Focus points

Cases

Imported from Escenic. Section 42693, article 156611.

1.1: Lack of transparency about the use of project funds
1.2: Not reporting accidents
1.3: Tacit "agreement" about use of project funds
1.4: Instructions from a superior to circumvent purchasing regulations
1.5: Invitation from a business

Case 1.1: Lack of transparency about the use of project funds

A PhD candidate has reported that she does not have access to information about the finances of the project on which she is working. In one case, the professor/supervisor travelled to a conference with his wife, and the PhD candidate believes that the trip was financed from project funds. The finances are controlled by the supervisor, while the PhD candidate feels that this should have been the responsibility of the institution and not of the individual professor or supervisor.

Several PhD candidates report similar experiences, and feel that there is a lack of transparency and openness about the use of funds in the project. There is nothing in the contract to specify how the finances are to be managed.

Questions: Should the contract have included provisions for the control of the project finances, and how should the responsibility be shared between the professor/supervisor, PhD candidate and institution? How should one raise the issue?

General comment: The PhD contract imposes a general obligation on the parties to provide relevant information, but does not include any specific details that cover the situation described above. On the basis of comments from the pilot testers, one of the problems is a lack of transparency, and a lack of trust experienced by one of the parties (the PhD candidate). One alternative is to make the regulations very detailed. We believe, however, that it is far preferable to strive for openness about all use of the project resources.

Comments from the pilot testers:
Comment 1: From the perspective of equal opportunities, I am especially concerned about the transparency of structures that affect the individual's progress and potential career choices. It must be easy for a PhD candidate to feel powerless in situations like this. This also applies to maternity or paternity leave, where management at the department takes up to NOK 100,000 of the project funds as a substitute for reimbursement that is not provided by NAV [the Norwegian Labour and Welfare Organization].

Comment 2: Does the professor not have an accounting obligation to the authority granting the funds? In this case, improper use of funds would surely be discovered. If the professor spends funds on his wife, this is unacceptable - but it is also unacceptable if the PhD candidate is spreading false rumours.

Link to PhD contract, in particular, see Part B § 3 regarding the duty to provide information: The candidate and the supervisor(s) undertake to keep one another informed on an ongoing basis about all matters of significance for supervision. The parties undertake to actively follow up any matters which could lead to supervision not functioning as is agreed in § 5 below.

----------------

Case 1.2: Not reporting accident

Several students and employees at NTNU work at premises used for experimentation where SINTEF is the main player. A serious accident takes place on the premises. By chance, few people are present at the time. The NTNU employees have part-time jobs at the local SINTEF unit. The incident is not reported.

Questions: Why is the fact that the incident was not reported open to criticism? What risks should be weighed up against each other in this case?

General comment: We do not know whether the regulations were circumvented or unknown in this case. The reporting obligation is clear. However, the temptation to save one's own skin may have been greater than the interest in maintaining a healthy research culture. Why would reporting the incident be a problem – possibly because the necessary safety measures had not been taken?

Comments from the pilot testers:
Comment 1: All accidents must be reported; there should naturally be no distinction between researchers in this respect. The same rules should apply to NTNU employees and SINTEF employees. Recording such accidents will also help to improve preventive measures at the research premises.

Comment 2: What kind of accident was it? This is not very clear from the description. Was anybody hurt? If so, was it a serious injury? Damage to equipment? Extensive destruction? In any case: Such incidents must be reported. The line manager of their own unit must be notified, as well as the Norwegian Labour Inspection Authority if someone was seriously injured. Perhaps preventive measures are needed? For an occupational accident, the Norwegian Labour and Welfare Organization (NAV) must also be informed (injury form). It might also be relevant to contact the safety representative?

NTNU's rules for reporting nonconformities.

----------------

Case 1.3: Tacit "agreement" about use of project funds

Due to illness in the family, a member of the teaching staff who is in charge of a project does a great deal of the work at home for a long period. Some of the project funds are used to convert and furnish an office at home to enable a more effective workday.

Questions: Does this case raise ethical concerns, and if so, what are they?

General comment: On the one hand, this is a matter of caring for others and adaptation; on the other, the question is which funds are to be used: project funds or operating funds.

Comments from the pilot testers:
Comment 1: Project funds should not be used for furnishing a home office. This case concerns the employer's responsibility and willingness to give staff the opportunity to combine work and caregiving. Therefore, operating funds and not project funds should be used for such purposes.

Comment 2: Is the renovation taking place without further consideration? This should be discussed and clarified with the parties involved. On the one hand, the renovation helps to make it possible to carry out the project despite illness, but on the other hand it probably entails an upgrade of the staff member's home, with a possible gain in the future (if it is sold, rented, etc, but also if he/she continues living there).

Link to code of ethics for procurement at NTNU

The closest that we get to a description of the case above appears in the section on personal use of framework agreements, which states:

1. Framework agreements with vendors for the supply of products and services to NTNU must not be used by employees for their personal use. This also applies to parties closely related to employees if the benefit must be assumed to stem from the staff member's employment relationship at NTNU.

----------------

Case 1.4: Instructions from a superior to circumvent purchasing regulations

In connection with the processing of applications to XX, a case officer is told by a superior that an application is to be granted, even though it violates guidelines/legislation. What should the case officer do?

Question: Why is it a problem for the case officer to report the matter?

General comment: There are several possible reasons to consider this a problem, but in any case a culture in which leaders circumvent the regulations is not in NTNU's interests. Perhaps the regulations are not well-known; if so, the lack of sufficient transparency in the academic environment is a problem.

Code of ethics for procurement at NTNU

----------------

Case 1.5: Invitation from a business

A leader regularly receives invitations from a firm offering VIP tickets to Champions League football matches, and uses the tickets. Other employees react to this; should they do anything?

Questions: Why do other employees react to this, and why is it blameworthy for their colleague to accept the tickets?

General comment: Here, it appears that employees are reacting because of concern about which implicit and explicit guidelines apply to the relationship between the firm and their superior. Their concern may be based on uncertainty about whose interests are being served: NTNU's or the leader's own interests?

The code of ethics for procurement at NTNU states the following about such issues: Section 20 of the Civil Service Act [Tjenestemannsloven] specifies:

Prohibition of gifts in the service, etc.

"No senior civil servant or civil servant may on behalf of himself/herself or others accept a gift, commission, service or other payment which is likely, or which by the donor is intended, to influence his/her official actions, or acceptance of which is prohibited by regulations. Violation may entail disciplinary measures or summary dismissal."

Imported from Escenic. Section 42732, article 156627.

Case: Breach of the ground rules for good debate?

In the autumn of 2008, a number of letters to the editor about leadership, democracy and involvement were published in Universitetsavisa, the university newspaper at NTNU. In a few cases, participants in the debate drew explicit parallels between named individuals in NTNU's management and dictatorship in other countries. In one letter, a former rector, Eivind Hiis Hauge, criticized such analogies; see Universitetsavisa.

Questions: Should there be limits to freedom of expression in open debate in Universitetsavisa, and should NTNU introduce ground rules for good debate?

General comment: This case is interesting because it raises questions of principle about whether there should be restrictions on freedom of expression. To the extent that it is used to enable constructive debate, it is healthy. But when the focus shifts to the person rather than the issue, freedom of expression can easily be perverted and become its own worst enemy by helping to put an end to the debate.

Comments from the pilot testers:
Comment 1: It is important that Universitetsavisa provides a forum for open and unprejudiced debate. At the same time, it is important that letters to the editor do not include capricious personal attacks.

Comment 2: Universitetsavisa is a newspaper/news medium, and thus involves more than academic freedom of expression. The type of content regarded as permissible, both in printed media and in online newspapers, is not static, but has changed over time. In online newspapers and other Internet publications in particular, there is ongoing debate about readers' comments, blogs, etc. – should these be moderated, censored, or controlled in other ways, or should anyone be able to write anything? In the latter case, is editorial responsibility being pulverized?

Link concerning academic freedom of expression (in Norwegian):
Ministry of Education and Research, Official Norwegian Report (NOU) 2006: 19, on academic freedom.

The "Vær varsom" code of ethics provided by the Norwegian Press Association may also be a useful reference.

Imported from Escenic. Section 42748, article 156643.

3.1: Unacceptable relationship and lack of judgement
3.2: Disqualification due to research interests in assessment committee

Case 3.1: Unacceptable relationship and lack of judgement

The head of a research unit is involved in a project related to pharmaceuticals. This person has personally received payment from the pharmaceutical company for travel in connection with professional meetings, and later participates in an evaluation committee with the objective of conducting a neutral assessment of the unit. The head of the research unit believes that this is in order.

Questions: Why is this a problem?

General comment: This case concerns acceptable and unacceptable relationships, and problems that may arise if employees are not aware of their obligations to their own institution, the research community, and society at large. Institutions have a responsibility to contribute to a healthy culture, and to train new employees in fostering a robust culture of research ethics. Of course, this does not exempt the individual from taking personal responsibility.

Comments from the pilot testers:
Comment 1: This is an obvious breach of the rules; the dilemma is who should say so, and where

Comment 2: This is a bit like setting the fox to keep the geese. It seems that the person involved may be acting out of self-interest and not the interests of the majority.

Article about conflicts of interest (Norw.) on the website of the National Committees for Research Ethics in Norway.

This states [in Norwegian]: "Conflicts of interest arise when primary interests give way to secondary interests. The primary interest of a committee for research ethics is to take care of the rights, safety and well-being of human subjects in clinical trials. All other interests are secondary, whether they involve financial gain, professional status, power, or recognition."

Code of research ethics for natural sciences and technology (Norw.) especially:
20. The researcher has a duty to be open about possible conflicts of interest
Transparency concerning the research and the role of the researcher is important to ensure the quality of the research. Researchers with political or religious interests and researchers who take on assignments from industry or authorities may play a role in creating uncertainty about factors that may have affected the research results. In contrast, openness about different roles and other external connections that the researcher may have can help to create greater confidence that research results are independent and can be trusted.

This implies that:
a) The researcher discloses information about relevant financial circumstances.
b) The researcher discloses relevant positions and other work in political, religious, or other values-based organizations that might be perceived as influencing the research.
c) When the potential for conflict between different roles arises, the researcher must make it clear whether he or she is speaking as a researcher or in a different role.

----------------------

Case 3.2: Disqualification due to research interests in assessment committee

A researcher sought assessment of professorial competence. A PhD candidate who had a supervisor relationship to the applicant was a member of the assessment committee.

Questions: Was it right for the PhD candidate to be included in the panel? Who should decide whether disqualification applies in such cases?

General comment: The issue of impartiality is not always crystal clear, but in general, a conflict of interest that arises because of the relationship is a sign of disqualification.

Comments from the pilot testers:
Comment 1: The PhD candidate should not have been included in the assessment panel. In the light of the supervisor relationship with the applicant, her/his decisions will probably be more subjective than they would otherwise have been. To be sure, many people maintain that it is more important for women than men to know someone in assessment committees - and in general in the process of appointments - but this can cut both ways. To establish processes that are as neutral and fair as possible, this should not happen. The chair and the other parties involved must share the responsibility for this.

Comment 2: At the outset, those who appointed the committee members should perhaps have tried to check whether inappropriate relationships and potential conflicts of interests existed. When this was not done, the PhD candidate should have considered whether it was right to accept this role. If the applicant seeking promotion found out about the composition of the panel and believed that the PhD candidate was disqualified, the applicant could have raised an objection.

Article (in Norwegian) about the provisions on disqualification in Norway's Public Administration Act [forvaltningsloven] ; take special note of Section 4:
When is one disqualified?
Section 6 of the Public Administration Act includes two main types of rules about disqualification. The first subsection lists typical situations in which one is disqualified without further discretionary consideration. The second subsection stipulates a discretionary general rule to supplement the "automatic" rules in the first subsection. Doubt about the question of disqualification may often arise, and in most situations the tradition is for the case officer to stand down rather than to take the chance of violating the rules governing disqualification.

Section 6, Subsection 1 lists various situations in which disqualification applies. Clause a) stipulates that a public official who is a party to the case is (of course) disqualified.

Imported from Escenic. Section 42694, article 156613.
4.1: Work outside the university and application for project funds from the Research Council of Norway
4.2: Contract for environmentally hostile research?
4.3: Conflicts of interest: The fox keeping the geese
4.4: Product with commercialization potential and uncompleted doctorate

-----

Case 4.1: Work outside the university and application for project funds from the Research Council of Norway

A professor employed by NTNU has a part-time job (20%) in his/her own field of expertise at a university college in Northern Norway. The Research Council of Norway announces project funds in this discipline. The group of NTNU researchers to which the professor belongs works together on an application to the Research Council. The other employer at the university college also plans to submit an application for the same Research Council funds. "Our" professor is asked to help with preparing the application to the Research Council of Norway from the university college as well. "Our" professor is thus involved with two applications for the same Research Council funds: one from NTNU and one from the university college.

Questions: Should this situation be perceived as a conflict of interest, and is it ethically acceptable to be involved in both applications? Is it OK to wear two hats?

General comment: In general, you need to be open about potential conflicts of interest that you may come across in relation to your employer. Whether this case should be perceived as a conflict of interest or only as a competitive situation is probably not completely obvious.

Guidelines for natural sciences and technology (Norw.), on "Åpenhet, oppdragsforskning og interessekonflikter" ["Transparency, contract research, and conflicts of interest"].

---------------------------

Case 4.2: Contract for environmentally hostile research?

In his blog on 7 November 2008, Rector Torbjørn Digernes writes about research on the exploitation of oil sands in Canada:

"Last Friday I read a harsh tirade in an editorial in Morgenbladet [a Norwegian weekly newspaper]. The title was "Rektor Digernes’ logikk" ["The Logic of Rector Digernes"]. The background is that NTNU, together with three Canadian universities, has signed a research agreement with StatoilHydro in Canada for research on improvements to efficiency and to environment-related aspects of oil recovery from oil sands. In this connection I was interviewed in Under Dusken [the official student newspaper in Trondheim]. Morgenbladet's leader writer got hold of a statement in the interview that was taken completely out of context, and produced a rhetorical argument that ended with gas chambers and weapons of mass destruction."

It was not pleasant reading. And I am not particularly impressed by the logic or the ethics of the editorial. But it concerns an important subject, and it was important to respond. In today's edition of Morgenbladet I have therefore been given space to describe the real logic of Rector Digernes.

Questions: What kind of and whose interests should the Rector and an institution such as NTNU protect in this case? Do some interests take precedence over others (individual, institutional, societal, others?) The last comment includes an assertion that, according to Digernes, good ethics are conditional on technological progress. Would this type of association contribute to reducing technology (and NTNU's interests) to a narrow interpretation of "good" technology?

General comment: The issue is partly whether everything should be subjected to research, and how to weigh up different types of risk against each other. It is clear that different stakeholders are involved: the individual institution (special interests?), societal interests and common interests, in addition to a specific dilemma: the shared need for energy, which demands both protection and risk taking at the same time. This case also raises questions about which interests deserve the greatest loyalty.

----------------------------

Case 4.3: Conflicts of interest: The fox keeping the geese

An NTNU professor with an extra job at SINTEF was involved in a research project with the aim of developing a vaccine. At the same time, he was an adviser for a pharmaceutical company, and also participated in an expert group for the Directorate for Health and Social Affairs. The situation was reported in the media and met with criticism from the academic environment.

Question: Is this situation open to criticism? If so, why?

General comment: Such cases weaken confidence in the research, and also cast doubts on the researcher's credibility. The case is a clear example of an unfortunate conflict of interest between the individual and the system(s).

Comments from the pilot testers:
Comment 1: The most blameworthy aspect is the relationship to the pharmaceutical company
Comment 2: The connection with the pharmaceutical company is clearly unfortunate, especially with regard to credibility.
Comment 3: There is some likelihood that strong financial interests are involved (the pharmaceutical company), so that the person in question cannot simply be regarded as neutral in relation to the Directorate for Health and Social Affairs.

Article on research ethics including some reflections on conflicts of interest in the relationship between the National Committees for Research Ethics in Norway and the pharmaceutical industry (Norw.).

The same type of argument can also be applied to other relationships, especially on the basis of the following section about primary and secondary interests:

Conflicts of interest arise when primary interests give way to secondary interests. The primary interest of a committee for research ethics is to take care of the rights, safety and well-being of human subjects in clinical trials. All other interests are secondary, whether they involve financial gain, professional status, power, or recognition.

-------------------------

Case 4.4: Product with commercialization potential and uncompleted doctorate

A PhD candidate developed software for analysis of biomedical data, which had commercialization potential. The project was part of a collaboration between technologists and doctors, and required division of work between two faculties. In this case, a question arose concerning rights to the product. The solution that resulted from legal follow-up internally at NTNU was that the candidate was released from the contract without completing the doctorate. The supervisor thus stopped the PhD; the candidate, with no doctorate, took the product to an external party.

Question: Would an alternative solution have been possible in this case, so that the candidate could have completed a PhD, and the rights to the product would not have disappeared from NTNU?

General comment: This case concerns a lack of clarity in procedures and contracts as well as inadequate progress reporting in the supervisor/candidate relationship. At the same time, it raises questions about the use and publication of data, conflicts of interest, transparency and trust. It also reveals some of the vulnerability in large collaborative projects where the requirements for good cooperation are considerable and there may be much at stake (in human and financial terms).

Comments from the pilot testers:
Comment 1: Financially, it would have been best for NTNU if the candidate had completed the doctorate and had not left NTNU.

Article from Innovation Norway [a State-owned company promoting industrial development] about intellectual property rights which may include patents, designs and trademarks (in Norwegian).

Imported from Escenic. Section 42695, article 156615.
5.1: Blowing the whistle on improper referencing practice
5.2: A victim of whistle-blowing
5.3: Supervisor responsibility and criteria for plagiarism

Case 5.1: Blowing the whistle on improper referencing practice

Professor Ugelstad created particle spheres, which represented a major breakthrough in cancer research. A US professor cited Ugelstad in his first two articles on this subject, and subsequently cited himself.

Questions: Why is this problematic, and how can the problem be handled? Write to the editor; duty to report this; duty to check sources?

General comment: This case concerns problems related to improper use of references. The important question, however, is why it is improper to cite only oneself in later publications (even though the source was previously cited in earlier publications). Two obvious reasons: The source should be credited, and traceability is important for effective research – it should be easy for other researchers to find relevant material.

Comments from the pilot testers:
Comment 1: This is subject to both Norwegian and international legislation on intellectual property, see Åndverkloven [the Norwegian Copyright Act] and the Berne Convention. The Copyright Act emphasizes so-called moral rights — that is, the right to be cited. For example, see Section 3 Subsection 1: "Both when copies of a literary, scientific or artistic work are produced, and when it is made available to the public, the author is entitled to have his name stated in the manner required by proper usage."

The Vancouver Group guidelines are also important in this case - see the discussion by the National Committees for Research Ethics in Norway. Direct link to the guidelines.

Useful links that provide information about various systems of referencing:

Medicine and natural science (in Norwegian): Vancouver and the APA systems.
The Harvard System is used in the social sciences, technology and natural sciences. APA (American Psychological Association) referencing is widely used in the social sciences and humanities, as well as in medicine and the natural sciences. Read more about APA Style (in English)
Article about co-authorship (in Norwegian) in Tidsskrift for den norske lægeforening [the journal of the Norwegian Medical Association].

-----------------------------------

Case 5.2: A victim of whistle-blowing

Staff at a unit for petroleum research felt that the head of the unit should leave because he had been accused of corruption. The head was removed from the position and transferred to a new job. Investigation however showed that the head had not done anything wrong.

Questions: Who is responsible: the employees, the board or the head of the unit? What can be done when complaints are dismissed after the case has been dealt with at top level through official channels?

General comment: This case involves a major and complex problem, i.e. whistle-blowing. At both the national and the international level, there is currently a strong focus on measures to safeguard both the whistle-blower and the person accused of misconduct. In this case, it was particularly serious that a person wrongfully ended up as a victim. This raises a number of ethical questions to ponder. What happens when the media prejudge the situation, and turns out that what appears in the newspapers is not true? Should somebody who has wrongfully become a victim of whistle-blowing defend themselves in the media when they know that this will subject the institution to a new round of negative publicity?

Comments from the pilot testers:
Comment 1: How can one ensure that whistle-blowing is based on the right motive: To contribute to greater integrity in research? In this case, it appears that other motives may have prevailed. What does it take to be regarded as a whistle-blower? And what happens when the "whistle-blowers" have their own motives? What consequences should there be for a whistle-blower if he or she acts on an incorrect or dishonest basis?

Comment 2: There are strong indications that the accusations may not have been investigated sufficiently — which both the head and the board should have done. After such accusations, it cannot be easy to come back to the workplace. And I am not sure what kind of reception there should have been, in that case.

Comment 3: Who is responsible depends on the rules of procedure for the Board of Directors and authorizations. In relation to whistle-blowing, it is important to have routines specifying who should be notified in such cases. This will no doubt become clearer when NTNU's own guidelines for whistle-blowing appear.

Comment 4: This looks like a case of "innocent until proved guilty"? Perhaps the head could have asked for legal assistance from his or her union? The basis on which the transfer took place is not clear. If the unit for petroleum research forms part of NTNU, the Norwegian Working Environment Act [Arbeidsmiljøloven] is relevant? This also governs the head's access to appeal against decisions about suspension, disciplinary measures, dismissal, etc. For an English translation of the Working Environment Act see here (PDF format)

Useful links:

Statens retningslinjer for varsling (in Norwegian). Government Guidelines for Whistle-blowing
Forskningsetiske retningslinjer for naturvitenskap og teknologi. Code of ethics for research in natural sciences and technology, whistle-blowing and ethical responsibility.

---------------------------------

Case 5.3: Supervisor responsibility and criteria for plagiarism

A thesis was assessed as somewhere between plagiarism, poor workmanship, and poor referencing practice. The assessment committee raised the question of what the faculty would do. The committee was referred to the guidelines and had to issue recommendations. If it was poor workmanship it would not be approved, but if it was regarded as plagiarism, it would be rejected as fraud. The faculty raised the question of the supervisor's role here.

Questions: Is this only a problem of an absent supervisor? What about different standards in different academic cultures?

General comment: This case concerns several dilemmas, including different standards for distinguishing between plagiarism and poor workmanship. We know that there are wide international variations, but norms also differ depending on the discipline. There is great divergence with respect to the supervisor's role during the process of the thesis work. The only thing that is completely clear in this case is that the communication along the way has been far too poor/closed. One must however be familiar with the specific case to determine how blame and responsibility should be allocated.

Comments from the pilot testers:
Comment 1: This is primarily the responsibility of the supervisor, who should have had enough academic competence to assess at an earlier stage of the work whether plagiarism was involved.

Comment 2: The faculty, department, and/or supervisor could have advised the candidate during the programme of study to become familiar with referencing and criticism of sources/references to sources, etc. There are varying views about how this should be done and about the requirements that can be set, both in different disciplines and in different cultures/countries (Norway versus China, for example). But shouldn't the supervisor have seen from the text draft in progress that this was headed in the wrong direction?

At the Norwegian University of Life Sciences, UMB, a contract has been drawn up (in Norwegian) to reduce problems associated with plagiarism

Link to interesting article about plagiarism (in Norwegian) in Tidsskrift for den norske lægeforening [the journal of the Norwegian Medical Association].

In Part B of the PhD contract § 3 and 5 the following details about the information requirement are included:

§ 3 Obligation to report on progress and provide relevant information:
The candidate and the supervisor(s) undertake to keep one another informed on an ongoing basis about all matters of significance for supervision. The parties undertake to actively follow up any matters which could lead to supervision not functioning as is agreed in § 5 below.

§ 5 Obligations of the supervisor and the candidate in connection with supervision:
In addition to what is stipulated in the Regulations, the supervisor must:

offer advice on formulating and limiting areas for study and research
discuss and assess hypotheses and methodology
provide assistance in finding specialist literature and data sources (libraries, archives, etc)
discuss the form of presentation and work on the chosen research topic (outline, linguistic form, documentation, etc)
help to introduce the candidate into relevant scientific groups and bodies, discuss results and their interpretation
provide the candidate with guidance in ethical principles for research in connection with the thesis

The doctoral candidate must:

submit reports or drafts of parts of the thesis to the supervisor. Parts of the thesis may be presented in connection with seminars
comply with ethical research principles in that disciplinary field

Imported from Escenic. Section 42696, article 156658.
Start-up phase:

6.1: Inadequate contract and breach of contract
6.2: Confusing allocation of responsibility and roles: Conflict of interest and shift in the project
6.3: Research contract signed on dubious terms
6.4: Lack of clarity about required duties in contract

Midway:

6.5: Shift in the project and breach of contract with source of funding
6.6: Unclear responsibility with regard to change of supervisor

Final phase:

6.7: Standards for co-authorship
6.8: Different norms for supervisor as co-author in multidisciplinary projects

---------------------------------

Start-up phase

---------------------------------

Case 6.1: Inadequate contract and breach of contract

A PhD candidate who is to do a great deal of work with experiments is unwilling to work outside the hours of 8:00-16:00. The supervisor sees that it is not possible to complete the work without more funding. This results in breach of contract. Part of the problem is that experiments control the person, not the other way around. However, there is nothing in writing in the contract stating that this is not a job with working hours from 8:00 to 16:00, on the basis of compensation in the form of time off later. On the one hand, the situation indicates a termination process due to breach of contract, but no one does anything. It all takes its own course until the money runs out, and the project falls through.

Questions: How should the contract be enforced — who is responsible for ensuring that this takes place?

General comment: This case seems to concern an inadequate contract, but also possible breach of contract and reluctance to take action. There seem to be obligations that are not written in the contract -- perhaps they have been communicated orally.

Comments from the pilot testers:
Comment 1: Isn't it the supervisor's responsibility to enforce the contract, in addition to providing enough information in advance to avoid such incidents?

Comment 2: Shouldn't this have been specified in the contract? Why is the candidate unwilling? Perhaps it is a candidate with young children, who is dependent on the opening hours for day care or for an "SFO" programme that provides activities for children outside school hours? The announcement text should then have made it clear that this was a position requiring irregular working hours, which might therefore not be suitable for everyone?

The PhD contract provides general guidelines, but does not include anything specific about irregular working hours.

Equal opportunity at NTNU (Norw.)

---------------------------------

Case 6.2: Confusing allocation of responsibility and roles: Conflict of interest and shift in the project

The Research Council of Norway contributes to the funding of a PhD project together with the faculty. During the project, the PhD candidate wants a new supervisor. This change results in a shift in the project, which the supervisor supports. The project is treated as though it is based on an open grant, and the provisions of the contract are inadequately communicated or disregarded. A conflict of interest develops between the PhD candidate/supervisor and the contract client. The faculty is faced with a problem when the project no longer fulfils the client's criteria for funding. The result is that the faculty has to take over the funding responsibility to enable the candidate to complete the thesis.

Questions: Why does this conflict of interest entail an ethical dilemma?

General comment: In this example there has been inadequate communication of project guidelines, a lack of openness, an unclear contract, as well as an allocation of responsibility and roles that is ambiguous and difficult to interpret. As in several other cases, a lack of transparency and unclear allocation of responsibility and roles is a recurring theme. To some extent this may be an example of unclear lines of responsibility, but it may also indicate conflicts of interest.

Comments from the pilot testers:
Comment 1: A classic example of inadequate information, expectations and requirements associated with the project.

---------------------------------

Case 6.3: Entry into research contract on dubious terms

A four-year PhD with teaching duties was funded by the Research Council of Norway. One of the candidates who was invited to an interview for the PhD knew that she was pregnant, but did not mention this in the interview. The supervisor was aware of the pregnancy, and nevertheless encouraged the candidate to apply. She was assessed on an equal footing with a male applicant. The project has a limited time frame.

Questions: Should the pregnancy be taken into account in the decision, and should the female applicant therefore have provided information about this? Or is it appropriate to incorporate restrictions in some projects?

General comment: It is not obvious that this should be regarded as inadequate communication of important information and a blameworthy lack of openness.

Comments from the pilot testers:
Comment 1: If the information about the time aspect, teaching duties, etc., was good enough, the candidate should have provided information about this. There should not be any restrictions on who can apply. It is still only women who give birth to children, and it should be possible to combine a career and family life. For this reason, openness in such situations is especially important. The time aspect is also important; it should be possible to combine a four-year project with one year of leave.

Comment 2: A new mother does not need to take that many weeks of leave herself (it is possible for the child's father to take quite a large part of the period of leave). Perhaps the candidate considers such a division of roles quite feasible, so that it is not relevant to mention the pregnancy? Or that such questions must not in fact be asked in connection with job interviews.

Equal opportunity at NTNU (Norwegian).

--------------------------------

Case 6.4: Lack of clarity about required duties in contract

A PhD candidate was asked by his supervisor to organize a conference. He felt that he could not say no, because he assumed that his relationship with the supervisor was poor. However, this work was not approved as required duties for his PhD. The PhD candidate experienced this as unclear regulation of the contract, and a lack of motivation in the system to ensure that regulation of required duties was clear enough. The consequence for the PhD candidate was that this affected both research and leisure.

Question: What can be done to improve such situations?

General comment: This case concerns a lack of clarity and different interpretations by the supervisor and the PhD candidate regarding which tasks can be imposed without being counted as required duties. The candidate perceived this not only as a problem in relation to the supervisor, but also as a system problem that it was difficult to do anything about.

Comments from the pilot testers:
Comment 1: Would it be in our interests to have regulations that are so detailed that we avoid such incidents?

Comment 2: Problems related to what can be counted as required duties are not that unusual, are they? Probably wise to include as much specific detail as possible in the contract.

Here is a link to DION on the subject of required duties. This states that there are great differences between institutes, and that a great deal of required duties probably take place unseen.

University of Tromsø, Faculty of Humanities, Social Sciences and Education, clear guidelines (in Norwegian).

---------------------------------

Midway

---------------------------------

Case 6.5: Shift in the project and breach of contract with source of funding

(clinical medical project that was changed to a basic research project along the way)

A clinical research project was funded by the Research Council of Norway, the Norwegian Foundation for Health and Rehabilitation, the Norwegian Cancer Society (Kreftforeningen) and the collaborating organization for the Central Norway Regional Health Authority/NTNU. During the project, changes were made in relation to the original research protocol — changes over which no one had control. It shifted from a clinical research project to a basic research project. The conditions for funding were thus breached. Several problems resulted from this shift in the project.

Questions:

There were many applicants for the project — what about the relationship to other applicants?
The supervisor had greater interests in basic research than in clinical research — what about the responsibility for shift of the project?
What about the candidate's loyalty to the source of funding and the supervisor?
Who is competent to define research needs – perhaps the supervisor's shift was motivated by consideration of the public interest?

General comment: This case raises many important issues related to contracts, the supervisor-candidate relationship, conflicts of interest, and openness.

Guidelines for natural sciences and technology (in Norwegian).
PhD contract, in particular, see part B § 3 regarding the duty to provide information.

The candidate and the supervisor(s) undertake to keep one another informed on an ongoing basis about all matters of significance for supervision, The parties undertake to actively follow up any matters which could lead to supervision not functioning as is agreed in § 5 below.

---------------------------------

Case 6.6: Unclear responsibility with regard to change of supervisor

This concerns routines for providing feedback about the candidate's suitability for research, among other issues. A change of supervisor can cause problems, especially because expressions of concern arrive too late. The problem is often poor personal chemistry. The faculty strives to achieve a 3rd semester assessment of the supervisor function, which includes the Vice-Dean, the head of the PhD programme, the supervisor and the candidate. An important assessment may be whether the candidate should be advised to terminate the programme. However, this also entails legal problems. From the faculty's perspective, this is also a key responsibility for the department head, as the departments and not the faculty receive the incentive funding for completed theses.

Questions: What should determine whether the candidate should be advised to abandon the thesis work, and what should one do when the personal chemistry is not working – who should be responsible for doing what?

General comment: A change of supervisor is one of the most difficult situations once problems have arisen. This may involve conflicts of interest to some extent, but very often it is personal chemistry that is the greatest problem. The reporting systems available at NTNU are often not good enough; clearer procedures for handling such cases are needed, not least to lower the threshold for taking action. An important first step will be to create greater openness and to defuse the situation at the same time

Comments from the pilot testers:
Comment 1: A well-functioning supervisor relationship benefits the department in every way, both academically and financially. For this reason they should have arranged for a change of supervisor -- actually a shared responsibility: the candidate must inform the department management and the department management must take action.

Link to information concerning change of supervisor.

However, the problem is often to take this step yourself; this is where the greatest challenge lies.

---------------------------------

The concluding phase

---------------------------------

Case 6.7: Standards for co-authorship

Some theses are sets of articles, even at faculties where monographs have previously been the tradition. When should the supervisor be a co-author instead of only being acknowledged in the foreword? This question is increasingly relevant for several faculties as co-authorship is encouraged. A potential budget-related incentive for certain faculties may also apply if several authors are included.

Questions: Should the arts and the social sciences have a consistent standard that governs co-authorship (similar to the Vancouver Group guidelines for medical subjects), and if so, which criteria should be used?

Comments from the pilot testers:
Comment 1: If the doctoral thesis consists of articles in which the supervisor is a co-author, it may be difficult for a committee to evaluate the candidate's contribution?

Comment 2: Practice varies between faculties; the question is whether there should be more consistent standards?

Article about co-authorship, see Hva er en medforfatter? in Tidsskrift for den norske lægeforening [the journal of the Norwegian Medical Association].

Regulations, see the discussion of the Vancouver Group guidelines by the National Committees for Research Ethics in Norway.

Direct link to the rules.

---------------------------------

Case 6.8: Different norms for supervisor as co-author in multidisciplinary projects

Many projects involve collaboration between medical and technological disciplines. However, there is great divergence in the norms for publication in the subject areas of these two faculties. For example, in technological disciplines there is no strong tradition of listing the supervisor as the last author of the articles in the thesis. This is in contrast to medical disciplines, where the position of last author is associated with greater merit than that of the second or third author in a long list. In multidisciplinary projects, this leads to problems of assessment, which in turn may impede multidisciplinarity.

Questions: How can NTNU solve the problem of multidisciplinary initiatives and projects that do not fit in with the line structure in organizational terms? This applies to everything from contracts, supervision, and assessment of professor competence to publication and recognition of merit.

General comment: Different publication standards are not necessarily a problem, but may become one in interdisciplinary and multidisciplinary projects. Problems related to publication are a recurring issue. Conflicts of interest may often arise here, as well as a lack of clarity in the relationship between a PhD candidate/master's degree student and supervisor. Most of the activities at NTNU are governed by the line structure, but this is not always able to pick up vulnerabilities in multidisciplinary projects. Inadequate communication between different supervisors may often be the main problem.

Imported from Escenic. Section 42697, article 156660.

Lack of openness in research culture
7.1: Unclear responsibility with regard to change of supervisor/resignation of candidate
7.2: Lack of openness in research culture

Lack of clarity about the use of data and publication in the project.
7.3: Supervisor's (mis)use of the candidate's data
7.4: Shift of focus in paper to achieve publication

Lack of openness in supervisor relationship

Case 7.1: Unclear responsibility with regard to change of supervisor/resignation of candidate

A change of supervisor can cause problems, especially because the expressions of concern arrive too late. The problem is often personal chemistry that does not function well between the candidate and the supervisor. One faculty tries to arrange a 3rd semester assessment of the supervisor function, which includes the Vice-Dean, the head of the PhD programme, the supervisor and the candidate. An important assessment may be whether the candidate should be advised to discontinue the programme. However, this also entails legal problems. From the faculty's perspective, this is also a key responsibility for the department head, as the departments and not the faculty receive the incentive funding for completed theses.

Questions: What should determine whether the candidate should be advised to discontinue the thesis work, and what should one do when personal chemistry is not functioning well – who should be responsible for doing what?

General comment: This is a problem that is often not identified in the contractual reporting from the supervisor and candidate. There may be many different reasons for this; conflicts of interest and a closed communications culture prevail in some cases. However, the situation often creates an ethical dilemma: On the one hand there are legal obstacles to asking a candidate to abandon the programme; on the other, there is evasion of responsibility in not reporting that the candidate is unsuitable. In this area it seems that NTNU needs much greater openness, and clearer contractual terms at the same time.

Case 7.2: Lack of openness in research culture

This involves a candidate who left without communicating with his supervisor.

The case involved new instrumentation that did not function. The PhD candidate who was working with this felt neglected by the researcher group, was left to his own devices, and abandoned his studies. He had not communicated to his supervisor that he did not feel that he was appreciated or taken seriously. The main problem was probably that the individuals did not function together, and that the supervisor did not understand the problem. Part of the problem is the asymmetrical relationship between the PhD candidate and the supervisor.

Questions: How should such situations be handled? Who is in a position to speak up?

General comment: The asymmetrical relationship between the supervisor and candidate is often an important point of departure for this type of conflict that does not come to the surface. This asymmetry is built into the system, and is not necessarily a problem in itself. This necessitates a research culture that makes it easy to avoid situations such as the one described above. As in many other cases, it is not the formal system that is inadequate, but the threshold for taking up problems that may entail personal criticism is too high. An informal body could perhaps be an intermediary in such cases? Enhancing the accountability of the researcher community could be another solution, so that problems of this nature are not left to the individual, but become a collective commitment for which everyone must take responsibility. However, it requires a relatively low threshold for whistle-blowing.

Lack of clarity about the use of data and publication in the project.

Case 7.3: Supervisor's (mis)use of the candidate's data

A supervisor published results before the candidate who had produced them had completed the PhD. As the supervisor had published the results, which were was based on the candidate's wealth of interesting data from the lab, there was nothing left for the candidate to publish.

Questions: Does a supervisor have the right to use the results produced by the PhD candidate/master's degree student, and if so, when?

General comment: In this case it is easy to identify the main problem: either lack of will or lack of insight on the supervisor's part with regard to candidates' rights to their own material. Even though the regulations are fairly clear, there are still many cases in which they are not followed. Here, we refer to the Vancouver Group guidelines, which apply in particular to medical disciplines, and to some extent technological disciplines, as well as to an article about co-authorship. In addition, it may be useful to know the content of Norway's Copyright Act [Åndsverksloven].

Links:

The Vancouver Group guidelines are also important in this case - see the discussion of them by the National Committees for Research Ethics in Norway.
Direct link to the rules.
Åndsverkloven [The Copyright Act]
Article about co-authorship in Tidsskrift for den norske lægeforening [the journal of the Norwegian Medical Association

Case 7.4: Shift of focus in paper to achieve publication

A master's degree student was offered the opportunity to be included in a publication if she took a specific approach to the topic. This prerequisite was set by the supervisor. One of the conditions was that she had to cut down on the theory. This was an attractive choice because of the potential for publication. At the same time, it proved unfavourable because it had a negative effect on the grade when the dissertation was assessed. In addition, it turned out that the student was not included in the publication after all.

Questions: What is ethically problematic about this situation, and how could the outcome have been better for the student?

General comment: There is primarily a lack of clarity in the contract, and how this is to govern the relationship between the supervisor and the student — especially with regard to publication of data. We do not know whether it is lack of insight into the regulations or circumventing of the regulations that is the problem here. Whichever it is, the supervisor must take the greatest responsibility here, not least because of his or her position of power in the supervisor relationship.

Imported from Escenic. Section 42698, article 156662.

8.1: Co-authorship
8.2: Contribution to publication

Case 8.1: Co-authorship

A PhD candidate had to take sick leave while he was working on an article. After 3 weeks the job was taken over by somebody else, who demanded to be the first author of the publication.

Questions: Is this requirement acceptable? If it is not acceptable, what are the reasons for this?

Case 8.2: Contribution to publication

The people who work at a workshop take part in producing knowledge and experience by performing duties that the researchers instruct them to perform. The contribution is not usually mentioned in the acknowledgments. Similarly, a student was assigned to do what he was instructed to do — a job that could be compared with the workshop's contribution. The student however demanded to be a co-author of the publication from the project. The researchers felt this was unreasonable, since the job had consisted of plotting in data.

Questions: Was the contribution substantial enough to require co-authorship (cf. the Vancouver Group guidelines)? Which reasons would support including the student as a co-author? (lack of clarity in the contract, unclear standards for co-authorship)

Comments from the pilot testers:
Comment 1: According to the Vancouver convention, collecting data alone is not sufficient. It states that "Acquisition of funding, collection of data, or general supervision of the research group alone does not constitute authorship."

Also see the article "Hva er en medforfatter" ["What is a co-author"] in Tidsskrift for den norske lægeforening [the journal of the Norwegian Medical Association].

Imported from Escenic. Section 42699, article 156664.

9.1: Multidisciplinary projects and varying assessment criteria
9.2: Additional time spent because of fragmented supervisor responsibility
9.3: Supervisor responsibility and conflicts of interest in multidisciplinary projects
9.4: Multidisciplinary projects

9.1: Multidisciplinary projects and varying assessment criteria

A multidisciplinary project was anchored in three academic communities: social anthropology, history and medicine. When a committee was to be appointed to assess the thesis from the project, no one was satisfied, because only the formal criteria for the composition of the committee (inclusion of a woman and a person from outside Norway) were taken into account. The candidate's original academic background was not represented in the committee. The outcome was that the thesis was rejected. The candidate did not have the opportunity to submit comments unless they concerned disqualification, which was not a problem in this case.

Questions: How should one ensure a suitable academic composition of committees in multidisciplinary projects, and how can one resolve disagreement among the disciplines regarding the assessment criteria?

General comment: Both here and in several other cases, we have seen that interdisciplinary and multidisciplinary projects are a major challenge for NTNU, not least with regard to research ethics. In this case, the problem was to establish a committee with a composition that was appropriate for the combination of disciplines involved. Varying assessment criteria and disagreement between the disciplines adversely affected the candidate in this case. It might have helped if the committee members had had greater insight into the various criteria. But a commitment of this nature cannot be optional; it must be stipulated in guidelines if it is to have any binding effect.

Case 9.2: Additional time spent because of fragmented supervisor responsibility

A PhD candidate in a multidisciplinary project had supervisors from several faculties: The Faculty of Information Technology, Mathematics and Electrical Engineering (IME), the Faculty of Natural Sciences and Technology (NT), and the Faculty of Medicine (DMF). The project dragged on and the PhD candidate needed advice from a supervisor about how the situation should be handled. As several faculties shared the supervisor responsibility, it was not clear whom she should approach.

Questions: How should one solve the problems associated with the extra time required because of linkages to several faculties and divided supervisor responsibility?

General comment: We do not know the extent of the problems related to increased time requirements, but there are strong indications that this is a factor that is more critical in multidisciplinary than in single-discipline projects. A great deal of important research at NTNU depends on collaboration between different faculties. At the same time, there are many examples suggesting that the organization is not geared to this situation. It is important to follow up this challenge for several reasons: It is important for the individual PhD candidate, and it is equally important for NTNU as an organization. Interdisciplinarity is an important advantage that gives us opportunities to profile ourselves.

Case 9.3: Supervisor responsibility and conflicts of interest in multidisciplinary projects

A strategic area focused on a particular topic announces a grant internally within the faculty. The PhD position is announced and handled through one faculty, then sent to another for the appointment process. The PhD candidate has problems with the direction of the project. Part of the problem is that the supervisor is not aware of the constraints for the project and accepts a shift in its focus. In the worst case, the party funding the project may withdraw its support.

Questions: What is the essence of the problem, and how can the situation be improved?

General comment: This is an example of unclear communication, lack of openness, and inadequate handling of conflicts of interest and supervisor responsibility. Like the previous case, this reflects the vulnerabilities involved in managing multidisciplinary projects. Perhaps we need to seek out the good examples of collaborative projects and look more closely at potential transfer value. Some success factors undoubtedly relate to good personal chemistry, but even more involve effective and good organization. The good examples deserve greater visibility.

Case 9.4: Multidisciplinary projects

General comment: Here, the basic dilemma can be formulated as follows: The PhD candidate cannot be out of line with the convention, and is simultaneously forced into a line that counters the multidisciplinary approach.

Imported from Escenic. Section 42700, article 156666.

10.1: Unforeseen consequences of cooperation with developer in China
10.2: Restricted freedom of movement during field trip to China
10.3: Students invite controversial international company to NTNU’s career fair, KarriereDagene

Case 10.1: Unforeseen consequences of cooperation with developer in China

NTNU researchers help a Chinese developer to assemble a team of Norwegian architects to participate in an architectural competition for the development of a facility for tourists around the ruins of buildings from the Tang Dynasty. There are 40 000 people living in the area, many of them poor immigrants from rural areas. They live there legally, and the settlement dates back to the 19th century. The NTNU team gains an opportunity to conduct research in all phases of a large project that includes urban development, conservation, and social issues as well as design. Soon after submission of the project proposal, it emerges that the developer has forcibly relocated the residents and cleared the area. NTNU and the Norwegian team of architects are offered assignments that form part of the project, and NTNU’s people still have the opportunity to serve as advisers and to conduct research. NTNU’s people criticize the forced relocation of 40 000 people. They consider making their stance clear by distancing themselves from further involvement in the project, which they expect will be noticed by the stakeholders involved on the Chinese side. This is weighed against continuing their involvement, which would enable them to present their arguments within the development project while having some influence over the further development.

Three professors from the local university are invited to an exhibition on the project at the NTNU Museum of Natural History and Archaeology. They are NTNU’s partners and have participated in the project.

Questions: One must assume that the public Norwegian exhibition of the project will be noticed by Chinese authorities. What obligations does NTNU’s group have to the participating professors as guests of Norway and the exhibition?

General comment: NTNU has ever stronger commitments to international cooperation. In recent years, several ethical issues related to this type of collaborative project have been discussed both in the media and internally at NTNU. This case involves the classic voice or exit dilemma: whether people should stay involved in projects that they find ethically questionable, so that they can air their views (voice), or whether leaving the collaboration (exit) would be a better way to exert influence. In this type of situation, no answer is universally valid – the issues must be assessed from case to case. The attitude of NTNU’s leadership is to follow official Norwegian policy on cooperation, and in other respects to leave this type of question to the conscience of the individual researcher.

Comments from the pilot testers: It is not possible to provide academically grounded guidelines for how culturally relativistic one should be. Methodological cultural relativism in cultural research does not imply embracing local rationalities. On the contrary, academic self-reflection will reveal that cultural research, here within anthropology, is part of the project of modernity: establishing commensurate yardsticks that capture cultural variation in a set of analytical concepts. Cultural research is one of several ways to make the world unified and coherent. The concept of the unity of humanity is therefore a premise that is at least implicit. A concept of autonomy is also embodied in such a premise: cultural autonomy and individual autonomy (which may conflict with each other). Individual autonomy is an absolute ideal in modern ethics. For example, caste systems can be understood through their internal logic and even their aesthetic form, but they cannot be ascribed moral and political legitimacy.

Case 10.2: Restricted freedom of expression during field trip in China

As part of a semester project on housing needs, infrastructure and conservation considerations, teaching staff from NTNU travel to China together with about 20 students. They have planned to visit two villages to study requirements and plan solutions, by interviewing villagers among other approaches. After their arrival in China, national authorities forbid them to visit the villages. The authorities believe that the conditions there are too volatile, because the local population fear that they will have to move away from their homes. The assessment is that a visit from abroad might worsen the situation. After negotiations, the group from NTNU is allowed to enter on condition that they do not take up issues related to resettlement of people. The group also includes Chinese students who act as interpreters. Naturally, NTNU’s teaching staff are not enthusiastic about the restrictions, but must consider both the informants and the Chinese students. A further consideration is to maintain a good relationship with Chinese authorities with a view to future teaching programmes.

Question 1: Free research and teaching are threatened by such serious restrictions on freedom of speech. Should this part of the course be carried out?

Question 2: It must be assumed that anxious villagers will talk about the risk of resettlement if the visit takes place. What responsibility do NTNU’s people take on in this context? ?

General comment: Cooperation with totalitarian regimes without freedom of speech creates ethical challenges for NTNU employees. In cooperation with other cultures, must we perhaps show a certain degree of tolerance towards restrictions of fundamental rights that we would never have accepted here at home? So far, considerations about what kind of restrictions one should tolerate have been left to the individual researcher and the individual research groups. One question is whether NTNU as an institution should also take a stand on such issues, beyond complying with official Norwegian policy.

Comments from the pilot testers: : If one is going to work within systems that do not recognize modern forms of individual autonomy (human rights, freedom of expression, etc), one probably needs to make pragmatic compromises. Such compromises may be justified by the value of the communication/interaction. The value of such contact must be weighed against the infringements one believes can be identified from case to case. It is difficult to establish principled limits for such compromises, but they must always be part of the discussion.

Case 10.3: Students invite controversial international company to NTNU’s career fair, KarriereDagene

Students organize the career fair KarriereDagene on the NTNU campus and have managed to get a wide range of companies to come. A feather in their cap is that several well-known international companies want to present themselves to students.

On the opening day, the organizer is criticized by an advocacy group for inviting a company engaged in oil exploration in occupied territory, which on this basis has been accused of violating international law. NTNU’s leadership must answer questions about why such a company has been allowed to promote itself at the university, and points out that as a public university NTNU complies with Norwegian foreign policy and national ethical guidelines. The company itself maintains that it has not violated any international laws or regulations through its activities.

The career fair at NTNU is organized by students, who say they have limited resources to check the background of all the companies that participate. The organizers say that they were not aware of the circumstances before they were contacted by the advocacy group, and that they now want to decide on a code of ethics for the career fair.

This type of issue provides a basis for reflection from several perspectives:

Question 1: The organizer’s perspective. As an organizer, could I find myself facing this type of issue where I must take a stand on whether I should invite a controversial company or an employee from a controversial company to participate in an event or a research seminar? How should I approach this?

Question 2: Collective reflection. How should we as students and researchers at NTNU deal with issues involving cooperation with international companies?

Question 3: As an institution, NTNU has a social responsibility. Do Norwegian foreign policy, government ethical guidelines and national guidelines for research ethics provide adequate guidance in the relevant case? How should NTNU handle such cases?

General comment:
This case concerns an event held in cooperation with the business sector, where the company in question is accused of violating international law. The case might also have concerned cooperation with companies accused of human rights violations, severe damage to the natural environment, corruption or illegal arms sales, or it might have concerned public procurement or whether the university should accept donations from a controversial company. Should NTNU as an institution take a stand in such cases beyond prevailing Norwegian policy and the government’s ethical guidelines (public administration, procurements, investments)? In this case, the collaborating party was a Norwegian subsidiary of a controversial international company. Is this a valid argument in this case? In a specific procurement case at the University of Oslo (UiO), the Norwegian Complaints Board for Public Procurement concluded that a Norwegian subsidiary could not be held accountable for the activities of the company in another country. However, these are questions that must be considered from case to case.

In the case of the career fair, the organizers were NTNU students. What responsibility does NTNU have for what takes place on NTNU’s premises under students’ direction? One might also ask how far the students’ responsibility extends in such situations.

In addition, the case raises questions about how to justify one’s standpoints in general: Assertions emerge from various sources, where an advocacy group alleges serious violations of international law, while the company itself believes that no such violations have taken place. To what extent can such sources provide information suitable for justifying an ethical standpoint? And when no definitive guidelines are available, what should one emphasize when one needs to exercise ethical judgement?

Selected sources of ethical guidance

Government guidelines and ethical guidance about cooperation with the business sector are available here:

The Ministry of Foreign Affairs’ website on corporate social responsibility
The Government Pension Fund Global (SPU) has ethical guidelines on responsible investment and lists of companies that are under observation or blacklisted.
The Government's page on responsible investments

Various organizations also provide ethical guidance on companies’ international operations. Here are some examples:

UN Guiding principles on Business and Human Rights
OECD Guidelines for Responsible Business Conduct
Ethical trade and the environment: Framtiden i våre hender
Amnesty International Norway on corporate social responsibility
Ethical Trading Initiative Norway (IEH)

#MeToo Academia

11.0 General Introduction to the topic of sexual harassment and the #MeToo movement

11.1 Inappropriate conduct between fellow students

11.2 Inappropriate conduct between class instructor and student

11.3 Inappropriate conduct between PhD supervisor and student

11.4 Inappropriate conduct between colleagues at different rank and institutional procedures.

General introduction

2017 saw a rise of the #metoo movement globally, joined in Norway and NTNU by the #metooakademia campaign initiated by former and current NTNU staff Marit Hovdal Moan and Sophia Efstathiou. The following cases are based on stories submitted to this campaign. Full stories are openly available in Norwegian at the newspaper Morgenbladet

What is sexual harassment

According to United Nations Entity for Gender Equality and the Empowerment of Women sexual harassment is defined as:

Unwelcome sexual advances, requests for sexual favours, and other verbal or physical conduct of a sexual nature when:

Submission to such conduct is made either explicitly or implicitly a term or condition of an individual's employment, or
Submission to or rejection of such conduct by an individual is used as a basis for employment decisions affecting such individual, or
Such conduct has the purpose or effect of unreasonably interfering with an individual's work performance or creating an intimidating, hostile, or offensive working environment.

Unwelcome over voluntary

Note that a victim may consent to certain conduct and participate in it even if it is offensive and objectionable, due to power differences and/or coercion. Therefore, it is whether sexual conduct is unwelcome that matters, not whether it is voluntary. Further sexual conduct is unwelcome whenever the person subjected to it considers it unwelcome. Whether the person in fact welcomed a request for a date, sex-oriented comment, or joke depends on the circumstances.

Report inappropriate behaviour

NTNU has zero tolerance for sexual harassment, sexual abuse and other abuse of power. NTNU must be a safe place to work and study. You can find information on how to report sexual harassment and abuse, and what happens in a reporting process. Information about report of inappropriate behaviour.

Information about about sexual harrassment.

Case 11.1 Inappropriate conduct between fellow students

A male student’s hand somehow ends up caressing a fellow woman student’s inner thigh as he is “helping” her climb down from a chair after she switched on the projector. It is uncomfortable for her. She is glad it was just an afternoon seminar, and that he was not in any of her regular classes. No chance she would have told the teacher. She did not know her (or any of her teachers) well enough to know for sure that she would not accuse her for being uptight or hostile.

General comment:

Harassment on the basis of gender and sexual harassment shall be prohibited. “Harassment on the basis of gender” shall mean acts, omissions or statements that have the effect or purpose of being offensive, frightening, hostile, degrading or humiliating. “Sexual harassment” shall mean unwanted sexual attention that is troublesome to the person receiving the attention. The Act relating to Gender Equality par. 8

Questions:

Is this a case of sexual harassment?
Who are the parties involved?
What are the ethical problems in this situation?
What practical action would you suggest? How should one raise this issue?
What if it were a female student behaving this way towards a male fellow student, would this change your conclusion?

Comments from the pilot testers

Commentator 1: This is a type of situation that women have to endure in their daily lives: For example, when they are standing on the bus, or in a public place. It is not a nice situation to be in, but it does not seem like a case of sexual harassment to me. The parties involved are the male student, his female fellow student, and the teacher. Since the two main parties are not going to meet regularly, I would not suggest that any action is taken. Perhaps the female student could tell the guy directly if this happens again. I would not change my conclusion if the genders were reversed.

Commentator 2: This is a case of sexual harassment because, though this could be an incident that happened on the bus, it happened in a work/study environment, and it disturbed the female student from her learning experience. The parties involved are the male student, his female fellow student, and the teacher and teaching environment. The ethically responsible parties are the two students but also the teachers, who are responsible for fostering and creating an atmosphere of trust, such that the student could have felt confident in confiding with such uncomfortable incident. Though this seems to be a small incident, not reacting to small incursions like these allows for a mindset that can justify more gross misconduct. I would thus suggest that the student in such a situation could confide in a teacher she feels closer to, and that this person takes the issue up with the student involved. I would not change my conclusion should the genders be reversed.

Inappropriate conduct between class instructor and student.

After an interesting lecture the student was burning with questions, so when the evening came and the group was going to a formal party for the journal in their field, she drank enough beers to work up the courage to talk to the professor who had held the lecture. He was very nice and answered her questions. They went outside and smoked cigarettes together and chatted. Without warning he stuck his hand in her trousers and pulled her close, and asked if she lived far from there. She was both overwhelmed and shocked. She said that she was going to get her umbrella. She did, and ran away from the place.

In the next lecture, she was completely ignored. He gave no sign that he knew who she was and what had happened. Later she found out that this was quite common behavior from him. It was common for him to sleep with young female students, oftentimes on the annual study trip. She never reported this professor. She had no idea who she was going to report him to - and if this was common practice from his side, and since "everyone" knew about it, then it was probably accepted? He works at the same department today.

General comment:

Questions:

Is this a case of sexual harassment?
Who are the parties involved?
What are the ethical problems in this situation?
What practical action would you suggest? How should one raise this issue?
What if it were the student behaving this way towards his/her supervisor, would this change your conclusion?
Comments from the pilot testers:

Commentator 1: This seems to be a case of sexual harassment, given the discomfort of the student and the open advances of the professor. But it could also have been a case of mixed signals. Perhaps if the student had been interested in the professor romantically, she would have accepted his advances. How could he know that this was not something she was happy about if she said nothing, but just left? After all, it was she who approached him with a question. The fact that this has happened before might not solve the problem as the professor might think that all the former students also wanted to engage with him sexually. The parties involved in this case are the professor, the student and also the other people (students I presume) who afterwards discussed the professor’s behavior with the student. I would suggest that the student confides in a member of staff about a formal procedure for reporting, as this repeated behavior is a sign that the professor is not aware of the problems here.

Commentator 2: This is a case of sexual harassment because, though it happened at a social event it disturbed the female student. Even if the Professor had been unintentionally mistaking signals his behaviour had the effect of making the student’s working environment feel offensive. The parties involved are the professor, the female student, and the whole teaching and work environment. The ethical challenge here is that this action is unfairly excluding or inhibiting this female student from the opportunity to learn and flourish in her studies on equal grounds as her fellow students. Creating an atmosphere of trust, but also of integrity such that the student could have felt confident that this is a behavior that is not indirectly sanctioned by the rest of the department would be crucial here. I would advise reporting the incident formally, and indicating that there are more people with similar experiences, for the case-responsible people to investigate and connect to. I would not change my conclusion if the hierarchy was reversed.

11.3 Inappropriate conduct between PhD supervisor and student

A PhD candidate reports that her supervisor regularly behaves inappropriately, in her presence, making both verbal comments and physical gestures that she feels offend and discriminate against her as a woman. She reports that in one instance, the professor/supervisor told her that “Professor X and I were talking and we agreed that you are one to take from behind”. On another occasion, and while travelling to a conference the student reports that her PhD supervisor, who was sitting next to her, was masturbating under his airline blanket. The student reports a collusive atmosphere and behavior among other members of staff in a male-dominated environment in this department.

The student reports this behavior to the faculty but she has little proof that these incidents happened. The conclusion of the case is that the professor is not found guilty of sexual harassment. The student gets therapy and reports this incident to the media. She does not finish her degree.

General comment:

Questions:

Is this a case of sexual harassment?
Who are the parties involved?
What are the ethical problems in this situation?
What practical action would you suggest? How should one raise this issue?
In cases where there is not sufficient evidence to attest to the events happening, should the Institution follow up on this report?
What if it were the student behaving this way towards his/her supervisor, would this change your conclusion?

Comments from the pilot testers:

Commentator 1: This is clearly a case of sexual harassment. This is gross misconduct from the person involved, and it results in the student’s career being put on hold. The parties involved are the supervisor, his female student, and the other Professor he was talking to. The ethical problem here is clearer insofar as the supervisor is clearly not acting according to general propriety let alone his professional code of ethics. The case was already reported and there was no evidence found, so this is a difficult situation practically to act on. The person has also gone to the media with this story making it public. I would think that the institution has a responsibility to follow up on this case and I would say to suspend the professor even though there is no evidence, given the seriousness of these accusations. There was no physical assault, but this is clearly verbal assault and harassment. If a female student was harassing her professor like that, the situation would be different, as he would have already more power to stop supervising her.

Commentator 2: The actions of the professor in question, but also his possible colleagues here, are certainly instances of sexual harassment: they are degrading and humiliating, and they result in harming the mental health and career of the student. The parties involved are the supervisor, his female student, colleagues and the institution, since the case was already reported and investigated formally. The media is also an involved party here. The ethical problems here are a violation in the proper conduct among supervisor and student, but also the nature of the relationship between the colleagues in this department as there seems to be an atmosphere of collusion. The institution is responsible for handling such cases. Though there can be cases of false reporting and vindictive individuals this type of incident suggests that there could have been prior offenses in that institution so a proper investigation including former students of this professor should have been undertaken. The institution has the responsibility to follow up here, even if the case does not have enough evidence, as this could be a repeat offender. The institution could also follow up with the victim and try to enable her work to finish her doctorate with another responsible. I would not change my conclusion should the student have been the person harassing her professor, it would still have been a case of harassment obstructing the work of the professor. But the situation there could have been handled differently as the professor would not have been dependent on the student for her career progression.

Case 11.4 Inappropriate conduct between colleagues at different rank and institutional procedure

Two postdoctoral researchers who identify as female, A and B, report that professor X has behaved inappropriately towards them at work and at work-related events. Postdoc A reports that she was invited for a coffee by a professor X in her department who during the coffee suggested that they could go home, “while his wife is away”. The postdoctoral researcher rejected the invitation but experienced it as inappropriate. She reports that later, at a PhD defense celebration for one of their colleagues, the professor standing behind her touched her buttocks, and whispered in her ear “you look so fine tonight”.She moved away. The same professor X is reported to behave inappropriately towards a second postdoctoral fellow, B. B reports that Professor X invited her to a coffee on campus. At the end of the meeting, as they were both walking out, and the professor turned to “hug” her goodbye and his hands reached under her backpack to touch her buttocks.She ran away. B reports that after the incident she is still afraid that the Professor is crowding her in common areas, and is demanding attention from her she does not want to give. He has his office next to hers, and she locks her door. Neither A nor B are in a direct power relationship with Professor X. He is a permanent member of staff and A and B are short-term employees.

A and B report this behavior to the university faculty. There are two independent investigations of this professor as the institution does not consider there are grounds to link the cases. The result of the investigations is that there is not enough evidence that sexual harassment has taken place. The professor is moved to another office, no longer next to B. A leaves academia.

Questions:

Is this a case of sexual harassment?
Who are the parties involved?
What is responsible conduct among colleagues in a department?
How should one raise this issue?
What is sufficient evidence of sexual harassment occurring?
What is the institution’s responsibility in cases of sexual harassment among staff? Do you think the Institution responded adequately here? Should an institution follow up on these reports, even without sufficient evidence to attest to the events happening?

General comment:

Comments from the pilot testers:

Commentator 1: This is a case of sexual harassment since both postdoctoral researchers experience the professor’s behaviour as unwanted and inappropriate. The parties involved are the two postdoctoral researchers and the professor, the faculty administration and people responsible for running an investigation. Certainly, collegiality and having a coffee are appropriate ways to behave at work, but not inviting people home “while their wife is away” or touching people’s buttocks! The postdoctoral researchers clearly spoke to each other and realized this behaviour was possibly systematic, so I would say it was brave to raise it to the faculty level. The investigation did not find evidence and in many cases, it is hard to find evidence of e.g. inappropriate touching having happened. Perhaps the fact that there were two such testimonies could have counted more in the investigation. It seems that the only repercussion for the professor was that he had to move offices. At least the institution now has a record of this person’s behaviour and the person is aware of that.

Commentator 2: The physical advance and inappropriate touching was maybe mistaken as wanted by the Professor. But still the fact that this happened twice with two different colleagues, both at a lower rank than him, suggests that this was more a demonstration of power than genuine mistakes. In any case, the fact that both postdoctoral researchers experienced this as uncomfortable and unwanted is enough to make it count as sexual harassment. And B is also experiencing problems working in her office which certainly affects her work environment and career development, while A dropped out of academia. One question to the institution is why the two cases were not considered linked, given the same behaviour (touching) was reported in both cases as involving the same professor. Further, though reporting to the faculty is good, one wonders indeed what is enough evidence here ? It is rare that there will be witnesses to these events, even in public spaces such as at a dinner, or at a café, which I imagine heightens the thrill for the perpetrators. Instead, the institution could have followed up with a scrutiny of professor X’s relationships with other women in his work environment, versus just these two reported cases, which were not even considered linked. An official reprimand of the professor and a review of his teaching/supervising duties could also have been considered.

person-portlet

Contact

May Thorseth Professor
+47-73596535 +4791711044 may.thorseth@ntnu.no Department of Philosophy and Religious Studies

Språkvelger

Focus points

Focus points

Focus points

Cases

1. Transparency and confidentiality

2. Freedom of expression and loyalty

Case: Breach of the ground rules for good debate?

3. Acceptable and unacceptable relationships

4. Handling conflicts of interest

5. Blowing the whistle on dishonesty and research fraud

6. The research process. Contracts and reporting routines

7. Governance of the relationship between the supervisor and the PhD candidate/student

8. Storage, use and publication of data and personal data

9. The dilemmas of multidisciplinary work

10. International cooperation

Case 10.1: Unforeseen consequences of cooperation with developer in China

Case 10.2: Restricted freedom of expression during field trip in China

Case 10.3: Students invite controversial international company to NTNU’s career fair, KarriereDagene

11 #MeToo Academia

#MeToo Academia

General introduction

What is sexual harassment

Unwelcome over voluntary

Report inappropriate behaviour

General comment:

Questions:

Comments from the pilot testers

Inappropriate conduct between class instructor and student.

General comment:

Questions:

11.3 Inappropriate conduct between PhD supervisor and student

General comment:

Questions:

Comments from the pilot testers:

Questions:

General comment:

Comments from the pilot testers:

person-portlet

Contact

May Thorseth Professor