Ethical Issues in Russian Higher Education Institutions

Ethical problems of student research

While studying at Russian universities, students face the need to participate in research work that is manifested mainly in the form of scientific publications and presentations at scientific conferences. Participation in conferences and publication of scientific articles, of course, contribute to the quality improvement of specialist development. This is true if scientific articles and papers are written for the conference basing on the results of a student research, instead of imitating this activity. Reports which do not contain the students’ own original research are acceptable if they contain an overview of the literature published in the past few years, according to certain scientific student interest.

To encourage students to do the research, many universities impose some disciplines, for example, “academic and research work for students”, and even include them into the schedule. This leads to the fact that each student has to carry out scientific research. Although it would be wiser to allocate those from the student environment who are interested most in this type of activity and are good at it. As a result, this inevitably leads to overestimation of a number of students who are allegedly engaged in scientific work, and eventually to simulation of student scientific work. This leads to poor quality of student papers, lack of scientific novelty, high level of borrowing others’ ideas.

In our opinion, the main reasons for this situation are the following: 1) problems of student involvement in real scientific work 2) pressure of assessment systems of departments and universities (rankings) in general. To reach the goal of the studying these should be considered in details.

The student involvement in real scientific work in Russian universities is constrained by several factors. In fact, we should acknowledge that the percent of students who are willing and able to be seriously engaged in scientific research is small. What is more, research work requires considerable efforts and time. To participate in the process of solving specific scientific problems students have to obtain certain basic knowledge that they acquire mainly by the end of a course. Student involvement in department research groups is problematic due to constant interruptions related to exams, preparation for tests and course works. At the same time, departments cannot coordinate the timing with student life because of strict reporting deadlines for grant programs. Another problem is that the scholarship does not cover living expenses, and many students, especially undergraduates, have to work. So, this greatly reduces their time possibilities for the participation in research work. Departments cannot support a student financially because in most cases, research funding for an extended period of time, e.g., five years, with annual reporting, the cycle is not available.

Another factor limiting student involvement in scientific work is the pressure of assessment systems of departments and universities (rankings). Adequate assessment in universities and its units, and especially professors and researchers is very complex. Since direct assessment is impossible, authorities are forced to use the system of proxy indicators which are expected to be functionally related to the performance of university staff. Although the number of indicators used is often a few dozens, results of such assessment are highly controversial. Despite this, in the current Russian situation these indicators of departments and universities evaluation are used by leaders of all levels of the higher education management system while making financial, personnel and administrative decisions. To ensure the necessary execution level, university management applies the “carrot and stick” approach, i.e. a system of remuneration and different methods of pressure on the staff.

Student activity is also evaluated according to certain criteria: the number of scientific publications, the number of victories in scientific activities, participation in scientific projects, etc. It is good that universities do not encourage students to increase the number of scientific publications by means of bonuses, as it has already been applied to academic staff, and do not punish students for lack of scientific publications, as could not give admission to the masters theses defense without scientific publications and presentations at international conferences.

With regard to graduate students, there is a specific requirement: the masters theses are banned fromdefense if its basic content is not published in journals recommended by the Russian State Commission for Academic Degrees and Titles. It should be noted that it is difficult for graduate students to meet this requirement without conducting research for the dissertation before enrolling the graduate school and publications writing.

First year students spend a huge amount of time on candidacy exam preparation and immersion in the subject of the future dissertation: they accumulate special knowledge, search and study literature on the research subject and then plan the experimental part of a research. During the second year, graduate students create an experimental set-up, conduct an experiment, and start to collect first results. Only during the third year of education, they develop materials and scientific results that can be presented at conferences and published in scientific journals. Therefore, although the main results of the masters theses can be published, in most cases they are comprehended and published after defending dissertation.

At the same time, indicators of undergraduate and graduate student publication activity are included in indicators of a contract for university professors the results of which can be reflected in material rewards, in disciplinary sanctions or even in rejection of the teacher re-election to the position. The close attention to such indicators can affect curriculum negatively (Pankova, et al., 2016).

Thus, according to the administration of higher education institutions and the Ministry of Education and Science of the Russian Federation, the figures should constantly grow. A reasonable range of the figures growth is not defined, so they can reach the point of absurd. Just as it happened with the indicator “the economic impact of the R&D implementation” in the USSR. This index had increased to the level of the country national income, and it became clear that this measurement did not match the real economic effect.

Since the organization of real student scientific work, for the reasons mentioned above is quite problematic, and the consequences of ratings are meaningful for departments and universities, it inevitably leads to the scientific activity imitation.

Ethical issues of scientific research co-authorship

To ensure compliance with the indicator of joint publications of academic staff and students in the serious journals, students are often included in co-authors lists without any significant participation in research. Sometimes the opposite situation takes place, when postgraduates and students, not having a sufficient basis, include a research advisor into the co-authors list.

Co-authorship has become common practice in most science and engineering disciplines (Youtie, & Bozeman, 2014). Problems of scientific articles co-authorship have attracted much attention in recent years (Cutas, & Shaw, 2015). However, issues of co-authorship are rarely discussed straight. Of course there are rules of scientific ethics, but as all ethical standards they cannot embrace the life aspects. In fact, they are not only delicate, but also contradictory.

We will not discuss unethical behavior, consisted in imposition of authorship in scientific research with colleagues of a higher official position. This is very rare, but sometimes it happens in research institutions and universities. If coworkers publish their work together for their initiative and mutual agreement, regardless of the real contribution to the article, the question of the validity of such a decision does not arise.

During the Soviet period at some universities, there was a rule to include a research supervisor into co-authors. This approach was not always perceived as fair. Indeed, after setting research objectives a young researcher, a graduate student or a student did everything himself: he prepared the literature review, carried out necessary calculations, prepared and conducted the experiment, processed the results and wrote the article. Then what is the role of the research supervisor? Nevertheless, it is not all as easy as it sounds.

After all, to offer a perspective topic, the research supervisor has to have the idea that she/he actually passes to the student. And the idea is the compound of thoughts and the information review and the labor invested in it perhaps is not less than those of the student. So, sometimes the participation of the research supervisor during the research work can be considered as the authorship of the work. But sometimes students do not appreciate the help of the research supervisor in the implementation of the scientific work and even forget to thank.

From the perspective of psychology, such a situation is understandable. A student, a graduate student or a young researcher, received a specific topic and the task, after a while becomes immersed in it and begins to understand the topic more than people around him/her, including even the research advisor. The idea and the subject of the scientific research become personally meaningful for him/her, and student begins to defend his “property” against all attacks. We should bear with this situation. It is better to overcome the reluctance to discuss a sensitive issue and to remove it, maybe even with the participation of a disinterested arbiter.

The mass media, literature and film industry form the illusion among uninitiated people that scientists are driven only by a desire to learn something new, to make a discovery, and, at the same time, they prefer to be anonymous creators of scientific and technical progress. In fact, high scientific results depend mainly on ambitions of scientists, their desire for recognition, scientific fame and a certain position in society. Consequently, published works attract other experts to the results of studying, which leads to future citations and influence on the recognition of a scientist in research environment (Kabanova, et al., 2016).

However, in science and technology, research papers are rarely performed alone. A team spirit greatly affects the research efficiency and its results. It should be realized that the high assessment of the colleagues’ contribution in scientific work does not detract individual’s achievements, but increases cooperation very effectively. Some colleagues in this case are included in the authorship of the article, someone’s contribution is reflected in the text of the article, and someone gets a gratitude for the assistance and support.

This is particularly important today due to the massive encouragement of individualism and the spirit of competition in the scientific world. Such a competition among scientists for funding, positions and prestige etc. can lead to such negative phenomena in research as a decline in free and open sharing of information and methods, sabotage of others’ ability to use scientific work, deformation of relationships (Anderson et al., 2007). Unfortunately, in recent years, even gratitude in the Russian scientific articles almost never occurs. Although sincere gratitude to people who have made a contribution to the study not only perceived with appreciation, but also increase their motivation to further work.