Ethical Frameworks of Governance for Higher Education and Science

The debate on the ethical framework of governance in higher education and science is, and has been for centuries, an extensive and difficult one. It is centred on terms, values and choices, embodied in turn in tensions such as freedom and responsibility; truth and political correctness; self-restraint and external control; autonomy and state intervention; and the quest for insight and “selling out to the devil”. I need not remind the audience of Goethe’s Faust, or of Thomas Mann’s Doctor Faustus. Yet despite quoting these two masterpieces of world literature, ethics in education and research are not a particularly German intricacy. This problem is rather a global one, perceived as both urgent and intriguing due to the increase in technical capabilities, and to the societal and economic implications of modern higher education and research. In order to balance topical complexity and conference manageability, I open by stating the scope and limits of this presentation.

Analysing and drafting an ethical framework of governance in the area of higher education and science requires concentration on their specificities. I will abstain from covering the general rule not to accept advantages from third parties, financial or otherwise, which may cause dependence and impair impartiality. Moreover, even the impression that any such risk is being taken should be avoided. While this holds true in general and is described in criminal law under various categories as corruption and bribery, there is a governance issue in the context of higher education and research which will be dealt with below.

Within the specific area of higher education and research there is a need to distinguish between ethical challenges as such on the one hand and, on the other, preventive measures and remedies to these challenges. Certainly providing remedies to ethical shortcomings and preventing unethical temptations is a part of good governance; but this cannot be done unless there is clear identification of the ethical challenges themselves. So this presentation will outline the ethical problems first, and proceed to indicate which ethical frameworks of governance may serve as a remedy; or even better, as preventative measures.

It may be added here that answering ethical challenges is inevitable in the “Bologna world”, and that all members of higher education institutions are challenged to do so. “Bologna” is not a mere technical convergence of structures, but it is understood to signify a common higher education area which bears the hallmark of academic culture. Part of that is the notion of ethos, which is also conveyed by the concept of learning and research being a public responsibility, i.e. that of higher education institutions and their members to act responsibly towards the general public. The term “general public” does not only refer to one’s own country but, as is essential when it comes to international recognition and quality assurance, to the world as a whole.

When assessing ethical challenges in institutions of higher education and research, let us consider that these challenges are basically twofold and must be kept separate. On the one hand there are challenges to higher education and science per se, which threaten their proper operation. On the other hand there are threats to ethics of governance, i.e. to an essential part of the institutional setup of higher education and research -at the level of management and governance operations.

The ethical challenges to the operation of higher education and research may be listed, illustrated, and analysed as follows with regard to their typical appearance:

The essence of academia is the quest to truthfully widen knowledge, and certain dangers come to mind first. They may take on different guises, the following two being particularly hazardous:

a) Faking the results of research, or pretending that there was any research at all or any results derived from it, has been a problem in a number of countries. The driving force behind such malpractice of “inventiveness” is not just vanity, it is also the competitive edge of modern research and its dependence on external funding, inducing the fabrication of “success stories”. Hence this ethical challenge often occurs in medicine and the natural sciences, where “project-driven money” plays a major role. Faking also comprises the suppression, or intentional misinterpretation, of research data or facts. This may be a risk in the humanities and social sciences in particular, since at times these are prone to create and support ideologies or creeds of various kinds.

Bearing in mind that meeting ethical challenges is a joint responsibility of all members of the educational and research communities, it is self-evident that students are also implicated. Putting this into concrete terms in the context of truthfulness, the expectation of abstinence from cheating in examinations is no less of an ethical challenge.

b) The violation of intellectual property is a second phenomenon in this category. In these cases someone adopts someone else’s research findings, pretending that they are his or her own. In the era of teamwork, such violation could also include suppressing someone’s contribution to joint research findings. The essence of the ethical problem does not lie in the adoption of someone else’s research, a common and necessary phenomenon in academia as an ongoing debate of previously gained results. The problem occurs whenever the adoption of others’ efforts and contributions is not acknowledged. The reasons for this are similar to those stated for faking research results: individual vanity, competitive advantage for funding eligibility, and the like.

Secondly, ethical dangers arise where striving for truth and academic excellence conflicts with dignity, stability, and sustainability in a wider sense, i.e. of human beings, of nature and the environment, and of society as a whole. The following two types of cases may be distinguished:

a) Infringements on the physical and psychological integrity of human beings, animals and nature in general are obvious issues. These cases usually occur in the context of medical and natural science research. However they are not limited to these disciplines, and fields with close links to the humanities and social sciences may also face such risks; especially with experimental or surveillance elements as in psychology or criminology. In a wider understanding of human integrity, even violations of privacy as well as slander and libel may be considered here. This could be a particular problem in the humanities and social sciences, where there may be political implications of research and of “taking sides”. This is commonly praised as the “transfer of research findings into society”, and fields such as political science and law may be at particular risk.

In most of these cases any infringement potentially lies in the very nature of the academic topic and its research methodology. Here no “black-or-white” answer can be given, and a balance of interests must be established in view of the object, intensity and duration of infringement; of the academic value and prospective success of the research; and of the inevitability of the infringement, although certain rights are inalienable even in well-intentioned and meaningful research.

b) Attention should be drawn to challenges at the interface of academia and societal ethics, as this item highlights a particularly difficult borderline. By this is interface is meant those rules and understandings governing the status of free citizenship, and of the security and stability of societies. Social sciences and the humanities rightly question existing patterns of social and institutional behaviour, and this may easily be seen as political subversion or even the blatant advocacy of illegality. Various debates on the legitimacy of torture in recent months illustrate the predicament. The suppression of research and teaching is not limited to totalitarian systems, and democratic societies are not spared more or less subtle forms of censorship to the detriment of academically valid opinions. On the other hand, there is good reason to prevent people from actively destroying the base of civilisation, peace, freedom, and prosperity in the name of research and teaching. Striking the balance between critical and fresh approaches and state or media oppression is a problem per se, the management of which is part of good institutional governance and legal and cultural frameworks.

Finally, ethical hazards at the academic level may include violations of the academic spirit and practice of equality. Equality in this context does not mean identity of expertise, but it means providing an even level of fairness. This aspect breaks down into three concrete ethical demands:

a) An academic understanding of access to higher education and science encompasses the idea that admittance is based solely on intellectual talent and personality. It may not be means-driven, or dependent on privilege of any kind such as race, class, religion, political persuasion, or any other such consideration irrelevant to academic factors.

b) Ethical standards in higher education require that there be fairness of examinations. These are nothing but competence tests, not tests of financial means or other differentiations. Equal opportunity must be provided as well as transparency in expectations, examination proceedings and grading decisions.

c) The academic ethos extends to creating and maintaining a particular style of discourse. Its hallmarks should be non-discrimination and encouragement, a frank yet polite atmosphere, with action and words based on the notion of a partnership of equals in dignity and intellectual potential.

The governance of higher education and research institutions may be understood to cover all aspects of institutional leadership, both the technocratic and strategic elements of management. It is not merely a device to remedy the aforementioned ethical challenges to higher education and science, or to prevent them from happening as may be expected when taking the headline literally. Rather, governance and its structures pose an ethical challenge in of themselves, namely risk. This is closely related to concerns of power and its abuse, but also of its non-use.

To start with, governance is unethical if it does not serve to prevent and remedy those ethical challenges to higher education and science mentioned above. In this sense, good governance is intended and bound to provide “policing” as an enforcement of ethical boundaries in academia. Any scheme or practice of academic governance that fails to do so, or that does not seriously attempt to do so, is immoral; the waste of resources is likely to be a mere pretext for those in charge to seek personal benefit instead of serving the institution, its members, and the general public.

Governance is unethical if those in charge are not responsive to the constituents of the institution. By using the term “responsiveness” and not “responsibility” here, some very basic features of good governance are to be signified: serious listening, serious weighing of arguments, and serious answers within as short a period of time as possible. Leaders in charge of governance matters may not be aloof; they may not treat members of the institution as mere objects of administrative measures. In short, at an institutional level it is unethical to act in a “Kafkaesque” manner. Due and fair process is a moral essential of governance, and arrogance of power is unacceptable.

Finally, governance is likely to turn immoral and unethical if it does not strive for a wise and fair balance between collective and individual aspirations in an institution. Achieving this is largely a matter of avoiding repression and of creating a positive sense of inclusiveness through respect.

Any meaningful analysis of ethical frameworks of governance implies a duty of governance of institutions of higher education and science, to establish practices serving as preventive measures and remedies to likely ethical challenges. This understanding is justified by the very definition of good governance, even from a selfish institutional point of view: in essence good governance is that part of institutional leadership concerned with the strategic development and well-being of an institution. And since achieving any positive institutional development is dependent on support created by confidence and trust among stakeholders, the moral and ethical standards practiced and communicated by the institution are vital.

The design of an ethical framework of governance of higher education and science must be based on the recognition that there is a distinction between culture and management in these matters, as is also the case in other fields of governance such as quality assurance.

A “culture of ethics” represents a mindset, at both institutional and individual levels: it encompasses the emotional ambition, the mental resolve and the intellectual capacity to define and maintain ethical boundaries. These elements of guidance are essential for success because ethical behaviour must be assured proactively, which cannot be accomplished only by a technocratic system of prevention, monitoring, and intervention. Such a system may be summarized only as the “management of ethics” and providing such management is essential, though not sufficient. Some for instance may be inclined to bypass or sabotage management schemes, including by moving ethically dubious research activities to a country where ethical and legal standards are more lenient; mere management will fail to prevent this from happening.

Devices useful to support the development of a culture of ethics may only be hinted at here. These will consist of communicating the advantages of ethical behaviour as well as outlining good practice and ways towards good practice. Setting examples at all levels, not least at the top level of the institution, will be a good means of creating a culture of ethics. Part of such a culture certainly is the availability of “hardware” to interpret and implement “managing ethics”, which is why a few elements of general significance concerning management features should be outlined here.

Firstly, there is no management without objectives and criteria; this is also true in the context of ethics and the management of ethical challenges. In addition, there is a need for proper procedures:

- To translate ethical objectives into concrete action, there needs to be an outline of the ethical challenges mentioned above, plus a clear signal that addressing them is an institutional objective. Of course the real problem lies in defining the boundaries, especially where there is a conflict of values. In these cases the definition of objectives also constitutes conflict resolution through the striking of a fair, transparent and manageable balance. This may be a political process, but in order to make ethics manageable we must come to some practical conclusions.

- To develop criteria means to make yes-or-no questions operational by defining their role in a given ethical challenge. In the context of conflicting values between knowledge and human dignity, a standard problem in clinical medical research, there must be criteria: extent of infringement, research value of the project, role of information and consent of the participants, protection of data, follow-up procedures, compensation schemes, to name but a few.

- In addition to objectives and criteria, “managing ethics” require definition and the implementation of appropriate processes. Processes apply the given criteria, and arrive at a rational decision meeting the ethical objectives. Promoters, decision makers and stakeholders must be defined, communication lines established, modes of evidence- and decision-taking must be developed, etc. All these elements must be characterised by transparency, impartiality and open-mindedness, translating to what is usually called “due process”.

To summarize the above on objectives, criteria and process, the management of good governance in this context is commonly known as ensuring the rule of law. The rule of law comprises value-oriented objectives, relevant criteria and a fair, transparent, and workable process to ensure consistency from case to case; it also comprises an element of equality in applying rules. An institution of higher education or research must observe external legal regulations set by state or international law, and in many instances matters of ethics are circumscribed by legislation and by the recommendations of organizations such as rectors’ conferences. Accepting these regulatory frameworks adds an element of democratic respect.

What are some of the adequate approaches to mastering the challenges outlined here? Governance should comprise elements to ensure “intact governance” as well as minimizing concrete risks.

To ensure ethically intact governance - a duty of good governance -, a number of facets and devices may be considered:

- Good governance in ethical matters is a leadership issue. It requires leadership because this is necessary to shape minds and beliefs in an entire institution. In addition, it requires a learning process inside the institution, one of governance-driven management. Finally, good governance needs persistent leadership to shift effectively from “theory of ethics” to “good practice of ethics”.

- Ethics of leadership and governance require proper discourse. In concrete terms, the ethos of good governance requires effective systems of participation, communication, and response. This is partly a matter of transparent regulation, but also one of practised culture.

- Ethical governance must safeguard a balance between collective and individual aspirations, by defining the interaction between individual teaching, learning and research and the achievement of common goals.

The individual has a right to independent choice of research and teaching topics, and of methodologies applied. He or she should also be free of foregone conclusions dictated by “political correctness” or institutional preference, and free to publish without censorship, with an institutional commitment to grant sufficient technical and financial assistance. However any such pronouncement must be balanced by a description of the individual’s duties in guaranteeing a structured learning experience to students. It is obvious that these conflicting interests of institutions and individuals require considerable fine-tuning; it is for this reason again that these matters are not only subject to regulation but need to be embedded in an “ethical culture”.

- Last but not least, it must be part of ethical institutional governance to prevent and/or remedy all concrete ethical challenges to higher education and research in the operational setting. Failure to do so is a significant violation of the ethos of good governance as such. What that implies from case to case will be considered below.

Good governance must not only address the concrete ethical problems pointed out here. It must try at least as hard to prevent any violations from happening. Some of these devices are suggested here from this writer’s own national background and experience, to be adapted to the specific nature of the given institution, its culture and legal environment.

It goes without saying that there needs to be a scheme for the prevention and sanctioning of corruption, including subtle non-monetary forms such as nepotism. In most countries criminal and labour law will make suitable provisions, to be accompanied by institutional regulations. These shall not be dealt with in detail here because they are not a specificity of higher education and research; however there is one point of good governance which is significant in the context of corruption and bribery: wise governance must strive to prevent corruption by ensuring fair pay. It is a basic prevention measure to exclude reasons, or at least excuses, for the offering or accepting of bribes in society.

As for preventing violations of academic principle regarding the pursuit and dissemination of knowledge, a code of good practice could define the duties of researchers with regard to transparency and verifiability. Such a code should oblige adherents to make all research sources, be they texts, experiments or surveys, freely available to anyone interested; this at the time of publication as well as for some defined period thereafter. This is no undue expectation since research is understood to be interpersonally verifiable, including in the opportunity to follow the research process leading to the conclusions drawn. A code of good practice should also outline concrete steps as to the storage and availability of experimental data on which certain scientific conclusions are drawn. In addition a code of good practice must make provisions for researchers to lay open their literary or other non-experimental sources of insight. Following the viewpoints of others is not only permitted, the exchange of views may enhance good research; this of course does not include the right to disown others from their own rights, and the answer is to apply proper referencing.

Such a code of good practice, indicating substantive ethical objectives and criteria, should be implemented by each institution of higher education and research. It should also make provisions as to administration, and sanctions in the case of infringements.

Good governance should ensure a varied composition of research staff, in order to protect teaching from distortion by particular ideologies or beliefs; it should also support the right to voice dissenting points of view. A monitoring and complaints scheme must be in place to address any infringement of a researcher’s right to draw his or her own research conclusions; obviously such a scheme must also safeguard the career opportunities of those who choose to lodge complaints.

When considering student duties to abstain from cheating, there needs to be a clear ethical understanding that such action is unfair towards fellow students and future employers, and is fundamentally immoral as a breach of trust. Good governance puts this understanding into action by providing rules to handle such cases, and it sees to their implementation.

When considering ethical challenges to human dignity in a wider sense, to the well-being of animals, and to the protection of the environment, good governance should assess the admissibility of research proposals. An internal commission should be set up to this end, assessing ethically sensitive research with a clear understanding that any such research is prohibited unless permission is granted. Any such commission must strictly adhere to the rule of law, and to the need for due process and clear criteria on admissibility.

The problems of such schemes derive from their limitations on “free research”. This right to free research may not be impeded unless it is in the public interest, and striking the balance depends on the facts and criteria established. Achieving this might for instance result in the commission’s right to set detailed regulations for a project while allowing it to go ahead in principle. Concerning questions of social harmony and state stability, however, this question is more delicate. Here the borderline between wise limits and blatant censorship is rather vague, and decisions should be generous and favour freedom of speech. Such a decision should be in the hands of the institution and of peers, ensuring that the choice is not made by authorities seeking to highjack the process to their own ends.

Finally when looking at violations of the principle of academic equality, the following steering devices of good governance come to mind. Firstly there needs to be a set of rules governing admission to institutions of higher education and research and to the particular elements or stages of a given study programme. These rules must define criteria for academic quality, and must be transparent to everyone concerned, including in the event of appeals. Good governance will ensure a legal framework, as well as consultative process between administrators and academics.

These directives against corruption and nepotism apply both to student admission and to staff recruitment. Fair procedures are vital to the selection of staff, and vacancies must be filled only after public announcement and a proper recruitment cycle. External parties should be integrated and consulted in the selection process, and internal candidates require additional caution and justification.

In principle similar rules apply for examinations. Good governance ensures that admittance, examinations and grading are made transparent; in this context oral examinations require particular scrutiny. Grading should be accompanied by a statement of explanation, subject to appeal. In general, instruments should be put in place to guide the entire assessment process.

Finally, there may be simple devices to foster a spirit of trust. For instance every institution should have a rule that all applications or questions in writing must be answered within four weeks at the latest and if not, reasons for the delay must be communicated to the inquirer. Communication lines must be set up in all directions, as transparency and respect are the mainstays of human dignity in the context of administrative institutions.

At the end of a presentation there is an inclination to summarize, but I shall abstain from doing so. Concluding a presentation on the ethical framework of governance must remind the audience that all theory on this topic is nothing but a call to good practice, i.e. to implementation of ethics through the practical application of moral principles. About one hundred years ago the German humorist Wilhelm Busch summarized the essence of morality in one line, which is a rhyme: “Es gibt nichts Gutes ausser man tut es.” It roughly translates as “There is no good unless you put it in place”. Good governance, by definition, is leadership towards a better future.