Why STEMM leaders need to talk seriously about ethics

Are we, as academics, sufficiently willing to engage with our colleagues on issues of ethics and behavior?  As women leaders in STEMM, how does this affect us and what are our responsibilities?     

By Janet G. Hering and Patricia A. Maurice

4 February 2025, DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.14760284

Academics have a reputation for being happy to contradict and argue with each other.  Discussions among scholars at professional conferences can be famously disputatious, sometimes descending into incivility.  But those disputes are about the content of our academic work, both in research and teaching, which is protected by the conventions of academic freedom [1].  It is rare that academics are willing to challenge each other on issues of ethics and behavior.  Yet, academics have an obligation to their colleagues and students and to the societies that both support and rely on universities to maintain the highest standards of professional, ethical behavior.

Why is it so difficult to challenge bad behavior when we observe it?

At least within our home institutions, STEMM faculty are accustomed to positioning ourselves within specific areas of expertise in teaching and research, in which we are often subject experts among our institutional colleagues.  Our content expertise is unlikely to be challenged by our institutional colleagues, especially if we have achieved professional recognition (through publication in prominent journals, being highly cited, and/or acquiring major research awards).  This custom of reticence (on content) within our home institutions, as well as the status of professional success, may also inhibit criticism of unethical behavior.  In addition, colleagues may understandably wish to avoid confrontations that could threaten their advancement (if more senior colleagues are involved) and potentially ‘poison’ the atmosphere for years or even decades.  This reflects both the long tenures common in academic institutions and institutional reliance on ‘collegiality’ as an important driver for academic service [2].  Informal networks can also be quite strong within academia [3]; individuals may be reluctant to challenge members of informal networks that provide access to information and, sometimes, resources.  Senior colleagues are often well positioned in institutional networks and may count on their positioning and the reputation gained from past professional success to allow them to avoid any consequences for misuses of their power.  In a previous post, Patricia presented some examples of dishonest behavior by senior colleagues and described how to address them [4].

Academic freedom is not administrative autonomy 

In Europe, the protection of academic freedom is often used as a justification of autonomy for academic institutions and for their sub-units, such as departments.  But these are not the same thing.  While it’s true that institutional autonomy could help to protect professors from “outside pressure dictating not only the curriculum taught, but also the research undertaken” [1], this does not imply that institutional sub-units (e.g., schools, faculties, or departments) should have full autonomy in their administrative decision-making and processes, especially if that allows unethical or otherwise destructive behaviors to occur or continue.  Common past practices in academia may be taken for granted by senior faculty even when they are inconsistent with current-day norms and even laws.  Furthermore, autonomy at the level of sub-units may contradict institutional commitments to, for example, codes of scientific integrity.  In the Code of Conduct for Scientific Integrity published by Swiss academies of arts and sciences, the “display [of] any form of harassment or discrimination, especially when based on cultural, socio-demographic, or other personal characteristics or professional backgrounds” is identified as a form of scientific misconduct [5].  The power structures within academic institutions cannot allow departments and other sub-units to perpetuate bad behaviors by hiding behind arguments of academic freedom and autonomy.  

How failures in ethics and integrity compromise the academic mission   

Trust and integrity play essential roles in science.  Science has some mechanisms in place for self-correction, including peer review and studies that replicate past results to build on them.  These mechanisms are often overwhelmed by the sheer volume of scientific publications, the lack of support (including publication outlets) for study replication, the publication bias against negative results, and the limitations of peer review in identifying deliberate fraud.  Even within an individual research group, it is not possible to review every finding in detail, and even with some systematic safeguards in place (including proper training in scientific integrity), a supervisor must be able to trust the students and colleagues working in the research group.  Discrimination and harassment within a research group, whether perpetrated or tolerated by the supervisor, destroys trust and creates a stressful atmosphere of insecurity that is not conducive to intellectual development and creativity.    

When trust is broken, it has profound and widespread consequences.  Students, early career researchers (ECRs), and co-authors and colleagues may become discouraged and demoralized and even leave science altogether [6, 7].  This constitutes a waste of resources invested in prior education and professional development [8], which is compounded by the compromising of the quality of research and diminishment of trust in science and scientific findings [9].  Diminished trust in science and scientific findings impairs the capacity of universities and research institutions to contribute to solving societal challenges.  This is an important rationale for mandating formal ethics training for researchers.  Although such training often focuses on students and ECRs, it is equally, or even more, important for faculty, including those with seniority.  

Calling out ethical failures

Outside academia, there are numerous organizations and individuals that seek to identify and address ethical failures in academia, whether related to discrimination and harassment [10-12] or research and publication [13-15].  Unfortunately, academic and research institutions, as well as scientific publishers, often ignore such information and resist pressure and recommendations to embark on the systemic reform that would be needed to implement the relevant policies and regulations that are, in most institutions, already published and in place [16].    This attitude risks opening the door to criticism that can erode public trust in academics and, ultimately, in science.

Exerting peer pressure 

Although institutional action is clearly called for, much can be done within the institutional hierarchy and especially by engaging with the colleagues in our own departments or professional circles.  The media plays an important role in drawing attention to problems that need to be addressed, but the exposure of ethical failures in the media (including social media) tarnishes our reputations.  It is in our common interest to solve problems proactively through early intervention with colleagues, preferably before formal action would need to be taken.  This requires paying attention to signals, particularly from ECRs and (even senior) members of underrepresented groups, that they are experiencing undue pressure within their research group or from our colleagues that they are unaware or indifferent to these struggles or are overwhelmed by their own challenges.  Engaging with ECRs or colleagues in this way may be awkward or uncomfortable but hoping that problems will go away on their own may well allow them to fester and grow.  Even if there is no ill intent initially, unresolved problems may lead to individuals ‘digging into’ their positions and becoming less amenable to mediation and resolution.  At the same time, tact and discretion are called for to protect privacy and mitigate harm.  The individual who first recognizes the problem may or may not be the best person to address it.  An openness to discussion of such issues within a department would facilitate the identification of emerging problems and their resolution at a manageable stage.  As senior women leaders, we can set an example of ethical behavior while also using our power to exert pressure so that ethical behavior becomes a key criterion for hiring and promotion.  As we wrote in a previous post, “Senior women leaders who set their own agenda are likely to be disruptive. If academic workplaces are to become supportive environments for everyone, alpha-male cultures and hierarchies will need to be replaced [17].”  This will include disrupting entrenched bad behavior in our institutions when we observe it.

Special challenges for female academic leaders

Women faculty can face special challenges in calling out and trying to end colleagues’ bad behavior.  Junior women in STEMM don’t have much power, can be targets of sexual harassment, and may not have mentors to go to for advice on such sensitive topics.  Senior women may be isolated and thus unable to build a cohort of like-minded colleagues willing to address problems.  Women may view behavior as inappropriate or unethical that many of their male colleagues consider to be simply the status quo. Unfortunately, as addressed in Alison Vogelaar’s guest post [18], some senior women mistreat their junior female colleagues.

Women faculty will often have to deal with gender-biased expectations.  Female professors may be expected to be more sympathetic and understanding than their male peers [19].  This can lead to unrealistic expectations within female professors’ own research groups as well as to the burdening female professors with the problems of their male colleagues.  Both of these situations can lead to backlash against women faculty [20].  To reduce the likelihood and severity of such backlash, women could seek to promote a collective understanding of the problems and a collective approach to solving them rather taking on or accepting solo roles.  This will also give women and their male allies more leverage in bringing issues forward within the institutional hierarchy.  Even when senior women hold positions of authority, it can be more effective to build consensus with allies than to proceed unilaterally in a way that may run afoul of informal networks and entrenched behaviors.   

Institutional obligations 

Peer pressure can be effective within sub-units of an academic institution, but broader impact requires the leadership to stand behind and implement institutional policies, which uniformly impose high ethical standards.  Institutional leaders must come to realize that tolerating unethical colleagues or behavior can compromise the attractiveness and success of their institution in the long term.  An important step is conducting detailed and ongoing assessments of the extent of problems within institutions and their sub-units.  Institutional leaders can build on existing resources (e.g., [21]) and on consortia with shared concerns and goals, such as CWSEM [22] in the U.S. and EWORA in Europe [23].  These shared concerns and goals become more pressing as funding agencies [24] and professional associations put greater emphasis on ethics.  Ultimately, trust in science will be strengthened by adherence to high ethical standards backed up by transparency and accountability.        

Closing comments and questions for further thought 

Academic research institutions benefit both directly and indirectly from public investment.  This support confers an obligation to work in the best interest of society and to provide a working environment that allows students and staff to do their best work.  Unethical behavior compromises the mission of academic research institutions and threatens their long-term sustainability.  Individuals at all levels of the institutional hierarchy, but especially in leadership positions, must actively promote and enforce high ethical standards.
Here are a few questions to stimulate further thought and discussion:

·       Does your institution have effective measures in place to promote ethical behavior and combat unethical behavior?

·       Are ethics discussed in your professional surroundings?  Is good ethical behavior a consideration in hiring and promotion?

·       Have you observed unethical behavior in your professional surroundings?  If so, what did you do about it?

References and links

[1] UNESCO (2017) Protecting academic freedom is as relevant as ever, https://www.unesco.org/en/articles/protecting-academic-freedom-relevant-ever

[2] Smith, S. and Walker, D. (2024) “The instrumental academic: Collegiality and the value of academic citizenship in contemporary higher education”, Higher Ed. Quarterly 78: e12551, https://doi.org/10.1111/hequ.12551 

[3] van Helden, D.L., den Dulk, L., Steijn, B. and Vernooij, M.W. (2021) Gender, networks and academic leadership: A systematic review. Educational Management Administration & Leadership.  https://doi.org/10.1177/17411432211034172

[4] https://www.epistimi.org/blog/liar-liar-campus-on-fire-how-to-cope-with-dishonest-colleagues

[5] SCNAT (2021) Code of conduct for scientific integrity.  Swiss Academies of Arts and Sciences.

https://api.swiss-academies.ch/site/assets/files/25607/kodex_layout_en_web-1.pdf

[6] Moss, S.E. and Mahmoudi, M. (2021) “STEM the bullying: An empirical investigation of abusive supervision in academic science” EClinicalMedicine 40: 101121, https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2589537021004016

[7] Hering, J.G. (2021) ETH Zukunftsblog, https://ethz.ch/en/news-and-events/eth-news/news/2021/06/no-room-for-discrimination-or-harassment.html  

[8] Boivin, N., Hering, J.G., Täuber, S., and Keller, U. (2023) The Conversation, https://theconversation.com/how-your-money-is-helping-subsidise-sexism-in-academia-and-what-you-can-do-about-it-218347

[9] Hering, J.G. (2024) Strukturelle, https://www.strukturelle.ch/en/post/when-scientific-institutions-allow-unethical-behavior-by-scientists-why-should-the-public-trust-in

[10] Academic Parity Movement, https://paritymovement.org/

[11] Speak Up! in Academia, https://www.speakupinacademia.ch/

[12] DID THIS REALLY HAPPEN?!, https://didthisreallyhappen.net/

[13] Bik, E. (n.d.) Science Integrity Digest, https://scienceintegritydigest.com/

[14] PubPeer Foundation (n.d.) PubPeer, https://pubpeer.com/

[15] Schneider, L. (n.d.) For Better Science, https://forbetterscience.com/

[16] Hering, J.G. and Molnar, D. (2023) Strukturelle, https://www.strukturelle.ch/en/post/why-do-measures-to-combat-discriminationand-harassment-fall-short-and-what-can-bedone-about-it

[17] https://www.epistimi.org/blog/the-moment-of-lift-by-melinda-gates

[18] https://www.epistimi.org/blog/gender-and-bullying-in-the-academic-workplace

[19] Sieghart, M.A. (2021) The Authority Gap, Doubleday, 374 pp.

[20] Vettese, T. (2019) Sexism in the Academy, n+1, issue 34, https://www.nplusonemag.com/issue-34/essays/sexism-in-the-academy/

[21] Merhill, N. M., K. A. Bonner, and A. L. Baker (Eds.). 2021. Guidance for Measuring Sexual Harassment Prevalence Using Campus Climate Surveys. Washington, DC: National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. https://doi.org/10.17226/26346. 

[22] Committee on Women in Science, Engineering, and Medicine https://www.nationalacademies.org/cwsem/committee-on-women-in-science-engineering-and-medicine

[23] European Women Rectors Association, https://www.ewora.org/

[24] European Commission: Directorate-General for Research and Innovation (2024) Zero-tolerance code of conduct – Counteracting gender-based violence, including sexual harassment, in the EU research and innovation system, https://data.europa.eu/doi/10.2777/044501