نویسندگان

1 دانش آموخته کارشناسی ارشد ترویج و آموزش کشاورزی، دانشگاه رازی، کرمانشاه، ایران

2 استادیار گروه ترویج و آموزش کشاورزی، دانشگاه رازی، کرمانشاه، ایران

چکیده

یکی از مهم‌ترین چالش‌های تحقیقات دانشگاهی بحث رفتار بی ­اخلاقی­ پژوهشی است، به ­گونه­ ای که امروزه رعایت نکردن اخلاق در پژوهش‌های دانشجویان تحصیلات تکمیلی به بحران جدی در نظام آموزش عالی کشور تبدیل شده است. پژوهش حاضر با هدف اصلی واکاوی عوامل مؤثر بر بروز رفتار بی ­اخلاقی پژوهشی در میان دانشجویان تحصیلات تکمیلی پردیس کشاورزی و منابع طبیعی دانشگاه رازی انجام شد. این پژوهش از نظر هدف کاربردی بود که با روش توصیفی- همبستگی انجام شد. جامعۀ آماری شامل تمام دانشجویان تحصیلات تکمیلی (284 N=) در پردیس کشاورزی و منابع طبیعی دانشگاه رازی بود که با استفاده از جدول کرجسی و مورگان (1970) تعداد 163 نفر از آنها با روش نمونه ­گیری تصادقی طبقه ­ای با انتساب متناسب برای مطالعه انتخاب شدند. برای تجزیه و تحلیل داده­ ها در دو بخش آمار توصیفی و استنباطی از نرم ­افزارهای SPSS نسخۀ 25 و Smart PLS نسخۀ سه استفاده شد. یافته­ های پژوهش نشان داد که پاسخگویان از نظر سطح رفتار بی­ اخلاقی پژوهشی تقریباً در وضعیت متوسطی هستند. نتایج مدلسازی معادلات ساختاری نشان داد که متغیرهای هنجارهای ذهنی و کنترل رفتاری درک­ شده تأثیر مثبت و معنادار بر نیت و نیت تأثیر مثبت و معنادار بر رفتار بی ­اخلاقی پژوهشی دارند، ولی تأثیر مستقیم نگرش بر نیت و کنترل رفتاری درک­ شده بر رفتار تأیید نشد.

کلیدواژه‌ها

عنوان مقاله [English]

Examining the factors effecting unethical research behavior among graduate students at Agriculture and Natural Resources campus in Razi University

نویسندگان [English]

  • Nahid Noormohamadi 1
  • Farahnaz Rostami 2

1 Graduate of Agricultural Extension and Education, Razi University, Kermanshah, Iran.

2 Assistant Professor, Department of Agricultural Extension and Education, Razi University, Kermanshah, Iran

چکیده [English]

One of the most important challenges in academic research is an unethical research behavior issue. Today's unethical academic behavior of graduate students is a serious crisis in Iran's higher education system. The purpose of current study was to examine the factors effecting unethical research behavior among graduate students in Agriculture and Natural Resources campus at Razi University. This research was applied in terms of purpose, which was done by descriptive-correlation method. The statistical population of the study consisted of all graduate students in Agriculture and Natural Resources campus at Razi University (N= 284). Using Krejcie and Morgan table (1970), 163 of them were selected for the study by stratified random sampling. SPSS software version 25 and Smart PLS version 3 were used to analyze the data in two sections of descriptive and inferential statistics. Findings showed that the respondents are almost average in terms of the level of research unethical behavior. The findings of Structural Equation Modeling showed that the variables of mental norms and perceived behavioral control had a positive and significant effect on intention and the intention had a positive and significant effect on research unethical behavior. However, the direct effect of attitude on intention and perceived behavioral control behavior was not confirmed.

کلیدواژه‌ها [English]

  • Unethical research behavior
  • Research misbehavior
  • Subjective norms
  • Perceived behavioral control
1. Abaszadeh, M., Bani Fatemeh, H., Alizadeh Aghdam, M., & Budaghi, A. (2016). The underlying commitment factors influencing research ethics among graduate students in Tabriz University: A Grounded Theory approach. Quarterly Journal of Research and Planning in Higher Education, 22 (1), 98-75-98 [in Persian].
2. Ajzen, I. (1991). The theory of planned behavior. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 50, 179-211.
3. Alleyne, P., & Phillips, K. (2011). Exploring academic dishonesty among university students in Barbados: An extension to the theory of planned behavior. Journal of Academic Ethics, 9(4), 323-338.
4. Amin Mozaffari, F., & Shamsi, L. (2011). The study of methods and approaches to commercialization of university research, case study: Tabriz University. Journal of Ethics in Science and Technology, 3 (4), 15-29 [in Persian].
5. Armitage, C.J., & Conner, M. (2001). Efficacy of the theory of planned behavior: A meta-analytic review. British Journal of Social Psychology, 40(4), 471-499.
6. Bahmanabadi, S., Javidi Kalateh Jafarabadi, T., & Shabani Varki, B. (2014). Observance of ethics in doctoral dissertations; Case study: Department of Humanities, Ferdowsi University of Mashhad, from 2007 to 2011. Culture Strategy, 7 (25), 152-129 [in Persian].
7. Bandura, A. (1978). Social learning theory of aggression. Journal of Communication, 28, 12-29.
8. Beck, L., & Ajzen, I. (1991). Predicting dishonest actions using the theory of planned behavior. Journal of Research in Personality, 25(3), 285-301.
9. Chin, W.W. (1998). The partial least squares approach for structural equation modeling. In G.A. Macrolides (Ed.). Methodology for business and management. Modern methods for business research (pp. 295-336). Mahwah, NJ, US: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers.
10. Choupani, H., Siadat, S.A., & Rajaeepour, S. (2018). Individual factors affecting research misconduct in Iranian higher education system. International Review of Management and Marketing, 8(2), 102-108 [in Persian].
11. Clark, J., & Walker, R. (2011). Research ethics in victimization studies: Widening the lens. Violence Against Women, 17 (12), 1489-1508.
12. Culwin, F. (2001). Plagiarism issues for higher education. Vine, 31(2), 36-41.
13. Dorri, B., & Talebnejad, A. (2011). Investigating the conditions of strategic factors of knowledge creation in the universities affiliated to the ministry of science, research and technology in Iran. Quarterly Journal of Research and Planning in Higher Education, 14 (3), 1-20 [in Persian].
14. Ehsani, V., Azami, M., Najafi, S., & Soheili, F. (2016). The effectiveness of domestic scientific research on development indicators in Iran. Journal of Information Processing and Management, 32 (2), 347-319 [in Persian].
15. Fornell, C., & Larcker, D.F. (1981). Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error. Journal of Marketing Research, 18 (1), 39-50.
16. Fouka., G., & Mantzorou, M. (2011). What are the major ethical issues in conducting research? Is there a conflict between the research ethics and the nature of nursing? Health Science Journal, 5 (1), 3-14.
17. Gottfredson, M.R., & Hirshci, T. (1990). A general theory of crime. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
18. Gross, C. (2016). Scientific misconduct. Annual Review of Psychology, 67(1), 693-711.
19. Hair, J.F., Black, W.C., Babin, B.J., & Anderson, R.E. (2010). Multivariate data analysis (7th ed.). Englewood Cliffs: Prentice Hall.
20. Hair, J.F., Hult, G.T.M., Ringle, C.M., & Sarstedt, M. (2017). A primer on partial least squares structural equation modeling (PLS-SEM). 2nd Ed., Sage: Thousand Oaks.
21. Harding, T.S., Mayhew, M.J., Finelli, C.J., & Carpenter, D.D. (2007). The theory of planned behavior as a model of academic dishonesty in engineering and humanities undergraduates. Ethics & Behavior, 17(3), 255-279.
22. Henseler, J., Dijkstra, T.K., Sarstedt, M., Ringle, C.M., Diamantopoulos, A., Straub, D.W., Ketchen, D.J., Hair, J.F., Hult, G. T.M., & Calantone, R.J. (2014). Common beliefs and reality about partial least squares: Comments on rönkkö & evermann (2013). Organizational Research Methods, 17(2), 182-209.
23. Ismail, A., Abbidin, N.Z., & Hassan, A. (2011). Improving the development of postgraduate’s research and supervision. International Education Studies, 4(1), 78-89.
24. Jereb, E., Perc, M., La¨mmlein, B., Jerebic, J., Urh, M., Podbregar, I., et al. (2018). Factors influencing plagiarism in higher education: A comparison of German and Slovene students. Plos One, 13(8), 202-252.
25. Karimi, M., Rajaeipour, S., & Hoveyda, R. (2010). Investigating the relationship between dimensions of organizational atmosphere and ethical behavior among the staff of Isfahan Universities and Isfahan Medical Sciences. Journal of Educational Leadership and Management, 4 (1), 102-83 [in Persian].
26. Kazemi, A., & Asghari, Z. (2019). A look at the thesis phenomenon in Iran: Policies and possible fields. Quarterly Journal of Research and Planning in Higher Education, 25 (4), 1-22 [in Persian].
27. Krejcie, R.V., & Morgan, D.W. (1970) Determining sample size for research activities. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 30, 607.
28. Mahmoudi, A. (2007). A philosophical approach to research ethics. Epistemological Studies at the University of Aslani, 11 (4), 148-129.
29. Mansoorian, Y. (2012). Seventy practical points in the design and implementation of qualitative research. Book of the Month, 15 (8), 75-68 [in Persian].
30. Mardani, A.H., Nakhoda, M., Shamsi Goshki, E., & Nowruzi, A. (2017). Reported effective factors for research misconduct in Iranian research. Ethics and History of Medicine, 10 (1), 257-243 [in Persian].
31. Mayhew, M.J., Hubbard, S.M., Finelli, C.J., Harding, T.S., & Carpenter, D.D. (2009). Using structural equation modeling to validate the theory of planned behavior as a model for predicting student cheating. Review of Higher Education, 32(4), 441-468.
32. Naghdi, M., Shah Talebi, B., & Nadi, M.A. (2020). Identify the components of education and development of human capital in the transition from a traditional university to a future university in a mixed way. Quarterly Journal of Research and Planning in Higher Education, 26 (1), 51-75 [in Persian].
33. Naghizadeh Baghi, A., Khan Babazadeh Ghadim, M., & Samari, E. (2015). Investigating barriers and research problems from the perspective of faculty members in Ardabil University of Medical Sciences. Journal of Ardabil University of Medical Sciences, 15 (3), 264-255 [in Persian].
34. Noor Mohammadi, N. (2018). Analysis of research ethics in academic research (Case study: Agriculture and Natural Resources Campus of Razi University of Kermanshah). Master Thesis in Agricultural Extension and Education, Faculty of Agriculture, Razi University [in Persian].
35. Parveen, H., & Showkat, N. (2017). Research ethics. All content following this page was uploaded by Nayeem Showkat on 04 August 2017.
36. Perrin, R. (2009). Pocket guide to APA style. 3rded. Boston, MA: Wadsworth.
37. Raiah-Kanagasabai, C.J., & Roberts, L.D. (2015). Predicting self-reported research misconduct and questionable research practices in university students using an augmented theory of planned behavior. Frontiers in Psychology, 6, 1-11.
38. Rise, J., Sheeran, P., & Hukkelberg, S. (2010). The role of self-identity in the theory of planned behavior: A meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 40(5), 1085-1105.
39. Stone, T.H., Kisamore, J.L., & Jawahar, I. M. (2010). Predicting academic misconduct intentions and behavior using the theory of planned behavior and personality. Basic and Applied Social Psychology,32(1), 35-45.
40. Stone, T.H., Jawahar, I.M., & Kisamore, J.L. (2009). Using the theory of planned behavior and cheating justifications to predict academic misconduct. Career Development International, 14(3), 221-241.
41. Sykes, G.M., & Matza, D. (1957). Techniques of neutralization: A theory of delinquency. American Sociological Review, 22(6), 664-670.
42. Yang, S.C. (2012b). Ethical academic judgments and behaviors: Applying a multidimensional ethics scale to measure the ethical academic behavior of graduate students. Ethics & Behavior, 22(4), 281-296.
43. Young Mahon, P. (2014). Internet research and ethics: Transformative issues in nursing education research. Journal of Professional Nursing, 30 (2), 124-129.