FRINK Linked Data Fragments server

Matches in SemOpenAlex for { <https://semopenalex.org/work/W59314103> ?p ?o ?g. }

• W59314103 endingPage "47" @default.
• W59314103 startingPage "41" @default.
• W59314103 abstract "Introduction The ability to work through and resolve ethical dilemmas is an important skill for any professional. The multi-faceted work of research administrators forces them to deal with a multiplicity of dilemmas related to research ethics. These dilemmas can arise in any of the areas or allied disciplines related to research administration, such as financial stewardship, operations, human resources management, sponsored projects oversight, strategic planning, research law, development activities, standards for the responsible conduct of research, and human subjects protection. The ability to tackle ethical dilemmas to uphold the ethical integrity of research and ensure regulatory compliance is critical for professional research administrators on all levels, including executives, middle managers, and technical or support staff. Yet, as individuals join the research administration profession from diverse backgrounds and previous experiences, their exposure to research ethics also varies. Recognizing that each research administrator brings different perspectives and experiences to ethical situations, it is important that research administrators of all professional levels receive clear, effective training for dealing with ethical dilemmas. Literature Review Rushworth Kidder, founder of the Institute for Global Ethics, describes a true ethical dilemma as a conflict of right versus right. He claims that true ethical dilemmas fall within four right-versus-right categories; individuals so frequently encounter these four types of dilemmas that they can be considered paradigms (Kidder, 1995). These four fundamental ethical dilemmas are: truth versus loyalty, individual versus community, short term versus long term, and justice versus mercy. Kidder asserts that the ability to classify ethical dilemmas into one of these four categories allows individuals to reduce a complex and potentially anxiety-provoking dilemma into a more manageable and less threatening problem. However, the ability to identify and categorize the type of ethical dilemma does not resolve the conflict. Working through the dilemma is necessary to reach a decision. Focusing on the process of understanding and resolving an ethical dilemma, James Rest (1994) developed a theoretical model of ethical decision making that involves four distinct psychological processes: moral awareness, moral judgment, moral intention, and moral action. Rest asserts that, when confronted with an ethical dilemma, individuals engage in a decision-making process that involves working through these four components. Individuals move from moral awareness, the recognition of a moral situation, to moral judgment, the evaluation of choices and outcomes, to moral intention, choosing how one intends to act, and lastly to moral action, the actual behavior in the situation. A failure at any step in the process could result in a failure to make an ethical decision (Rest, 1994). Building on Rest's theory, Jones (1991) developed a theory of moral intensity, suggesting that specific characteristics of the moral situation-- what he collectively identified as moral intensity--influence individuals' decision-making ability. Jones described six factors of moral intensity: Magnitude of Consequences, Social Consensus, Probability of Effect, Temporal Immediacy, Proximity, and Concentration of Effect. Magnitude of Consequences refers to the degree to which an individual may be harmed by or benefit from the decision maker's action. Social Consensus refers to the degree of agreement among a social group that an action is good or bad. This social group could be society as a whole (e.g., an illegal act is not morally acceptable by society because a law prohibits it) or a smaller social group, such as an individual's colleagues. Probability of Effect is described as the likelihood that the predicted outcomes and the expected level of harm/benefit will occur. Temporal Immediacy refers to the length of time between the action and its resolution. …" @default.
• W59314103 created "2016-06-24" @default.
• W59314103 creator A5073885839 @default.
• W59314103 creator A5090092937 @default.
• W59314103 date "2008-03-22" @default.
• W59314103 modified "2023-09-27" @default.
• W59314103 title "A Need to Know: An Ethical Decision-Making Model for Research Administrators" @default.
• W59314103 cites W1547064462 @default.
• W59314103 cites W2124077410 @default.
• W59314103 cites W2892022744 @default.
• W59314103 hasPublicationYear "2008" @default.
• W59314103 type Work @default.
• W59314103 sameAs 59314103 @default.
• W59314103 citedByCount "3" @default.
• W59314103 countsByYear W593141032019 @default.
• W59314103 crossrefType "journal-article" @default.
• W59314103 hasAuthorship W59314103A5073885839 @default.
• W59314103 hasAuthorship W59314103A5090092937 @default.
• W59314103 hasConcept C111472728 @default.
• W59314103 hasConcept C127413603 @default.
• W59314103 hasConcept C138885662 @default.
• W59314103 hasConcept C144024400 @default.
• W59314103 hasConcept C157298493 @default.
• W59314103 hasConcept C17744445 @default.
• W59314103 hasConcept C199539241 @default.
• W59314103 hasConcept C2775890777 @default.
• W59314103 hasConcept C2777950569 @default.
• W59314103 hasConcept C2778496695 @default.
• W59314103 hasConcept C39549134 @default.
• W59314103 hasConcept C55587333 @default.
• W59314103 hasConcept C94625758 @default.
• W59314103 hasConceptScore W59314103C111472728 @default.
• W59314103 hasConceptScore W59314103C127413603 @default.
• W59314103 hasConceptScore W59314103C138885662 @default.
• W59314103 hasConceptScore W59314103C144024400 @default.
• W59314103 hasConceptScore W59314103C157298493 @default.
• W59314103 hasConceptScore W59314103C17744445 @default.
• W59314103 hasConceptScore W59314103C199539241 @default.
• W59314103 hasConceptScore W59314103C2775890777 @default.
• W59314103 hasConceptScore W59314103C2777950569 @default.
• W59314103 hasConceptScore W59314103C2778496695 @default.
• W59314103 hasConceptScore W59314103C39549134 @default.
• W59314103 hasConceptScore W59314103C55587333 @default.
• W59314103 hasConceptScore W59314103C94625758 @default.
• W59314103 hasIssue "1" @default.
• W59314103 hasLocation W593141031 @default.
• W59314103 hasOpenAccess W59314103 @default.
• W59314103 hasPrimaryLocation W593141031 @default.
• W59314103 hasRelatedWork W125718681 @default.
• W59314103 hasRelatedWork W1605636103 @default.
• W59314103 hasRelatedWork W1762918263 @default.
• W59314103 hasRelatedWork W1902774414 @default.
• W59314103 hasRelatedWork W1975035456 @default.
• W59314103 hasRelatedWork W1978804970 @default.
• W59314103 hasRelatedWork W2007577249 @default.
• W59314103 hasRelatedWork W2017015922 @default.
• W59314103 hasRelatedWork W208620666 @default.
• W59314103 hasRelatedWork W2087732927 @default.
• W59314103 hasRelatedWork W2301522006 @default.
• W59314103 hasRelatedWork W2482053695 @default.
• W59314103 hasRelatedWork W2485475597 @default.
• W59314103 hasRelatedWork W2785563532 @default.
• W59314103 hasRelatedWork W290925791 @default.
• W59314103 hasRelatedWork W2922196988 @default.
• W59314103 hasRelatedWork W2992203092 @default.
• W59314103 hasRelatedWork W3093475809 @default.
• W59314103 hasRelatedWork W3150418469 @default.
• W59314103 hasRelatedWork W3124155175 @default.
• W59314103 hasVolume "39" @default.
• W59314103 isParatext "false" @default.
• W59314103 isRetracted "false" @default.
• W59314103 magId "59314103" @default.
• W59314103 workType "article" @default.