Professional Ethics in Research Are Stud

SRJIS/BIMONTHLY/DR. BHARTI &MS.
RICHA (1620-1644)
PROFESSIONAL ETHICS IN RESEARCH: ARE STUDENTS AND

TEACHERS ON THE SAME PAGE?
Bharti1, Ph.D. & Ms. Richa2

1
Assistant Professor, DEGSN, N.C.E.R.T,
2
Assistant Professor, Aditi Mahavidyalaya, University of Delhi
Abstract
Ethics is not a fixed attribute or some text to be learnt formally. It evolves during the journey of life.
There is a moral responsibility of every learner in the knowledge world to be honest towards oneself
and the society. Ethics originated from Greek “ethos” meaning the science of morals and may be
defined as moral principles that govern a person’s behaviour or the conduct of an activity. Ethics are
predominantly subjective. Each person may have their own set of moral principles and which may or
may not agree with the available (if any) ethical code of conduct with respect to an activity. This ethical
code of conduct is widely known as professional code of conduct in the professional word. If teaching is
widely considered as a profession than do we have a code of professional ethics for teachers? In what
way, teachers and students understand the concept of professional ethics? Is there any defined code of
professional ethics in research? How (should) this code vary for students with special needs? The
present paper attempts to study and answer few of these questions via seeking opinions of research
students and teachers acting as research guide. The paper also attempts to contrast the perception of
teachers and students about ethical practise related to research. The sample of 20 teachers and 58
students for this study would be drawn from the universities functioning in Delhi and NCR. The finding
indicate that the students and teachers were more or less on the same page as far as ethical and
unethical research practices were concerned and the difference in opinion exists due to their positioning
as teacher and student on different side of the research table. The intra-group and inter-group
differences in opinion were observed with regard to ignoring the grammatical/language errors for the
sake of timely submissions, and supporting the students’ with disability and those coming from
disadvantaged sections of the society. Compared to inclusion of persons coming from scheduled tribe or
scheduled castes and other marginalized and disadvantaged sections of the society.
Keywords: ethics, professional ethics, research ethics, ethics in research work, ethical
practices, unethical practices
Scholarly Research Journal's is licensed Based on a work at www.srjis.com
INTRODUCTION
“Always do right. This will gratify some people and astonish the rest.”
(Mark Twain)
JAN-FEB 2016, VOL-3/22 www.srjis.com Page 1620

SRJIS/BIMONTHLY/DR. BHARTI &MS. RICHA (1620-1644)
Education is an endeavour that is intrinsically ethical in nature wherein both teacher

and research student abide by a moral responsibility to be honest towards one-self and
society in their inquisitive pursuit in the knowledge world. However in their pursuit,
they may sometimes face the moral dilemmas that may arise at different stages of their
research work; from the designing of research activity to the methodological decisions
or during data analysis, or while writing the research paper. All these professional
activity require specialized skills and training. These ethical dilemmas or choices that
occur during a professional activity are brought about by factors that are largely
beyond the individual‟s control and yet must be addressed by the individual(s)
themselves. Ethics is not a fixed attribute or some text to be learnt formally. It evolves
during the journey of one‟s life. Every individual interprets, applies and prioritizes
these ethical norms in different ways with their own value judgement and life
experiences. The same applies to resolving moral dilemmas in research work. These
ethical norms are so ubiquitous that one might see them as a simple and logical
common sense practice of life. In contrast, if value judgements are nothing but ones
simple logical common sense, then why do so many ethical disagreements and issues
arise when we indulge in any debate or discussions concerning ethics? The same is
visible in research as well and at times, it does influence the quality of research and
inferences of the study. Dewey (1927) explained: “Inquiry, indeed, is a work which
devolves upon experts. But their expertness is not shown in framing and executing
policies but in discovering and making known the facts upon which the former
depend…It is not necessary that the many should have the knowledge and skill to carry
on the needed investigations; what is required is that they have the ability to judge the
bearing of the knowledge supplied by others upon common concerns” (pp.208-9). The
only concern of Dewey here is on locating the pertinent expert in a research work who
is competent to question the argument in knowledge generation with openness and
diligence. As the attention is focussed on the area of ethical choices, the only
characteristic which directly or indirectly affects the quality of research is the
interpretation of ethical choices by the researcher. Becker (1973) writes: one evaluates
ethical and moral judgements on the basis of excellence of the reasoning and the
evidences which supports and underlines the judgement or decision. Therefore, any

consideration of ethics in research and teaching learning profession, calls for a

distinction to be made between permissible or lawful and ethical matters, as laid down
in the university or institutional norms. However, ethical considerations in profession
are not based entirely on external compulsion or external supervision but are based on
an internalized concept of the moral obligations associated to work. Ethics are
predominantly subjective and largely depend on the individual‟s perspective and
choice. An individual may have their own set of moral principles and that may or may
not agree with the existing (if any) ethical code of conduct with respect to an activity.
Toulmin (1968) in analysing moral reasoning writes: “ethics is everybody‟s concern.
Scientific problems and scientific theories may from time to time intrigue or arrest all
of us, but they are of immediate, practical importance only to a few. Everyone, on the
other hand, faced with moral problems - problems about which, after more or less
reflection, a decision must be reached. So everybody talks about values” (pp.1).
Professional ethics is an on-going judgement and is often based on the interpretation of
experiences of moral dilemmas. A teacher and a research student indulge in a pursuit
of knowledge with certain implicit and explicit understanding and thus, work as a team
for the delivery of new knowledge based on research following appropriate standards
within an allotted time frame. During this process they develop a relationship with an
objective of managing and sustaining progress in accordance with the agreed research
plan, and ensuring that the research writing/thesis complies with all relevant
regulations. This certainly requires a student to maintain a regular contact with the
supervisory team at the institutional level and vice versa. Also, the process involves
taking an initiative by the student in agreeing with the supervisory team for mutual
acceptability of content, data and methodology. But the choices may differ in taking
these initiatives and dilemmas occur while implementing the mutually agreed research
plan. The perception and judgement often differ in making choices or taking decisions.
The perception of teacher and student may differ depending on the situation and their
level of intellect. One phenomenon may appear unfair or unethical to the student but
the same may be completely ethical to the supervisor or the teacher as he/she is on the
other side of the table. However, the moment they are engaged together they generally
work on some mutual consensus. The present paper attempts to understand the ethical

and unethical practices which a researcher indulges in, either intentionally or

unintentionally. Is there any theoretical basis which assists in decision making
regarding a practice being ethical or unethical? An attempt has been made to assess the
awareness about existence of any defined code of ethics in research. Also, the students
and teacher‟s perceptions has been compared regarding ethical and unethical practices
in research.
Theoretical Framework
This section is an endeavour to understand ethics from a variety of related work done
in the past. Ethics originated from Greek word “ethos” meaning the science of morals
and may be defined as moral principles that govern an individual‟s behaviour or the
conduct of an activity. The Oxford English Dictionary defines ethics as “a set of moral
principles”. According to Encyclopaedia of Philosophy (1967, pp.83), the term „ethics‟
is defined in three different ways, signifying (1) a general pattern or “way” of life, (2)
a set of rules of conduct or “moral” code, and (3) inquiry about ways of life and rules
of conduct. The central question of ethics revolves around: what defines „good‟ or
„bad‟? Through decades, the pertinent questions in the philosophical discussions on
ethical or moral judgements were: what are the correct ways for judging things to be
good or bad? or what should be the basis of any ethical judgement? These are
important existential questions that have been proposed, defended and critiqued
historically by many philosophers, educationist and researchers. Ethical philosophy
began in the fifth century B.C., with the appearance of Socrates, a secular prophet
whose self-appointed mission was to awaken his fellow men to the need for rational
criticism of their beliefs and practices (Encyclopaedia of Philosophy, 1967, pp.82).
Following him, Aristotle (1962) defined the development of excellence and suggested
that to become expert in any work involves becoming virtuous and practicing essential
behaviours sincerely. He stated: "We become just by the practice of just actions, self-
controlled by exercising self-control, and courageous by performing acts of courage.
Hence, it is no small matter whether one habit or another is inculcated in us from early
childhood; on the contrary, it makes...all the difference" (1962, pp. 34-35).
Accordingly, virtue is the ability to act right but it is neither an atypical ethical trait
which only a few attain nor a characteristic of only certain kind of behaviour. It is an

aspect or factor in every ethical situation. Behm (1953) writes: “a virtue is not merely a
momentary or accidental ability, but a character trait…as a righteous character or as a
good man and ethics…is a science of character building or of virtue” (pp.333).
Collection of virtuous behaviours concerning a task or activity or profession
predominantly agreed upon by large number of individuals/experts may be termed as
an ethical code. This code might be sought by others to seek help when in doubt or in
dilemma. Hence, this ethical code becomes the guiding rule for professional code of
conduct in the skill and specialized world. The ethical theories are grouped together
into 2 broad categories (Strike and Soltis, 1992), Consequentialist ethical theories and
Non-consequential ethical theories(—the authors limited the discussions to these two
categories of ethical thoughts only). Consequentialist ethical theories focused on the
results of our actions rather than look at the actions in a context free manner. The best
known example of this is utilitarianism, which advocates that one should seek those
policies and actions that will result in the goodness of maximum number of
individuals. The theory argues for a moral reasoning, like any other model of reasoning
with a purpose of morality in action. Non-consequential ethical theories presupposes
some sort of universal moral or ethical principal that should guide all behaviour
regardless of the consequences of a particular action in a single context. For instance,
if lying is considered as bad, then it must be bad or wrong in all the possible contexts
and situations. Freire, a Brazilian educationist, writes (1998): “we are first and
foremost in the business of creating persons. It is our first duty to respect the dignity
and value of our students and help them to achieve their status as free, rational, and
feeling moral agents”. Therefore, the role of teachers as facilitators becomes important
for developing educational ethics which help the future generation in making ethical
decisions in the teaching learning process, it is the need to recognize that it is not the
matter of personal opinion and preference; they are rather decisions which are publicly
defended and supported. A teacher merely helps the research students in developing
positive educational values through making sense in general context of reflective
practice. Lickona (1997) emphasized at the accountability of the teachers and students
to create a positive learning environment emphasising on the virtue and values of
learning. Lickona further asserted that ethical reflections should not be reserved for the

teacher but should be taught to the students also as they bring meaning to educational
process through a reciprocal or shared participation in teaching and learning process.
Lickona writes: “this strategy focuses on developing several qualities that make up the
cognitive side of the character, being morally alert, knowing the virtues and what they
require of us in concrete situation, taking the perspective of others, reasoning morally,
making thoughtful moral decisions, and having moral self-knowledge, building the
capacity for self-criticism”. These assertions demand objectivity and a defined work
ethics for teachers as well as for students. It is also expected that to be an ethical
practitioner, teachers should maintain a certain level of confidentiality with respect to
student performance, classroom behaviour and comments, and personal
communications. Murray et al. (1996, p.3) stated that students are entitled to the same
level of confidentiality in their relationships with teachers as would exist in the lawyer-
client or doctor -patient relationship”. Therefore, any teacher who violates this right
not only loses respect in the eyes of students but also comes under ethical question
mark. In ethical scrutiny even sharing of information with third person should occur
when it is absolutely necessary to assist a student involving a colleague in helping that
student succeed. Ensuring a level of trust and confidence in a teacher-student relation
is the most important component for successive engagement in pursuit of knowledge.
In contrast, Aultman (2009) attempted to study teacher‟s perception, through
interview, with the aim to know the kind of ethical issues they deal, in their
professional experiences. The findings highlights the nature of boundaries that exists in
the institutional setup and the rules and regulations with which the teacher needs to
become familiar in order to prevent themselves or their students from being harmed in
any way. In the same light, Sethy (2015) argues on the assertion of “engineering
ethics” courses in the engineering curriculum that may help in resolving some of the
ethical problems associated with technological designs and engineering profession in
general i.e. problems like public safety and welfare, risk and informed consent,
conflicts of interest, conflicts of commitment and trade secrets etc.
The discussion above about the pre-requisite of ethical learning environment and
engineering ethics leads us to not only raise questions but also to make an attempt in
finding the answers and unravelling the unspoken realities of research in university

programs and to also understand the truth related to existence of a code of professional
ethics operational over the process of transaction between a student and teacher.
Issues, Controversies and Problems
Research is a professional activity requiring diligent efforts from all the stakeholders.
Being a professional activity, it needs to be governed by a set of norms and principles
called code of ethics. Research often is a long time activity leading to building a
relationship between the researcher, supervisor and others involved. Like any
relationship this work relationship also has its dynamics. The glimpses of this
dynamics can be had while moving around the corridors of universities and
institutions. A simple and seemingly harmless statement by a student “My
professor/teacher is unhappy with me?” reveals a lot about the dialectical situation,
between the researcher and his/her teacher. The answer to this might be varied and will
be dependent on the eyes from which it is viewed i.e. the teachers or the students or
some third person. Professional development encompasses all types of facilitated
learning opportunities including credentials such as an academic degree to formal
coursework, classroom interaction, participation in conferences and informal learning
opportunities situated in practice, where both teacher and students participate with a
degree of professional ethics. In the process of teaching learning, a teacher‟s
mentoring, promotes student‟s awareness and refinement of his or her own
professional development by providing and recommending structured opportunities for
reflection and observation on issues. It also promotes reflective supervision which
support, develop, and ultimately evaluate the performance of students through a
process of inquiry that encourages their understanding and articulation of the rationale
for their own practices. Teachers are considered to be major foci of educational system
in society and teaching is regarded as a profession in its own right which lays stress on
attaining scientific outlook and commitment to the ideals of constitution where one
works on the demands of set principles of ethics. These set principles of ethics
constitute a code of „quality parameter‟ for a profession and those who are engaged in
its practice. They also provide a guiding flashlight for the teaching learning profession
and the associated research work which are organised in the university or any

institution. Likewise, a student is expected to be consistent in organizing themselves

with integrity and commitment towards their work.
Research Questions
What are professional ethics? Is there any existing a code of professional ethics in
research? Can professional ethics in research be universal and objective? Can ethics
affect the quality of research work? What would be the effect of professional ethics on
student teacher relationship? What practices are considered ethical by students? Does
the opinion of research supervisors/teachers differ from students about ethical practices
in research?
Objectives of the Study
1. To study the perception of teachers and students about ethical practices in
research.
2. To study the perception of teachers and students about unethical practices
in research.
3. To compare the perception of teachers and students about ethical and
unethical practices in research.
RESEARCH DESIGN
The data was collected from 58 students who are either currently engaged in research
work or has finished a degree involving writing of dissertation or research based
project. Total 17 teachers acting as research supervisor in different universities were
given a questionnaire for their views on the ethical and unethical practices in research.
In addition three teachers, who are extensively involved in examining/evaluating the
research thesis, were also interviewed to assess the practices related with research
evaluation. The data was collected using researcher made survey and interview
schedule.
DATA ANALYSIS AND INTERPRETATIONS
This section is divided into two parts. The first section presents the responses of
students and teachers on an open ended question for collecting their experiences and
perception on professional ethics while, the second section, describe and interprets the
perception of students and teachers on objective items using preference scale. The item
wise data analysis and interpretation is presented below:

Section 1: This section presents the content analysis of the responses of teachers and
students on open end questions to know the perception of teachers and students on
professional and ethical practices in research and their conceptions and awareness of
professional and code of ethics in research.
Item 1: Define the term ‘professional’ in your own words?

S. Responses Frequency Frequency
No. students Teachers
1 Conformity to certain norms of certain society 15 26 % 5 30%
groups/organization/ Abides by recognize protocol
of his/her field
2 Commitment to roles, responsibilities duties etc. of 10 17% 5 30%
occupation
3 Sincerity and honesty in professional targets 7 12% 2 12%
4 Competent in content and accountable with duty 5 9% 1
5 Specific skill and knowledge (training) 13 22% 6 35%
6 Being ethical and unique 2 2 12%
7 Conformation to international best practices 1
8 Doing the work systematically and honestly without 5 9% 1
being emotional
9 Being accountable 1 1
10 Job for living 1 1
11 Problem handling 1 0
12 Genuine, ever learning, ego less 1 0
13 Ability to conduct independent research 1 0
14 No answer 0 1
Table 1: Defining the term “Professional”
As reflected in the Table 1, 26% of students and 30% of teachers expressed that the
word „professional‟ is related to conformity to certain norms of society/
groups/organization and also abiding by recognized protocol of his/her field. The
opinion of teacher and students were found to be similar as far as defining of the term
professional is concerned. Likewise, 17% of students and 30% of teachers has
expressed that the word professional means commitment to roles, responsibilities
duties etc. of occupation. Another major opinion favoured by students (22%) was
specific skills and knowledge (training) needed for the profession whereas 33%
teachers expressed opted opinion.
Item 2: Are you aware of any existing formal code of professional ethics in
research?

S. No. Responses Frequency Frequency

students teachers
1 No 34 35% 8 47%
2 Yes 12 21% 8 47%
3 Not sure 12 20.6% 1
Table 2: Awareness about Professional Code of Ethics for Research
The data revealed that 35 % of students and 47 % of teachers are not aware of any
existing professional code of ethics in research. Further probing revealed that most of
the students were referring to writing style format suggested by American
Psychological Association (APA) or mentioned that research ethics has been
informally discussed in classes on research methodology and few connected research
ethics with plagiarism check by University. On the contrary, 47% of teachers
mentioned the professional code of ethics suggested by NCERT, NCTE, UGC and
university guidelines for research or other degree program.
On the basis of the response analysis, it can be inferred that neither the students nor the
teachers were aware of any existing professional code of ethics for researchers.
Professional code/guidelines suggested by organizations for smooth and ethical
functioning of the system were found to be linked with the ethical code for research by
the participants. In reality, there may not be any connection between the professional
code and the code of ethics (if any) for research.
Item 3. In your opinion violation of professional code of ethics should be or
should not be a punishable offense? Please justify.
S. No Responses Frequency Frequency
students teachers
1 Punishable 40 67% 16 94%
2 Not punishable 2 3.4% 0
3 Not sure 16 27.5% 1
Table 3: Violation of Code of Ethics
The analysis of the data revealed in Table 3 above, shows that 67% of students and
94% of teachers believed that the violation of professional code of ethics should be a
punishable offence. Merely, 3.4 % of students feels that it shouldn‟t be a punishable
offence however 27.5% of student said that they not sure. The various reasons given
by the teachers in favour of their arguments were: to maintain the quality and standard
of research work (18%), for sustaining the principles and values of healthy work
culture (17.5%) and proper utilization of public funding (23.5%). However, some of

the teachers and students has also emphasised on the evaluating the degree of
violation. The students and teachers were found to have a consensus on this issue.
Item 4: Examples of fair/ethical research practices which researchers often
indulge in:
S. Responses Frequency Frequency
No students teachers
1 Seeking informed consent of participants 15 26% 1
2 Authentic data collection 22 38% 6 35%
3 Presenting the true data/findings/trends 10 17% 3 17%
4 No falsification of experiment design, data, 14 24% 6 35%
result or argument
5 Not disclosing the identity of the participants 10 17% 2
6 Proper citation of other research work 19 33% 9 53%
7 Regular meeting for relevant discussion and 3 5% 4
feedback
8 Delimitations clearly defined 3 5% 0
9 Sharing findings with participants 3 5% 2
10 Exposure to similar studies 2 3.4% 0
11 Prefer primary data over secondary 1 0
12 Seeking proper permissions from authorities 3 5% 0
13 Research leading to positive impact on society 2 3.4% 0
14 Acknowledging the supervisor and others 3 5% 2
15 Proper Case study 1 0
16 Theoretical grounding of the study 4 6.8% 4
17 Sincerity and justification 2 3.4% 0
18 No involvement in other work like 1 0
administrative etc. of Institution
19 Co-authorship 1 0
20 Experimental research 1 0
21 Keeping the safety concern 1 0
22 Maintain quality of research 1 0
23 Originality of work 4 6.8% 5
24 Impartial to all students 0 2
25 Review and related studies of previous 0 3
researches or work done
26 Discussion with other experts/creating culture of 0 1
collaboration and discussion
27 Hard work 0 3
28 NA 16 28% 2
Table 4: Ethical Practices in Research
As indicated in the table, 33% of students and 53% of teachers expressed that a good
research paper should have proper citation of related researches done in the past.
Likewise, 38% of students and 35% of teachers expressed that a good ethical practice
is authentic data collection from the field. Similarly, 24% of students and 35% of
teachers said no falsification of experimental design, data, result and argument should
be done. Both teachers and students believe that a good research should be based on

true data, present the real finding and trends, an original piece of work, proper reading
of related literature and case study following a very well grounded in theory and
should be carried out with sincerity and the quality of research should be maintained.
A divided opinion was seen in the responses of teachers and students. The difference in
opinion was found to exist regarding the issue of seeking informed consent of the
participants and revealing identity/confidentiality of the participants. Same situation
was also found regarding exchange of dialogue and discussion with other experts
beside the university appointed teachers and academia with an assertion of creating a
culture of collaboration.
Item 5: Examples of unfair/unethical research practices which researchers often
indulge in:
S. No Responses Frequency Frequency

Students Teachers
1 Data collection lapses 44 76% 5 30%
2 Falsifying the data analysis, findings and 16 28% 4 23%
presentation
3 Plagiarism 28 48% 10 59%
4 Sharing data/information collected 5 8% 2
without consent
5 Improper/falsify referencing 17 29% 9 47%
6 Lack of clarity in research work 4 3
7 Lack of Integrity due of clarity of 6 1
concerned area/topic
8 Disclosing the identity without consent 3 2
9 Direct or indirect involvement of senior 1 0
research students asked to provide
feedback
10 Favouritism and not accepting the 1 0
responses of the scholar involved in
research as if they know nothing
11 Controlling extraneous variables 1 0
12 Extending beyond the stipulated time 2 1
13 Research for the sake of degree 2 0
14 Involving animals in research 1 0
15 Use and misuse of power and position 3 5% 0
16 Commercializing the findings 1 0
17 Presenting findings in more than 1 0
one/platform/ seminar
18 Paying money for thesis writing 1 0
19 Generalization from limited data 0 1
20 Copying from internet 0 2
21 Manipulations as per funding agencies 0 1
outlook
22 Unethical behaviour with colleagues in 0 2
the race of intelligence
23 Illegal practices related to writing and 0 2

data collection
24 Lack of updated knowledge by supervisor 0 1
25 Accepting gifts /personal favours 0 2
26 Non-innovative research 0 1
27 NA 8 3
Table 5: Unethical Practices in Research
As shown in the Table 5, majority of the students (76%, 48%) and teachers (30%,
59%) mentioned data collection lapses and plagiarism respectively as major concerns
in research practices. This was followed by issue in research writing and falsifying
(cooked data) of the data analysis, findings, and presentation in research as reported by
28% of students and 23% of teachers. Other unfair practices pointed out by students
and teachers in research world were: lack of clarity in research work leading towards
lack of integrity in research, research for the sake of taking degree merely, paying
money for thesis writing, manipulation of data collected from the field or making
judgement on your observations without going in field or using third person for data
collection, generalisation on the basis of limited data, manipulating data for satisfying
the funding agency, involving other research student to provide feedback, accepting
personal favours and timely gifts etc.
SECTION 2: Objective Item Analysis
This section is related to the data analysis and inference drawn from the 26 objective
items of the questionnaire. For the sake of convenience the items are grouped into 3
parts
Issues related to students and teachers interaction
Practices related to research and academics
Issues related to inclusive education
2.1 Issues Related to Student- Teacher Interaction
Every student teacher relationship is unique. The teachers have the expertise in the
field of research and experience in conducting and organising a research activity. The
students on the other hand, are expected to learn from and be supported by their
respective supervisors in the pursuit of knowledge. Yet both may be assumed to be co-
seekers embarking upon the journey of research. Equilibrium needs to be established
between supervision and organisation of quality research. This section attempts to
cover the dynamics of student-teacher interactions by focusing on interaction time,

frequency of meeting, subject matter discussion and other issues hinting at degree of
personal relations in the course of intellectual exchange.
S. Statements/items Favourable Unfavourable Indifferent No Answer
No.
Students Teachers Students Teachers Students Teachers Students Teachers
Response Response Response Response Response Response Response Response
1 Asking the 17 (29.3%) 3 (17.6%) 28 8 12 6 1 0
researcher to sit for (48.2%) (47%) (20.6%) (10.3%) (1.7%)
hours daily with the
supervisor to orient
him/her on subject
2 Asking the scholar 41 11 10 4 7 2 0 0
to seek proper (70.6%) (64.7%) (17.2%) (23.5%) (12%) (11.7%)
appointment before
meeting
3 Meeting the scholar 10 1 42 14 6 3 0 0
regularly without (17.2%) (5.8%) (72.4%) (82.3%) (10.3%) (17.6%)
any discussion on
the subject
4 Helping the scholar 55 13 0 0 2 4 1 0
in locating relevant (94.8%) (76.4%) (3.4%) (23.5%) (1.7%)
readings
5 Helping the student 33 9 5 2 18 6 2 0
financially as and (56.8%) (52.9%) (8.6%) (11.7%) (31%) (35.2%) (3.4%)
when needed
6 Occasionally asking 21 8 15 7 20 2 2 0
scholar to take (36.2%) (47%) (25.8%) (41%) (34.4%) (11.7%) (3.4%)
classes assigned by
supervisor
7 Involving scholar in 26 8 20 4 10 5 2 0
organizing activities (44.8%) (47%) (34.4%) (23.5%) (17.2%) (29.4%) (3.4%)
like seminar, tours,
trip, debates etc.
which are officially
meant to be done by
the supervisor
8 Setting a norm of 1 1 52 15 5 1 0 0
bringing gifts (food (1.7%) (5.8%) (89.6%) (88.2%) (8.6%) (5.8%)
items, flowers pens
etc.) for supervisor
in every meeting
9 Helping scholar 1 1 51 15 4 1 2 0
financially by (1.7%) (5.8%) (87.9%) (88.2%) (6.8%) (5.8%) (3.4%)
signing fake bills
and invoices etc.
10 Involving the 5 4 38 7 14 5 1 1
research scholars in (8.6%) (23.5%) (65.5%) (41%) (24%) (28.4%) (1.7%) (5.8%)
paid assignments of
the supervisor
without sharing the
payment with the
scholar, assuming
that paying the
scholar is unethical

11 Requesting the Good Occasionally Not at all No answer

scholar to help
supervisor in Students Teachers Students Teachers Students Teachers Students Teachers
domestic Response Response Response Response Response Response Response Response
assignment like:
a. Caring for pets 1 0 5 1 52 15 0 1
(1.7%) (8.6%) (5.8%) (89.6%) (88.2%) (5.8%)
b. paying 1 0 6 2 51 12 0 3
monthly bills (1.7%) (10.3%) (11.7%) (87.9%) (70.5%) (17.6%)
c. helping in 1 1 6 2 51 12 0 2
shopping (1.7%) (5.8%) (10.3%) (11.7%) (87.9%) (70.5%) (11.7%)
d. helping 1 2 7 2 50 12 0 1
children in (1.7%) (11.7%) (12%) (11.7%) (86.2%) (70.5%) (5.8%)
home work
e. any other 0 0 0 0 0 0 50 (86.2%) 16
(94%)
Table 6: Issues related to Student -Teacher Interaction
Table 6 presents the opinion of both the students (S) and teachers (T) regarding various
issues concerning interaction between them. Data analysis indicates that both the
students and teachers share similar thoughts on more than one issue say for example;
asking the researcher to sit for hours daily with the supervisor to orient him/her on
subject was considered as unfavourable by 48.2% students and 47% teachers,
involving scholar in organizing activities like seminar, tours, trip, debates etc. which
are officially meant to be done by the supervisor was considered favourable by 44.8%
students and 47% teachers, Setting a norm of bringing gifts (food items, flowers pens
etc.) for supervisor in every meeting and Helping scholar financially by signing fake
bills and invoices etc. was considered as unfavourable by 89.6% students and 88.2%
teachers. Almost similar percentage of students (24%) and teachers (28.4%) chose to
remain indifferent regarding involvement of the research scholars in paid assignments
of the supervisor without sharing the payment with the scholar, assuming that paying
the scholar is unethical.
Majority of the participating students (89.6%) and teachers (8.2%) viewed caring for
pets as not at all correct whereas similar number of students(10.3%, 10.3%, 12%) and
teachers(11.7%, 11.7%, 11.7%) expressed that occasionally it is ok to pay monthly
bills, help in shopping and helping children in homework respectively. As far as

responding to “any other” form of interaction between the teacher and student in
domestic assignments was concerned 95% of the teachers chose not to answer whereas
86.2% students pinpointed tasks like making tea/coffee regularly, sexual assault case
similar to St. Stephan‟s College, asking/expecting expensive gifts, no feedback on
chapters in time, critical comments on last day just before submission, unnecessarily
delays, asking junior scholar to seek help from senior for completing the work, not
recognizing or appreciating the students work in classroom etc.
Involving the research scholars in paid assignments of the supervisor without sharing
the payment with the scholar, assuming that paying the scholar is unethical was
considered to be unfavourable by 65.5% students and 41% teachers, indicating striking
difference in their opinions.
2.2 Practices Related to Research and Academics
The research students should be responsible and in control of their own research and
should indulge in appropriate training to enhance their skills as per the suggestions and
feedback received from the teacher. They should constantly reflect upon and respond
to the feedback and guidance provided by their respective teacher with regard to
designing the draft of the thesis and strategies to meet the proposed time line. The
section below illustrates the perception of students and teachers on different situations
which demand diligence and thoughtfulness from both sides. The finding reveals:

No
. Students Teachers Students Teachers Students Teachers Students Teac
Response Response Response Respons Respons Respons Respons hers
e e e e Resp
onse
1 Providing freedom to the 44 13 4 (6.8%) 1 (5.8%) 9 3 1 (1.7%) 0
researcher to work (75.8%) (76.4%) (15.5%) (17.6%)
independently without
influencing his/her research
2 Asking the scholar to read 30 4 (23.5%) 14 (24%) 5 13 8 1 (1.7%) 0
supervisor‟s (51.7%) (29.5%) (22.4%) (47%)
articles/writings as a
reference material before
initiating the research work
3 Encouraging the scholar to 41 7 (41.1%) 5 (8.6%) 3 10 7 2 (3.4%) 0
accompany the supervisor (70.6%) (17.6%) (17.2%) (41.1%)
during the
seminar/conferences/works
hop etc.
4 Facilitating the scholar‟s 53 15 1 (1.7%) 2 3 0 1 (1.7%) 0

professional development (91.3%) (88.2%) (11.7%) (5%)

by encouraging
presentations in workshops,
seminar and conferences
with supervisor
5 Facilitating the academic 50 13 3 2 4 (6.8%) 2 1 (1.7%) 0
skills of scholar by asking (86.2%) (76.4%) (5%) (11.7%) (11.7%)
him/her to write and publish
joint research papers
6 Facilitating the professional 43 (74%) 13 1 (1.7%) 2 13 2 1 (1.7%) 0
development of the scholar, (76.4%) (11.7%) (22.4%) (11.7%)
giving paid assignments
like project
work/writing/translation etc.
7 Hand-holding the student in 15 7 (41.1%) 21 6 10 4 2 (3.4%) 0
research writing (25.8%) (36.2%) (35.2%) (17.2%) (23.5%)
8 Expecting the scholar to 7 (12%) 3 (17.6%) 25 (43%) 4 25 (43%) 10 1 (1.7%) 0
quote/cite the researches (23.5%) (58.8%)
done by the supervisor
9 Irrespective of relevance 6 (10.3%) 0 39 10 12 6 1 (1.7%) 1
keeping the focus on (67.2%) (58.8%) (20.6%) (35.2%) (5.8%
citing/quoting big names in )
research
10 Every word used in research 35 10 10 3 12 4 1 (1.7%) 0
writing should be properly (60.3%) (58.8%) (17.2%) (17.6%) (20.6%) (23.5%)
approved
11 Before submitting the
research work, asking the
scholar to
a. Get the language edited 50 13 5 (8.6%) 2 2 (3.4%) 2 1 (1.7%) 0
(86.2%) (76.4%) (11.7%) (11.7%)
b. Take someone else‟s 42 10 7 (12%) 1 (5.8%) 8 4 1 (1.7%) 2
critical perspective on (72.4%) (58.8%) (13.7%) (23.5%) (11.7
data %)
12 Allotting senior research 34 10 8 (13.7%) 4 15 3 1 (1.7%) 0
scholar (Ph.D/M.Phil) to (58.6%) (58.8%) (23.5%) (25.8%) (17.6%)
assist junior research
scholar (post graduate)
13 For timely submission 13 1 (5.8%) 37 15 7 (12%) 1 (5.8%) 1 (1.7%) 0
ignoring mistakes like (22.4%) (63.7%) (88.2%)
a. Grammatical/language
errors
b. Citation/reference errors 7 (12%) 2 (11.7%) 46 14 4 (6.8%) 1 (5.8%) 1 (1.7%) 0
(79.3%) (82.4%)
c. Conceptual /theoretical 5 (8.6%) 1 (5.8%) 47 (81%) 16 (94%) 5 (8.6%) 0 1 (1.7%) 0
errors
d. Liberty in data 11 1 (5.8%) 42 14 4 (6.8%) 1 (5.8%) 1 (1.7%) 1
sample/field (18.9%) (72.4%) (82.3%) (5.8%
)
Table 7: Research and Academics related Issues

The students and teachers were found to share similar thought on a number of issues
like providing freedom to the researcher to work independently without influencing

his/her research (favourable, s=75.8%, t=76.4%), facilitating the scholar‟s professional

development by encouraging presentations in workshops, seminar and conferences
with supervisor(favourable, s=91.3%, t=88.2%), facilitating the academic skills of
scholar by asking him/her to write and publish joint research papers(favourable,
s=86.2%, t=76.4%), facilitating the professional development of the scholar, giving
paid assignments like project work/writing/translation etc. (favourable, s=74%,
t=76.4%), irrespective of relevance keeping the focus on citing/quoting big names in
research (unfavourable, s=67.2%, t=58.8%), every word used in research writing
should be properly approved (favourable, s=60.3%, t=58.8%), before submitting the
research work, asking the scholar to get the language edited (favourable, s=86.2%,
t=76.4%) and to take someone else‟s critical perspective on data(favourable, s=72.4%,
t=58.8%). 58.6% of students and 58.8% of teachers both were in favour of allotting
senior research scholar (Ph.D/M.Phil) to assist junior research scholar (post graduate).
For timely submission ignoring mistakes like citation/reference errors, conceptual
/theoretical errors and liberty in data sample/field were reported to be unfavourable by
both the students (79.3%, 81%, 72.4%) and teachers (82.4%, 94%, 82.3%)
respectively.
Asking the scholar to read supervisor‟s articles/writings as a reference material before
initiating the research work elicited mixed responses wherein 51.7% students and
23.5% were found to be in favour, 24% students and 29.5% teachers considered it to
be unfavourable and 47 % teachers chose to remain indifferent on the issue. Similarly
the issue of encouraging the scholar to accompany the supervisor during the
seminar/conferences/workshop etc. revealed disparity in the opinion of students and
teachers with 70.6% students and 41.1% teachers favouring and 17.2% students and
41.1% teachers choosing to remain indifferent on the issue. The opinion of participants
were found to be varied on the issue of hand-holding the student in research writing
with 25.8% students and 41.1 % teachers favouring and 36.2% students and 35.2%
teachers not favouring the proposition. Expecting the scholar to quote/cite the
researches done by the supervisor was reported to be unfavourable by 43% of students
and 23.5% of teachers.

22.4 % of students and only 5.8% of teachers were found to be in favour of ignoring
grammatical/language errors for timely submission whereas 63.7% students and 88.2%
teachers found it to be unfavourable.
2.3 Issues Related to Inclusion in Education
Inclusion in education becoming a reality for the school education system especially
after the implementation of Sarva Shiksha Abhiyaan (SSA), Rashtriya Madhyamik
Shiksha Abhiyaan (RMSA) and Right to Education Act (RTE). The time is not far
behind when the same will be extend to higher education and the presence of students
with various challenges and diverse needs would be felt in the corridors of Universities
and Colleges. The discourse of inclusion is also expanding and moving beyond
disability to encompass the issues of marginalization, gender, economic disparity,
minority and social and community based needs. This section examines the response of
students and teachers on the inclusion related issues. The table below presents the
findings of the study regarding research practices when the researcher him/herself has
some special needs either due to disability or otherwise.
No
. Student Teache Student Teache Students Teache Student Teachers
s rs s rs Response rs s Response
Respon Respon Respon Respon Respon Respon
se se se se se se
1 Giving concession for 8 4 35 9 14 (24%) 3 1 1 (5.6%)
following (13.7%) (23.5%) (60.3%) (2.9%) (17.6%) (1.7%)
a. Belonging to
Minority
background (i.e.
Muslim//Jain/Si
kh/Parsi)
b. Being girl child 13 3 30 10 14 (24%) 4 1 0
(22.4%) (17.6%) (51.7%) (58.8%) (23.5%) (1.7%)
c. Belonging to 12 4 34 9 10 3 2 1 (5.6%)
scheduled caste (20.6%) (23.5%) (58.6%) (52.9%) (17.2%) (17.6%) (3.4%)
d. Belonging to 14 4 31 9 11 3 2 1 (5.8%)
scheduled tribe (24%) (23.5%) (53.4%) (18.9%) (17.6%) (3.4%)
(52.9%)
e. Having a 26 7 16 5 14 (24%) 4 2 1 (5.8%)
disability (44.8%) (41%) (27.5%) (23.5%) (3.4%)
(hearing, visual, (29.4%)
speech etc.)
f. Having any 25 5 17 4 14 (24%) 6 2 2 (11.7%)
other (43%) (29.3%) (35.2%) (3.4%)
disadvantage/pe (29.4%) (23.5%)
rsonal issue
2 Accommodating a 51 13 0 0 6 (10.3%) 4 1 0

scholar with special (87.9%) (76.4%) (23.5%) (1.7%)

needs by
a. Helping in locating
the research articles
b. Helping in analyzing 46 12 2 5 9 (15.5%) 0 1 0
the data (79.3%) (70.5%) (3.4%) (29.4%) (1.7%)
c. Helping in writing 32 4 9 5 16 8 1 0
the thesis (55%) (23.5%) (15.5%) (29.4%) (27.5%) (47%) (1.7%)
d. Providing a helper in 28 7 15 6 14 (24%) 4 1 0
doing his/her (48.2%) (41%) (25.8%) (23.5%) (1.7%)
research (35.2%)
e. Treating the scholar 32 6 11 4 14 (24%) 7 1 0
at par with other (55%) (35.2%) (18.9%) (41%) (1.7%)
non-special scholars (23.5%)
Table 8: Issues related to Inclusion in Education
As indicated in Table 9, both students and teachers were found to be in resonance in
their thinking and expressed that it is unfavourable to give concessions to research
scholars for belonging to Minority background (i.e. Muslim//Jain/Sikh/Parsi)
(s=60.3%, t=52.9%), being girl child (s=51.7%, t=58.8 %), belonging to scheduled
caste (s=58.6%, t=52.9%) and belonging to scheduled tribe (s= 53.4 %, t=52.9%). On
the other hand both (s=44.8%, t=41%) felt that it is favourable to give concessions for
having a disability (hearing, visual, speech etc.). Similarly both the students and
teachers seem to be in agreement that it is favourable to accommodate a scholar with
special needs by helping in locating the research articles (s=87.9%, t= 76.4%) ,
analysing the data (s= 79.3%, t= 70.5%) and allowing helper to assist in research work
(s=48.2%, t= 41%).
The opinion of the student and teachers was observed to differ on the issue of giving
concession to the researcher for any other disadvantage or personal issue which was
favoured by 43% of students and 29.4% of teachers. Further both the groups‟ favoured
providing assistance in thesis writing and treating the scholar with special needs at par
with the other scholars. However, the percentage of support differed with only 55% of
students and 23.5% of teachers the former and 55% of students and 35.2% of teachers
favouring later.
2.4 Significant observations during data collection:
The teachers as well as the students were reluctant to share their experiences neither in
paper format nor in discussion as the topic of research was aiming to explore the
relationship between supervisor and students which more than often is a personal
matter and therefore students didn‟t like to share their life experiences openly as they

were scared of consequences if the information shared gets disclosed. The topic was
viewed as sceptical by the teachers acting as research supervisors and the request to fill
the survey was met with comments from few, like „do you want to take our exam?‟ , “
is it homework or class work for us?” , „we don‟t agree with this topic‟ , „our views
won‟t match‟, „we don‟t want to comment on this topic officially‟ and „it is a relation
or bond between student and teacher?‟ and „these things doesn‟t happen in our
universities rather you might see them in other universities”. A total of 50
questionnaire were distributed in-person to teachers working in different universities
and institutions however less than 50 % teachers were able to return the filled forms
that too with lots of doubt on the objectives and methodology used in this research.
Total 120 students questionnaire were distributed in different universities and
institutions besides posting the Google form in different social groups and university
Google groups, however, despite of these efforts only 58 completely filled
questionnaire were received.
Evaluators Perception on the Trend in Research
This section presents the interview of teachers regarding the ethical and unethical
practices in research. The opinion of three teachers extensively involved in the
evaluation of thesis was collected via interview. The thesis evaluators have
unanimously expressed that authenticity, originality and commitment towards research
was found to be missing in the modern dissertations. Most of the researchers engage in
the research for the sake of taking degrees. The selections of problem are based on the
parameters of flexibility, approachability and convenience rather than on the
contribution to the existing body of knowledge and originality of work. The nature of
research problems were also found to be closely connected with the chances of
employability and appear in line with the popular contemporary beliefs say for
example social issues concerning gender, dalits, post-modernism, multilingualism,
inclusion in education, and ICT related. The interview responses also highlighted the
lack of a defined code of professional ethics both for the teachers in higher education
as well as for researchers. However, Universities were reported to have defined and
well placed guidelines for designing the curriculum for research scholars and also

research writing guidelines for the scholars, stressing upon the style of referencing and
citations.
The other generic issues concerning thesis/dissertation evaluation were: disharmony
between the theory, objective and methodology of the study. Evaluators expressed that
contemporary researchers escape related literature review and at times, this section is
there just for name sake. They also stressed the significance of related literature review
for research design. Also, evaluators reported language inconsistency in research
writings. The reason for the same might lie in cut, copy, pasting and plagiarism.
In response to the question related with rejection of dissertation, if it‟s not up-to the
mark, the examiners said that thesis/dissertations were rarely rejected due to respect for
the scholar‟s effort and time spent (4-5 years), however lots of suggestions for
improvement and enhancing its quality was provided.
The evaluators made general observations that the quality of research is usually
directly related with the reputation of the University. They also suggested that there
should be sufficient minimum time after the viva for resubmission of the
thesis/dissertation, if needed. This will assist in improving the quality of the research
work. Other observations made by the evaluators were: data collection through third
person or outsourcing of data collection and analysis which often leads to disconnect
between the researcher and writing due to lack of first hand experiences. Research
writing is often mechanical and was done with the help of paid experts, lack of effort
to place the research in culturally appropriate context (research problem copied from
international platform), absence of culture of discussion among the scholars. A
researcher engaged in policy researches would not like to reveal the anti-government
and anti- social findings due to the fear of its consequences. The evaluators further
observed that the topics chosen in the contemporary days are mainly based on the
expertise of the supervisors and not as per the burning issues in particular area
requiring research inputs. At the time of viva-voce the poor researcher is expected to
organize the transportation for the examiner along with other hospitality as the
university norms for financial expenditure often fails to meet the actual expenses.
DISCUSSION

The research touches some sensitive issues related to the relation between two
individuals engaged in the intellectual exchange i.e. the teacher and the student
involved in the pursuit of knowledge. The perception of each is as per the individual‟s
mental makeup and experiences. Both students and teachers defined professional as
related to conformity to certain norms of society/ groups/organization and also abiding
by recognize protocol of his/her field. Both related professional with commitment to
work and specific knowledge and training. Both the groups expressed lack of
knowledge about specific code of ethics for research work; however both the groups
somehow linked the APA guidelines and professional code of ethics suggested by
NCERT and NCTE with the code of ethics for research. Majority of participants from
both the group felt that violation of ethical code should be a punishable offence though
few advocated the idea of proportionately seeing the punishment with degree of
violation and other factors like intention, severity etc.
Proper citation, authentic data collection and presentation of findings were reported to
be examples of ethical practices whereas the reverse of the same was considered as
unethical practice in research by both the students and teachers. The difference in
opinion among the two groups was observed with respect to seeking informed consent
of participants and disclosing the identity of the participants with consent. The students
identified a number of unethical practices like making tea/coffee regularly, sexual
assault case similar to St. Stephan‟s College, asking/expecting expensive gifts, no
feedback on chapters in time, critical comments on last day just before submission,
unnecessary delays, asking junior scholar to seek help from senior for completing the
work etc. Apart from these “involving the scholar in paid assignment without sharing
the payment” was yet another issue where student and teachers differ in their opinions.
Students and teachers were found to be in resonance with each other on majority of
academic and research related practices and behaviours however the intra-group and
intergroup differences in opinion was observed with respect to ignoring the
grammatical/language errors for the sake of timely submissions. Data analysis of items
probing inclusion in education or taking care of scholars with special needs revealed
common understanding between the teachers and students however the degree of
support varied from issue to issue. Inclusion of children/adults with disability was seen

with more sympathy as compared to inclusion of persons coming from scheduled tribe
or scheduled castes and other marginalized and disadvantaged sections of the society.
The evaluators expressed concern over lack of originality in choosing and designing
research work as research areas were based on the comfort and conveniences of the
supervisor and the students.
FUTURE RESEARCH DIRECTIONS
This small sample research could be seen as a path breaking effort to initiate large
studies leading to generalizations. The following researches might be initiated:
Studying the ethical issues in research work across disciplines and comparing
findings.
Collecting narratives with respect to the practiced code of ethics, either self or
based on some guidelines from universities or other institution.
Assessing the effect of absence or presence of ethical code on the quality of
research.
CONCLUSION
The paper attempts to find the common ethical concerns that a research student and
teacher confronts in their pursuit for knowledge. The students and the teachers were
found to share a common understanding about the ethical and unethical practices in
research. However, the difference in opinion as observed on few issues could be due to
their roles and designation either as a teacher or student. The defined role in the
collective pursuit of knowledge is making each one to see the research realities from
their own coloured glasses.
The findings of this small research can‟t be generalized, yet, strongly advocates the
need to formulate and define a code of ethics in research to gently guide the
relationship between the teacher and the student and to facilitate quality work.
REFERENCES
Aristotle, (1962). Nicomachean Ethics, M. Ostwald (trans.), Indianapolis: Bobbs-
Merrill.
Aultman, L. P. (et al.). Boundary dilemmas in teacher-student relationships:
Struggling with “the line.” Teaching and Teacher Education. Vol. 25 (2009)
pp. 636-646.

Bahm, A. (1953). Philosophy, An Introduction. New York: Asia Publishing House.

Becker, L. (1973). On Justifying the Moral Arguments. Boston: Routledge & Kegan
Paul.
Dewey, J. (1927). The Public and its Problems. New York: Henry Holt.
Encyclopaedia of Philosophy (1967). (Ed. by Paul Edward) New York: The
Macmillian Company & The Free Press.
Freire, P. (1998). Pedagogy of Freedom: Ethics, Democracy and Civic Courage.
Lanham: Rowman and Littlefield Publishers, INC.
Gewirtz, S., Mahony, P., Hextall, I., and Cribb, A.(2009). Changing Teacher
Professionalism. New York: Routledge
Oxford English Dictionary(2009). (Eleventh Edition Ed. by Soanes, C. and Stevenson,
A). New Delhi: Oxford University Press.
Lickona, T. (1997). The Teacher’s Role in Character Education. Journal of Education,
179 (2), 63-80.
Murray, H., Gillese, E., Lennon, M., Mercer, P., & Robinson, M. (1996).
Ethical Principles in University Teaching. North York, Ontario, Canada:
Society for Teaching and Learning in Higher Education. Retrieved from
Society for Teaching and Learning in Higher Education Retrieved from
website: http://www.stlhe.ca/pdf/EthicalPrinciplesInUniversityTeaching.pdf
Strike, K. A and Egan, K. (2010). Ethics and Educational Policy. New York:
Routledge.
Strike, K.,& Soltis, J. (1992). The Ethics of Teaching (second edition). New York:
Teachers College Press.
Sethy, S.S. (2015). Should we have Compulsory “Enginnering Ethics” Course for
Engineers? Why should it be? In R. Natarajan (Ed.)(2015). Proceedings of the
International Conference on Transformations in Engineering Education. (pp.).
India:Springer.
oulmin, S. (1968). An Examination of the Place of Reason in Ethics. Cambridge, UK:
Cambridge University Press.
Twain, M. (1901) Card sent to the Young People's Society, Greenpoint Presbyterian
Church, Brooklyn. February 16, 1901.

Professional Ethics in Research Are Stud

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Professional Ethics in Research Are Stud

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

SRJIS/BIMONTHLY/DR. BHARTI &MS.

PROFESSIONAL ETHICS IN RESEARCH: ARE STUDENTS AND

Bharti1, Ph.D. & Ms. Richa2

Scholarly Research Journal's is licensed Based on a work at www.srjis.com

JAN-FEB 2016, VOL-3/22 www.srjis.com Page 1620

Education is an endeavour that is intrinsically ethical in nature wherein both teacher

JAN-FEB 2016, VOL-3/22 www.srjis.com Page 1621

consideration of ethics in research and teaching learning profession, calls for a

JAN-FEB 2016, VOL-3/22 www.srjis.com Page 1622

and unethical practices which a researcher indulges in, either intentionally or

JAN-FEB 2016, VOL-3/22 www.srjis.com Page 1623

JAN-FEB 2016, VOL-3/22 www.srjis.com Page 1624

JAN-FEB 2016, VOL-3/22 www.srjis.com Page 1625

JAN-FEB 2016, VOL-3/22 www.srjis.com Page 1626

institution. Likewise, a student is expected to be consistent in organizing themselves

JAN-FEB 2016, VOL-3/22 www.srjis.com Page 1627

Item 1: Define the term ‘professional’ in your own words?

JAN-FEB 2016, VOL-3/22 www.srjis.com Page 1628

S. No. Responses Frequency Frequency

JAN-FEB 2016, VOL-3/22 www.srjis.com Page 1629

JAN-FEB 2016, VOL-3/22 www.srjis.com Page 1630

S. No Responses Frequency Frequency

JAN-FEB 2016, VOL-3/22 www.srjis.com Page 1631

JAN-FEB 2016, VOL-3/22 www.srjis.com Page 1632

JAN-FEB 2016, VOL-3/22 www.srjis.com Page 1633

11 Requesting the Good Occasionally Not at all No answer

JAN-FEB 2016, VOL-3/22 www.srjis.com Page 1634

S. Statements/items Favourable Unfavourable Indifferent No Answer

JAN-FEB 2016, VOL-3/22 www.srjis.com Page 1635

professional development (91.3%) (88.2%) (11.7%) (5%)

Table 7: Research and Academics related Issues

JAN-FEB 2016, VOL-3/22 www.srjis.com Page 1636

his/her research (favourable, s=75.8%, t=76.4%), facilitating the scholar‟s professional

JAN-FEB 2016, VOL-3/22 www.srjis.com Page 1637

JAN-FEB 2016, VOL-3/22 www.srjis.com Page 1638

scholar with special (87.9%) (76.4%) (23.5%) (1.7%)

JAN-FEB 2016, VOL-3/22 www.srjis.com Page 1639

JAN-FEB 2016, VOL-3/22 www.srjis.com Page 1640

JAN-FEB 2016, VOL-3/22 www.srjis.com Page 1641

JAN-FEB 2016, VOL-3/22 www.srjis.com Page 1642

JAN-FEB 2016, VOL-3/22 www.srjis.com Page 1643

Bahm, A. (1953). Philosophy, An Introduction. New York: Asia Publishing House.

JAN-FEB 2016, VOL-3/22 www.srjis.com Page 1644

You might also like