Value Dissonance and Ethics Failure in Academia

7/27/2019 Value Dissonance and Ethics Failure in Academia

1/16

Value Dissonance and Ethics Failure in Academia:

A Causal Connection?

John G. Bruhn

Published online: 27 February 2008# Springer Science + Business Media B.V. 2008

Abstract Ethics failure in academia is not new, yet its prevalence, causes, and methods to

prevent it remain a matter of debate. The authors premise is that value dissonance underlies

most of the reasons ethics failure occurs. Vignettes are used to illustrate value dissonance at

the individual and institutional levels. Suggestions are offered for ways academic

institutions can assume greater responsibility as a moral agency to prevent the occurrence

of ethics failure.

Keywords Ethics . Ethics in academia . Ethics failure . Value dissonance

Always do right this will gratify some and astonish the rest.

Mark Twain (from message to Young Peoples Society of Greenpoint Presbyterian

Church, Brooklyn, New York, February 16, 1901).

Introduction

Ethics is a part of the mission and culture of colleges and universities. It is here that ethics

is taught, researched, modeled, and observed (Klein 2007). It is in this environment that

many students first learn about, and test, the realities of citizenship and its moral

boundaries. However, there is evidence that unethical and unprofessional behavior is

increasing in academic institutions. This evidence is based on different levels of data

including reported incidents of fraud, surveys in which faculty respondents have admitted

J Acad Ethics (2008) 6:1732DOI 10.1007/s10805-008-9054-z

DO9054; No of Pages

J. G. BruhnNorthern Arizona University, Flagstaff, AZ, USA

J. G. Bruhn (*)8864 East Surrey Avenue, Scottsdale, AZ 85260-7613, USAe-mail: [email protected]


2/16

to engaging in unethical behaviors, and faculty perceptions of, and experiences with, the

scholarly, research, and administrative behavior of their colleagues. Scholars of ethics, and

federal and professional groups overseeing academic integrity, believe that instances of

academic misconduct have reached an all-time high since it has been more carefully

monitored over the last decade (Langlais 2006). Yet, there are others in academia whobelieve that the data are soft, the rates low compared to other social institutions and

professions, and that the concern, therefore, is unnecessarily alarmist.

The types and causes of ethical misconduct have been topics of wide-ranging discussion.

We are continuously learning about the common types of ethics failure in universities and

colleges, their level of seriousness, and causes (Kelley and Chang 2007; Bruhn 2002;

Bruhn et al. 2002). The purpose of the present paper is to explore what the author considers

to be a common cause of ethics failure, namely value dissonance, and how it might be

minimized and prevented.

Literature Review

Misconduct in Teaching

Braxton and Mann (2004) studied faculty misconduct in undergraduate teaching. They

reported that 19.6% of 4,200 undergraduates at 14 US colleges and universities said that

they had instructors who had not planned their teaching properly, 5% of the respondents

said that they had teachers who showed favoritism in grading, 5% had professors who

showed condescending negativism toward students, and 1.8% experienced breaches ofnorms against moral turpitude.

Faculty in Canadian business schools rated the extent to which they regarded each of 55

behaviors as ethical or unethical in undergraduate instruction. The only behavior that was

endorsed as unequivocally unethical was becoming sexually involved with an undergraduate

in one of your classes. When the results were compared to an American sample the general

finding was that Canadian professors viewed more of the behaviors in question as less ethical

than did their American counterparts (Robie and Keeping 2004).

Misconduct in Scholarship and Research

Of 3,247 early and mid-career researchers who responded to an anonymous survey funded

by the National Institutes of Health, less than 1.5% admitted to data falsification or

plagiarism, but 15.5% said that they had changed the design, methodology, or results of a

study in response to pressure from a funding source; 12.5% admitted to overlooking others

use of flawed data, and 7.6% said that they had circumvented minor aspects of requirements

regarding the use of human subjects (Wadman 2005).

Recently the scientific community and the public were greatly alarmed over the fabrication of

data related to the creation of cloned human stem cells by Korean researchers (Chong and

Normile 2006). In the past 5 years other examples of data fabrication (Kintisch 2005; Chang2002), insufficient protection of human subjects (Evans et al. 2005), fraudulent use of

government research grants (Wysocki 2005), conflicts of interest (Meier2005), and purposeful

misinterpretation of research findings (Wade 2002) have come to the publics attention.

Data were collected from 1,645 of 5,302 (31%) surveys sent to members of the

Association of Clinical Research Professionals and to subscribers of Research Practitioner

regarding their perceptions of and experiences with scientific misconduct. First-hand

18 J.G. Bruhn


3/16

experience with an incident of misconduct was reported by 18% of the respondents. Those

with first-hand knowledge of misconduct were more likely to work in an academic medical

setting and said that they would do nothing if they were aware of an incident of misconduct

(Pryor et al. 2007).

In another survey of students and faculty members of the American Physical Society,10% of the department chairs responding reported ethical violations in their department in

the past decade. Among junior faculty, 39% said that as a graduate student or postdoctoral

fellow they had observed or had personal knowledge of ethical violations (Tretkoff 2004).

Misconduct without Consequences and Normal Misbehavior

A national survey on ethics was carried out among 2,500 randomly selected full-time

faculty at colleges and universities in the USA (Knight and Auster 1999). Among the

faculty respondents, 52% stated that they had complained to an administrator about the

conduct of a colleague. Complainants were usually male faculty in senior ranks. In 61% ofthe cases the faculty said that the administration listened, but took no action. The legal

quagmire, strain, and the bad press of misconduct investigations leave many university

administrators tempted to ignore misconduct allegations (Brumfiel 2007).

Martinson et al. (2005) found a range of questionable research practices in a large,

representative sample of early and mid-career scientists. The authors concluded that

mundane misbehavior presented a greater threat to science than high profile misconduct

cases such as fraud. These researchers pursued their survey findings by conducting

discussions on ethics in six focus groups comprised of 51 scientists at three major

research universities (De Vries et al. 2006). A certain amount of

normal misbehavior

appeared to be common in science which the authors said allowed scientists to deal with

uncertainties about proper conduct, pointed out the pinch points of science, and

demonstrated the need for ethicists to take seriously both the extraordinary and ordinary

conduct of researchers.

The Prevalence of Ethics Failure

The total prevalence of student and faculty ethics failure in colleges and universities is

unknown because integrity is defined and experienced differently and violations of integritythat are less newsworthy are only shared on ones home turf. The meaning and

interpretation of what constitutes unethical behavior varies by institution, by situation,

and by the actors involved. Ultimately each institution establishes its own baseline for

integrity. Braxton and Bayer (2003) carried out an extensive, in depth study of the

normative structure in different types of institutions of higher learning. With the exception

of norms surrounding moral turpitude and an authoritarian classroom they found that the

strength of moral boundaries varied greatly across different types of universities and

academic disciplines.

How often does ethics failure occur? There is no consensus, although science historianNicholas Steneck of the University of Michigan has drawn up a series of estimates. At the

low end is an estimate of one fraud per 100,000 scientists per year. At the high end Steneck

reports that one in 100 researchers consistently report in surveys that they know about an

incident of misconduct (Eliot 2000).

Some federal government agencies and university and college boards believe that US

faculty have not, on their own initiative, adequately maintained standards of professionalism,

Value dissonance and ethics failure in academia 19


4/16

and some boards and governmental agencies have acted to reduce professional autonomy and

increase accountability for individual faculty and faculty as a group (Hamilton 2007). There

is concern about the integrity ethos in academia, its practice and enforcement (Whitley and

Keith-Spiegel 2001).

Norms in Academia

Feldman (1984) suggested that group norms are enforced if they promote the survival of the

group, if they assist in avoiding embarrassing interpersonal problems, and if they symbolize

the central values of the group and clarify the groups identity. The social significance of

norms lies in the degree of moral outrage or indignation proscribed behaviors evoke when

violated (Braxton and Bayer 2003).

The violation of work rules (for example, not showing up for class) is more likely to

trigger consequences from colleagues than the violation of norms of conduct, which elicitvaried responses (open criticism, indifference, unwillingness to confront). The boundaries

of what constitutes acceptable behavior to the collective conscience of the faculty may be

quite broad, even if some behavior is not in the best interests of the institution, in order to

protect faculty autonomy and protect against personal retribution.

Roworth (2002), Chair of the American Association of University Professors

Committee on Professional Ethics said, Most of us dont give much thought to

professional ethics as we carry out our day to day duties as teachers, researchers,

committee members, and advisors. We may read about a case of plagiarism or hear about

scientific fraud at another university, but such serious violations seem to be rare ordistant from our daily routines. Faculty who have no problem expressing views on

teaching strategies, research methods, or university politics, hesitate to question a

colleagues conduct in the classroom, the space in which each professor reigns supreme

(pp. 2425).

Codes of Ethics: Norms of Conduct

Codes of ethics are espoused and published, but unwritten ones are practiced, especially

when some unethical behaviors occur and have few, if any, consequences. Clouthier (2005)

observed that although formal guidelines exist for misconduct investigations inuniversities, there are no checks and balances, or even public scrutiny, to ensure that the

institution behaves appropriately (p. 430). Although many professional organizations have

adopted formal codes of ethics (e.g. American Medical Association) the academic

profession has not (Felicio and Plenladz 1999). Umbrella organizations like the American

Council on Education and the American Association of Colleges and Universities have no

ethics code for the profession (Hamilton 2002). The responsibility for maintaining high

standards of moral conduct and the power to investigate and sanction those who violate

those standards remains largely an individual, internal, institutional process (Wilcox and

Ebbs 1992; Braxton 1999).Ethics courses, ethics centers, ethics conferences and workshops, best practices, and

written codes of ethics at colleges and universities have proliferated over the past decade,

largely spurred by public reactions to the increased ethics failures of boards and leaders of

corporations and businesses. However, as De Vries et al. (2006) pointed out, it is the less

visible and more common ethical breaches that are most worrisome; the more egregious,

newsworthy violators are usually caught and punished.

20 J.G. Bruhn


5/16

Definitions

Ethics Failure

We have used the term ethics failure to convey our belief that misconduct has repercussionsbeyond individual acts to more broadly embrace violations of the tenets of professionalism,

citizenship, and the character model of the academician (Corlett 2005; Bruhn et al. 2002).

Ethics failure can be defined as any act that results in harm to others. One element essential

to ethics failure is intentionality; the harmful act must be done willfully. Ethics failure

depends upon some degree of malice or negligence on the part of mentally competent actors

(Zajac 1996).

Most of what we know about ethics failure is from post hoc cases. Some cases of ethics

failure are idiosyncratic to institutions, personalities, or circumstances, but some types of

ethics failure are not uncommon in academia. Several examples include being late for class,

using vulgarity, showing favoritism toward students, inappropriately using campusresources, plagiarizing, engaging in dual relationships with students, failing to uphold

administrative duties, and refusing to uphold responsibilities of teaching and research (De

Russy 2003). Other persistent forms of ethics failure include sexism (Hart 2003), sexual

harassment (Paludi 1996), and racism (Lewis et al. 2000). Some of these types of ethics

failure are more common than others; some are solitary actions, while still others are

patterns of behavior.

Value Dissonance

Value dissonance is a distressing mental state in which people find themselves doing things

that they do not highly value, or having opinions that do not fit institutional norms or fit

with the opinions of those who monitor and enforce them. The tension of dissonance

motivates individuals to either change their values and opinions, or leave the institution, in

an effort to avoid dissonance. The more important the issue and the greater the discrepancy

in values and opinions, the greater the dissonance. The amount of dissonance individuals

can experience is directly proportional to the effort they have invested in behaviors to

sustain their values. Dissonance is more likely to occur when the enforcement of

institutional norms are unclear, unspecified and/or inconsistently applied.

Value Dissonance and Ethics Failure

Value dissonance and ethics failure encompass problems at both the individual and the

organizational level. Individual-level failure results from a specific behavior or pattern of

behavior on the part of persons within the organization. Organizational-level failure results

from absent, unclear, or conflicting written or unwritten procedures, rules, expectations or

agreements between individuals or groups and representatives of the institution. Usually

wrongdoing is more common in institutions where communication is poor, undocumented,and the personalities of the parties involved are antagonistic. Most instances of ethics

failure involve values at both the individual and the organizational level.

Values reflect the culture of academic institutions. Control over academicians operates

largely through the values shared by the professional community (De Vries 1975). The

individual faculty member and the academic institution are related to each other in a

dynamic tension and both are important to consider from an ethical point of view



6/16

(Buchholz and Rosenthal 2006). The institution can be seen as a community, and the

individuals are who they are in part because of their membership in the institution, while

the institution is what it is because members choose to become part of it. Integrating ethics

all the way through an institution suggests that both individuals and the institution as a

whole are morally responsible agencies.

Examples of Value Dissonance

The five vignettes that follow are actual cases of ethics failure.

A was a tenured associate professor who was an acceptable teacher, an eager

committee member, an antagonist at faculty meetings, and a moderate contributor to the

scholarly literature in his discipline and was nearing his chosen date of retirement. He took

a paid sabbatical leave during which he proposed to write a book, but following his leave

he produced neither a report of his activities or the book manuscript. It became obvious that

there was no manuscript and therefore nothing to report on how he used his leave time. Heapproached his departmental chair to support a recommendation of promotion to full

Professor, which would be followed by his written commitment to retire. The Provost

denied the request because the faculty member did not meet the standards required of a full

Professor and because promotion was not a negotiable action. For nearly 2 years thereafter

the faculty member disrupted meeting agendas and distracted students, peers, and others in

various settings by his ravings against the administration. A left his position bitter and

alienated. A written report on how the faculty member used his sabbatical time was never

submitted despite many attempts by administrators to elicit one.

Faculty member

A

took a paid sabbatical leave from his university. Institutionalguidelines required faculty to submit a plan for how they were going to spend their time

with projected outcomes. At the conclusion of the sabbatical a written report was to be

submitted to the Department Chair and forwarded to the Provost. Faculty A proposed to

write a book during his sabbatical. Upon return he produced neither a manuscript in part or

in full, or a written report. As he was continuously pressed for a report by administrators, he

provided deadlines that were never kept. Other faculty in his College who took sabbaticals

provided manuscripts and written reports. Faculty member A had the attitude that the

institution owed him a sabbatical for his contributions to the institution. He tried to

negotiate his retirement with a promotion.

B was a music instructor at a community college who came to the attention of theadministration when he bought $6,900 worth of used musical instruments from his son.

He tried to cover up the purchases by writing fake invoices, suggesting that the

instruments came from another vendor. The vendor turned out to be his sons sister-in-

law. The instrument sales and phony invoices were discovered during an audit of the

instructors travel expenses. No travel violations were found. The instructor committed a

theft and lied about it but was retained on the faculty for 2 more years until students

complained that he failed to meet his entire class after the first meeting. He met

sporadically with some students, but others only saw him once. He was fired for the lack

of integrity.C was a full Professor who had a long tenure at a large public university. He was

editor of two journals in his field. At the time of his editorships the institution agreed to

provide two editorial offices and secretarial help in support of the journals. However, over

time with the increased shortage of office space for faculty and budget constraints, the

university told the faculty member that the support for the journals would be amalgamated

within existing resources of his department. The angered faculty member began a long

22 J.G. Bruhn


7/16

standing feud with the administration making it widely known that the administration

cannot be trusted to keep commitments. The faculty member disengaged from committees

and chose to teach at night when there were fewer colleagues and no administrators present.

The department chair began to notice a sharp increase in costs for telephone, mail, fax, and

office supplies. Vigilant secretaries began to monitor the usage of these resources. Evidenceindicated that most of the use of these resources was occurring at night when the

disenfranchised faculty member was present. He denied the allegations when confronted,

but subsequently, with the establishment of tighter controls of M & O resources, costs

declined.

Faculty C was not willing to accept the fact that budgeting restrictions and space

requirements necessitated belt tightening throughout the institution. Instead Professor C

regarded the decreased financial and M & O support for his editorial duties as personal, and

he chose to get back at the administration by abusing resources. He was confronted about

the use of M & O resources, but was never formally charged with unethical behavior. There

were no witnesses to his behavior, only a pattern of increasing telephone and Xeroxexpenditures noted by the office manager to occur after hours when faculty were the only

persons with access to the work area.

D, a chancellor, was paid nearly $500,000 over 8 years by a community college

district to develop international programs while at the same time receiving thousands of

dollars for his private business. A conference and convention business was established

while D was chancellor and given to him by the college trustees at his retirement. The

business was to help faculty deal with emerging technology and through conferences

and consultations generated hundreds of thousands of dollars from colleges around the

world. In some cases

D

used his position as chancellor to promote attendance atconferences and used district funds for overseas trips to bolster his private ventures.

While all college employees are required to file an official form disclosing any potential

conflicts of interest, D never filed a disclosure form. D denied any conflict stating,

I believe faculty ought to be moving around the world in greater numbers (Anglen and

Holstege 2007).

D was treated differently than other employees. Filing a disclosure form could be

conveniently overlooked. Trustees were aware of the conflict of interest since they gave the

chancellor the convention business. The trustees wished to retain the benefits of the

business for the college after the chancellors retirement, hence they retained him as a part-

time employee. The college trustees stated that their action was intended to benefit thecollege. As a chancellor emeritus D earns $500,000 as a part-time contract employee for

the community college district while also running the conference business.

E was an exceptional Library Director, efficient, organized, well-qualified and

experienced, and had a superb reputation among his colleagues. The rare book collection

in the library was of special focus for development. Being multi-lingual and a rare book

collector himself, he traveled to obtain unique acquisitions for the university library. Shortly

after the Director went on sabbatical leave, the Associate Director, who temporarily

assumed the Directorship, noticed discarded index files in the trash can in the Directors

office. The Interim Director pursued his suspicions and found many duplicate copies of rarebooks missing. He reported what he surmised was a theft to the Vice President of the

university. An investigation confirmed the theft. Upon return from his sabbatical the

Director of the Library was confronted with the findings from the investigation and

admitted he sold the books in question. His reason was that he had not received expected

salary increases from the university for several years. The Director reimbursed the

university for the cost of the books and resigned.



8/16

Analysis

These five vignettes illustrate the role of values in ethics failure. Faculty member A took

a paid sabbatical leave permitted by university rules and filed a plan to accomplish a

specific outcome resulting from the sabbatical as university rules proscribed. FacultymemberA failed to submit a report of what his sabbatical activities were and produced no

product. Administrators repeatedly pressed A to follow through on his part of the

agreement, but fearing they might be charged with harassment, they backed off. A tried to

bargain for an early retirement if the administration would promote him to full Professor.

As behavior was unethical; he exempted himself from the rules that applied to all members

of his academic community. When the university would not compromise, A retired.

B knowingly violated state law when he created phony invoices to cover up purchases

from family members. He violated college work rules by not doing what he was paid to do,

namely teach. He was a negative role model for students and his behavior, as it became

known in the newspaper, reflected on the reputation of the college. B had no integrity, butthe administration continued him on the faculty for 2 years after his theft was discovered.

This case raises the question of the ethical culture of the college at all levels.

Professor C was accomplished and well respected in his field. Yet, he was unwilling to

adjust his needs to the changing fiscal needs of his college. While his colleagues made

adjustments to help the college during a period of budget reductions, C viewed requests

that he also reduce overhead as a sign of administrative distrust and undue personal

sacrifice. While unproven, circumstantial evidence showed that he sought his revenge by

skimming off the colleges M & O resources. His values were not communal and, as such,

he was largely ignored by most of his peers.A newspaper reporter uncovered the plan of greed by the Chancellor of a Community

College District when his lucrative private business was discovered while he received state

funds for his full-time job. Yet, perhaps most egregious was the fact that the Board of

Trustees knew of the Chancellors personal business income, did not require him to file a

disclosure form, and retained him as a part-time employee after he resigned as Chancellor,

with the rationale that the worldwide business benefited the college system. This

exemplifies malicious ethics failure, where public servants willfully misuse public resources

for personal gain in this instance the Board of Trustees failed, along with the Chancellor,

in their responsibilities as moral agents. Both emerged unscathed.

It is noteworthy that in all five cases the individual faculty members actions wereintentionally directed toward harming the institution they were a member of by either: (1)

acting against existing rules and procedures; (2) seeking retribution for a perceived wrong;

or (3) acting on personal ambitions which were in conflict with the consensual goals of

their colleagues and profession. Institutional distrust and disloyalty were common in all five

cases. The degree to which faculty sought alternatives to resolving their institutional

grievance varies among the cases. It is speculated that the negative feelings associated with

the acts of misconduct were cumulative and attributed to the institution in general.

Ethics Failure as a Process and a Pattern

The previous vignettes illustrate the range in seriousness of ethics failure and the element of

premeditation and willfulness that seems to characterize its most serious occurrences. What

we know from case histories of ethics failure is that it appears to be a pattern of behavior

that develops over a period of time. The general pattern ethics failure takes appears to entail

24 J.G. Bruhn


9/16

the interplay between the personality of the individual, the perceived opportunity to engage

in unethical acts, the degree to which the individual feels aggrieved, alienated, or harmed,

and the effectiveness of an institutions mechanisms of social control.

Ethics failure is the result of a complex, ongoing process in which individuals

experience continuous unresolved value conflict between themselves, their colleagues, and/or the institution as a whole. It is our assumption that individuals are at greater risk for

behaving unethically when they privatize their value conflict and accompanying feelings,

and either perceive no options for resolving them within the institution, or have been

unsuccessful in doing so. As the individual feels increasing pressure to conform to

institutional values and expectations, and has limited or no positive outlets for dealing with

their negative emotions, coping by retribution can be an alternative.1

Figure 1 illustrates the hypothetical development of ethics failure. The institution plays a

key role in ethics failure. Values are why most academicians choose to affiliate with a given

institution. Some degree of value dissonance can be expected in academic institutions as

faculty, staff and administrators turnover and value priorities change.2 The socialization ofnew faculty is usually the first time values, especially those associated with professional

rewards, are discussed. The department is especially important in the determination of

professional values (Becher and Kogan 1992).3 Louis et al. (1995) emphasize that an

important factor affecting faculty behavior regarding values is the climate of the

department. Climate refers to the work environment shared with colleagues over time.

Researchers have found that the climate of a department affects the attitudes and activities

of department members. Department colleagues are important forces of control on a faculty

member. Department colleagues and the department climate can be either an enabling or

1 Value dissonance is not always expressed verbally. We cannot assume that if value conflict is not openlyexpressed that it does not exist. Similarly, without such overt expression it is not possible to evaluate thedegree of value conflict an individual is experiencing and their coping repertoire. This explains whyunethical behavior is least expected of some individuals.2 Turnover in academic institutions has not been a topic of great concern in the literature, perhaps because thestudent is seen as the consumer. In general, faculty turnover rates in large universities with faculties of 500 ormore averages about 5% compared to an average national faculty turnover rate for all sizes of institutions of7%. The three reasons given most often by faculty for leaving their jobs as expressed in exit interviews are:personal, better opportunity, and work environment. Johnsrud and Rosser (2002) studied faculty membersmorale and their intention to leave their institution. They found that faculty are rarely satisfied with their own

institutions. They see administrators as incompetent, communication as poor, and their influence asdeclining. This discontent is in contrast to their satisfaction with their intellectual lives, the courses theyteach, and their collegial relationships. The extent to which faculty actually act on their discontent remains anempirical question. Turnover is both a blessing and a curse for institutions, however, too often the facultywho leave are those the institution would prefer to retain. A greater understanding of what constitutes thisvalue dissonance, especially personal conflict that leads to negative actions toward the institutions andcolleagues warrants serious research by educational institutions.3 The department is especially important in the determination of professional values, especially those valuesthat graduate students acquire during socialization (Becher and Kogan 1992). Research has shown thatstudents who experience their departments as competitive and unfair are more likely to have been exposed toresearch misconduct (Anderson et al. 1994). This led Louis et al. (1995) to hypothesize that, in departmentswhere the sense of collective responsibility is strong, collegial interaction may create disincentives to engage

in sloppy science, while competitive departments may have fewer perceived restraints of misconduct. In afaculty survey of 98 departments in 49 research institutions they found that highly productive departmentswere just as likely as less productive departments to show instances of misconduct. There were nodisciplinary differences in the rates of research and personal misconduct when they controlled for departmentcharacteristics, yet the researchers acknowledged that certain forms of research misconduct may be disciplinespecific. They concluded that departmental climate is more important than structure in affecting the contextof graduate education (Anderson et al. 1994). Climate makes a difference as a variable that can be affectedthrough administrative intervention and organizational development (Louis et al. 1995).



10/16

ameliorative force in faculty value dissonance. Colleagues in other departments, colleges,

and in other universities also can provide input that encourages or discourages value

dissonance.

It should be expected that some academic institutions will have more instances of value

dissonance and ethics failure than others, depending on the values and skills of their

leaders.4 Some leaders sustain an infrastructure that is geared to early intervention and

prevention of severe value dissonance. Heeren and Shichor (1993) point out that it is

necessary to look at the opportunity structure, systems of social control, and other enabling

processes which exist in the situation of ethics failure. Turnover in academic institutions,like other organizations and institutions, necessitate the recruitment and retention of

individuals at all levels of the institution who will subscribe to, and put into practice, values

of the institution of which they are a member.5

Fig. 1 Flow chart of the hypothetical development of ethics failure

4 A major source of institutional value dissonance is what some in academia refer to as rigid disciplinarysilos, many of which seem to behave as if they existed independently from the institution of which they area part. Edwards (1999) criticizes departments as bastions of traditional academic ways, Damrosch (1995)decries departmental nationalism, and Tierney and Bensimon (1996) lament the loss of an academiccommunity because faculty find intellectual homes in the disciplines rather than institutional peers (p. 11).

Failure to attain institutional rewards is often blamed on faulty socialization and inadequate mentoring indepartments, while departments blame the college and institution for poor communication, faulty processes(biases and politics), behavioral inconsistencies (treating people differently), and unclear policies andprocedures.5 Buchholz and Rosenthal (2006) emphasize that, to develop a moral organization or institution, everyindividual must hold themselves morally responsible for the jobs they are doing, and they must hold othersmorally responsible for doing their jobs. In this way a culture of moral responsibility can be created wheremoral conduct is institutionalized.

26 J.G. Bruhn


11/16

At the heart of value dissonance is the concept of the person role conflict or role

congruence (De Vries 1975). Both conflict and congruence refer to the amount of

agreement between the role requirements of an individual and his expectations, values, and

capacities. If an individual is required to engage in activities he feels are unimportant or

inappropriate, he experiences role conflict. The more role conflict a faculty memberexperiences, the less satisfied and productive he is. The resultant psychological effects will

be to find ways to vent negative feelings, which can take the path of unethical behavior.

Figure 2 presents a flow chart of key steps in the psychological process of knowingly

engaging in ethics failure. Ethics failure takes the form of the personality and coping style

of the aggrieved individual. A decision is made to engage in retribution towards others and/

or the institution. The target(s) and type(s) of retribution will be considered against the

opportunities available to engage in unethical behavior and the personal and career

consequences for the individual. Indeed, this involves a willful retribution plan and a

decision to accept short and long-term consequences for it. When discovered the institution

will respond to the behavior; the response will be determined by the seriousness and publicknowledge of the behavior and various pressures on the institution to act as a moral agent.

Deterrents to Ethics Failure

Faculty Collaboration

Katzenbach and Smith (2003) wrote that the basic structure of the workplace is the

relationship. Each relationship is part of a larger network of relationships. Work gets donethrough relationships. In academia we attempt to create high performing colleges and

universities by assembling a collection of individuals who have the potential of being high

Fig. 2 Flow chart of the steps in the process of knowingly engaging in ethics failure



12/16

performing, and we reward them individually when they succeed. In non-academic

organizations the approach is to create high performing cultures by assembling individuals

who have the potential to create and share information through networks of relationships to

reach common goals. Cohen (2004) pointed out that traditionally scientists have believed

strongly that if you get the science right, everything else is irrelevant. While this view maybe harmless in a scientist working by him or herself, it is detrimental when adopted in a

social or organizational context (p. 32).

Increasingly faculty are working collaboratively across the boundaries of disciplines,

challenging the norm of solitary work and pursuing collaboration and cooperation (Bohen

and Stiles 1998). While interdisciplinarity is not new to academia there is reinvigorated

interest in collaborative work, despite strong barriers against it.

Faculty collaboration occurs in a variety of settings and takes different forms, depending

upon the nature of the collaborative team and its goals. Collaboration can occur among

individuals or academic units on the same campus or in different institutions. Faculty

collaboration is a cooperative endeavor that involves common goals, coordinated effort, andoutcomes for which the collaborators share responsibility and credit. Many believe that

collaboration increases productivity, maintains motivation, stimulates creativity and risk-

taking, and can be a deterrent to value dissonance and ethics failure (Austin and Baldwin

1992). Collaboration is not unique to academia; models of teams exist in health care,

business, and public policy. Collaboration is especially attractive to academics because of

changing technologies, increasing specialized knowledge, time constrains on individual

faculty, the complexity of many current problems, and the increased competition in

attracting research funding. Collaboration does require those in academic institutions to be

willing to shift paradigms from one centered around the individual and reinforced byindividual rewards, to a small group model involving negotiation among stakeholders and a

willingness to share in rewards (Austin and Baldwin 1992).

Lattuca (2002) studied the processes, contexts, and outcomes of interdisciplinarity based

on interviews with college and university faculty involved in a variety of interdisciplinary

scholarly activities. Informants concerns about interdisciplinarity centered around concerns

about promotion, tenure, and other rewards. Of central importance was the degree to which

the institutional administration supported faculty involved in interdisciplinary programs and

projects. An indicator of institutional support that facilitated faculty collaboration was the

availability of internal funds for interdisciplinary graduate programs. Lattuca concluded that

institutions that consider faculty to be works in progress will create facilitating contexts forfaculty learning, such as opportunities for collaboration.

Better Cultural Managers

Argyris et al. (1985) suggested that organizational effectiveness will be higher in

organizations where there is congruence between espoused values and actual organizational

practices than in organizations that have contradictions between espoused values and actual

practices. In this vein, one would expect less value dissonance and ethics failure in

congruent organizations.Smart and St. John (1996) studied the relationships between culture type, culture strength,

and the effectiveness of organizations in a national sample of 334 4 year colleges and

universities. The most prevalent culture type was the clan form, which they found was also

the most effective, especially on campuses with strong cultures. Strong clan cultures (those

aligned with the community-of-scholars perspective) were also found to be more effective

than strong bureaucratic cultures. The clan form of culture consists of fraternal values, a sense

28 J.G. Bruhn


13/16

of mutual interest, pride in membership, and an extensive collegial network. Long-term

commitment is supported by a sense of history and tradition. The role of superiors as models

and mentors emphasizes the importance of continuity and experience. Peer pressure

underscores the need to perform in ways that are consistent and widely shared among

members. The star is not as highly valued as the team player (Kerr and Slocum 2005).The clan structure exists mainly at the department level on academic campuses. Some

departments have stronger clan cultures than others. As one moves from the department to

the college level where the culture is composed of diverse sets of clans, concerns and issues

become cross-departmental or cross-clan issues, such as promotion and tenure, and require

integration and understanding of the institutional culture and total college or university

system. Achieving individual faculty goals and receiving awards becomes less focused

around a set of values and norms that are consistent with a departmental or clan culture and

more performance-based evidence consistent with institutional or bureaucratic culture.

While peers evaluate other peers at the department, college, and institutional levels and

attempt to make decisions that are equitable and defensible across academic units, some ofthe key values intrinsic to the evaluation change. As the faculty member moves along the

peer evaluation process the emphasis changes from being a team player at the department

level to being a star performer at the institutional level.

Value dissonance is not difficult to discern. It is usually apparent in the attitudes and behavior

of those most dissonant. A remedy for value dissonance is better management of the diverse

cultures in academia by the administrative gatekeepers of those cultures. It is often too tempting

for administrators and peers to dismiss individual value dissonance as disinterest, aloofness, or

elitism when the deeper feelings are anger, disappointment, frustration and/or abandonment.

Value dissonance often resolves itself by affected faculty leaving the institution.

The Academic Institution as a Moral Agency

If ethical behavior in academic institutions is to be more than espoused values, there needs

to be a stronger alignment between espoused values and actual management practices

(Smart and St. John 1996). As Whitley and Keith-Spiegel (2001) and Trevino (1990) have

emphasized, academic institutions need to develop an academic integrity ethos which has

the clear and proactive support of its leaders at all academic levels. Practicing ethics is more

than each of us ensuring the integrity of our own professional conduct. It is an

institutional responsibility (Zajac and Comfort 1997; Bennett 1998). Damrosch (1995)observed, The norms of alienation and aggression still enshrined in the university are the

products not of nature, but of cultural choices... (p. 106). The fear of retribution for

reporting unethical behavior is often the choice that perpetuates the academic code of

silence. One approach to weakening this code is for the annual performance reviews of all

academic units and their members, faculty, staff, and administrators, to include a discussion

of how they have contributed to the promotion of an ethical organization.

Conclusion

Ethics failure is not new nor unique to academia. While there is information on student

academic misconduct, the prevalence of ethics failure among faculty is largely unknown.

Defining ethics failure and delineating its boundaries, especially its less egregious forms,

differs widely among academic institutions. Indeed, the prevalence of ethics failure can

change as institutional leaders, faculty, and policies change.



14/16

Ethics failure is more likely to emerge as a problem in institutions where it is difficult for

members to meet their needs and realize their goals, and where the colleges and

departments within the institution provide little or no support, or inconsistent support, to

assist a faculty member in realizing goals. Ethics failure is often the result of a sustained

period of value conflict or dissonance usually resulting in frustration, anger, and perhapsisolation on the part of a faculty member in her attempt to achieve recognition for reaching

institutional goals for ones work. It could be hypothesized that the greater the value

dissonance experienced by a faculty member, the greater the likelihood that she would

engage in unprofessional and unethical behavior.

Value conflict or dissonance is often resolved by the affected faculty member leaving the

institution. Value dissonance can be created by changes in institutional, college, and

departmental leaders, and policies. Knowledge of policies and procedures to achieve individual

recognition and rewards for ones work is not sufficient to prevent value dissonance. Value

dissonance is, in part, due to a poor institutionfaculty member fit, that is, when a faculty

members career goals are not synchronous with the institutions norms and expectations.Value dissonance among faculty can be minimized in most instances beginning with the

socialization of new faculty. It is during this time that new faculty are acculturated to a new

institutions culture, its norms and expectations regarding rewards and advancement.

Rewards for advancement in academia are tightly connected to promotion and tenure. Value

dissonance can be a fait accompli when there is a mismatch between a faculty members

career goals and the mission and reward policies of the institution they contemplate joining.

Some of the ways the path toward value dissonance can be avoided include: (1) greater

proactive management of the institutions culture beginning with the socialization of new

faculty; (2) annual monitoring of individual faculty members progress in meetinginstitutional norms for recognition and advancement; and, (3) increasing opportunities

and rewards for faculty to engage in collaborative activities across disciplinary boundaries,

thereby lessening the probability of faculty isolation and disenfranchisement when they

encounter disappointment and frustration.

References

Anderson, M. S., Louis, K. S., & Earle, J. (1994). Disciplinary and departmental effects on observations of

faculty and graduate student misconduct. Journal of Higher Education, 65(3), 331350.Anglen, R., & Holstege, S. (2007). Educator reaps public dollars. The Arizona Republic, A1, A18A19,

(March 25).Argyris, C., Putnam, R., & Smith, D. M. (1985). Action science. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.Austin, A. E., & Baldwin, R. G. (1992). Faculty collaboration: Enhancing the quality of scholarship and

teaching. ASHE-ERIC Higher Education Report Series. Washington, DC: George WashingtonUniversity, School of Education and Human Development.

Becher, T., & Kogan, M. (1992). Process and structure in higher education. London: Routledge.Bennett, J. B. (1998). Collegial professionalism: The academy, individualism, and the common good.

Phoenix: The American Council on Education/The Oryx.Bohen, S. J., & Stiles, J. (1998). Experimenting with models of faculty collaboration: Factors that promote

their success. New Directions for Institutional Research, 98, 3955, (Winter).

Braxton, J. M. (Ed.) (1999). Perspectives on scholarly misconduct in the sciences. Columbus, OH: OhioState University Press.

Braxton, J. M., & Bayer, A. E. (2003). Faculty misconduct in collegiate teaching. Baltimore: The JohnsHopkins University Press.

Braxton, J. M., & Mann, M. R. (2004). Incidence and student response to faculty teaching norm violations.In J. M. Braxton, & A. E. Bayer (Eds.) Addressing faculty and student classroom improprieties. Newdirections for teaching and learning. Issue 99 (pp. 3540). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

30 J.G. Bruhn


15/16

Bruhn, J. G. (2002). Trust and the health of organizations. New York: Kluwer.Bruhn, J. G., Zajac, G., Al-Kazemi, A. A., & Prescott, L. D. (2002). Moral positions and academic conduct:

Parameters of tolerance for ethics failure. Journal of Higher Education, 73(4), 461493.Brumfiel, G. (2007). Misconduct? Its all academic. Nature, 445, 240241, (18 January).Buchholz, R. A., & Rosenthal, S. B. (2006). Integrating ethics all the way through: The issue of moral

agency reconsidered. Journal of Business Ethics, 66, 233

239.Chang, K. (2002). Panel says Bell scientists faked discoveries in physics. New York Times, 26, A-1.Chong, S., & Normile, D. (2006). How young Korean researchers helped unearth a scandal. Science, 311,

2225.Clouthier, S. G. (2005). Misconduct: Lower ranks take most of the blame. Nature, 436, 460.Cohen, C. M. (2004). Confronting the social context of science. The American Society of Cell Biology

Newsletter, 27(1), 3233.Corlett, J. A. (2005). The good professor. Journal of Academic Ethics, 3(1), 2754.Damrosch, D. (1995). We scholars: Changing the culture of the university. Cambridge, MA: Harvard

University Press.De Russy, C. (2003). Professional ethics begin on the college campus. The Chronicle of Higher Education,

B20, September 19.

De Vries, D. L. (1975). The relationship of role expectations to faculty behavior. Research in HigherEducation, 3(2), 111129.

De Vries, R., Anderson, M. S., & Martinson, B. C. (2006). Normal misbehavior: Scientists talk about theethics of research. Journal of Empirical Research on Human Research Ethics, 1(1), 4350.

Edwards, R. (1999). The academic department: How does it fit into the university reform agenda? Change,31, 1727, (SeptemberOctober).

Eliot, M. (2000). How prevalent is fraud? Thats a million dollar question. Science, 290(5497), 16621663.Evans, D., Smith, M., & Willen, L. (2005). Big Pharmas shameful secret. Bloomberg Markets, 14, 3662.Feldman, D. C. (1984). The development and enforcement of group norms. Academy of Management

Review, 9(1), 4753.Felicio, D. M., & Plenladz, J. (1999). Ethics in higher education: Red flags and gray areas. Feminism &

Psychology, 9(1), 5373.

Hamilton, N. W. (2002). Academic ethics: Problems and materials on professional conduct and sharedgovernance. Westport, CT: American Council on Education and Praeger.

Hamilton, N. W. (2007). Faculty autonomy and obligation. Academe Online, JanuaryFebruary. AAUP:Washington DC.

Hart, J. (2003). Racism, sexism persist on U.S. college campuses, study finds. Black Issues in HigherEducation, 20(22), 15.

Heeren, J. W., & Shichor, D. (1993). Faculty malfeasance: Understanding faculty deviance. SociologicalInquiry, 63(1), 4963.

Johnsrud, L. K., & Rosser, V. J. (2002). Faculty members morale and their intention to leave: A multilevelexplanation. Journal of Higher Education, 73(4), 518542.

Katzenbach, J. R., & Smith, D. K. (2003). The wisdom of teams: Creating the high performanceorganization. New York: Harper Business.

Kelley, P. C., & Chang, P. L. (2007). A typology of university ethical lapses: Types, levels of seriousness,and originating location. Journal of Higher Education, 78(4), 402429.

Kerr, J., & Slocum, J. W. (2005). Managing corporate culture through reward systems. Academy of Management Executive, 19, 130138.

Kintisch, E. (2005). Researcher faces prison for fraud in NIH grant applications and papers. Science, 307,1851.

Klein, J. (2007). A collegiate dilemma: The lack of formal training in ethics for professors. Journal of College & Character, 2, 110.

Knight, J., & Auster, C. J. (1999). Faculty conduct: An empirical study of ethical activism. Journal of HigherEducation, 70(2), 188210.

Langlais, P. J. (2006). Ethics for the next generation. The Chronicle of Higher Education, 52(19), B11.Lattuca, L. R. (2002). Learning interdisciplinarity: Sociocultural perspectives on academic work. Journal of

Higher Education, 73(6), 711739.Lewis, A., Chester, M., & Forman, T. A. (2000). The impact ofcolorblind ideologies on students of color:

Intergroup relations at a predominately white university. The Journal of Negro Education, 69(1/2), 7491.

Louis, K. S., Anderson, M. S., & Rosenberg, L. (1995). Academic misconduct and values: The departmentsinfluence. Review of Higher Education, 18(4), 393422.



16/16

Martinson, B. C., Anderson, M. S., & De Vries, R. G. (2005). Scientists behaving badly. Nature, 435, 737738.

Meier, B. (2005). Implant program for heart device was a sales spur. New York Times, September 27, A-1.Paludi, M. A. (Ed.) (1996). Sexual harassment on college campuses: Abusing the ivory power. Ithaca, NY:

SUNY Press.

Pryor, E. R., Habermann, B., & Broome, M. E. (2007). Scientific misconduct from the perspective ofresearch coordinators: A national survey. Journal of Medical Ethics, 33, 265269.Robie, C., & Keeping, L. (2004). Perceptions of ethical behavior among business faculty in Canada. Journal

of Academic Ethics, 2(3), 221247.Roworth, W. W. (2002). Professional ethics, day by day: What are the ethical obligations of faculty

members? Academe, 88(1), 2427.Smart, J. C., & St. John, E. P. (1996). Organizational culture and effectiveness in higher education: A test of

the culture type and strong culture hypotheses. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 18(3),219241.

Tierney, W. G., & Bensimon, E. M. (1996). Promotion and tenure: Community and socialization in academe.Albany: State University of New York Press.

Tretkoff, E. (2004). Junior members respond to APS ethics survey. APS News, 13(1), 1.

Trevino, L. K. (1990). A cultural perspective on changing and developing organizational ethics. Research inOrganizational Change and Development, 4, 195230.

Wade, N. (2002). A new look at old data may discredit a theory on race. New York Times, October 8, F3.Wadman, M. (2005). One in three scientists confesses to having sinned. Nature, 435, 718719, (Jun 9).Whitley, B. E., & Keith-Spiegel, P. (2001). Academic integrity as an institutional issue. Ethics & Behavior,

11(3), 325342.Wilcox, J. R., & Ebbs, S. L. (1992). The leadership compass: Values and ethics in higher education (ASHE-

ERIC Higher Education Report No. 1). Washington, DC: School of Education and Human Development,George Washington University.

Wysocki, B. (2005). Cash injection: As universities get billions in grants, some see abuses. Wall StreetJournal, A-1, August 16.

Zajac, G. (1996). Beyond Hammurabi: A public service definition of ethics failure. Journal of Public

Administration Research and Theory, 6, 145

190.Zajac, G., & Comfort, L. K. (1997). The spirit of watchfulness: Public ethics as organizational learning.

Journal of Public Administration Research & Theory, 7(4), 541570.

32 J.G. Bruhn

Documents

Value Dissonance and Ethics Failure in Academia