Note: These Guidelines pertain to UW staff members, graduate and undergraduate students, post-doctoral fellows, and to anyone else not covered by the Memorandum of Agreement (Article 14, Integrity in Scholarly Research).
The University of Waterloo expects members of the academic community -- faculty, staff and students -- to conform to the highest standards of ethical practice in research and scholarship.
Misconduct in research clearly touches upon various aspects of ethical behaviour. UW already has in place statements governing ethical behaviour and, in some cases, remedies for violations; for example:
- Policy 33 on Ethical Behaviour -- "That the University supports academic freedom (Ref: Memorandum of Agreement between FAUW and the University of Waterloo, 1998 (Article6)), which carries with it the duty to use that freedom in a manner consistent with the scholarly obligation to base teaching and research on an honest and ethical quest for knowledge."
- Policy 77 on Tenure & Promotion of Faculty Members (II. Performance Standards) -- "Faculty members are expected to meet the ethical standards for scholarship in their particular fields of endeavour; to observe the University's guidelines and policies with respect to ethical conduct in research; and more generally, to act with integrity, truthfulness and honesty in the conduct and communication of their scholarly work."
- Policy 71 on Student Academic Discipline -- contains a list of academic offences, including plagiarism.
- Policy 69 on Conflict of Interest -- refers to several types of conflict of interest, for example, "Inappropriate Use of University Personnel, Resources or Assets: When a supervising faculty or staff member employs students or other staff of the University to carry out work on her/his own behalf for a company in which he/she has a financial or other interest."
The AAUP defines ethical principles in scholarship in the following way: "...Professors, guided by a deep conviction of the worth and dignity of the advancement of knowledge, recognize the special responsibilities placed upon them. Their primary responsibility to their subject is to seek and to state the truth as they see it. To this end, professors devote their energies to developing and improving their scholarly competence. They accept the obligation to exercise critical self-discipline and judgment in using, extending and transmitting knowledge. They practice intellectual honesty. Although professors may follow subsidiary interest, these interests must never seriously hamper or compromise their freedom of inquiry".
Misconduct can be defined in this context as a violation of the principles of intellectual honesty, including the misappropriation of writings, research and discoveries of others. Included in this category are:
- the failure to give due recognition to the contributions of co-workers
- false recording, manipulation or reporting of factual information
- plagiarism -- the act of appropriating literary composition of another or parts of passages of his/her writings and representing them as one's own (plagiarism is a civil wrong)
- the unauthorized use of confidential research results of others ("research theft") not in accord with accepted scholarly or collegial behaviour
- misappropriation, misallocation and misuse of funds designated for research purposes
The University will take seriously any allegation of misconduct or charge of unethical behaviour in research; it does not, however, encourage frivolous complaints. Charges should be examined expeditiously, with impartiality and confidentiality, to protect the reputations of those concerned.
- Normal administrative channels will be used to investigate complaints. Accordingly, complaints should be reported to the immediate academic supervisor (normally, the Chair) of the person against whom the charge is levelled, unless the supervisor him/herself is in a position of conflict, in which case the Dean of the Faculty should be involved.
- The supervisor should proceed, with appropriate dispatch but due respect for confidentiality, to carry out a preliminary investigation of fact to determine if the charge has substance. Whenever possible, the supervisor should attempt to mediate and resolve the differences between the parties. A full record of the proceedings should be kept.
If cause is not found and the matter is not pursued further, the Complainant of the allegation, the Respondent to the allegation and all others who have been interviewed or otherwise informed, should be notified of the disposition of the allegation. In this case, all reference to the matter should be expunged from the Respondent's personnel file.
In the event that due cause is not established but the Complainant is found to have made a responsible accusation in good faith, all reference to the allegations should be expunged from the Complainant's personnel file.2
If a mutually acceptable settlement can be reached, it should be stated in writing, signed by the two parties and the mediator, and filed in the Office of Research.
All preliminary investigations should be completed as speedily as possible and within 30 days of the complaint being registered.
- In the event that cause is established in the preliminary investigation, the immediate supervisor should submit a full, written report to the Dean of the Faculty and the Vice-President, University Research. The latter, in consultation with the former, will establish an ad hoc committee with discipline-specific representation to investigate the case fully; the committee will be chaired by the Dean of the Faculty. Either party to the complaint may challenge, in writing, a member or members of the committee for bias.
The Complainant and the person against whom the complaint is made should have full and fair opportunity to present their evidence -- oral and written -- for and against the complaint. Copies of the abovementioned report and any other written documentation pertaining to the case will be distributed to both parties and to all members of the committee, prior to the hearing. Normally, both parties will meet with the committee simultaneously; and, as is the custom in hearings of this sort, meetings will be audio recorded.
- Within 120 days, the ad hoc committee should complete its investigation and submit a written report to the Vice-President, University Research, with recommendations for a course of action if misconduct has been established. The Vice-President, University Research will be responsible for ensuring that the committee's recommendations are implemented (and, if appropriate, bringing the matter to the attention of the sponsoring agency). Appeals may be directed to the Vice-President, Academic & Provost.
If a full investigation reveals no wrongdoing on the part of the Respondent, the Complainant of the allegation, the Respondent to the allegation and all others who have been interviewed should be informed of the disposition of the allegation. In this case, all references to the allegation should be expunged from the Respondent's personnel file.2
In the event that due cause is not established but the Complainant is found to have made a responsible accusation in good faith, all reference to the allegations should be expunged from the Complainant's personnel file.2
- If appropriate, remedial or disciplinary action (e.g., as set out in other University policies and procedures) will be taken against the person having committed the misconduct offence.
