Student interactions with ethical issues in the lab: results from a qualitative study

Abstract

Student researchers encounter ethical issues daily, but little is known about their unique perspectives. This article presents the results of 30 qualitative semi-structured interviews exploring students’ views and experiences around ethical issues in research groups. During the interviews, students were asked to describe challenges and successes they have encountered in their lab, their conception of what counts as an “ethical issue in research,” and how they handle these issues when they arise. Against this background, the article discusses students’ conceptions of ethical issues in research environments, the types of issues students reported facing, how these issues were ultimately resolved, and finally, the factors, internal qualities, and lessons learned that help students thrive in research environments, as well as some of the challenges students face – especially international students. Many of the ethical challenges interviewees discussed focused on interpersonal issues, highlighting the intense collaboration most graduate students have with their colleagues and supervisors. Findings from this study point to the need for targeted training programs for students and faculty supervisors focusing on building mentoring relationships and finding space in the lab where open communication can occur around ethical research practices.

Keywords

Ethics research ethics responsible conduct of research STEM research culture qualitative Study

Introduction

The integrity of scientific knowledge is paramount to our society. As citizens and researchers, we need the scientific research – and future researchers – emerging from our academic research labs to be committed to the core values of objectivity, openness, fairness, accountability, and transparency (National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine, 2017). We have made strides in requiring the teaching of research ethics in U.S. colleges and universities (U.S. National Institutes of Health, 2022, U.S. National Science Foundation, 2022), but more is needed. When teaching research ethics, the focus is often on responsible research conduct (RCR) and rules for acceptable research behavior. While these are essential, recent studies highlight factors such as communication and good lab leadership as crucial in the ethical conduct of research (Antes et al., 2019a; Muthanna and Alduais, 2021). Students model themselves as future scientists on their senior colleagues and supervisors, and the interactions in this space are formative (Mejlgaard et al., 2020; Resnik, 2012). It is in the lab environment, perhaps even more so than the classroom, where students observe how responsible science is practiced, how questions and disagreements about research results are resolved, and how the final products of research are disseminated (Fisher et al., 2009; Weil, 2001).

Open communication, a culture that supports asking questions, regular lab meetings, and an equitable work environment are equally important, as they help build supportive lab environments and, directly and indirectly, foster ethical science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) research and research integrity (Dubois and Antes, 2018). These structures allow students to ask questions, seek help, and grow as individuals and academic researchers. Studies have examined research supervisors’ and mentors’ roles in enhancing the research integrity climate and engaging students in decisions about research integrity and responsible conduct of research issues by engaging students in meaningful discussions about research integrity, modeling fundamental attitudes toward responsible research practices, building collaborations and relationships, and serving as exemplars (Antes et al. 2019b; Pizzolato and Dierickx, 2023). Still, more research needs to be done from the student’s perspective. In their 2009 quantitative study of psychology students, Fisher et al. found that research experience, mentor RCR instruction, department policies, and faculty modeling of good research practices were essential factors. Other studies have found that professional and organizational socialization plays a vital role in shaping these perspectives and that the kind and quality of supervision graduate students receive play a significant role in the type of ethical issues they experience and value (Löfström, 2012; Löfström and Pyhältö, 2020). But what more can we find out by delving into the individual experiences of students?

This qualitative study is part of a research project that investigated ethical issues in STEM research and the culture of research labs and aimed to contribute to building a culture of responsible research and practice by situating research ethics education within the research environment (Hildt et al., 2019, 2022; Laas et al., 2021, 2022). Drawing from studies similar to our topic, by “ethical issue,” we mean “. . .any situation that may compromise, in whole or in part, the respect of at least one moral value that is considered socially legitimate and should thus be respected” (Drolet et al., 2023: 270). We have refrained from using the term “ethical dilemma” as students did not often avail themselves of describing the situations they experienced as situations where two or more ethical principles or standards were in substantial conflict with one another.

This article uses the same interview data analyzed in our previous publication that explored the culture of research groups (Laas et al., 2022). Findings from that study focused on the lab environment more generally, highlighting the critical role of open communication, community structures, governance, and collaboration in shaping lab culture. In this analysis, we explored the ethical issues students have experienced in their research groups, how these questions came about, and methods used to address these issues. This analysis aims to shed light on what students consider critical ethical issues in their work, the specific experiences of students when encountering ethical issues, and what factors helped or hindered resolving these issues satisfactorily. These issues are significant insofar as they point to differences between faculty and students in their perception, experience, and resolution of ethical issues. They also highlight key points in the student experience where levels of supervision, support, or interventions could be improved to help students flourish in the research environment and gain a more robust understanding of responsible research practices.

Our primary research questions were:

• What do students consider ethical issues in STEM research and lab practice?

• What ethical issues do students report experiencing in their research group?

• What factors or internal qualities help students thrive in research groups (and prevent ethical issues)?

• What methods have they used to address these ethical issues?

• What lessons did the students report learning about encountering ethical issues?

Method

This qualitative study emerged from a National Science Foundation grant¹ and was preceded by an extensive survey of over 200 students (undergraduate and graduate) and faculty that asked participants to identify the most critical ethical issues in STEM fields, how often these ethical issues are discussed in research groups, and how often these issues come up in the regular practice of research (Laas et al., 2021).

Sampling and recruitment of participants

With this background knowledge and after receiving approval from the university’s Institutional Review Board, the research team conducted 30 interviews with students working in university laboratories. We use the term “student researcher” in the article to mean students have at least 6 months of experience working in an academic research lab outside the classroom. The project team recruited 28 graduate students and two undergraduate students from STEM laboratories at the same university to participate in the studies. To participate, interviewees needed at least one semester of non-classroom lab work. Students were recruited via an email sent by participating department coordinators and flyers posted around campus. Students were emailed a copy of the consent form before the in-person interview and were asked to sign a print copy of the informed consent form after having the chance to ask any questions they might have about the research study.

Data collection

The 30 students participated in an hour-long semi-structured interview of 20 questions (Appendix I). The interviews were conducted in person by two research team members and were audio-recorded. These questions focused on the working situation of their lab, communication, and challenges, asking the students to describe their lab's culture and their suggestions for improving this culture. The audio recordings of the interviews were transcribed and pseudo-anonymized by the research team members and checked by the research team leader for accuracy.

For this study, the project team looked at interviewee responses to questions a-g and i-k of the interview. These questions focused on ethical issues students encountered in their research experiences (see Appendix I). Some example questions relevant to this analysis are: “Can you tell me about a specific experience in your lab or research group with an issue that you think had ethical implications?”; or “What are the most important lessons you learned from working in a research lab/group and encountering ethical issues or questions?” An analysis of the other questions is described in a previously published article (Hildt et al., 2022).

Data analysis and methodology

Thirty interviews were conducted for this study by a team of three collaborators: a librarian with 16 years of experience in research ethics, an ethnographer, and a master’s student in psychology. Two interviewers conducted each interview, which was recorded and transcribed. The interview transcripts were then loaded into MaxQDA for coding and analysis. Using the grounded theory methodology (Strauss and Corbin, 1994), team members coded one interview independently and then developed a shared coding system. The team chose the emergent fit grounded theory approach to avoid confirming pre-conceived notions and avoid any biases team members might bring to the data from past work. Categories developed in this coding system emerged through successive levels of analysis and discussion among the team members. Following this, two team members coded each interview transcript separately and then discussed it until a final coded version was agreed upon. Sentences from the interviews could be coded multiple times using different codes. Overall, 120 codes were used in analyzing the transcripts (Appendix II).

For this publication, the research group examined the 120 codes and decided to exclude terms that: (a) were not mentioned in the answers to questions a-g and i-k of the interview, and b) any codes that appeared in less than five interviews, and therefore did not allow us to compare interviewees’ perspectives effectively. Some minor changes to the original coding system were made to combine codes that were similar in content.² This left 63 codes (Appendix III).

After pulling the coded sections of the transcripts corresponding to participants’ answers to these questions, the project team grouped the codes into twelve subgroups (Table 1, subgroup category). Analyzing the subgroups, we built three overarching areas: ethical issues in STEM, communication/relationships/feelings, and lab situations.

Table 1.

Interview participant demographics (from Hildt et al., 2022).

Demographics	Number	Percentage
Education Level
Graduate	28	93
Undergraduate	2	7
Gender
Male	18	60
Female	12	40
Discipline
Biology	2	7
Biomedical engineering	10	33
Electrical and computer engineering	3	10
Mechanical, materials, and aerospace engineering	10	33
Physics	4	13
Physics/Biology	1	3
Lab type
Dry	11	37
Wet	17	57
Wet/Dry	2	7
Lab size
Small (1–5 members)	3	10
Medium (6–10 members)	23	77
Large (11+ members)	4	13

In the final analysis, two project team members looked at quotes in these sub-groups and analyzed the interview data. While a prolonged process, this approach gave the team an in-depth understanding of how the students described the ethical issues in their labs and how they were handled.

Results

Demographics

The detailed demographics of the interviewees and the table depicted below have already been published in Hildt et al. (2022). Of the students interviewed, 28 were graduate students, and two were undergraduates. Nineteen students were international, and eleven were domestic. This reflects the majority international graduate student population at the university, around 65%. The study population reflected the university population at the time (42% female, 58% male), with 12 female and 18 male students participating in the interviews. For details on the discipline, lab type, and size, see Table 1. The term “dry labs” is used to characterize labs where most experimentation is conducted via computers or computer-generated models. In contrast, “wet labs” are labs with hands-on research and experimentation, and wet/dry labs combine both characteristics.

The university attended by the students interviewed for this study is located in a large metropolitan area in the United States. Research groups in this university tend to be small, especially compared to larger, state research universities. Faculty usually work closely with their graduate students; sharing lab space and equipment is standard.

Topics addressed – areas and subgroups

In what follows, we present the results combined in three areas: “Ethical Issues in STEM,” “Communication/Relationships/Feelings,” and “Lab Situation” (see Table 2). We chose these areas to help define the different areas that affect a student’s research experience. The first group, “Ethical Issues in STEM,” explores students’ understanding of ethics, how ethical issues are addressed in the lab, and specific mentions of RCR issues and issues of diversity and inclusion. The second area focuses on the levels of communication and relationships among lab members, as well as the personal traits and feelings of the students. The third and final group focuses on the overall situation of the lab, including students’ characterization of the lab environment, its safety culture, and overall working conditions.

Table 2.

Areas and subgroups of topics in student interviews.

Areas	Subgroups
Ethical Issues in STEM	Understanding of ethics, Process for addressing ethical issues, RCR issues, Inclusion/diversity, Overall process of research
Communication/Relationships/Feelings	Colleagues’ influence/support, Communication, Interviewee characteristics, PI influence
Lab Situation	Lab environment, safety, working conditions

Ethical issues in STEM

This section presents the results of “Ethical issues in STEM,” including ethical issues in STEM/Understanding of Ethics, Inclusion/diversity, the process for addressing ethical issues, RCR issues, and the research process. This grouping captures students’ discussion of “ethics” topics, traditional issues usually included under research integrity, and inclusion and diversity. We also included student discussions of the research process, which is integral to how ethical issues arose in the lab environment (see Table 3).

Table 3.

Ethical issues in STEM (numbers in parentheses indicate numbers of students who mentioned the code topic).

Subgroups	Codes
Understanding of ethics	Assumptions about ethics (18), uncertainty about what is meant by an ethical issue (11), social or environmental implications of research (9), interpersonal issues (8)
RCR issues	Data integrity/management (15), plagiarism (8), treatment of animal subjects (8), authorship issues (6), documentation (5)
Inclusion/diversity	Working in diverse groups (7), cultural friction (6), cultural barriers/exchanges (5), problems and power issues specific to international students (5)
Overall process of research	Research process (17), nature of research (10), research methods (7), correcting mistakes (6), following protocols (6), presenting results (6)
Process for addressing ethical issues	Reporting issues to a higher level (7), addressing/avoiding talking about ethics (6), resolving problems and conflicts (5)

Understanding of ethics

Our first question asked students, “What do you consider ethical issues in STEM research and practice?”

Strikingly, 11 interviews included statements about uncertainty about what is considered an ethical issue. Students sometimes had trouble comprehending the question, not seeing any issues, and suggesting some aspects/providing some examples.

Those who did talk about their assumptions about ethics discussed more traditional RCR issues, ranging from concerns about managing data and presenting research results correctly to avoiding plagiarism, publication ethics, and lab safety. One student said, “So I would say the first thing that comes to my mind is proper science. Like objectively presenting your results. I think that can be tricky” (Interview 25). Interpersonal issues mentioned included harassment, power differences between students and faculty, and differences in social attitudes when working with colleagues. Students also discussed ethics in the context of rule-breaking and doing the right thing. Some students also discussed issues around the social and environmental implications of research, discussing both the positive impacts of their research and the use of animals in their experiments.

RCR Issues

In response to the question, “Can you tell me about a specific experience in your lab or research group with an issue that you think had ethical implications?”, most students spoke about specific RCR topics, including data integrity and management, plagiarism, treatment of animals, authorship, and the importance of good documentation. Students shared details of these experiences, often reflecting on the learning process when encountering these issues. For instance: “I remember throughout the whole project, I was getting strange results, and I talked about this with my supervisor, and I learned that what matters is the way you work, not the results you are getting. I've done everything possible to make this work, but the real world is complex, so that you can do nothing about it” (Interview 5). Another student talked about giving credit to others and avoiding plagiarism: “I’ve forgotten to acknowledge their contribution. . .I referenced the code all the way through and then forgot to say who had written it and given it to me. When I sent it to someone to check over, they reminded me that I must say who provided it” (Interview 14).

Inclusion/Diversity

Four codes were categorized under the subject of inclusion/diversity: working in diverse groups, cultural friction, cultural barriers/exchanges, and problems and power issues specific to international students.

Several students spoke about differences between lab members, different cultural backgrounds, stereotypes, language problems, and the need to understand each other and overcome barriers. One student said: “I mean, this is probably representative of [the university] itself, but I was born in the States, the other three Ph.D. candidates, one is from Kenya, one’s from Spain, and the other one’s from China, but then it’s fun..now that we got to know each other..you know it’s okay, and it hasn’t led any issues if I don’t understand something I speak up, I can ask, ‘can you say that differently?’, it doesn’t hurt me to ask that” (Interview 22).

Several students mentioned cultural barriers related to language, as they tended to associate more with individuals who speak the same language or come from their country of origin. Sharing food from one’s culture and being open to discussing cultural differences helped some students build stronger relationships.

International students also spoke about specific power issues they encountered. “As international students, we feel like our life depends too much on our advisor because he has power to basically over us in this country. We can only stay here because we have student visas” (Interview 16). Interviewees also spoke about feeling powerless. “I feel so insecure. . .I think it’s kind of a strategy because when a person feels insecure, other people can manipulate him or make him uncomfortable” (Interview 6). This same student discussed his approach to mitigate feeling powerless.

Overall process of research

Six different codes fell under the overall process of research category: research process, nature of research, research methods, correcting mistakes, following protocols, and presenting results. Quotes in this section arose when students were asked to describe ethical issues they had encountered in their lab or when they were asked to talk about what it is like to work in their lab and to describe challenges and successes experienced.

Seventeen students spoke in depth about the research process, including the need for flexibility and the trial-and-error nature of research. “We deal with failure daily; I think that’s probably the hardest thing. . .by design, our research is systematic with failure. . .it’s a different mentality. In school work and assignments, we are trying to find the right answer and get there as efficiently as possible, whereas here, it’s more like you should go slow and be thoughtful to do as correctly as you can. Then, if things go wrong, you kind of salvage what you can and learn something from it” (Interview 15).

Students mentioned many specific experiences in research as formative, including the importance of learning correct research methods, following protocols, and correcting mistakes. One student spoke clearly about the importance of a culture that allows people to come forward with errors. “. . .[I]f my lab partner did something wrong, I knew not to do that again, and that would sometimes be helpful. . .We are lucky to have the other Professor’s lab where we can always reach out to people with different experiences to help us solve issues. . .” (Interview 28).

Students also discussed the nature of the research they were engaged in and the positive feelings evoked, especially for students working on cancer drugs or eliminating vehicle emissions. Students shared their reflections on feeling their research was worthwhile and feeling proud when they overcame a challenging aspect of their project.

Process for addressing ethical issues

When discussing processes for addressing issues, students discussed reporting issues to a higher level, ways to address or avoid talking about ethical issues, and how to avoid ethical conflicts. One student explained how he resolved a safety issue during a class by talking to the university’s safety officer. “I’ve become more aware of safety issues, which transferred well into one of my classes this semester, where the professor wanted us to lift something more than a hundred pounds above our heads without a lift plan. And I told him we were not doing this and that the safety of students came first. I contacted the safety department of [the university] to have it formally explained to him that this could not be done. And many people felt safer” (Interview 14).

Six students spoke about avoiding discussing ethical issues or staying silent when encountering an ethical issue. One student stayed quiet to avoid arguing with lab members of different political opinions. Another described how speaking up can sometimes lead to adverse outcomes. “Always like. . .I try to be silent. . .I don’t talk about it because it brings negative energy to you and your lab mates. . . complaining about it doesn’t help” (Interview 17).

Five students spoke about how they resolved problems and conflicts. For instance: “For our lab, we use chemicals and tend to train people who don’t have hands-on skills with equipment. So it's imperative that we successfully communicate how they’re supposed to handle new things so that they don’t hurt themselves, so that’s usually a success story every day” (Interview 24). Finally, some students spoke about addressing problems as they arise in research, including developing a calendar to ensure colleagues are in the lab simultaneously to complete joint research.

Relationships/Communication/Feelings

This section presents interview results on how the interviewees’ communication, relationships, and individual characteristics impacted students’ lab experience. It focuses on the internal relationships between lab members, how they interact with one another, the presence or lack of support from supervisors and colleagues, and characteristics that interviewees bestowed on themselves through their descriptions of events. In comparison with the first area, “Ethical issues in STEM,” this section helps put these issues in context. It shows how the process of identifying and effectively addressing ethical issues in the lab environment can be either helped or hindered by factors such as communication, relationships, or the characteristics and feelings of an individual student (see Table 4).

Table 4.

Relationships/communication/feelings (numbers in parentheses indicate numbers of students who mentioned the code topic).

Subgroups	Codes
Communication	Lab meetings (12) quality of communication -positive (10), quality of communication -negative (10)
Colleague influence/support	Collaboration (15), giving/receiving support (15), access to/approachability of colleagues (12), asking for help (12), friction among lab members (8), sharing data/ideas (8), changes in lab membership (7), interdisciplinary collaboration (7), social – positive/negative (6), external pressure to succeed (5)Inclusion (5), mentoring others/being mentored (5), socializing with colleagues outside of the lab (5)
Interviewee characteristics/feelings	Feeling un/comfortable (14), experiencing frustration (12) expectations (10) being a newcomer (8) feeling powerless (8) experiencing success (6), feeling stressed (6) previous experience (5)
PI influence	Access to/approachability of PI (17), the role of PI in setting tone of the lab (10), autonomy/trust (5)

Communication

More than a third of students discussed lab meetings where critical conversations occur, describing them as important for presenting their research and reporting progress. Students also mentioned the importance of meetings to encourage collaboration and resolve issues and questions around research processes and results. “And so that helps when something is fraught, to have that open communication pathway, and we have regular group meetings” (Interview 10). Interviewees also mentioned the importance of lab meetings to help them learn about research standards, such as acknowledging others’ contributions and ensuring the quality of collected data.

Ten students discussed the positive quality of their communication with their fellow lab members. Students focused on the ability to ask for help as an essential part of positive communication and said that it played a substantial role in their research progress. “It’s..the way that kind of conflict is handled seems like in our lab is very open ..my friend is very honest about why he is doing things and how he feels about things. I never felt like there is something I should know about. It was kind of a relaxing experience in all” (Interview 7).

A third of the students spoke about the negative quality of their communication with lab members. For example: “The communication has been positively miserable. The man, door shut, never wants to sign anything, never wants to say hi unless he needs something or thinks he can get something from you” (Interview 10). Students also discussed how either the lack of communication or the negative tone of communication offered by their PI or colleagues made them feel like outsiders. Other students discussed how this lack of communication caused confusion with funding availability and what project they should be working on. “No, I had offers from another PI, and I turned that offer down for him, so I thought that you know. . .I don’t have to be here. . .I’m here because you told me to, and now you don’t want to work with me. Yeah. . .it happened that he kept me working on a project for 3 weeks, and after 3 weeks, he told me that I would be changed to another project. It made me feel that I’m not good enough for that project” (Interview 5).

Colleague influence/support

Fifteen students spoke about collaboration in their lab. The themes in this code included general comments about collaboration, cultures, factors that encourage collaboration, a lack of collaboration, and issues experienced while collaborating. Several students provided detailed accounts of issues experienced, including collaborating with outside labs, ensuring a fair exchange of ideas and resources, and providing colleagues with accurate data.

Students also spoke about giving and receiving help and asking for help, with one student describing it as a “culture of helping” (Interview 9). Students discussed how their PI modeled this practice and its important role in learning how to use specific equipment or relieving the pressure of being the newest lab member. Some interviewees discussed how their senior position in the lab makes them feel responsible for helping colleagues. “It’s a personal problem, but I feel responsible for everybody else. I am the longest-tenured graduate student, so I kind of take the role of helping people. . . It is part of my responsibility to be in the lab community, but I feel my work will suffer a fair amount” (Interview 7). Several students discussed how they ask for help as a matter of course, and others mentioned mentoring others as part of this culture of help. Other students mentioned hesitating to ask for help primarily due to personal inhibitions or being from a culture where it is essential to solve problems yourself.

Twelve students discussed the access to and the approachability of their colleagues, mentioning characteristics that made their colleagues easily approachable, such as sympathy, understanding, friendliness, and trustworthiness. Alternately, a few students discussed qualities leading to distant working relationships. “I wish I could get more help, but usually everybody focuses on their project. . . Also, we have been told this is how we become independent researchers. It would be more efficient to have a working relationship instead of just learning everything from scratch” (Interview 20).

Several students discussed sharing data and ideas, including its role in increasing the pace of research, providing new perspectives on the work being done, and the need to organize data to be easily shared. Alternately, one student spoke about the lack of data and ideas sharing in a lab where she had previously worked. “They report the results and the overall method of how they work. But they don't give you the exact supplementary data. For example, we don't have access to codes in our area. They are kept kind of in their secret treasure box. . . I have seen many people who want to continue some part of a job but don't have access to the code others have worked on before” (Interview 8).

A number of students discussed interdisciplinary collaboration. While some students found this helpful in getting discipline-specific knowledge and equipment, others discussed factors that inhibit collaborations, including when other labs do not have the same standards in terms of cleanliness and safety. “It’s mostly the sharing of the lab space. People would use something and not clean it without telling people what was in it before. So, I walked into the lab and saw a beaker filled with clear liquid. I had no idea what it was, so I rinsed it out with water and hoped for the best” (Interview 14).

A handful of students spoke about issues of inclusion, with one student commenting on being the only female student in the lab. “Sometimes I’m the only girl in the lab, and I feel weird about it because when I first came here more than one month ago, no one talked to me, no one invited me for lunch or anything like that, and it seems like a gender issue” (Interview 17).

Students also spoke about changes in lab membership, positive and negative social interactions, external pressure to succeed, mentoring others/being mentored, friction among lab members, and socializing with colleagues outside the lab. Quotations and sentiments around these codes mirrored those expressed above.

Interviewee characteristics

Under the subgroup interviewee characteristics, 13 codes were categorized: feeling un/comfortable, experiencing frustration, expectations, being a newcomer, feeling powerless, experiencing success, feeling stressed, previous experience, expectations met/unmet, being senior in a research group, conflicting obligations, empathy for others, and work/life balance issues.

Fourteen students discussed feeling un/comfortable in the lab. Students discussed feeling comfortable or uncomfortable asking questions, feeling shy and intimidated or thought they should solve questions themselves. Finally, several students discussed feeling uncomfortable working with animal subjects for the first time.

Students also described instances where they experienced frustration, often around equipment access, data storage space, and funding issues. For example: “If I use more than the allotment (of data storage), then it’s actually. . .I will email other lab members if I can use more than is acceptable. I apologize if something needs to get done [but when others don’t notify me], it is frustrating; it makes it difficult for me to plan when I can expect my work to get done” (Interview 7). Students also felt frustrated with colleagues who rotated into the lab and did not know or did not follow lab safety protocols.

A third of the interviewees spoke about expectations for themselves and their colleagues. One student talked about how international students must prove themselves to their PI and the older students in their lab. Some students expected more communication, guidelines, or directions to be provided by their PI than in reality.

Being a newcomer played an outstanding role in some students’ experiences in their lab group. Students talked about learning new methods or using lab equipment as one of the significant aspects of being a newcomer. Two students spoke about feeling insecure or being taken advantage of and assigned an unfair number of tasks by senior lab members.

Several students spoke about feeling powerless and discussing isolation due to poor communication. One student talked about an inability to take action due to potential repercussions: “I didn’t feel that it was my place to say anything to him, and also, I was kind of afraid of what the repercussions could have been” (Interview 4).

On the positive side, students spoke about experiencing success. Students talked about mastering research skills such as overcoming technical difficulties, learning to code in a new language, and adapting a 3-D printer for use in their lab. Students also mentioned their success with research progress and getting good results.

Feeling stressed was common for many students, and it played a role in their interactions with others and their perceived standing in the lab. This stress came from feeling overburdened due to balancing being a teaching assistant and researcher, students’ graduation dates, and their status as undergraduate or international students. “Yeah, especially if you are an international student, I think the advisor is the most important person to please” (Interview 23). A few students discussed feeling stressed due to a lack of progress in their research, and others discussed feeling stressed due to a large workload.

Finally, students spoke about previous experiences in other labs. Several students talked about positive previous experiences, pointing out situations where there was an excellent safety culture, the opportunity to work with a famous scientist, and easy access to needed equipment. Others spoke about having had negative experiences, including colleagues exhibiting unwanted behavior, an extremely uncivil PI, and a situation with minimal access to resources, faculty, and fellow group members.

PI influence

In this subgroup, three different codes were categorized: access to/approachability of PI, the role of the PI in setting the tone of the lab, and autonomy/trust.

Seventeen students spoke about the access to/approachability of their PI. They described their PI’s open-door policies, meeting regularly with students individually, being friendly and concerned with their student’s feelings and well-being, and keeping everyone “in the loop” regarding communication and research progress. Students also described PIs providing insight into the inner workings of science: “It was handled together. . .it was a little bit about how the sausage is made for some of these things as far as how authorship works, it’s kind of like a contract with no writing” (Interview 7).

A handful of interviewees spoke of PIs who could have been more approachable. They described their PIs as extremely busy or rarely in the lab. One of the students mentioned this as one of the reasons he left: “The reason why I left that first lab was even before my first day in the lab, the teacher said that ‘I am very busy and most of the time everybody in this lab. . .you guys need to do more self-studying or cooperation between you guys. . .but the real thing is this Professor will go to this lab once per week, and I mean only the last two hours, I think that’s. . . the teacher got paid right; he should pay some attention to his work” (Interview 6).

Ten students discussed the PI’s role in setting the lab’s tone. Most of these students spoke about positive behaviors, including the PI stepping in to solve disagreements among lab members equitably, helping students form professional networks with colleagues outside their lab group, and setting an open environment where students can ask questions and admit mistakes. A handful of students mentioned potentially harmful behaviors that set the tone of the lab, including a lack of open communication, insufficient pressure, and instruction to help students move forward in their research, and a lack of transparency about available funding.

Issues of autonomy and trust were essential to many students, and they worked to achieve this in the quality of research they performed. Two students discussed a need for more confidence in the lab’s leadership. Students also spoke about valuing their PI’s trust. “I’ve been given a lot of freedom. . . The research I do technically with one of the Ph.D. students. I run it myself, and he checks over it occasionally if I have questions and helps me with that” (Interview 14).

Lab situation

This section presents the “Lab Situation” area, that is, results that relate to how the overall lab environment impacted the students’ experiences. This section explores the physical space the students work in, the interviewees’ characterizations of their lab and department culture, and the safety and work culture of their respective labs. It reflects how students characterized different facets of their work environment and characteristics that could help or hinder research progress and resolve ethical issues more specifically (see Table 5).

Table 5.

Lab situation (numbers in parentheses indicate numbers of students who mentioned the code topic).

Subgroups	Codes
Lab environment	Shared resources (14) access to needed resources (13) characterization of lab culture (11) lab conditions (10) funding (8), physical space (8), characterization of department/university (5)
Safety	Safety culture (7), safety training (5)
Working conditions	Lack of knowledge (10), provide orientation for new students (6), hours worked (5), training processes (5), hours worked (5) work hours (5) workload/distribution of work (5)

Lab environment

Almost half of all students interviewed spoke about successful practices for sharing resources and equipment, including communicating effectively, asking the PI for more workstations, being extremely organized and using time at shared equipment wisely, and having a strict schedule for when individuals can use specific equipment.

Students also encountered problems sharing resources, including poor communication about purchasing new supplies, unfair time on expensive equipment, and contamination of other lab members’ cell cultures. “We all share a space for our cells. Everybody is growing cell cultures and using them for different purposes. If one person makes a mistake, it will ruin everybody else’s experiment. . .if someone screws up, everybody loses weeks, months of research” (Interview 15).

Access to needed resources was a recurring issue for many interviewees. Students spoke about scheduling time to use equipment and problems around communication. “So..sometimes we poorly communicate when we run out of certain things, and that can be a little bit annoying. . .for example. . .if I run out of gloves and the person that was using them before knew that there was only one pair left, why not just get another box. . .the whole process of getting material for labs is very complicated for some reason” (Interview 28). Other interviewees mentioned problems around acquiring or purchasing needed resources, often because it was costly, delays in receiving supplies from manufacturers, and broken equipment from the manufacturer.

Eleven students provided a characterization of their lab culture. Positive environments had open communication, colleagues, and advisors available to answer questions. “No, we’re pretty good. . .I think it's because of our advisor that we usually ask questions first and then do. So usually, people are pretty good about asking questions, so they don’t do something wrong or unethical” (Interview 24). A handful of students spoke about a negative lab culture, characterizing these labs as closed, not having easy access to colleagues, supervisors, or needed resources, and feeling discriminated against.

A third of the students spoke about the conditions in their lab. Students were concerned about chemical spills needing to be cleaned up correctly, specimens being contaminated, and individuals forgetting to clean up after finishing a project. Several students spoke about sharing lab space and solving potential issues, including talking to their professor about more workspace and equipment and then working with one another to develop a schedule. Others spoke about a lack of supplies or poor physical conditions in the lab and the overall lab layout, making it hard to communicate.

The physical space of labs played a role in how students worked with one another, either being a point of contention or helping to foster collaboration. They talked about issues related to interacting closely with lab mates who share the same area, moving parts of experiments, and problems associated with needing more space or cleaning correctly. Two students spoke about their space fostering collaboration. “You know the area is clean, it’s a small number of students, so if there is a minor issue, we all feel like we are friends, if there is a problem. . .it’s resolved within 15 minutes” (Interview 3).

Several students spoke about funding, including a lack of funding that caused shortages of expensive equipment and materials or labs not having the funding to pay for necessary equipment. A few students discussed a need for more clarity around funding, including the stipends and assistantships available for international students and how they were allocated. One student mentioned the stability of having a scholarship from their home country’s government, which gave them a feeling of stability but also made them feel different from other international Ph.D. students.

Safety

Safety in the lab was a daily concern for many students, and many spoke about the safety culture of their workplace. “. . . [I]t’s just communicating and successfully ensuring that even something as simple as turning on a vent, like a fan, could be the difference between something exploding or having a safe day” (Interview 24). Others spoke about issues where safety was not stressed. Three students advocated for others when asked to do something potentially dangerous and stepped in to teach others about using safety gear when no one else did.

In a handful of interviews, safety training was mentioned. Several students stressed the need for safety training and discussed receiving special training. One student reported how he helped write a part of the safety manual for his lab. Only one student talked about a lack of training and how a safety audit caught lab members needing to wear proper safety gear. “I guess safety is kind of involved in ethics when you think about it, but as I had never really been trained on those things, one of the things we’re supposed to wear was a lab coat, which I’ve always thought would be cool, but I never assumed that would be a requirement in the lab, but after this whole thing happened I realized that we were supposed to be wearing lab coats” (Interview 11).

Working conditions

Ten students spoke about needing more knowledge when working in the lab. Some talked about a lack of expertise from their colleagues, which included requiring substantial knowledge of biomaterials, a lack of knowledge about department funding available, and needing more knowledge from an equipment manufacturer on how to use that equipment effectively. Others spoke about their lack of expertise, which ranged from not knowing lab methods, not knowing what kind of funding they might be receiving, not knowing whom to go to when an ethical problem arose in the lab, and not knowing much about the ethical implications of their lab work.

Several students spoke about the importance of training processes and orientation for new students in the lab, be it for themselves or the training or orientation they provided to other students.

The hours worked in the lab, as well as the policy around work hours, were discussed by a handful of students, respectively. This included being self-motivated to work long hours, sleeping in after being in the lab all night, and trying to squeeze lab time between their class schedules. Three students spoke about the benefits of having flexible work hours, including having the flexibility to organize their research schedule in a way that works for them. Alternatively, some students reflected on the disadvantages of flexible work hours, including finding time to meet with colleagues.

Some interviewees spoke about the distribution of work and overall workload in their lab. Factors that increased their workload included being a teaching assistant alongside their lab work and balancing schoolwork and research. Students also talked about a lack of transparency around the workload and the insecure position of an international student who has difficulty saying no to a supervisor. “Being a graduate assistant is the worst job ever; it’s 24/7, and you never rest. It's difficult to tell someone no because it might have some consequences, and my advisor is paying for my tuition through the stipend, which he is paying” (Interview 23).

Discussion

The student interviews provided detailed insights into their experiences as researchers and how external factors such as funding, international status, outside obligations, and internal factors such as colleagues, supervisors, and the nature of their research impacted this experience. Overall, there seemed to be significant variance in what students thought counted as “ethical issues,” though most students could retrospectively articulate how ethical issues arose in their research. The overall lab situation, while important to the progress of research, was less important than the relationships between lab members, the personal feelings of the students, and the overall level of communication in the lab. Students who felt isolated, underappreciated, or powerless were likelier to “keep their head down” and “not rock the boat” (Interviews 4 and 17). In labs where communication levels were high and open, questions were answered promptly, and there was a high level of collaboration among lab members, students felt far more comfortable raising ethical questions, seeking allies, and learning from their peers.

What do students consider ethical issues in STEM?

When asked to simply name what they thought were ethical issues in STEM research and practice, students’ answers ranged from traits such as honesty and respect to extremely practical issues such as not wearing jeans or not eating in the lab. Half the students mentioned traditional RCR issues, like managing data and avoiding plagiarism. This reflects similar findings from a university-wide survey completed by the authors in 2016 (Laas et al., 2022). In contrast, around one-fourth of the students focused on interpersonal issues such as power dynamics and social and cultural attitudes that can arise when working in diverse groups. This diversity of opinions reflects findings of a 2018 study of medical students, faculty, and practitioners who also listed key values (such as honesty, truth, and objectivity), following rules, and avoiding research misconduct when asked to define research integrity (Shaw and Satalkar, 2018).

When first asked, more than one-third of students expressed some hesitancy in what was meant by ethical issues in STEM research and practice. Several students gave an initial "no" response to whether they had encountered ethical issues or challenges in their lab. This raises some interesting questions. Do some students only identify ethical issues when they are “impressive,” or was this a reaction to only wishing to share more dramatic stories with interviewers? Do the students assume that an ethical issue is outright wrong? Something that has to be condemned? Something that, in principle, should not happen at all?

However, many came up with examples after receiving a further explanation of what was meant by “Ethical issues in STEM.” These students appeared not to have a clear idea of what might be considered an ethical issue in research, or they had difficulties understanding the term “ethics.”

This speaks to the need to use more nuanced cases in teaching RCR and research ethics, and stressing reflection on personal experiences with research as well to help students see ethics as something integral to research rather than only as pertaining to research misconduct or other significant dilemmas (Inguaggiato et al., 2023; Kalichman, 2014).

Other students were extremely prompt in their answers and provided an incredibly nuanced answer, dividing ethics into multiple facets. In many cases, students naturally named the ethical issue uppermost in their minds and then described their personal experiences handling these issues in the lab.

Some of the comments made by the students who felt they had a good grasp of ethical issues in research reflect what Dubois and Anderson (2018) mention as the five dimensions of research ethics. Students spoke about normative ethics (values), compliance with rules and regulations, best practices leading to the rigor and reproducibility of science, and the importance of workplace relationships.

One may interpret the interview results as a need for more clarity among students on ethical research issues or a lack of research ethics education. Alternatively, it may hint at a potential need for instructors, mentors, and PIs to better specify what they understand ethics and ethical issues to be, make the role of ethics in research more explicit, and define ethics as being much more than just avoiding misconduct (Shaw and Satalkar, 2018: 92). On the other hand, students may connote "ethics" with rules, regulations, and policies they need to follow. Some ethical aspects students talk about are not traditional RCR issues. Instead, they are about communication, interpersonal relationships, and issues of equity and discrimination. Recent work on developing stronger research integrity training that includes focus in these areas offers a promising push to enlarge the circle of what is included as “ethical issues under the umbrella of research integrity” (Rasmussen, 2023).

What ethical issues have the students experienced in their research group?

Students’ responses focused on RCR issues and interpersonal matters. When breaking down RCR issues, most students talked about traditional ethical topics such as data management, plagiarism, animals in research, authorship conflicts, and documentation of results. Few students referred to learning about these issues in an ethics class or module; instead, the students who spoke about positively dealing with these issues cited the guidance of their supervisors and more experienced colleagues as being fundamental to recognizing when a problem was important and seeking solutions to ethical questions that came up. Students shared familiar stories about topics integral to the research process and challenges in presenting and publishing results.

A subset of the students, most of whom were international students, also spoke about interpersonal ethics issues. This points to the unique position students who come to study from other countries face in U.S. institutions. Two-thirds of the international students interviewed reported generally being comfortable in their lab. Students encountered challenges, such as fellow students needing to share lab equipment, learning to ask for help and communication challenges. Still, most were highly enthusiastic about their lab colleagues and PI's support. Other students spoke about having a positive and supportive lab environment but being aware of the particular issues international students face.

The comments shared by the international students who reported having negative experiences in their labs shared several factors. This included several students discussing significant power imbalances, feeling extremely vulnerable due to their immigration status, and promises of potential funding being used to make students stay working in a particular lab. These students spoke of "protecting themselves” or actively avoiding situations that might cause conflict. The research site's competition for teaching and research assistantships is relatively high, especially among international students who are ineligible to receive federal work-study funds. This pressure likely contributed to these negative feelings and worries over funding availability.

Almost all of the students interviewed reported experiencing negative feelings in their research environment at one point. Most of this stemmed from everyday frustrations and new experiences, such as being stressed due to problems with the research process. A much smaller number of students expressed experiencing negative feelings that raised more concern. This is the case for two students who felt uncomfortable with their lab mates or PI, a student who thought he could not speak freely for fear of getting into a political argument with his colleagues, and a student who felt his PI did not want him there.

Several students, most of them international, spoke about feeling powerless. They talked about feeling an overall lack of control or autonomy due to being undergraduate or international students. Students discussed working in isolation, staying silent, and fending for themselves.

The challenges described by students reflect some of the barriers identified in a 2020 study published by Haven et al. Though this study focuses explicitly on researchers’ perceptions of what makes a responsible research climate, interviewees identified themes of lack of support, unfair evaluation, and insufficient supervision as significant barriers to establishing a positive research climate (Haven et al., 2020). The unique experiences of international students are of particular concern, especially in light of studies highlighting the acculturation stress, loneliness, and social isolation that many international graduate students have reported as part of their experience studying in the U.S. (Burt et al., 2017; Girmay and Singh, 2019; Laufer and Gorup, 2018; Li et al., 2019.)

What factors or internal qualities help students thrive in research groups (and prevent ethical issues)?

Students discussed several internal qualities necessary to help them thrive in their research group. Students spoke about seeking out knowledge through research or asking questions, becoming less shy and reaching out to colleagues, learning how to ask for help, or being mentally prepared for working with animals.

They also identified several learned skills that helped them thrive in the lab environment, including having the confidence to ask questions and ask for help, learning to stand up for themselves, and talking to individuals in positions of power when they see an issue that needs to be resolved. Though some students who spoke of advocating for help were disappointed by the lack of response, none of these self-motivated students expressed regret for taking this step.

Students discussed the importance of keeping good documentation to share results and progress with their collaborators and the methods they used to share time on expensive research equipment equitably. Students spoke of the PI as helping them learn the standards for performing good research, but they worked with peers to allocate time, resources, and storage space. The importance of robust research mentoring and supervision has been documented in many studies (Antes et al. 2019a; Muthanna and Alduais, 2021; Resnik et al., 2021), and students provided examples of solid mentoring and supervisory practices in their interviews.

As discussed in our previous publication (Hildt et al., 2022), students thrived in a “culture of helping” that prioritized open communication, the ability to ask questions and make mistakes, and providing scheduled, regular times for communication. More experienced students seemed to internalize this culture in stellar labs, acting as mentors to their less experienced peers. In some cases, safety advocates brought up issues to their supervisors and, in some cases, took matters into their own hands. A positive, open, and supportive organizational climate has been repeatedly linked to helping students excel and fostering good research practices (Vidak et al., 2023).

In a small number of cases, students spoke about the need to “get used to it,” “keep one’s head down,” and “keep silent.” Students in these cases described their labs as having poor communication and PIs that were often not present in the lab or were not overly transparent about expectations and funding available. These experiences severely impacted students’ well-being in the research environment, though some students discussed tactics to mitigate these effects. Several studies have shown the impact of poor supervision on graduate students’ mental health and success and described similar detrimental behaviors (Meng et al., 2017; Scheuer et al., 2016).

What methods have students used to address these ethical issues?

While all students ultimately discussed what they considered ethical issues in STEM and discussed the ethical challenges and questions they encountered in the lab, a smaller number spoke about how these ethical issues were addressed. The PI often played the main role in resolving these issues. Students talked about their appreciation of their PI’s adherence to good research practices and prioritizing two-way communication. This echoes the vital role of good supervisory and mentoring skills in helping resolve ethical and other student issues (Antes et al., 2019b).

When speaking about authorship, PIs made final authorship decisions, and students generally brought these issues to the PI for resolution. While one student spoke about PI authorship decisions as “about hierarchy,” other students were willing to accept these decisions as long as the decision was explained clearly. Authorship often leads to tense discussions among collaborators – regardless of their seniority – and can highlight power imbalances in the lab (Smith et al., 2020).

A handful of students spoke about reporting ethical challenges to a higher level, with mixed results. All of these students expressed the need to protect themselves and others from either safety issues or, in one instance, harassment. Though none of the situations described in the interviews rose to the level of actual research misconduct, the students who reported acting on these issues were all domestic students who had a level of tenure in their lab. This correlates with other studies looking at the backgrounds of individuals willing to report questionable behaviors to higher levels of authority. (Horbach et al., 2020).

A handful of interviewees spoke about internal methods for solving conflicts among their peers. In each of these instances, students took the initiative by anticipating problems before they arose, training new lab members, or bridging the issue to their PI when no internal solution could be found. All of these students who took leadership roles came from labs that had been described as open and friendly and where they felt they had the trust and the seniority in the lab to raise questions and provide training to fellow students.

Students described practical and ingenious ways of solving potential problems, especially around sharing lab equipment. Sometimes, solutions were as simple as using Google Drive to share data or online tools to assign tasks to team members. In other cases, students negotiated with colleagues when they needed to use large amounts of computer processing power or storage. Traits such as problem-solving, good communication, negotiation skills, and building relationships helped students resolve ethical issues in day-to-day research.

What lessons did the students report as having learned?

Concerning lessons learned from working in a research lab and encountering ethical issues, students learned about the overall research process and the importance of following best practices. This included keeping a good lab notebook and being precise about data collection, being scrupulous in citing others, and learning what it means to be an author on a research paper.

Interviewees also discussed the importance of learning how to work in diverse groups. They spoke about diversity being part of “the nature of science and education worldwide” and how working in these groups helped them better negotiate language and cultural differences. Students also talked about how working in these groups helped them appreciate different viewpoints and approaches to research. Two international students spoke about being braver in bringing up issues of fairness with their supervisors. In contrast, other international students said they learned to keep their heads down and avoid getting into controversial discussions with their peers. This again points to the precarious position many international students may feel they inhabit. These comments again highlight the need to help students develop the skills needed to thrive in a global research environment and develop their autonomy as researchers.

Students also spoke about learning to become independent researchers, and while some wished for more written rules and guidance, others talked about how the realization that the PI would not be around all the time meant that they had to learn to troubleshoot and provide assistance to their peers when needed. Sharing resources also came up in several interviews as a major lesson learned. Students discussed developing systems, peer networks, and timetables to help more extensive labs share expensive equipment.

Overall, students were pleased with their research experience. The overall physical situation of the lab mattered less to students than the psychosocial situation in the lab. Namely, did their research group provide the emotional, intellectual, and peer networks needed to learn best research practices, or were students working in more isolated environments with limited communication or contact with their peers and professors? Further research is required in order to better map relationships between student researchers in the lab environment and identify key supports, training, or other interventions needed to help students identify, discuss, and actively seek solutions to ethical issues that come up as part of the research process. Namely, how do existing power differentials between supervisors and other lab members shape a student researcher’s perception, recognition, and ultimate handling of ethical issues in academic research environments?

Limitations

Results shared in this study come from interviews with 30 students engaged in research at one Midwestern U.S. university and are limited to one qualitative study. We hope that future studies of this kind look at larger, more diverse student populations, allowing for comparison between different institutions. Further studies focusing more specifically on the experiences of international students would also be highly illuminating (Antes and Dubois, 2018).

The participants included students willing and able to talk about their research experiences freely. Students experiencing significant problems with their current lab group may have decided not to participate in the project. Participants were not asked to validate the analysis of the interview results, which is another limitation of this study.

Due to the relatively homogeneous study population (e.g. graduate students in a mid-sized research university), we stopped interviewing new students when we reached 30 interviews, and no new insights emerged from these discussions. However, conducting a similar study at different universities would likely reveal a more nuanced understanding of, say, the specific ethical issues faced by minority students and how they address these issues. Students’ experiences at large state research institutions, where large lab groups dominate, would be another interesting comparison to this study’s results.

Conclusion

A 2019 Nature survey found students worldwide expressed frustration about training, work-life balance, and harassment and discrimination. However, most students surveyed (75%) were glad they had decided to pursue a higher degree in their chosen field (Woolston, 2019). Our study explores graduate students’ experiences with ethical issues in research labs and the students’ challenges, successes, and coping strategies. It points to the need for strong peer networks, well-trained supervisors, and a shared understanding of the responsibilities of both students and faculty supervisors.

Our study underlines the need for supervisor and graduate student training that addresses power dynamics and inequality among lab members (Bettencourt et al., 2021). This should include supervisors and students asking questions and reflecting on current lab practices, their assumptions about their colleagues, and engaging in two-way discussions about how these practices could be improved. Plemmons and Kalichman’s 2018) “Instructor’s Guide to Prepare Research Group Leaders as RCR Mentors” (developed an example of similar exercises, and there are other examples of recently developed programs that fulfill this need (Haven et al., 2023).

This study highlights the unique challenges international students face. They often grapple with social isolation and limited avenues for addressing ethical or other problems. While PIs can serve as advocates, the hierarchical model predominant in the U.S. education system also means that PIs can be sources of stress and inequality (Gardiner, 2008). In addition to this, there is the need to keep one’s visa status and the overall cost of studying in the United States, and it is easy to understand why some international graduate students decide to “keep silent.” U.S. universities need to provide coordinated services for international students and vital orientation programs that include discussions of mentoring, research ethics, and power dynamics in lab situations. Standardizing methods for all students to report potential research problems at the department, school, and university level is essential.

Another important theme is the need to empower graduate students, especially international students when facing difficult ethical questions in the lab (see Hildt et al., 2019). Strategies for this include scheduling regular meetings where two-way communication can occur and providing leadership opportunities for students, potentially on research ethics committees, appointing student liaisons who can participate in department meetings, and opening up opportunities for students to voice concerns and have some say on developing policies. Having defined places for students to go with questions and concerns, such as a faculty/student culture committee, could be another resource for building student autonomy. These practices can help students develop the skills and professional networks needed to prosper in today’s scientific community.

Footnotes

Appendix I: Interview questions

Appendix II: Original codes list

Code	Number of Interviews
Knowing\Characterization of lab culture	27
Knowing\Definition of culture	27
Communicating\Lab Meetings	27
Communicating\Access to\Approachability of PI	26
Learning\Lessons learned	24
Communicating\Quality of Communication (Positive)	24
Communicating\Access to/approachability of colleagues	22
Communicating\Asking for help	22
Working\collaboration (lack of)	21
Experience\Role of PI in setting tone of lab	21
Working\Research – Process (General)	19
Experience\Giving/receiving help/support	19
Knowing\Assumptions about ethics	18
Experience\No problems reported	18
Working\Shared resources (equipment)	17
Working\Shared resources (equipment)\Access to needed resources	17
Working\Sharing data/ideas (in research group)	17
Improving\Copy current lab culture	16
Experience\Experiencing Frustration	16
Lab Composition\Tenure/time in lab	16
Communicating\Presentations/ Presenting results	15
Communicating\Documentation (including record keeping)	15
Experience\Data Integrity	15
Experience\Feeling un/comfortable/making others uncomfortable	15
Experience\Socializing outside of lab with members – Affirmative/Negative	15
Lab Composition\Department	14
Learning\Working in diverse groups	13
Learning\Future career plans	13
Learning\Provide orientation for new students (or lack of)	13
Communicating\Communication not strictly associated with work	13
Communicating\Meetings with PI	13
Experience\Being a newcomer	13
Experience\Giving/receiving help/advice/support	13
Knowing\Expectations	12
Knowing\Previous Experience	12
Working\Interdisciplinary collaboration	12
Working\Tenure - time in lab	12
Working\Nature of Research	12
Communicating\Amount of communication within the lab	12
Communicating\Modes of Communication	12
Communicating\Communicating Progress/Feedback	12
Knowing\Societal or environmental Implications of Research	11
Knowing\Un/certainty about what is meant by an "ethical issue"	11
Working\Working alone\Conditions in the lab	11
Experience\Changes in lab membership	11
Working\Hours worked (coming in on weekends, 40 hours a week)	10
Working\Overall “tone” of lab\ informal/formal	10
Communicating\Question/concern about interviews	10
Communicating\Cultural barriers/exchanges	10
Communicating\Quality of Communication	10
Improving\Suggestions to improve University/Department/Lab	10
Lab Composition\Number of members in lab	10
Lab Composition\PhD	10
Knowing\Plagiarism\avoiding plagiarism	9
Knowing\Knowledge transfer from/to colleagues	9
Learning\Training – Processes	9
Working\Funding	9
Working\Commitment to, work ethic	9
Working\Physical Space	9
Communicating\Language barriers	9
Communicating\Quality of Communication (Negative)	9
Experience\Funding	9
Experience\Feeling stressed	9
Experience\Experiencing success	9
Experience\Attending conferences, poster presentations	9
Experience\Friction among lab members	9
Experience\Social - Positive	9
Experience\Work Hours	9
Knowing\Lack of knowledge	8
Learning\Training – Self Taught	8
Working\Working alone	8
Working\Following protocols	8
Working\Shared understanding, approach, culture	8
Working\Treatment of animals	8
Communicating\Quality of Communication (Negative or difficult)	8
Experience\Autonomy/Trust(or lack of)	8
Experience\Friendship	8
Experience\Data Management	8
Experience\Feeling powerless	8
Experience\Inclusion	8
Experience\Mentoring others/Being Mentored	8
Knowing\Assumptions about ethics in another field/other lab	7
Knowing\Research methods	7
Knowing\Un/certainty about what is meant by "lab culture"	7
Learning\Addressing/Avoiding talk about ethics or uncomfortable topics	7
Learning\Correcting mistakes; finding or identifying mistakes	7
Learning\Reporting issue to higher level (not PI)	7
Working\SafetyCulture	7
Communicating\Reporting system	7
Improving\Empathy for others, why people do what they do.	7
Improving\External pressure to succeed	7
Experience\Feeling un/comfortable/making others. . .	7
Experience\Authorship Issues	7
Experience\Time pressure	7
Learning\Getting over shyness	6
Working\Workload/Distribution of work	6
Working\Performance (including efficiency, effectiveness)	6
Communicating\Modes of Communication	6
Communicating\Resolving problems and conflicts	6
Improving\Choosing new members of lab	6
Improving\Work Progress	6
Experience\Conflicting obligations (school work, family, etc.)	6
Experience\Autonomy/ Trust	6
Experience\Encountering\Freedom to Explore New Ideas	6
Experience\Publishing articles, etc.	6
Experience\Non-work activities within lab – Affirmative/Negative	6
Experience\Work/Life balance issues	6
Lab Composition\Country of origin	6
Knowing\Importance of "scientific method, scientific outlook in group	5
Knowing\Lack of knowledge or information	5
Learning\Safety Training	5
Learning\Succession Planning (including knowledge transfer; gaps)	5
Working\(Access to/use of) appropriate safety equipment	5
Working\Waste in research (disposable devices, etc.)	5
Communicating	5
Communicating\Going outside the lab for help	5
Improving	5
Experience\Cultural Differences	5
Experience\Expectations Met/Unmet	5
Experience\Working to become part of a team	5

Appendix III: Grouping of codes

First, we combined the codes “expectations” and “expectations met and unmet” into the code “expectations. Second, we folded “contracts” and “contracts - psychological” into the code “contracts.” Third, we combined the code “problems specific to international students” and “power issues specific to international students,” and renamed it “problems and power issues specific to international students”. Finally, we combined the codes “social-positive and “social-negative” to “social-positive and negative.”

Declaration of conflicting interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

All articles in Research Ethics are published as open access. There are no submission charges and no Article Processing Charges as these are fully funded by institutions through Knowledge Unlatched, resulting in no direct charge to authors. For more information about Knowledge Unlatched please see here: .The research was conducted within the project “A Bottom-Up Approach to Building a Culture of Responsible Research and Practice in STEM,” supported by National Science Foundation Award #1635661.

Ethical approval

This research project was approved by the Illinois Institute of Technology’s Institutional Review Board on July 22, 2016. The proposal number is 2016-61.

ORCID iD

Kelly Laas

Notes

References

Antes

Dubois

(2018) Cultivating the human dimension in research. Molecular Cell 72(2): 207–210.

Antes

Kuykendall

DuBois

(2019a) The lab management practices of “Research Exemplars” that foster research rigor and regulatory compliance: A qualitative study of successful principal investigators. PLOS One 14(4): e0214595.

Antes

Kuykendall

DuBois

(2019b) Leading for research excellence and integrity: A qualitative investigation of the relationship-building practices of exemplary principal investigators. Accountability in Research 26(3): 198–226.

Bettencourt

Friedensen

Bartlett

(2021) Re-envisioning doctoral mentorship in the United States: A power-conscious review of the literature. International Journal of Doctoral Studies 16. Available at: http://ijds.org/Volume16/IJDSv16p237-252Bettencourt6730.pdf (accessed 10 March 2024).

Burt

Knight

Roberson

(2017) Racializing experiences of foreign-born and ethnically diverse Black male engineering graduate students: Implications for student affairs practice, policy, and research. Journal of International Students 7(4): 925–943.

Drolet

Rose-Derouin

Leblanc

, et al. (2023) Ethical issues in research: Perceptions of researchers, research ethics board members and research ethics experts. Journal of Academic Ethics 21(2): 269–292.

DuBois

Antes

(2018) Five dimensions of research ethics: A stakeholder framework for creating a climate of research integrity. Academic Medicine 93(4): 550–555.

Fisher

Fried

Feldman

(2009) Graduate socialization in the responsible conduct of research: A national survey on the research ethics training experiences of psychology doctoral students. Ethics & Behaviour 19(6): 496–518.

Gardiner

(2008) Fitting the mold of graduate school: A qualitative study of socialization in doctoral education. Innovative Higher Education 33(2): 125–138.

10.

Girmay

Singh

(2019) Social isolation, loneliness, and mental and emotional well-being among international students in the United States. International Journal of Translational Medical Research and Public Health 3(2): 75–82.

11.

Haven

Bouter

Mennen

, et al. (2023) Superb supervision: A pilot study on training supervisors to convey responsible research practices onto their PhD candidates. Accountability in Research 30(8): 574–591.

12.

Haven

Pasman

Widdershoven

, et al. (2020) Researchers’ perceptions of a responsible research climate: A multi focus group study. Science and Engineering Ethics 26: 3017–3036.

13.

Hildt

Laas

Miller

, et al. (2022) Student views on the culture of stem research laboratories: results from an interview study. Accountability in Research 31(2): 100–137.

14.

Hildt

Laas

Miller

, et al. (2019) Empowering graduate students to address ethics in research environments. Cambridge Quarterly of HealthCare Ethics 28(3): 542–550.

15.

Horbach

SPJ

Breit

Halffman

, et al. (2020) On the willingness to report and the consequences of reporting research misconduct: The role of power relations. Science and Engineering Ethics 26: 1595–1623.

16.

Inguaggiato

Labib

Evans

, et al. (2023) The contribution of moral case deliberation to teaching RCR to PhD students. Science and Engineering Ethics 29(7): 1–18.

17.

Kalichman

(2014) Rescuing responsible conduct of research (RCR) education. Accountability in Research 21: 68–83.

18.

Laas

Taylor

Miller

, et al. (2022) Views on ethical issues in research labs: A university-wide survey. Accountability in Research 29(3): 178–201.

19.

Laas

Miller

Brey

, et al. (2021) Infusing Ethics in Research Groups: A bottom-up, context-specific approach. Advances in Engineering Education 8(3): 1–14. Available at: https://advances.asee.org/infusing-ethics-in-research-groups-a-bottom-up-context-specific-approach/ (accessed 10 March 2024).

20.

Laufer

Gorup

(2018) The invisible others: Stories of international doctoral student dropout. Higher Education 78(1):165–181.

21.

Wang

Xiao

(2019) East Asian international students and psychological well-being: A systematic review. Journal of International Students 4(4): 301–313.

22.

Löfström

Pyhältö

(2020) What are ethics in doctoral supervision, and how do they matter? Doctoral Students’ perspective. Scandinavian Journal of Educational Research 64(4): 535–550.

23.

Löfström

(2012) Students’ Ethical awareness and conceptions of research ethics. Ethics & Behavior 22(5): 349–361.

24.

Meng

Tan

(2017) Abusive supervision by academic supervisors and postgraduate research students’ creativity: The mediating role of leader–member exchange and intrinsic motivation. International Journal of Leadership in Education 20(5): 605–617.

25.

Mejlgaard

Bouter

Gaskell

, et al. (2020) Research integrity: Nine ways to move from talk to walk. Nature 586: 358–360

26.

Muthanna

Alduais

(2021) A thematic review on research integrity and research supervision: Relationships, crises, and critical messages. Journal of Academic Ethics 19: 95–113.

27.

National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine (2017) Fostering Integrity in Research. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.

28.

Pizzolato

Dierickx

(2023) Research integrity supervision practices and institutional support: A qualitative study. Journal of Academic Ethics 21: 427–448.

29.

Plemmons

Kalichman

(2018) Instructor’s guide to prepare research group leaders as RCR Mentors. Online Ethics Center. Available at: https://onlineethics.org/cases/instructors-guide-prepare-research-group-leaders-rcr-mentors (accessed 10 March 2024).

30.

Rasmussen

(2023) Why and how to incorporate issues of race/ethnicity and gender in research integrity education. Accountability in Research 31: 1–24.

31.

Resnik

(2012) Ethical virtues in scientific research. Accountability in Research 19(6): 329–343.

32.

Resnik

Lee

Jirles

, et al. (2021) For the “good of the lab”: Insights from three focus groups concerning the ethics of managing a laboratory or research group. Accountability in Research 30(4): 1–20.

33.

Scheuer

Burton

Barber

, et al. (2016) Linking abusive supervision to employee engagement and exhaustion. Organization Management Journal 13(3): 138–14.7

34.

Shaw

Satalkar

(2018) Researchers’ interpretations of research integrity: A qualitative study, Accountability in Research 25(2): 79–93.

35.

Smith

Williams-Jones

Master

, et al. (2020) Researchers’ perceptions of ethical authorship distribution in collaborative research teams. Science and Engineering Ethics 26(4): 1995–2022.

36.

Strauss

Corbin

(1994) Grounded theory methodology: An overview. In: Denzin

Lincoln

(eds) Handbook of Qualitative Research. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications, 273–285.

37.

U.S. National Institutes of Health (2022) FY 2022 Updated Guidance: Requirement for Instruction in the Responsible Conduct of Research. Notice Number NOT-OD-22-055. February 17. Available at: https://grants.nih.gov/grants/guide/notice-files/NOT-OD-22-055.html (accessed 10 March 2024).

38.

U.S. National Science Foundation (2022) PAPPG Requirements on RECR Certification Chapter II.D. 1.d. Available at: https://beta.nsf.gov/policies/pappg/23-1 (accessed 10 March 2024).

39.

Viđak

Tomić

Buljan

, et al. (2023) Perception of organizational climate by university staff and students in medicine and humanities: A qualitative study. Accountability in Research. Epub ahead of print 9 February 2023. DOI: 10.1080/08989621.2023.2173586

40.

Weil

(2000) Mentoring: Some ethical considerations. Science and Engineering Ethics 7(4): 471–482.

41.

Woolston

(2019) PhDs: The tortuous truth. Nature 575(7782): 403–406.