Professionalism research paper
Maxwell Almaguer Professor Lace English 28 February Motivation to Professionalism Student professionalism and success are required to work together to motivate the student to be an efficient employee in the future. I am a good example of a student in progress because I always arrive on time to my classes or work; follow any directions from my professors or employers, and follow ethics that influence my professional behavior towards other individuals. These ideas and ethics will benefit. The following will be discussed; assessing the different understandings of professionalism, demonstrating factors such as self-awareness, personal qualities and skills. Examining the different meanings of professionalism Hanlon would.
Writing a Research Paper
DuBois is Steven J. Louis, Missouri. Violations of rules and regulations in research can cause significant problems for human participants, animal subjects, data integrity, institutions, and investigators. The Professionalism and Integrity in Research Program PI Program provides remediation training that addresses the root causes of violations of rules and regulations in research.
Across its first three years — , the program trained 39 researchers from 24 different institutions in the United States. Preliminary program outcome assessment using validated measures of professional decision making and cognitive distortions in a pre- and postworkshop design indicated significant improvements.
A follow-up survey of participants found statistically significant increases in a variety of target behaviors, including training research staff members to foster compliance and research quality, using standard operating procedures to support compliance and research integrity, performing self-audits of research operations, reducing job stressors, actively overseeing the work of the research team, and seeking help when experiencing uncertainty.
Assessment of the PI Program was conducted with modest sample sizes, yet evaluation, outcome assessment, and self-reported survey data provided statistically significant evidence of effectiveness in achieving program goals. When doing research, there are many ways to get into trouble. Such behaviors include failing to obtain signatures to document informed consent, deviating from anesthesia protocols in animal research, or neglecting to oversee raw data analyzed by trainees thereby increasing the risk of data falsification.
Such behaviors may reflect a lack of attention, rather than an intention to commit wrongdoing; yet, they can lead to serious disciplinary actions from the Food and Drug Administration, the Office of Laboratory Animal Welfare, or the U. Office of Research Integrity.
Researchers may then find their research privileges suspended, while institutions struggle to identify appropriate actions that will ensure that such behaviors do not recur. In this article we describe the first remediation program for researchers working in the United States who have violated such rules or regulations in science. We present the rationale behind the program and outcomes from our first nine workshops involving 39 researchers from 24 different institutions throughout the United States.
A recently conducted needs assessment survey of research administrators showed that institutions confront research violations on a regular basis, often without an effective response. This gap was particularly problematic given that standard training programs in responsible conduct of research RCR and human subjects protections often fail to achieve their goals.
The Restoring Professionalism and Integrity in Research Program—now called the Professionalism and Integrity in Research Program or PI Program —was created in to meet the specific needs of investigators who violated rules or regulations in research. In a recent article, we described the kinds of violations that led to program referrals most commonly failures to provide lab oversight, informed consent and recruitment violations, plagiarism, and animal care violations , and why these violations occurred most commonly due to investigators being overextended, not prioritizing compliance, being unsure of the rules, or failing to communicate effectively.
Researchers are often overextended as they attempt to balance multiple responsibilities such as conducting research, seeking new funding, teaching, seeing patients, and tending to administrative responsibilities. Moreover, projects may be understaffed, and staff members may not be adequately prepared for their roles. Further, principal investigators are frequently high achievers and creative learners but are not always highly disciplined and detail oriented regarding matters of paperwork and documentation.
Accordingly, we designed a program that would identify the root causes of individual researcher lapses and that would coach researchers on a range of compensatory and management strategies:. Anticipating consequences of actions, including long-term and short-term consequences to others and themselves;. Developing standard operating procedures for matters of research integrity and compliance.
The award enabled us to establish an advisory committee and a development team that comprised research ethicists, researchers, research administrators, and experts in industrial-organizational, clinical, educational, and moral psychology. The advisory committee and development team met for a face-to-face meeting in February to discuss program goals and strategies.
John Gibbs at Ohio State University compiled materials on moral development and addressing self-serving biases. While content was informed by the work of the development team members described above, all materials were developed de novo to ensure appropriateness for adult professional learning in a small-group, short-term setting using the principles of career coaching, 28 , 29 which we deemed most likely to facilitate behavior change.
The PI Program is offered three times per year. Here, we share outcomes from the first nine workshops the first three years , offered from January through December Following each workshop, faculty met to evaluate the curriculum and revise the manual.
The PI Program consists of preworkshop activities, a three-day on-site workshop, and postworkshop activities. Using an electronic newsletter that is delivered to more than 3, research administrators who were identified using publicly available information, the PI Program shares information about its services and upcoming workshops.
Contact and registration information are provided in each newsletter and on the PI Program Web site. When an individual or institution contacts the PI Program Coordinator, a brief call is arranged to determine whether the candidate is a good fit for the program.
We consider the workshop to be appropriate for individuals who do empirical research at graduate or postgraduate levels. We do not train undergraduates, humanities scholars, or individuals whose difficulties arise from unmet treatment needs for substance use or mental disorders. Thus far, the only individuals who were denied enrollment were reporters and RCR instructors who wanted to observe; institutions have made only appropriate referrals. Upon registration, participants are required to complete an assessment battery that examines knowledge of RCR, professional decision-making skills, levels of compliance disengagement, personal stress, and workplace stress.
Baseline data for all measures have been reported in the supplemental materials of a separate paper. During the interview we assess the nature and scope of noncompliance or other violations, learn about the kind of research being done, and determine whether the institution requires any other actions as part of a remediation plan. The heart of the PI Program is a three-day, face-to-face workshop held in St.
Workshops are facilitated by two faculty members. All PI Program faculty members hold doctoral degrees in psychology, have conducted federally funded research, and have served on institutional review boards IRBs. Workshops are attended by three to eight participants to ensure adequate opportunities for small-group engagement.
Prior to attending the workshop, all participants sign a confidentiality agreement, and, at the beginning of the workshop, faculty and participants reiterate the promise to maintain the confidentiality of workshop discussions.
Day 1 of the workshop explores the values that attracted participants to research, examines the norms we expect others to follow, investigates bias in research, surveys how stress can negatively affect decision making, and teaches a concrete stress management strategy.
Each participant shares the circumstances precipitating his or her enrollment in the workshop, including the nature and history of the research violations. During this time, faculty and other participants collaborate in identifying ways that similar problems could be avoided in the future and also provide emotional support.
Day 3 examines how to address institutional and environmental barriers to research compliance and integrity, explores the management and leadership needs of participants, and culminates in the development of a written professional development plan. Such plans focus on a small number of feasible and well-defined actions, usually with specific target dates for completion.
Aside from the daily workshop activities, participants are assigned homework each evening. Assignments include practicing a stress management technique, drafting a personal story for Workshop Day 2 , and identifying resources for a professional development plan for Workshop Day 3.
The workshop approach adopted in the PI Program has proven capable of meeting the unique needs of participants despite the fact that they are referred for different reasons. The specific knowledge that participants require is often quite distinct e. However, most of the program addresses other root causes of problems—poor time management, communication, or data management practices; inadequate leadership on matters of compliance; and failure to use good professional decision-making strategies—and relies heavily on interaction, discussion, and strategizing.
Throughout the three-day workshop, participants complete a series of eight worksheets that enable them to identify needs and opportunities to develop new habits, knowledge, skills, and relationships, which become the focus of their professional development plans and subsequent coaching activities.
Because the program is tailored to individual needs, we have found little need to change the fundamental design of the program, though we have modified our didactic approach, moving toward greater reliance on interaction e. In the week following the workshop, participants complete two assessments and finalize their professional development plans with input from program faculty.
Participants then complete two to four follow-up coaching calls over the next two to three months. During coaching calls, program faculty provide assistance to participants as they execute their professional development plans.
The number of calls is individualized, based on the needs of the participant. From May through the period reported in this article, the PI Program was supported through workshop fees and with a sponsorship by the CITI training program, then housed at the University of Miami, which offered online training on diverse topics related to research ethics.
Participants pay a fee for the workshop, including a biofeedback device, workshop meals, assessments, and coaching calls. The CITI training program collected all fees and ensured a minimum operating budget, which was essential during the initial years of program development when revenues fell short of program costs. PI Program participants granted permission for the use of deidentified assessment data for research purposes.
As of January , 39 individuals from 24 institutions had completed the PI Program. Program participants represent diverse disciplines and career stages with a mixture of government and industry funding.
Nearly twice as many participants were born outside of the United States than would be expected based on the percentage of faculty-level researchers in U. Such discussions have proven to be relevant to all participants, regardless of country of origin, because each discipline and lab has its own culture with its own attendant assumptions and biases.
Participants complete an evaluation at the end of each workshop day. On a scale from 1 to 5 with 5 indicating the strongest endorsement, items related to program faculty quality yielded mean scores of 4. After participants complete all program requirements and receive their Certificate of Completion approximately two months after attending the workshop , we request a final overall program evaluation, which includes several open-ended items pertaining to the value of the program and areas for improvement.
The following are representative responses from several participants to the follow-up evaluation:. At the time I came to the course, I was demoralized and convinced that I would be stuck in my situation indefinitely. It was such a relief to find the course was a place to dispassionately examine the factors that led up to problems, realize the roles played by myself and others, and to plan out how I could change constructively to accommodate the institution.
This is a great program for anyone interested in learning new organizational and leadership skills for the high-paced, usually very stressful work that is academic research. The facilitators are often profound about your specific situation that often leads to positive outcomes for you.
When asked how we might improve the course, most participants made no suggestions. Would be helpful to have some dedicated material for the physician—scientist. There are areas that are unique to this group of researchers and could be helpful to address some of them specifically.
Broaden the scope of the program to include different types of research concerns other than IRB and medical ethics. Accordingly, recent iterations of the PI Program have incorporated more diversified cases. Aside from the program evaluation data described above and with funding from the U.
Office of Research Integrity , we developed and validated two new measures to assess PI Program outcomes. The How I Think about Research HIT-Res test assesses the degree to which participants use self-serving cognitive distortions such as blaming others or assuming the worst to justify deviations from research compliance or integrity.
The Professional Decision-making in Research PDR measure assesses the degree to which participants use evidence-based professional strategies in their research decision making: seeking help, managing emotions, anticipating consequences, recognizing rules and regulations, and testing assumptions.
We administered these two new measures, along with measures of moral disengagement, narcissism, cynicism, and knowledge of RCR, to NIH-funded researchers at different career stages. Results of the research supported the psychometric properties of the two scales. Participants completed both measures prior to the workshop and again one week following the workshop. Interestingly, AR scores on the HIT-Res also decreased significantly, suggesting that participants were more forthright following the workshop.
Pre- vs. The mean length of time from workshop completion to completion of the survey was 13 months. At follow-up, all participants were still or once again actively engaged in research. Although many of the effects are large and statistically significant, secondary to the small sample size and the use of multiple t tests, results should be considered preliminary at this time.
Only three targeted behaviors did not change following the workshop: communicating with others in a constructive manner, managing emotional responses to research-related challenges, and consulting with a research mentor. Not only is it the first remediation program specifically designed for U. Although our data derive from a small sample, many of the observed effects are large, and we have demonstrated statistically significant improvements in targeted attitudes, problem-solving skills, and self-reported behaviors.
This chapter on Professionalism is a new chapter in Learning From Practice: A Text for Experiential Albany Law School Research Paper No. The results of the study showed that professionalism is positively related to both Reviewing the models cited in this paper highlights that there is some overlap.
To advance you must interact with others, and the manner in which you do so affects your professional reputation, writes Michael A. Among the engaging discussions, the conversation turned to professionalism. By professionalism, I refer to professional behavior in the workplace, not ethics or the responsible conduct of research, although the two are intimately intertwined with professionalism. The policy got me thinking about how we learn professionalism. Are we expected to know what constitutes skill, good judgment and polite behavior for our work environment and profession?
Journal of Professions and Organization JPO is the premier outlet for research on professional organizations, including their work, management and their broader social and economic role …. The articles are freely available to read online until the end of the year.
Professionalism is the conduct, behavior and attitude of someone in a work or business environment. Professionalism leads to workplace success, a strong professional reputation and a high level of work ethic and excellence.
Professionalism
Ofsted, School league tables, the National Curriculum and performance related pay are just some of the high stake measures which have been introduced over the past thirty years. Gewirtz argues that the restructuring of the education system has been part of the dismantling of welfare whilst introducing managerialist forms of control. Professionalism is an extremely important feature in any work environment. However, many people have different ideas of what professionalism means. Others consider professionalism to be dressing nice or having an advance degree in a certain. Nowadays we can see professionalism present in every career.
The Importance of Professionalism at Work Essay
DuBois is Steven J. Louis, Missouri. Violations of rules and regulations in research can cause significant problems for human participants, animal subjects, data integrity, institutions, and investigators. The Professionalism and Integrity in Research Program PI Program provides remediation training that addresses the root causes of violations of rules and regulations in research. Across its first three years — , the program trained 39 researchers from 24 different institutions in the United States. Preliminary program outcome assessment using validated measures of professional decision making and cognitive distortions in a pre- and postworkshop design indicated significant improvements. A follow-up survey of participants found statistically significant increases in a variety of target behaviors, including training research staff members to foster compliance and research quality, using standard operating procedures to support compliance and research integrity, performing self-audits of research operations, reducing job stressors, actively overseeing the work of the research team, and seeking help when experiencing uncertainty. Assessment of the PI Program was conducted with modest sample sizes, yet evaluation, outcome assessment, and self-reported survey data provided statistically significant evidence of effectiveness in achieving program goals. When doing research, there are many ways to get into trouble.
Haven't found the right essay? Get an expert to write your essay!
This page lists some of the stages involved in writing a library-based research paper. Although this list suggests that there is a simple, linear process to writing such a paper, the actual process of writing a research paper is often a messy and recursive one, so please use this outline as a flexible guide. This is an accordion element with a series of buttons that open and close related content panels.
