Scientists For Justice

Without a code of conduct or an independent body to oversee consistent standards, anti-bullying and harassment policies are worthless.

In recent years, increased attention has been paid to the importance of creating positive and constructive research environments that enable good research practice and scientific excellence, without compromising the health and dignity of those at work. This has been underscored by the development of anti-bullying and harassment policies by large UK funders (1- 4 ), and elsewhere (5), with associated penalties to grantees who break these policies (6).

Nonetheless, experience from many researchers suggests there is a real problem in academia. Power gradients place individuals at the hands of their superiors, who are often protected by their employers because of their value (grant monies, prestigious awards, high profile scientific outputs) to the organisation, who also has an incentive to avoid negative publicity (7-8).

Since publicly disclosing our identities as having been involved in a whistleblowing referral (9), a few of us have been privately approached by others who have shared their own experience of investigations. Invariably, their stories resonate with our own, where claimants feel the investigation process was biased, lacked transparency and probity, and used silencing tactics to discourage them from taking further action. Not uncommonly, claimants’ personal and scientific reputation, or mental health, was called into question.

Real-life application of anti-bullying and harassment policies is challenging and relies on findings from these investigations which are executed under the authority of the organisations that employ those accused, and have a vested interest in the outcome. Every step of the process, from deciding whether to take the allegations seriously, whom to appoint to conduct the investigation, how many and whom to interview, and how the results are to be shared with the claimants, is under the control of the organisation who also has the monetary means to finance expensive lawyers and ultimately controls public communication through the issue of press releases. Even when investigations find in favour of the claimant, as in the recent case of Danielle Bradford, a Cambridge undergraduate student who filed a case of sexual harassment (10,11) the way in which investigations are handled can lead the claimants to feel as if they are the accused (12).

It is naïve to believe that a process administered by those who are conflicted will not always be overshadowed by their real, or perceived, partiality. If there were ethical concerns regarding how a clinical trial was being conducted, the relevant drug approving agencies would not leave the investigation in the hands of the pharmaceutical company leading the trial. This would clearly represent a conflict of interest.

The problem with investigations into bullying, harassment and discrimination is that whether they fall under grievance or whistleblowing policies, they are normally overseen by the organisation who is conflicted in the matter. As there are no agreed standards on how to conduct such investigations, nor is there an accepted code of conduct, each organisation is free to conduct their own investigations however they see fit (13-17).

Funders have no input into how investigations are conducted, indeed most anti-bullying and harassment policies only require that the relevant institution inform them in cases where allegations are upheld. This means many allegations can be kept confidential and internal to an organisation, never coming to the attention of relevant funders. It also means that funders have no means of ensuring the process is fair and impartial. Both in the investigation and in its reporting, organisations often prioritise their image over and above the need to find truth, or the need to be held accountable. This leaves funders with no recourse but to accept the outcome of those investigations even when they are not provided access to reports, or to the required detail to assure them of the adequacy and impartiality of the process. This effectively means that anti-bullying and harassment policies are not enforceable.

There is a clear need, and opportunity, for funders to come together and develop a joint code of conduct that defines how investigations into bullying, harassment and discrimination should be led to meet agreed standards of probity. Minimally, we suggest five things:

1. The requirement for multi-member investigation panels with representation from funders who invest in the organisation, or representatives from other higher education authorities who are not conflicted in the matter;

2. The commitment to treat claimants with respect, accepting that they are raising concerns in good faith;

3. The commitment to transparent, clear and unbiased processes where both claimants and those accused have access to all relevant information and are provided equal opportunity to provide counter-evidence to what others claim;

4. The need for the final report, whilst respecting confidentiality issues, be shared with all claimants, and funders who have a vested interest in the organisation, by virtue of funding some of its science, to ensure the investigation and its reporting meets accepted standards.

5. The need for reporting of all investigations conducted irrespective of whether or not allegations are upheld. In this way, funders or other representatives from higher education organisations would serve to police each other, ensuring all investigations meet the standards of the code of conduct and are able to the demonstrate they follow an impartial and fair process.

This proposal is similar to that made recently in the context of increasing credibility for investigations into research misconduct, where it is proposed that reports should be made public so that others can learn from mistakes made, and best practice can be developed and shared between organisations (18-20). Recently, to respond to increasing concerns regarding the independence of these investigations, the Swedish government has called for the creation of an independent Research Misconduct Board to investigate these problems (21), while a parliamentary inquiry in the UK in July 2018, also recommended the establishment of a committee to monitor how Universities deal with investigations into research misconduct (22).

We suggest such measures are equally needed for investigations into bullying, harassment and discrimination. However, instead of a single agency or board dealing with these investigations, which likely would be overwhelmed by the volume of cases, we am proposing that funders jointly develop a set of standards and an agreed protocol that all such investigations will need to abide by.

Some may argue this creates additional red tape and is an unnecessary burden when most grievances can be dealt with promptly and swiftly internally without the extra cost in time and money for complex investigation processes. However, recent examples (e.g. Danielle Bradford’s case) suggest current practice is woefully inadequate, and regularly fails the exact individuals that the anti-bullying and harassment policies set out to protect.

The academic world is changing, and the younger generation is demanding a fairer, more transparent and healthier research culture. Funders now have a tremendous opportunity to grasp the situation and work together to develop best practice and ensure their anti-bullying and harassment policies go beyond aspirational goals, and become powerful and effective tools to protect those who dare raise their heads above the parapet.

References

Scientists For Justice

Posts

Grievance and whistleblowing investigations need a code of conduct