The safeguards for due process are built in to the policy on misconduct. It is recognized that it is not only possible but probable that some allegations raised will be unsubstantiatable and, perhaps, entirely without merit. The reputation of the researcher must be protected against this.
To keep fact-finding at the appropriate level, the University policy establishes two levels of fact-finding: the formal Inquiry and the formal Investigation. Both are preceded by informal judgments on whether the allegations themselves have sufficient accompanying evidence to warrant suspicion of misconduct.
Both the Inquiry and a subsequent Investigation, if required, are subject to fairly rigorous time-lines for completion of fact-finding and filing of reports. In practice the time-lines may not be observed to the very letter and number, but nevertheless serve the substantial purpose of setting the standard for expeditious proceedings.
A significant part of the fact-finding, in terms of due process, is the accessibility of evidence. Campus policy makes explicit that all campus researchers and artists are to make all materials requested available to the Inquiry Panel and again to an Investigation Panel, if one is formed.
Allegations of misconduct which are substantiated will result in both corrective and disciplinary action by the Provost or the Dean(s) under the guidance of the Provost. In some circumstances the U.S. Office of Research Integrity (ORI) may be notified. An annual report to ORI is required in any case.
While the process is designed for maintaining the reputation of innocent persons, it is sometimes the case that informants ("whistleblowers") are the innocent ones; their rights and reputations must be safeguarded equally.
| Back | Next |
