krizek, without proper attribution, omitting quotation marks and in-text citations.

DiAngelo also lifts material from Stacey Lee, an Asian-American professor of education at the University of Wisconsin-Madison, in which Lee summarizes the work of a third scholar, David Theo Goldberg.

The passage creates the impression that DiAngelo is providing her own summary of Goldberg rather than using Lee's language—a misleading move that Peter Wood, the president of the National Association of Scholars, likened to "forgery."

"It is never appropriate to use the secondary source without acknowledging it, and even worse to present it as one's own words," said Wood, a former Boston University provost who led several research misconduct probes. "That's plagiarism."

The complaint describes dozens of cases in which DiAngelo, who rakes in almost $1 million a year in speaking fees, passed off the work of others as her own. It calls into question the key credential on which DiAngelo built her career, which has relied on the notion that her therapeutic workshops—which can cost up to $40,000 and insist that all white people are racist—are backed by scholarly expertise.

"No one who respected the basic expectations of scholarship would do this," said Steve McGuire, a member of the American Council of Trustees and Alumni and former professor of political theory at Villanova University. "The amount of copying of verbatim language without quotation marks or clear and consistent citations in these examples is appalling."

The doctorate has become a centerpiece of DiAngelo's marketing. Her website, "Robin DiAngelo, PhD," refers to her as "Dr. DiAngelo," notes that she is a professor at the University of Washington, and states that she coined the term "white fragility" in an "academic article" in 2011.

The first use of that phrase actually came in her dissertation, on page 184, where she formulated the concept that would define her career.

"White fragility," DiAngelo wrote, "is a state in which even a minimum amount of racial stress becomes intolerable, triggering a range of defensive moves."

The complaint suggests that the paper responsible for these ideas violated bedrock scholarly norms. Several passages appear to meet the University of Washington's definition of plagiarism , which includes "borrowing the structure of another author's phrases or sentences without crediting the author from whom it came."

DiAngelo, for example, copies a page of material from Kristin Gates Cloyes—her classmate in the university's Ph.D. program—and frames it as original language.

She lifts another page from Debian Marty, an emerita professor of communication at California State University, Monterey Bay, keeping the structure of the passage the same while swapping out synonyms and details.

Turnitin.com defines this sort of splicing as "mosaic plagiarism," in which a source's phrases are interspersed, uncredited, with one's own. "Plagiarism need not be intentional," the University of Washington states , "and 'I didn't know' is not a defense."

DiAngelo did not respond to a request for comment. The University of Washington did not respond to a request for comment.

Once an obscure professor at Westfield State University, DiAngelo emerged in 2020 as the high priestess of progressive racialism. Her most famous book, White Fragility , published in 2018, flew off the shelves following George Floyd's death, beating out How to Be An Antiracist by Ibram X. Kendi—a black man—on USA Today 's best-seller list.

DiAngelo has become a staple of teacher trainings, corporate affinity groups, fundraisers, and "antiracist" book clubs. She even addressed 184 members of Congress, including then-House speaker Nancy Pelosi (D., Calif.), about what it "mean[s] to be white," telling the Democratic caucus in 2020 that its members would continue to "hurt" black people until they reckoned with the question.

The talk was one of myriad speaking engagements that launched DiAngelo into the top 1 percent of American earners and helped her afford three houses worth $1.6 million . At one of those houses, a cabin in rural Washington State, DiAngelo has been photographed relaxing with a group of friends who, by all outward appearances, are exclusively white.

Last week's complaint is part of a wave of plagiarism allegations unleashed by the resignation of former Harvard University president Claudine Gay, who stepped down in January after half of her published works were found to contain plagiarized material. Subsequent complaints targeted diversity officials at Harvard , Columbia , the Massachusetts Institute of Technology , the University of California, Los Angeles , and the University of Wisconsin-Madison .

The allegations ranged from mild sloppiness to copying huge chunks of text from other sources, including Wikipedia , without attribution. DiAngelo falls on the severer half of that continuum, lifting longer chunks of text than some officials, including Gay, and displaying telltale signs of deliberate plagiarism.

Though she cites all of her sources in her bibliography, DiAngelo omits quotation marks, footnotes, and other forms of attribution that would mark off her words from those of her sources. And while a verbatim quote could have been copied accidentally, she often tweaks her sources' prose—suggesting she is aware of what she is doing and intentionally misleading readers.

In a sentence taken from Queen's University's Cynthia Levine-Rasky, for example, DiAngelo changes just one word.

"It could be one of those signatures of the habitual plagiarist in which a minor change is meant either to throw people off or to justify the pretense of taking someone else's words for oneself," Wood said. "In any case, it shows that DiAngelo was fully conscious of what she was doing."

A similar case involves two sentences from Bronwyn Davies, a professorial fellow at the University of Melbourne, and Rom Harré, a deceased philosopher and psychologist. DiAngelo copies the sentences almost verbatim, tweaking a word here or there to avoid an exact reproduction.

"It does look like plagiarism," Davies told the Washington Free Beacon . Other scholars named in the complaint did not respond to requests for comment.

Published under: Anti-Racism , claudine gay , Ethics , Hypocrisy , plagiarism , Professors , Racism , Robin DiAngelo , Universities , woke

• Skip to Main
• Master's Programs
• Ph.D. Programs
• Global & Online Programs
• Library and Information Science Dual - Degree Program
• Certificate Programs
• Application Resource Center
• Financial Aid
• Admissions Events
• Campus Tours
• Newly-Admitted Students
• Message from the GSAS Dean
• Academic Calendar

Inter-University Doctoral Consortium

• Submitting Your Dissertation
• Fellowships and Awards
• Fellowships & Awards
• Alumni Features
• Public Humanities Initiative
• New Student Orientation
• GSAS Convocation
• The Master's College
• Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion
• OASA Room Reservations
• Graduate Student Council
• Graduate Student Clubs
• Student Resources
• Doctoral Alumni Association
• Senior Administration
• Dean's Office
• Policies and Procedures
• Directors of Graduate Studies & Program Directors
• Standing Committees
• History of GSAS
• Dean's Conference Room
• Administrative Resources
• Dean's Advisory Council
• Research in GSAS
• Give to GSAS
• NYU/Axinn Foundation Prize
• Event Calendar
• TELL GSAS Doctoral Research Days

We will be accepting IUDC registration for Fall 2024 starting July 8, 2024.

We are processing IUDC forms via email. Students must use the writable pdf IUDC form on this page and their official home institution email address. No hand written form or non-school email address will be accepted.  

The Inter-University Doctoral Consortium (IUDC) offers eligible doctoral students the opportunity to take graduate courses at distinguished universities throughout the greater New York area. The IUDC has been in existence for over 30 years and offers students an enormous array of courses and opportunities for contact with faculty and other students in their fields.

The IUDC is open to doctoral students from participating schools who have completed at least one year of full time study toward the Ph.D. Terminal masters students and doctoral students not enrolled in the participating schools/divisions are not eligible. Only courses offered and conducted during either the fall or spring term may be applied for.

Participating schools are: Columbia University, GSAS Princeton University - The Graduate School CUNY Graduate Center Rutgers University Fordham University, GSAS Stony Brook University Graduate Faculty, New School University Teachers College, Columbia University New York University, GSAS, Steinhardt

Registration Instructions for NYU Students

Complete the Inter-University Doctoral Consortium Registration Form

Fill out all areas of the form clearly and legibly for accurate registration and grade reporting. Be sure that you have provided your full address, including zip code, as well as a phone number and email address at which the host school can reach you in addition to all course information

Obtain signatures in the following order only (signatures will not be given out of order): NYU Department Chair, Director of Graduate Studies, or Advisor NYU IUDC Coordinator Host School Course Instructor Host School Dean / IUDC Coordinator

Register at both schools: At NYU-- If you are a GSAS student, register in Albert for one section of the GSAS consortium "dummy" course, GSAS-GA 2000, for each course you are taking through the IUDC in the term. Be sure to register for exactly the same number of points as the course is worth at the host school. If you are a Steinhardt student, please contact the Steinhardt Office of Doctoral Studies for permission first.  Steinhardt Registration Office will enroll you in Steinhardt's IUDC "dummy" course. Steinhardt students are also required to fill out and have signed an internal Steinhardt permission form to take courses through the IUDC. At Host School -- Give one copy of the form to the IUDC Coordinator at the host school after you have collected the other three signatures. It is your responsibility to find out about registration procedures specific to the host institution.

The completed registration form may be returned to the NYU IUDC Coordinator. If you choose not to do this, be sure to keep a copy for your records until your grade is posted at NYU. All registration at NYU must be completed within the first 3 weeks of classes for the term Tuition is calculated by and paid to NYU only.  If you are on a MacCracken fellowship, your tuition will be covered for your IUDC course. Additional charges may be assessed by host institutions for lab fees if applicable. If you need to drop your IUDC course, please be sure to drop both the consortium "dummy" course at NYU as well as the real course at the host school. Member schools send each other final grades approximately four weeks after the end of each semester. If you have completed your course and your grade has been posted at the host school by that time you need not do anything else to get your grade at NYU. If you have not completed your course or your grade has not been posted by the time of the grade exchange, then it is your responsibility to take actions that will get your grade to NYU. Once a grade has been posted at the host school, contact the host school IUDC Coordinator and request that a transcript be sent to the NYU IUDC Coordinator. The host school IUDC Coordinator will then have a new transcript sent to NYU at no cost to you. Host school rules on course completion apply, so if you do take an incomplete for a course, be sure you are familiar with those rules if you do not intend to complete the course right away.

Registration Instructions for Students Visiting NYU

Complete the Inter-University Doctoral Consortium Registration Form Fill out all areas of the form clearly and legibly for accurate registration and grade reporting. Be sure that you have provided your email address, including zip code, as well as a phone number and email address at which we can reach you in addition to all NYU course information. All courses with course number ending in --GA or --GE are eligible to be taken through the IUDC. Also eligible are Cinema Studies, CINE-GT, and Performance Studies, PERF-GT, courses. No other NYU courses will be offered for IUDC enrollment. NYU does not accept registrations for audit or "R-credit" status. Couses offered or conducted during January or Summer term are also not eligible regardless of course number. Obtain signatures in the following order only (signatures will not be given out of order): Home School Department Chair, Director of Graduate Studies, or Advisor Home School Dean/IUDC Coordinator NYU Course Instructor NYU IUDC Coordinator Send your form to the NYU IUDC Coordinator only after having obtained the first 3 signatures. NYU will accept an email from the course instructor which gives explicit permission to join the class in lieu of a physical signature. Instructor permission to join a class does not constitute guaranteed enrollment in the course. Visiting students may be denied enrollment or placed on a wait list if the course is closed. You will be contacted if there is a registration issue. NYU needs two to three days to process your registration and enrollment. You must email your form as a pdf file to the [email protected] email address. Once we have finished with the form, you will be notified by email. We attach important information to your form that we want to be sure you have seen. Due to FERPA regulations, we will only email your form to your home school email address. Information will be attached to your approved IUDC form concerning the obtaining an NYU ID card, which will in turn allow you to gain access to NYUHome and the NYUBrightspace system. All registration at NYU must be completed in the first three weeks of classes . If you need to drop your IUDC course, please contact the NYU IUDC Coordinator. If you want to drop after the first two weeks, you will receive a W grade for withdrawal. You may only drop your course through the first nine weeks of the semester. After that you will receive a final grade. We will send your grade to your home school approximately four weeks after the end of the term in which you took your course. If you have not received a grade at NYU by that time, please contact the NYU Registrar's office at [email protected] when you grade has been posted in our Albert system, and they will send your transcript to your home school. At NYU, all incompletes must be resolved by one year from the beginning of the term in which you took the course. If you need a further extension of your incomplete, please contact the NYU course instructor and the offering department for assistance. For further questions,  please contact the consortium office of either the home or host school as applicable.

Contact Information

COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY, GSAS Sophia Cheng, Assistant Director of Student Affairs [email protected] Office of Student Affairs 107 Low Memorial Library 535 West 116th St Phone: (212) 854-5972 New York, NY 10027 Columbia IUDC Website CUNY GRADUATE CENTER Matthew Schoengood, Vice President for Student Affairs Vincent J. DeLuca, Registrar [email protected] Office of Vice President for Student Affairs 365 Fifth Avenue, Room 7301 New York, NY 10016 Phone: (212) 817-7409 CUNY IUDC Website FORDHAM UNIVERSITY, GSAS Sarah Lehman, Assistant Dean, GSAS Academic Operations Carmela Menta, Senior Executive Assistant, GSAS Academic Operations [email protected] Graduate School of Arts & Sciences Keating Hall, Rm. 216 441 E. Fordham Rd. Bronx, NY 10458 Phone: (718) 817-4406 Fordham IUDC Website NEW SCHOOL FOR SOCIAL RESEARCH Ryan Gustafson, Assistant Dean of Academic and Student Affairs [email protected] 6 East 16th St, Room 1007 New York, NY 10003 Phone: (212) 229-5712 New School IUDC Website NEW YORK UNIVERSITY Li Cao, Assistant Director, Academic Affairs [email protected] New York University 6 Washington Square North, 2nd Floor New York, NY 10003 Phone: (212) 998-3716 NYU IUDC Website PRINCETON UNIVERSITY Jenny Smith, Academic Affairs Coordinator [email protected] Office of Academic Affairs The Graduate School 111 Clio Hall Princeton, NJ 08544 Phone: (609) 258-3168 Princeton IUDC Website RUTGERS UNIVERSITY, NEW BRUNSWICK Benjamin Arenger, Senior Program Administrator [email protected] Office of the Dean, School of Graduate Studies Rutgers, the State University of New Jersey 25 Bishop Place New Brunswick, NJ 08901-1181 Phone: (848) 932-6588 Rutgers IUDC Website STONY BROOK UNIVERSITY Melissa Jordan, Assistant Dean for Records and Admissions [email protected] Office of the Dean, The Graduate School Stony Brook University 2401 Computer Science Building Stony Brook, NY 11794-4433 Phone: (631) 632-9712 Stony Brook IUDC Website TEACHERS COLLEGE, COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY Christopher Nieves, Registrar [email protected] Office of the Registrar 525 West 120th Street New York, NY 10027 Phone: (212) 678-4055 Teachers College IUDC Website

MEAM Blog @ Penn Engineering

Tom Celenza Successfully Defends Doctoral Dissertation

Tom Celenza has successfully defended his doctoral dissertation, “Enhancing Photophoretic Levitation using Three-dimensional Structures for Flight in the Mesosphere and on Mars,” under the guidance of Igor Bargatin , Associate Professor in Mechanical Engineering and Applied Mechanics (MEAM). Celenza’s research opens new frontiers in atmospheric observation, focusing on environments that have long remained unexplored due to their unique challenges.

Celenza’s work centers on developing aircraft capable of operating in Earth’s mesosphere and the Martian atmosphere—regions too dense for satellites yet too thin for conventional aircraft. His novel approach harnesses photophoresis, the movement of gas molecules induced by light, to create ultralight vehicles designed for these challenging environments.

The core of Celenza’s dissertation involves designing ultrathin, ultralight objects with specialized microstructures that can achieve levitation using only light. By optimizing 3D hollow geometries, he demonstrated the potential for these photophoretic aircraft to carry significant payloads high into Earth’s atmosphere. His comprehensive research spans theoretical modeling, computer simulations, and practical experiments, including the fabrication of millimeter-scale prototypes and the development of scalable manufacturing methods.

Reflecting on his Ph.D. experience, Celenza shares, “My Ph.D. journey was difficult but in the most rewarding way. MEAM and Penn provided access to resources and technology I never thought I’d experience, from nanotechnology in the Singh Center to top-tier advising and teaching mentorship from professors, and of course, the valuable friendships with extremely intelligent colleagues.”

One of the most memorable aspects of Celenza’s time at Penn was achieving a NASA-funded fellowship. This opportunity allowed him to spend a summer in California, conducting research and presenting his work at multiple conferences. “I immersed myself in the world of space technology research, learned how NASA missions develop and deploy, and saw in-person where they build out some of their most massive projects,” Celenza recalls.

Celenza expresses deep gratitude, stating, “I would like to thank Igor Bargatin, for being such a spectacular advisor, my family for pushing me to this finish line, and more people than I can thank here from the Bargatin Group, past and present members, for endless mentorship and friendship.”

As Celenza concludes this chapter of his academic journey, he will be joining Exponent as a Thermal Sciences Associate.

• BE Headquarters
• Open Positions
• Staff Directory
• Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion
• Restricted Electives
• Concentrations
• Biomedical Engineering
• Toxicology and Environmental Health
• Career Resources
• Undergraduate Thesis
• PhD Course Requirements
• Advisor Selection
• Graduate FAQ
• Meet The Graduate Students
• How Do I Apply?
• Application Assistance Program
• Masters Degree
• Graduate Life
• Biomechanics
• Biomolecular Design
• Cancer Biology
• Chemicals and Materials
• Computational Systems Biology
• Climate, Environment, and Toxicology
• Immunoengineering
• Instrumentation and Measurement
• Microbiome Engineering and Infectious Disease
• Neurobiology
• Plant and Agriculture
• Synthetic Biology
• Tissue Engineering
• Research Centers
• Named Lectureships
• Wishnok Prize
• Student Leadership
• BioMaker Space
• Communication and Data Labs
• Faculty Only
• Thesis Committee
• PhD Oral Exam
• PhD Dissertation Requirements

Feng Zhang, PhD

Biological discovery & engineering.

The Zhang Lab explores and studies biological diversity to understand nature and discover systems and processes that may be harnessed through bioengineering for the improvement of human well-being.

Areas of Interest and Open Challenges:

Developing Programmable Therapeutics Can we accelerate the development of new therapeutics? We aim to create modular systems that interchangeably combine a therapeutic molecule, such as a gene editing construct, and a delivery vehicle. By focusing on creating compatible and extensible platforms for both intervention and delivery, we can rapidly generate a large number of therapeutics tailored for a wide range of contexts.

Restoring Cellular Homeostasis Can we modulate cell state without changing cell fate? Our goal is to identify approaches that we can use to tune cell state. These approaches will provide a new therapeutic avenue for treating conditions that don’t have a defined genetic cause, like injury, degenerative diseases, and even aging.

Discovering Natural Systems Can we uncover new biology by mining natural diversity? We are interested in advancing our understanding of molecular mechanisms, cellular functions, and even organismal biology through the discovery of natural systems. We use computational and experimental approaches to find and characterize new systems.

Areas I Research

Dr. Zhang is a molecular biologist focused on improving human health. He played an integral role in the development of two revolutionary technologies, optogenetics and CRISPR-Cas systems, including pioneering the use of Cas9 for genome editing and discovering CRISPR-Cas12 and Cas13 systems and developing them for therapeutic and diagnostic applications. Current research in the Zhang laboratory is centered on the discovery of novel biological systems and processes, uncovering their mechanisms, and developing them into molecular tools and therapies to study and treat human disease. Zhang is a core member of the Broad Institute, an Investigator at the McGovern Institute for Brain Research, the James and Patricia Poitras Professor of Neuroscience at MIT, and a Howard Hughes Medical Investigator. He is also a member of the National Academy of Sciences, the National Academy of Medicine, and the American Academy of Arts and Sciences as well as a fellow in the National Academy of Inventors.

‘White Fragility’ Author Accused of Plagiarizing Doctoral Thesis

Robin DiAngelo, the author of the 2018 best-seller White Fragility , is facing allegations that she plagiarized her 2004 doctoral thesis, including copying from minority scholars.

The Washington Free Beacon first reported the allegations , which were made in an anonymous complaint filed with the University of Washington . The school is where the dissertation was submitted, and DiAngelo is employed as an affiliate associate professor of education.

Though anonymous, the complaint matches similar complaints against other high-profile academics connected with diversity, equity and inclusion (DEI). This includes former Havard President Claudine Gay , the DEI head at Columbia University , and the head of a DEI program at the University of California, Los Angeles (UCLA) .

That said, the complaint against DiAngelo is unique for two reasons. This is the first time the campaign has targeted a white academic and one who is not a university official. That said, her work focuses on racial discourse, making her an obvious target. This is especially true as her book, White Fragility , is a best seller.

The other allegations in this campaign have been mixed. Though some have highlighted real issues, others have attempted to make mountains out of molehills.

So, which is this? To answer that, we need to examine the allegations and determine how serious they are.

Examining the Allegations

The 20-page complaint makes 20 separate allegations against DiAngelo. The allegations are not in page order and skip around the dissertation.

Most of the 20 allegations are either not examples of plagiarism or are, at best, very weak. For example, the first allegation deals with just 13 words. Though DiAngelo doesn’t cite the alleged source in that passage, she does elsewhere. Both sources describe a third paper and are likely pulling language from that.

Similarly, in the second allegation, DiAngelo does cite the alleged source. Though some text does overlap, it is only 14 words. While this is poor paraphrasing, it doesn’t sustain the argument that DiAngelo is trying to steal the work of other academics.

To be clear, these aren’t good. In an ideal world, you would not have passages like these. But they are not the greatest of academic sins either.

That’s not to say that there aren’t any problematic allegations. The twelfth one is probably the most troubling for me. It features a roughly 200-word passage clearly copied and pasted from an earlier source. DiAngelo does cite the source, but the citation is above the section in question, and there’s no indication that she is quoting the passage.

All in all, if someone handed me this document, I would recommend corrections and updates. However, given that many of the allegations are dubious and, even in total, only cover a small percentage of the dissertation, stronger action seems unwarranted.

The Wrinkle in the Story

At this point, the story follows the format of others we’ve seen. Though it highlights some legitimate issues, the complaint exaggerates the severity of the plagiarism, and the reporting around it has left off much of the nuance.

However, DiAngelo is unlike the other academics the campaign has targeted. She is a public figure, first and foremost. Her accountability statement says she will seek to “Always cite and give credit to the work of BIPOC people who have informed your thinking. When you use a phrase or idea you got from a BIPOC person, credit them.”

That did not happen here, at least not entirely.

While I don’t believe the evidence points to a malicious intent to steal others’ work, there was a lack of care and due diligence in places. In this case, I would argue that she did not live up to her accountability statement.

To be clear, I understand this pressure. As the author of a site named Plagiarism Today, I work hard to ensure my citations are as clean as possible. Often, I deliberately overcite out of an abundance of caution. However, I’m sure I’ve made mistakes over the past 18 years. But I acknowledge that my field and my presentation make those mistakes more problematic.

Still, it’s important to put this complaint into perspective. This complaint is not a good-faith attempt to improve academic or research integrity. It’s a targeted attack on a political or ideological opponent. But even if we take the whole complaint as truth, it represents approximately 2,000 words in a 72,000-word thesis. That equals roughly 3% of the completed dissertation.

While I agree that some corrective action is needed, that’s not what the complaint filers want. There’s no room for nuance or discussion when the goal is to discredit an ideology rather than address the actual issues in the work.

Bottom Line

In the past, I’ve criticized this particular campaign on two grounds. First, as I said above, it’s a bad-faith effort to discredit political opponents, not an attempt to improve academic integrity. Here, plagiarism is simply a tool for political gain, not an issue to be addressed.

Second, the complaints have routinely tried to exaggerate the amount of plagiarism. In my reading of the complaint, 5-7 allegations warranted some response. However, 20 allegations look more impressive, even if most don’t hold up. It’s easier to get headlines with bigger numbers.

During the height of the original scandals, I talked about the weaponization of plagiarism and how it is used to target political and ideological opponents. As someone whose focus is plagiarism, that is deeply worrying to me.

Plagiarism, citation and attribution are important issues in and of themselves. However, discussing plagiarism requires a degree of nuance and care that isn’t possible when wielding it as a weapon.

That, in turn, is how weaponizing plagiarism cheapens it. It becomes a tool to be used rather than a problem to be solved.

That is very true in this case. Dubious claims have buried genuine issues, and a rush to condemn has replaced a nuanced conversation. This story should worry you regardless of how you feel about DiAngelo and her work.

Robin DiAngelo Headshot: JasonPToews , CC BY-SA 4.0 , via Wikimedia Commons

Want to Reuse or Republish this Content?

If you want to feature this article in your site, classroom or elsewhere, just let us know! We usually grant permission within 24 hours.

Click Here to Get Permission for Free