The case study approach to teaching scientific integrity in nursing and the biomedical sciences

Department of Microbiology, Virginia Commonwealth University, Richmond.
Journal of Professional Nursing (Impact Factor: 0.95). 02/1995; 11(1):40-4. DOI: 10.1016/S8755-7223(95)80071-9
Source: PubMed


Scientific integrity courses for graduate trainees are emerging at many institutions. The content of such courses varies and is evolving as faculty strive to meet the needs of their specific student audiences. Typical course subject matters include responsible authorship, conflict of interest, handling of scientific misconduct, data management, and the use of humans and animals in biomedical experimentation. These and other topic areas are amenable to teaching methods that use the case study approach. In this article we discuss our experiences in teaching scientific integrity using the case study approach. Issues covered include underlying philosophy of the approach, preparation and use of cases, desired inclass preparation and teaching. Examples of short cases are presented and, where appropriate, discussed in the context of these issues.

1 Follower
4 Reads
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Despite the growing need to teach principles of the responsible conduct of research (RCR) to those training to be biomedical researchers, no descriptive, easily compared information about the nation's RCR programs exists. To draw some preliminary conclusions about the state of RCR education and training and to gain insight into what kinds of future initiatives are needed, the authors reviewed materials describing U.S. training programs in RCR that had been collected by the Department of Health and Human Services in June-August 1996. In direct response to a 1990 federal policy, formal RCR training programs have been established at many institutions that carry out research. This policy requires that recipients of National Research Service Award Institutional Research Training Grants from the National Institutes of Health provide RCR training to the predoctoral and postdoctoral trainees supported by these grants. The authors found that two thirds of the 45 institutions represented in the materials provided RCR training only to those trainees whom they were required to train, although among the rest of the institutions, a few required that all trainees receive such training. The training programs studied were quite diverse regarding who was responsible for the program (the principal investigator, the ethics faculty, etc.), what kinds of instruction were given (lectures, seminars, small-group discussions, etc.), course content, and how discipline-specific the focus was. The authors review the obstacles to effective RCR training (e.g., the needs for culture change and for sizable faculty, financial, course time, and administrative resources; the need for proper evaluation of programs) and discuss ways to foster such programs (e.g., sharing of resources; identifying competencies; tailoring teaching to the individual institution's and department's characteristics; public-private partnerships). They conclude that the institutional efforts needed to establish widespread and effective RCR training are more than justified by the result that such training will help foster: the integrity of the research process and a solid future for the research enterprise.
    Academic Medicine 01/1999; 73(12):1249-54. DOI:10.1097/00001888-199812000-00013 · 2.93 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Purpose. This pilot assessment describes institutional approaches to satisfying the NIH training requirement in the responsible conduct of research. Descriptive information from this review will be valuable for institutions and researchers who are developing or improving training programs. Methods. The authors reviewed materials submitted by a sample of grantee institutions in response to a request by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. Institutional and programmatic characteristics were summarized and described. Results. Institutions in the sample employed a diversity of approaches to satisfying the training grant requirement. Approaches varied both among and within institutions. Further, the number of training grants held at the institution had some impact on how the training grant requirement was met. Conclusion. This assessment is a valuable first step in describing institutional responses to the NIH training grant requirement. It indicates the need for further research on institutional approaches to education and training in the responsible conduct of research, including research on characteristics of training programs, effectiveness of training initiatives, and on how to broaden current training efforts to ensure that all scientists in training are prepared to address ethical dilemmas in their professional careers, regardless of the source of funding for their training.
    Accountability in Research 02/1999; 7(1):85-100. DOI:10.1080/08989629908573943 · 0.83 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: The complexity of the high-risk family coupled with the intricacies of the changing health care system force educators to examine how nursing students are prepared to care for these families. The Nursing and the High Risk Family course employs the case method teaching and learning strategy to help nursing students develop the critical thinking skills needed to assist high-risk childbearing and child-rearing families to meet their needs. Using the case method teaching and learning strategy, groups of students experience real-life situations in a nonthreatening classroom environment. The case method approach supports flexibility, creativity, change, risk taking, and consequently, encourages critical thinking. The Critical Thinking Model for Nursing Judgment, which defines the basic, complex, and commitment level of critical thinking, provides a framework for integrating increasingly more complex case studies into the course. Different case formats and levels of questioning promote students’ progression toward the commitment level of critical thinking.
    Journal of Family Nursing 02/1999; 5(1):92-109. DOI:10.1177/107484079900500106 · 1.34 Impact Factor
Show more