Bridging the Ethics Gap: Assessing Knowledge, Attitudes, and Practices of Research Teachers

Responsible conduct of research (RCR) underpins academic integrity. Knowledge, attitudes, and practices (KAP) of research teachers regarding research ethics remain underexplored outside medical and scientific fields. Limited empirical evidence exists on how research teachers in junior high school, senior high school, and tertiary education understand and operationalize ethical principles, including informed consent, confidentiality, and protection of minors. This study assessed the level of knowledge, attitudes, and practices of research teachers regarding research ethics. A mixed-menthod research design was employed, and involved research teachers (N=91) from junior high schools (n1=33), senior high schools (n2=34, and 24 tertiary institutions in Metro Manila. An adapted 30-item KAP questionnaire and five open-ended qualitative questions were administered. Quantitative data were analyzed using a mixed-methods approach, wherein quantitative data were analyzed descriptively. Qualitative data underwent reflexive thematic analysis. Quantitative findings revealed high knowledge of research ethics principles (mean range: 4.56–4.90 out of 5). Confidentiality scored highest (M=4.90, SD=0.34). Minor assent procedures scored lowest (M=4.56, SD=0.69). Attitudes were strongly positive toward mandatory ethics training (M=4.85, SD=0.39) and ethical review (M=4.76, SD=0.50). Gaps emerged: 63.7% suspected academic dishonesty, 61.5% intervened in plagiarism cases, 72.5% struggled with workload-ethics balance, 93.4% reported past research shaped their teaching. Qualitative identified four major themes: (1) role of ethical review process, (2) recommendations for training, (3) significant ethical challenges including improper AI use (≈66%), data privacy (>50%), plagiarism and fabrication (>50%), and informed consent violations (≈45%), and (4) ethical concerns while supervising students. Teachers preferred restorative approaches over punitive measures. Despite high knowledge and positive attitudes, significant KAP gaps persist. There is an urgent need for contextualized ethics training, periodic refresher courses, institutional monitoring, and clear AI use policies.

research ethics, research knowledge-attitude-practices (KAP)

1. AlFattani, A., AlShahrani, A., AlBedah, N., Alkawi, A., AlMeharish, A., Altwaijri, Y., Omar, A., AlKawi, M. Z., & Khogeer, A. (2025). Exploring researchers' perspectives on institutional review boards functions in Saudi Arabia: A survey utilizing the IRB-RAT tool. BMC Medical Ethics, 26(1), 1-9. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

2. Anderman, E. M., & Murdock, T. B. (2022). Academic dishonesty in the digital age. Educational Psychologist, 57(3), 189–204. https://doi.org/10.1080/00461520.2022.2081579 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

3. Brown, C. (2024). Teacher researchers as creators of knowledge: Ethical engagement with student participants. Educational Action Research, 32(2), 245–261. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

4. Bruton, S. V., Macchione, A. L., Brown, M., & Hosseini, M. (2025). Citation ethics: An exploratory survey of norms and behaviors. Journal of Academic Ethics, 23(2), 329–346. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10805-024-09539-2 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

5. Cotton, D. R. E., Cotton, P. A., & Shipway, J. R. (2024). Chatting and cheating: Ensuring academic integrity in the era of ChatGPT. Innovations in Education and Teaching International, 61(2), 228–239. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

6. Couzens, A., Johnson, L., & Cattoni, A. (2024). Trust and friction in creative practice research ethics: A dialogical inquiry. Research Ethics, 20(1), 45–62. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

7. DuBois, J. M., Chibnall, J. T., Tait, R. C., & Vander Wal, J. S. (2018). The professional ethics toolkit: Development and pilot testing of an interactive ethics education program for research teams. Accountability in Research, 25(3), 159–177. https://doi.org/10.1080/08989621.2018.1440356 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

8. Eaton, S. E. (2022). Academic integrity in the age of artificial intelligence. Journal of Academic Ethics, 20(1), 1–16. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10805-021-09440-3 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

9. Ferguson, L., & Soave, V. (2023). Data protection in educational research: Balancing GDPR and research utility. British Educational Research Journal, 49(4), 712–730. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

10. Ghimire, N., Adhikari, S., Sharma, S., Basnet, R., Acharya, R., Verma, S., & Gyanwali, P. (2022). Knowledge, attitude and practice of research ethics among researchers in Nepal. Journal of Nepal Health Research Council, 20(1), 174–179. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

11. Grove, M. (2024). Plagiarism in higher education: A twenty-first century challenge. Journal of Academic Ethics, 22(1), 45–63. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

12. Homan, R. (2022). The ethics of social research with children. In The SAGE handbook of educational research ethics (pp. 89–105). SAGE Publications. https://doi.org/10.4135/9781529774012 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

13. Jin, Y., Wei, J., Zhang, J., Luo, S., Yuan, L., Zou, X., & Liu, D. (2024). A study on the knowledge, attitude, and practice of research integrity among medical professionals in Ningxia, China. BMC Medical Education, 24(1), Article 1355. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

14. Kalichman, M. W., & Plemmons, D. K. (2017). Reported goals of responsible conduct of research courses. Academic Medicine, 92(7), 1025–1031. https://doi.org/10.1097/ACM.0000000000001612 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

15. Kara, H., & Pickering, L. (2025). How can we reform research ethics management to make it fit for purpose? Research Ethics. Advance Online Publication. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

16. https://doi.org/10.1177/17470161251351389 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

17. Lindkvist, A. M., Koppel, L., & Tinghög, G. (2024). Bounded research ethicality: Researchers rate themselves and their field as better than others at following good research practice. Scientific Reports, 14(1), Article 3050. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-024-53450-0 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

18. Manti, S., & Licari, C. (2023). Informed consent in school-based research: Challenges and solutions. Research Ethics, 19(2), 154–170. https://doi.org/10.1177/17470161231154333 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

19. Mehta, D., et al. (2023). Ethical review as assurance in violence against women and children research. [Note: As cited in VAW/VAC research review (2025)—secondary source. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

20. Mumford, M. D., Steele, L., Watts, L. L., & Medeiros, K. E. (2015). Evaluating ethics education programs: A multilevel approach. Ethics & Behavior, 25(4), 316–335. https://doi.org/10.1080/10508422.2014.948960 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

21. National Commission for the Protection of Human Subjects of Biomedical and Behavioral Research. (1979). The Belmont Report: Ethical principles and guidelines for the protection of human subjects of research. U.S. Government Printing Office. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

22. Perkins, M., Roe, J., & Postma, D. (2023). Academic integrity and artificial intelligence: A systematic review. International Journal for Educational Integrity, 19(1), 1–18. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40979-023-00130-5 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

23. Qadri, H. M., Shahid, R., Fatima, S. B., Naveed, N., Khizar, A., Siraj ul Haq, … Bashir, A. (2024). Knowledge, attitude and perception of research ethics and research ethics committees among post-graduate residents of neurosciences: A nationwide analysis from Pakistan. Pakistan Journal of Medical Sciences, 40(12), S55–S62. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

24. Raykov, M. (2023). Education researchers' experiences with research ethics committees across Europe. European Educational Research Journal, 22(4), 567–584. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

25. Resnik, D. B. (2020). What is ethics in research and why is it important? National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences. https://www.niehs.nih.gov/research/resources/bioethics/whatis [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

26. Sabolić, D. (2026). Academic publishing ethics: Perverse incentives, excessive authorship, and the erosion of research integrity. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

27. Samuel, G., & Buchanan, E. A. (2022). Data ethics in educational research: A framework for responsible practice. Learning, Media and Technology, 47(3), 345–360. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

28. Sattler, S., Wiegel, C., & van Veen, F. (2022). Academic dishonesty among students in higher education: A systematic review. Frontiers in Psychology, 13, Article 857937. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2022.857937 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

29. Sefcik, L., Striepe, M., & Yorke, J. (2023). Mapping the landscape of academic integrity research. International Journal for Educational Integrity, 19(1), 1–22. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40979-023-00130-5 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

30. Shepherd, V., et al. (2025). The CONSULT e-learning program: Training researchers in informed consent and capacity issues for adults lacking capacity. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

31. Sullivan, D. P., Kelly, J., & Sugarman, J. (2024). Research ethics consultation in the post-COVID era. Accountability in Research, 31(2), 112–128. https://doi.org/10.1080/08989621.2023.2242345 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

32. Thaitae, S., & Phulkerd, P. (2024). Researcher capacity and IRB approval: Attitudes and practices in social sciences and humanities research. Journal of Academic Ethics, 22(3), 401–418. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

33. Uganda National Council for Science and Technology. (2025). National guidelines for research involving humans as research participants. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

34. VAW/VAC Research Review. (2025). Ethical review requirements for violence against women and children research: Funder and journal mandates. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

35. Zarei, F., Dehghani, A., Ratanasiri, A., Ghaffari, M., Raina, S. K., Halimi, A., … Mosavi Jarrahi, A. (2024). CheckAP: A checklist for reporting a knowledge, attitude, and practice (KAP) study. Asian Pacific Journal of Cancer Prevention, 25(7), 2573–2577. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

36. Zhang, X., Gu, Y., Yin, J., Zhang, Y., Jin, C., Wang, W., … Feng, R. (2023). Development, reliability, and structural validity of the scale for knowledge, attitude, and practice in ethics implementation among AI researchers: Cross-sectional study. JMIR Formative Research, 7, Article e42202. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

37. Zohrabi, M. (2013). Mixed method research: Instruments, validity, reliability and reporting findings. Theory and Practice in Language Studies, 3(2), 254–262. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

• Assessment of the Role of Artificial Intelligence in Repositioning TVET for Economic Development in Nigeria
• Teachers’ Use of Assure Model Instructional Design on Learners’ Problem Solving Efficacy in Secondary Schools in Bungoma County, Kenya
• “E-Booksan Ang Kaalaman”: Development, Validation, and Utilization of Electronic Book in Academic Performance of Grade 9 Students in Social Studies
• Analyzing EFL University Students’ Academic Speaking Skills Through Self-Recorded Video Presentation
• Major Findings of The Study on Total Quality Management in Teachers’ Education Institutions (TEIs) In Assam – An Evaluative Study