The Embassy of Good Science - User contributions [en]

Instruction:A0dd2e82-52e7-4030-a396-54525630e75c

2020-10-27T09:13:39Z

0000-0001-5942-5204:

{{Instruction
|Title=Modified Dilemma Game
|Instruction Goal=This exercise supports participants in identifying research integrity (RI) principles, virtues and misconduct in a case and provides a framework to consider, choose and defend alternative courses of action regarding realistic dilemmas in research integrity.
|Has Requirements=You need to have read the instructions before experiencing the exercise.

Moreover, you need to be familiar with the following:

a) Concept of [https://www.embassy.science/theme/virtues-in-research-integrity virtue] and its importance for research integrity;

b) Definition and formulation of a moral [https://www.embassy.science/theme/moral-conflict-and-moral-dilemma dilemma];

c) Definition of [https://www.embassy.science/theme/dialogue-versus-debate dialogue versus debate;]

d) Section 1 of the [https://www.allea.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/05/ALLEA-European-Code-of-Conduct-for-Research-Integrity-2017.pdf European Code of Conduct for Research Integrity] .

In order to fruitfully take part in this exercise you need to have a background in research (i.e. be employed as researchers) or be a trainer/educator/teacher who has had experience in research in the past.
|Has Duration=1 and 1/2
|Has Participants=20
|Important For=Research integrity trainers; Trainers in training; Researchers
|Has Method=Face to Face; Participatory sessions
}}
{{Custom TabContent Trainee Open}}
{{Instruction Steps Foldout Trainee}}
{{Instruction Perspective Trainee
|Is About=The [https://www.eur.nl/en/about-eur/strategy-and-policy/integrity/research-integrity/dilemma-game Rotterdam Dilemma Game] (RDG) is a card game composed of dilemmas concerning a variety of research integrity issues. As the dilemmas are based on real cases, they are recognizable and relevant to those who take part in research activities. The game was developed by the Erasmus University Rotterdam for the use of researchers, coordinators, supervisors, administrators, reviewers, and all of those who are involved in research at different levels. The game covers 75 cases, each involving a short description of a dilemma, which are grouped in three main categories: researcher position, research strategy and research phase. Players can pick a case which corresponds to the issue they would like to discuss.

The game may be used as an exercise for exchanging experiences, opinions, perspectives and justifications. It could also be used to develop a shared understanding of formally defined principles and the moral content of our actions, as well as of roles of values and norms in decision-making. The original game kit developed by the Erasmus University Rotterdam was adapted in the context of VIRT2UE project. The aim of this modification is to raise awareness about virtues and values in research processes and to bring attention to the principles adopted by the [https://allea.org/code-of-conduct/ European Code of Conduct for Research Integrity] (ECoC). Concordantly, the modified RDG has several alterations, such as focusing on a dialogical approach while exchanging justifications for a moral choice and associating them with the virtues and values presented in the ECoC.
|Important Because=Reflecting on a variety of moral dilemmas with others in a fun way makes researchers gain awareness about the moral content of their day-to-day decisions and actions. That might lead them to consider and understand other stakeholders’ positions and justifications as well as their own in the light of RI values and ECoC principles when faced a specific moral dilemma.
|Has Practical Tips='''Table 1: Principles (Virtues) and research misconduct and other unacceptable practices from the ECoC that could be identified in each dilemma'''
{{{!}} class="wikitable" border="0" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="0" width="597"
{{!}} width="410"{{!}}'''PRINCIPLES/DILEMMA'''
{{!}} width="105"{{!}}'''DILEMMA Nº _____'''
{{!}} width="83"{{!}}'''NOTES'''
{{!}}-
{{!}} width="410" valign="top"{{!}}'''Reliability''' in ensuring the quality of research, reflected in the design, the methodology, the analysis and the use of resources.
{{!}} width="105" valign="top"{{!}}
{{!}} width="83" valign="top"{{!}}
{{!}}-
{{!}} width="410" valign="top"{{!}}'''Honesty''' in developing, undertaking, reviewing, reporting and communicating research in a transparent, fair, full and unbiased way.
{{!}} width="105" valign="top"{{!}}
{{!}} width="83" valign="top"{{!}}
{{!}}-
{{!}} width="410" valign="top"{{!}}'''Respect for colleagues''', research participants, society, ecosystems, cultural heritage and the environment.
{{!}} width="105" valign="top"{{!}}
{{!}} width="83" valign="top"{{!}}
{{!}}-
{{!}} width="410" valign="top"{{!}}'''Accountability''' for the research from idea to publication, for its management and organisation, for training, supervision and mentoring, and for its wider impacts
{{!}} width="105" valign="top"{{!}}
{{!}} width="83" valign="top"{{!}}
{{!}}}
'''Table 2. What are the main research misconducts that you can identify in this dilemma?'''
{{{!}} class="wikitable" border="0" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="0" width="668"
{{!}} width="425"{{!}}'''RESEARCH MISCONDUCT/DILEMMA'''
{{!}} width="85"{{!}}'''DILEMMA Nº _____'''
{{!}} width="159"{{!}}'''NOTES'''
{{!}}-
{{!}} width="425" valign="top"{{!}}'''Fabrication''' is making up results and recording them as if they were real.
{{!}} width="85" valign="top"{{!}}
{{!}} width="159" valign="top"{{!}}
{{!}}-
{{!}} width="425" valign="top"{{!}}'''Falsification''' is manipulating research materials, equipment or processes or changing, omitting or suppressing data or results without justification.
{{!}} width="85" valign="top"{{!}}
{{!}} width="159" valign="top"{{!}}
{{!}}-
{{!}} width="425" valign="top"{{!}}'''Plagiarism''' is using other people’s work and ideas without giving proper credit to the original source, thus violating the rights of the original author(s) to their intellectual outputs.
{{!}} width="85" valign="top"{{!}}
{{!}} width="159" valign="top"{{!}}
{{!}}-
{{!}} width="425" valign="top"{{!}}Manipulating authorship or denigrating the role of other researchers in publications.
{{!}} width="85" valign="top"{{!}}
{{!}} width="159" valign="top"{{!}}
{{!}}-
{{!}} width="425" valign="top"{{!}}Accusing a researcher of misconduct or other violations in a malicious way.
{{!}} width="85" valign="top"{{!}}
{{!}} width="159" valign="top"{{!}}
{{!}}-
{{!}} width="425" valign="top"{{!}}Misrepresenting research achievements.
{{!}} width="85" valign="top"{{!}}
{{!}} width="159" valign="top"{{!}}
{{!}}-
{{!}} width="425" valign="top"{{!}}Exaggerating the importance and practical applicability of findings.
{{!}} width="85" valign="top"{{!}}
{{!}} width="159" valign="top"{{!}}
{{!}}-
{{!}} width="425" valign="top"{{!}}Re-publishing substantive parts of one’s own earlier publications, including translations, without duly acknowledging or citing the original (‘self-plagiarism’).
{{!}} width="85" valign="top"{{!}}
{{!}} width="159" valign="top"{{!}}
{{!}}-
{{!}} width="425" valign="top"{{!}}Citing selectively to enhance own findings or to please editors, reviewers or colleagues.
{{!}} width="85" valign="top"{{!}}
{{!}} width="159" valign="top"{{!}}
{{!}}-
{{!}} width="425" valign="top"{{!}}Withholding research results.
{{!}} width="85" valign="top"{{!}}
{{!}} width="159" valign="top"{{!}}
{{!}}-
{{!}} width="425" valign="top"{{!}}Allowing funders/sponsors to jeopardise independence in the research process or reporting of results so as to introduce or promulgate bias.
{{!}} width="85" valign="top"{{!}}
{{!}} width="159" valign="top"{{!}}
{{!}}-
{{!}} width="425" valign="top"{{!}}Expanding unnecessarily the bibliography of a study.
{{!}} width="85" valign="top"{{!}}
{{!}} width="159" valign="top"{{!}}
{{!}}-
{{!}} width="425" valign="top"{{!}}Delaying or inappropriately hampering the work of other researchers.
{{!}} width="85" valign="top"{{!}}
{{!}} width="159" valign="top"{{!}}
{{!}}-
{{!}} width="425" valign="top"{{!}}Misusing seniority to encourage violations of research integrity.
{{!}} width="85" valign="top"{{!}}
{{!}} width="159" valign="top"{{!}}
{{!}}-
{{!}} width="425" valign="top"{{!}}Ignoring putative violations of research integrity by others or covering up inappropriate responses to misconduct or other violations by institutions.
{{!}} width="85" valign="top"{{!}}
{{!}} width="159" valign="top"{{!}}
{{!}}-
{{!}} width="425" valign="top"{{!}}Establishing or supporting journals that undermine the quality control of research (‘predatory journals’).
{{!}} width="85" valign="top"{{!}}
{{!}} width="159" valign="top"{{!}}
{{!}}}
'''Table 3. What are the relevant virtues that the researcher must have in order to take the decision chosen by the group?'''
{{{!}} class="wikitable" border="1" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="0"
{{!}} width="243"{{!}}'''VIRTUES'''
{{!}} width="142"{{!}}'''DILEMMA Nº _____'''
{{!}} width="233"{{!}}'''NOTES'''
{{!}}-
{{!}} width="243"{{!}}Resoluteness
{{!}} width="142" valign="top"{{!}}
{{!}} width="233" valign="top"{{!}}
{{!}}-
{{!}} width="243"{{!}}Accountability
{{!}} width="142" valign="top"{{!}}
{{!}} width="233" valign="top"{{!}}
{{!}}-
{{!}} width="243"{{!}}Availability
{{!}} width="142" valign="top"{{!}}
{{!}} width="233" valign="top"{{!}}
{{!}}-
{{!}} width="243"{{!}}Competency
{{!}} width="142" valign="top"{{!}}
{{!}} width="233" valign="top"{{!}}
{{!}}-
{{!}} width="243"{{!}}Patience
{{!}} width="142" valign="top"{{!}}
{{!}} width="233" valign="top"{{!}}
{{!}}-
{{!}} width="243"{{!}}Perseverance
{{!}} width="142" valign="top"{{!}}
{{!}} width="233" valign="top"{{!}}
{{!}}-
{{!}} width="243"{{!}}Reliability
{{!}} width="142" valign="top"{{!}}
{{!}} width="233" valign="top"{{!}}
{{!}}-
{{!}} width="243"{{!}}Sincerity
{{!}} width="142" valign="top"{{!}}
{{!}} width="233" valign="top"{{!}}
{{!}}-
{{!}} width="243"{{!}}Creativity
{{!}} width="142" valign="top"{{!}}
{{!}} width="233" valign="top"{{!}}
{{!}}-
{{!}} width="243"{{!}}Honesty
{{!}} width="142" valign="top"{{!}}
{{!}} width="233" valign="top"{{!}}
{{!}}-
{{!}} width="243"{{!}}Objectivity
{{!}} width="142" valign="top"{{!}}
{{!}} width="233" valign="top"{{!}}
{{!}}-
{{!}} width="243"{{!}}Humility
{{!}} width="142" valign="top"{{!}}
{{!}} width="233" valign="top"{{!}}
{{!}}-
{{!}} width="243"{{!}}Punctuality
{{!}} width="142" valign="top"{{!}}
{{!}} width="233" valign="top"{{!}}
{{!}}-
{{!}} width="243"{{!}}Trustworthiness/truthfulness
{{!}} width="142" valign="top"{{!}}
{{!}} width="233" valign="top"{{!}}
{{!}}-
{{!}} width="243"{{!}}Selflessness
{{!}} width="142" valign="top"{{!}}
{{!}} width="233" valign="top"{{!}}
{{!}}-
{{!}} width="243"{{!}}Reflexivity
{{!}} width="142" valign="top"{{!}}
{{!}} width="233" valign="top"{{!}}
{{!}}-
{{!}} width="243"{{!}}Clarity of purpose
{{!}} width="142" valign="top"{{!}}
{{!}} width="233" valign="top"{{!}}
{{!}}-
{{!}} width="243"{{!}}Collaborative spirit
{{!}} width="142" valign="top"{{!}}
{{!}} width="233" valign="top"{{!}}
{{!}}-
{{!}} width="243"{{!}}Fairness
{{!}} width="142" valign="top"{{!}}
{{!}} width="233" valign="top"{{!}}
{{!}}-
{{!}} width="243"{{!}}Loyalty
{{!}} width="142" valign="top"{{!}}
{{!}} width="233" valign="top"{{!}}
{{!}}-
{{!}} width="243"{{!}}Moderation
{{!}} width="142" valign="top"{{!}}
{{!}} width="233" valign="top"{{!}}
{{!}}-
{{!}} width="243"{{!}}Positivity
{{!}} width="142" valign="top"{{!}}
{{!}} width="233" valign="top"{{!}}
{{!}}-
{{!}} width="243" valign="top"{{!}}Respectfulness
{{!}} width="142" valign="top"{{!}}
{{!}} width="233" valign="top"{{!}}
{{!}}-
{{!}} width="243" valign="top"{{!}}Honesty
{{!}} width="142" valign="top"{{!}}
{{!}} width="233" valign="top"{{!}}
{{!}}}
}}
{{Instruction Step Trainee
|Instruction Step Title=Introduction and confidentiality
|Instruction Step Text=At the beginning of the session you will be informed about the background, the aim and the description of the game. Moreover, you will be asked to keep the information shared during this game confidential.
}}
{{Instruction Step Trainee
|Instruction Step Title=Forming groups
|Instruction Step Text=You will be assigned to a group by the trainer who will divide participants into groups of four. The game can also be played plenary. If your trainer prefers to do so they will instruct you on how to proceed.
}}
{{Instruction Step Trainee
|Instruction Step Title=Playing the game
|Instruction Step Text=The trainer will explain you how the game is played and will ask you to download the [https://www.eur.nl/en/about-eur/policy-and-regulations/integrity/research-integrity/dilemma-game dilemma game app].

 
}}
{{Instruction Step Trainee
|Instruction Step Title=Filling in the tables
|Instruction Step Text=You and your group will be asked fill out the tables delivered at the beginning of the session and to identify the issues of ECoC that are relevant to the dilemma at stake (see tables 1, 2 and 3 – Practical Tips).
}}
{{Instruction Step Trainee
|Instruction Step Title=Short presentation of the group discussions
|Instruction Step Text=You, as a group, will be asked to present a brief summary of what has just been discussed in your group. You may assign a member as a spokesman to shortly present the results of your discussion.
}}
{{Instruction Step Trainee
|Instruction Step Title=Plenary debriefs
|Instruction Step Text=After the presentation you may be invited to actively listen to what others have to say and share their views openly. While playing the game with several small groups, a plenary debrief may be useful to allow room for you to ask questions to each other and identify dilemmas, justifications for choices, and even more general themes.
}}
{{Instruction Step Trainee
|Instruction Step Title=Conclusions
|Instruction Step Text=You, as a group, will be asked to reflect on the process, and to evaluate if the learning objectives were met. You will be invited to have a brief dialogue on what you might have just learned as a group. You may be asked to seek answers to questions such as the following:

- Was it easy or difficult to identify the relevant principles and virtues in the chosen dilemma?

- Did this exercise help you with identifying and connecting to formally defined principles (ECoC)?

- Did most of the players agree or disagree with the final choice?

- What were the main points of contention?

- How come people disagreed (e.g. differences in experience, training, background, values, norms…)?

- Was any alternative option proposed?

- Did anybody change her/his mind as a result of the discussion?

- What is needed in order to do the moral good in your work setting? What were the most convincing arguments used in the discussion?

- On which areas do you feel there is insufficient consensus?

- How to best address such future dilemmas in your daily work?
}}
{{Instruction Remarks Trainee
|Has Remarks='''List of contributors:'''

Volkan Kavas, Joana Araújo, Ana Sofia Carvalho, Giulia Inguaggiato and Margreet Stolper

This training has been developed by the VIRT2UE project, which has received funding form the European Union’s H2020 research programme under grant agreement N 741782.
}}
{{Custom TabContent Close Trainee}}
{{Custom TabContent Trainer Open}}
{{Instruction Steps Foldout Trainer}}
{{Instruction Perspective Trainer
|Is About=[https://www.eur.nl/en/about-eur/strategy-and-policy/integrity/research-integrity/dilemma-game Rotterdam Dilemma Game] (RDG) is a card game kit developed by the Erasmus University Rotterdam which includes 75 shortly described dilemmas touching upon various research integrity related issues. The game targets a diverse population of researchers and is designed to foster conversations about moral dilemmas that researchers might face during their career. The Rotterdam Dilemma Game can be used for various purposes. For example, it can be used as education tool in a course setting with a group of young researches to increase awareness of research integrity (RI) issues or it can be played by team members working at the same lab or institution to gain insight in each other’s perspectives on RI dilemmas.

The modified RDG has been developed within the scope of the VIRT2UE project to provide a focus on the virtues and values which are important for researchers in day-to-day activities and to bring attention to the principles and content of the European Code of Conduct for Research Integrity (ECoC).
|Important Because=Reflecting on a variety of moral dilemmas in a fun way makes researchers gain awareness about the moral content of their day-to-day actions and decisions. This might lead them to consider other stakeholders’ positions and justifications as well as their own, when faced with day to day moral dilemma. Moreover, the modified version of the EDG helps participants to reflect on their preferred course of action in light of the participles and practices presented in the ECoC.
|Has Practical Tips='''Selection of the format: playing the game in small groups or plenary'''

The exercise is suitable to be used both in bigger groups or with several small groups. Bear in mind that it is usually fun to play a game in bigger groups. If you would like to use the game to build connections among participants that might be of a preference. Moreover, please consider whether to form homogeneous or heterogeneous groups before the actual training. The former would rule out communication problems arising from different cultural backgrounds, whereas the latter might create room for diverse viewpoints.

If you prefer to work with one big group and are experiencing the exercise face to face, consider using the corners of the room representing the four choices of action (A, B, C and D). Then you can ask everybody to stand up and position themselves at the corner representing the option they have selected. In that case, as a trainer you need to be active in facilitating the group discussion. Using corners allows people to use their own bodies which might open up space for expressing emotions.

If on the contrary you prefer to work with smaller groups please make sure to assign the same dilemmas to all the groups. This will allow to discuss the results of each group plenary.

'''Table 1: Principles (Virtues) and research misconduct and other unacceptable practices from the ECoC that could be identified in each dilemma'''
 
{{{!}} class="wikitable" border="0" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="0" width="669"
{{!}} width="423"{{!}}'''PRINCIPLES/DILEMMA'''
{{!}} width="87"{{!}}'''DILEMMA Nº _____'''
{{!}} width="159"{{!}}'''NOTES'''
{{!}}-
{{!}} width="423" valign="top"{{!}}'''Reliability''' in ensuring the quality of research, reflected in the design, the methodology, the analysis and the use of resources.
{{!}} width="87" valign="top"{{!}}
{{!}} width="159" valign="top"{{!}}
{{!}}-
{{!}} width="423" valign="top"{{!}}'''Honesty''' in developing, undertaking, reviewing, reporting and communicating research in a transparent, fair, full and unbiased way.
{{!}} width="87" valign="top"{{!}}
{{!}} width="159" valign="top"{{!}}
{{!}}-
{{!}} width="423" valign="top"{{!}}'''Respect for colleagues''', research participants, society, ecosystems, cultural heritage and the environment.
{{!}} width="87" valign="top"{{!}}
{{!}} width="159" valign="top"{{!}}
{{!}}-
{{!}} width="423" valign="top"{{!}}'''Accountability''' for the research from idea to publication, for its management and organisation, for training, supervision and mentoring, and for its wider impacts
{{!}} width="87" valign="top"{{!}}
{{!}} width="159" valign="top"{{!}}
{{!}}}
'''Table 2. What are the main research misconducts that you can identify in this dilemma?'''
{{{!}} class="wikitable" border="0" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="0" width="668"
{{!}} width="425"{{!}}'''RESEARCH MISCONDUCT …/DILEMMA'''
{{!}} width="85"{{!}}'''DILEMMA Nº _____'''
{{!}} width="159"{{!}}'''NOTES'''
{{!}}-
{{!}} width="425" valign="top"{{!}}'''Fabrication''' is making up results and recording them as if they were real.
{{!}} width="85" valign="top"{{!}}
{{!}} width="159" valign="top"{{!}}
{{!}}-
{{!}} width="425" valign="top"{{!}}'''Falsification''' is manipulating research materials, equipment or processes or changing, omitting or suppressing data or results without justification.
{{!}} width="85" valign="top"{{!}}
{{!}} width="159" valign="top"{{!}}
{{!}}-
{{!}} width="425" valign="top"{{!}}'''Plagiarism''' is using other people’s work and ideas without giving proper credit to the original source, thus violating the rights of the original author(s) to their intellectual outputs.
{{!}} width="85" valign="top"{{!}}
{{!}} width="159" valign="top"{{!}}
{{!}}-
{{!}} width="425" valign="top"{{!}}Manipulating authorship or denigrating the role of other researchers in publications.
{{!}} width="85" valign="top"{{!}}
{{!}} width="159" valign="top"{{!}}
{{!}}-
{{!}} width="425" valign="top"{{!}}Accusing a researcher of misconduct or other violations in a malicious way.
{{!}} width="85" valign="top"{{!}}
{{!}} width="159" valign="top"{{!}}
{{!}}-
{{!}} width="425" valign="top"{{!}}Misrepresenting research achievements.
{{!}} width="85" valign="top"{{!}}
{{!}} width="159" valign="top"{{!}}
{{!}}-
{{!}} width="425" valign="top"{{!}}Exaggerating the importance and practical applicability of findings.
{{!}} width="85" valign="top"{{!}}
{{!}} width="159" valign="top"{{!}}
{{!}}-
{{!}} width="425" valign="top"{{!}}Re-publishing substantive parts of one’s own earlier publications, including translations, without duly acknowledging or citing the original (‘self-plagiarism’).
{{!}} width="85" valign="top"{{!}}
{{!}} width="159" valign="top"{{!}}
{{!}}-
{{!}} width="425" valign="top"{{!}}Citing selectively to enhance own findings or to please editors, reviewers or colleagues.
{{!}} width="85" valign="top"{{!}}
{{!}} width="159" valign="top"{{!}}
{{!}}-
{{!}} width="425" valign="top"{{!}}Withholding research results.
{{!}} width="85" valign="top"{{!}}
{{!}} width="159" valign="top"{{!}}
{{!}}-
{{!}} width="425" valign="top"{{!}}Allowing funders/sponsors to jeopardise independence in the research process or reporting of results so as to introduce or promulgate bias.
{{!}} width="85" valign="top"{{!}}
{{!}} width="159" valign="top"{{!}}
{{!}}-
{{!}} width="425" valign="top"{{!}}Expanding unnecessarily the bibliography of a study.
{{!}} width="85" valign="top"{{!}}
{{!}} width="159" valign="top"{{!}}
{{!}}-
{{!}} width="425" valign="top"{{!}}Delaying or inappropriately hampering the work of other researchers.
{{!}} width="85" valign="top"{{!}}
{{!}} width="159" valign="top"{{!}}
{{!}}-
{{!}} width="425" valign="top"{{!}}Misusing seniority to encourage violations of research integrity.
{{!}} width="85" valign="top"{{!}}
{{!}} width="159" valign="top"{{!}}
{{!}}-
{{!}} width="425" valign="top"{{!}}Ignoring putative violations of research integrity by others or covering up inappropriate responses to misconduct or other violations by institutions.
{{!}} width="85" valign="top"{{!}}
{{!}} width="159" valign="top"{{!}}
{{!}}-
{{!}} width="425" valign="top"{{!}}Establishing or supporting journals that undermine the quality control of research (‘predatory journals’).
{{!}} width="85" valign="top"{{!}}
{{!}} width="159" valign="top"{{!}}
{{!}}}
'''Table 3. What are the relevant virtues that the researcher must have in order to take the decision chosen by the group?'''
{{{!}} class="wikitable" border="1" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="0"
{{!}} width="243"{{!}}'''VIRTUES'''
{{!}} width="142"{{!}}'''DILEMMA Nº _____'''
{{!}} width="233"{{!}}'''NOTES'''
{{!}}-
{{!}} width="243"{{!}}Resoluteness
{{!}} width="142" valign="top"{{!}}
{{!}} width="233" valign="top"{{!}}
{{!}}-
{{!}} width="243"{{!}}Accountability
{{!}} width="142" valign="top"{{!}}
{{!}} width="233" valign="top"{{!}}
{{!}}-
{{!}} width="243"{{!}}Availability
{{!}} width="142" valign="top"{{!}}
{{!}} width="233" valign="top"{{!}}
{{!}}-
{{!}} width="243"{{!}}Competency
{{!}} width="142" valign="top"{{!}}
{{!}} width="233" valign="top"{{!}}
{{!}}-
{{!}} width="243"{{!}}Patience
{{!}} width="142" valign="top"{{!}}
{{!}} width="233" valign="top"{{!}}
{{!}}-
{{!}} width="243"{{!}}Perseverance
{{!}} width="142" valign="top"{{!}}
{{!}} width="233" valign="top"{{!}}
{{!}}-
{{!}} width="243"{{!}}Reliability
{{!}} width="142" valign="top"{{!}}
{{!}} width="233" valign="top"{{!}}
{{!}}-
{{!}} width="243"{{!}}Sincerity
{{!}} width="142" valign="top"{{!}}
{{!}} width="233" valign="top"{{!}}
{{!}}-
{{!}} width="243"{{!}}Creativity
{{!}} width="142" valign="top"{{!}}
{{!}} width="233" valign="top"{{!}}
{{!}}-
{{!}} width="243"{{!}}Honesty
{{!}} width="142" valign="top"{{!}}
{{!}} width="233" valign="top"{{!}}
{{!}}-
{{!}} width="243"{{!}}Objectivity
{{!}} width="142" valign="top"{{!}}
{{!}} width="233" valign="top"{{!}}
{{!}}-
{{!}} width="243"{{!}}Humility
{{!}} width="142" valign="top"{{!}}
{{!}} width="233" valign="top"{{!}}
{{!}}-
{{!}} width="243"{{!}}Punctuality
{{!}} width="142" valign="top"{{!}}
{{!}} width="233" valign="top"{{!}}
{{!}}-
{{!}} width="243"{{!}}Trustworthiness/truthfulness
{{!}} width="142" valign="top"{{!}}
{{!}} width="233" valign="top"{{!}}
{{!}}-
{{!}} width="243"{{!}}Selflessness
{{!}} width="142" valign="top"{{!}}
{{!}} width="233" valign="top"{{!}}
{{!}}-
{{!}} width="243"{{!}}Reflexivity
{{!}} width="142" valign="top"{{!}}
{{!}} width="233" valign="top"{{!}}
{{!}}-
{{!}} width="243"{{!}}Clarity of purpose
{{!}} width="142" valign="top"{{!}}
{{!}} width="233" valign="top"{{!}}
{{!}}-
{{!}} width="243"{{!}}Collaborative spirit
{{!}} width="142" valign="top"{{!}}
{{!}} width="233" valign="top"{{!}}
{{!}}-
{{!}} width="243"{{!}}Fairness
{{!}} width="142" valign="top"{{!}}
{{!}} width="233" valign="top"{{!}}
{{!}}-
{{!}} width="243"{{!}}Loyalty
{{!}} width="142" valign="top"{{!}}
{{!}} width="233" valign="top"{{!}}
{{!}}-
{{!}} width="243"{{!}}Moderation
{{!}} width="142" valign="top"{{!}}
{{!}} width="233" valign="top"{{!}}
{{!}}-
{{!}} width="243"{{!}}Positivity
{{!}} width="142" valign="top"{{!}}
{{!}} width="233" valign="top"{{!}}
{{!}}-
{{!}} width="243" valign="top"{{!}}Respectfulness
{{!}} width="142" valign="top"{{!}}
{{!}} width="233" valign="top"{{!}}
{{!}}-
{{!}} width="243" valign="top"{{!}}Honesty
{{!}} width="142" valign="top"{{!}}
{{!}} width="233" valign="top"{{!}}
{{!}}}
}}
{{Instruction Step Trainer
|Instruction Step Title= Read the instructions
|Instruction Step Text=Read the '''[https://www.eur.nl/en/media/2020-07-dilemma-game-app-instructions-and-suggestions instructions]''' of the Rotterdam dilemma game. Please note that there are some differences between the original game kit and the modified RDG in terms of aims and applications. In the following steps the procedures for the use of the modified version are explained. This version requires participants not merely to play the game, but at the same time to reflect on their justifications, analyse their and others’ discussion processes, and work together to relate the case at hand with the elements of the ECoC and RI virtues. Thus, this version takes longer, and is more demanding.
}}
{{Instruction Step Trainer
|Instruction Step Title=Select the cases
|Instruction Step Text='''Examine the cases''' in the original game kit and familiarize yourself with the classification criteria. '''Select the dilemmas''' you want to discuss. Please note that cases are grouped per topic. If the training is specifically aimed to reflect on issues such as research processes, roles of different parties or publication ethics, the trainer might pick cases which correspond to those topics.
}}
{{Instruction Step Trainer
|Instruction Step Title=Select a format for the case
|Instruction Step Text=The exercises is suitable to be used both in bigger groups or with several small groups. If you aim for ''more reflection ''in your training, go for small groups. If you would like to ''create awareness'' in participants first, then facilitate the exercise with bigger groups. Please make sure to decide on this beforehand (see practical tips for more instructions).
}}
{{Instruction Step Trainer
|Instruction Step Title=Introduction – 5 min
|Instruction Step Text=Introduce yourself. Briefly inform participants about the background, the aim, and the description of the game. Emphasize that the information shared during the exercise will be kept confidential. You can consider asking participants to sign a confidentiality agreement.
}}
{{Instruction Step Trainer
|Instruction Step Title=Forming groups – 5 min
|Instruction Step Text=Divide participants into groups of four. Keep in mind that the game can also be played plenary if this fits the groups’ aims (please see practical tips).
}}
{{Instruction Step Trainer
|Instruction Step Title=Explaining the rules and letting participants play the game – 15 min
|Instruction Step Text=Explain how the game is played by mentioning the [https://www.eur.nl/en/media/2020-07-dilemma-game-app-instructions-and-suggestions rules], the materials to be used, and steps to be followed. Make sure participants have downloaded the dilemma game app. Emphasize that participants can ask technical questions to you any time, and let participants know how much time they will have to discuss the dilemma(s).
}}
{{Instruction Step Trainer
|Instruction Step Title=Filling in the forms – 15 min
|Instruction Step Text=Ask participants to work in groups to fill out the tables (see practical tips).
}}
{{Instruction Step Trainer
|Instruction Step Title=Plenary debriefs – 15 min
|Instruction Step Text=Ask a brief summary of what has just been discussed in the group(s). You may suggest groups to assign a member as a spokesman to shortly present their discussions. A plenary debrief may be useful to allow room for questions justifications or more general themes. Invite participants to actively listen to what others have to say and share their views openly.
}}
{{Instruction Step Trainer
|Instruction Step Title=Conclusion - 15 min
|Instruction Step Text=Ask the group to reflect on the process, and to evaluate if the learning objectives were met. Foster a brief dialogue on what might have just been learned as a group.

In this step the facilitator may ask participants questions such as:

- Was it easy or difficult to identify the relevant principles and virtues in the chosen dilemma?

- Did this exercise help you with identifying and connecting to formally defined principles (ECoC)?

- Did most of the players agree or disagree with the final choice?

- What were the main points of contention?

- How come people disagreed (e.g. differences in experience, training, background, values, norms…)?

- What were the other options?

- Was any alternative option proposed?

- Did anybody change her/his mind as a result of the discussion?

- Why would you NOT do the moral ideal?

- What is needed in order to do the moral good in your work setting? What were the most convincing arguments used in the discussion?

- On which areas do you feel there is insufficient consensus?

- How to best address such future dilemmas in your daily work?

- How to achieve a more commonly shared set of values and principles?
}}
{{Instruction Step Trainer
|Instruction Step Title=Evaluation
|Instruction Step Text=Ask participants to shortly evaluate the session and your facilitation. In this step you may ask participants questions such as:

- Were the instructions clear enough?

- Do you think that the case was appropriate?

- Would you have any suggestions to do the session differently?

- What do you think the strong aspects of this session are?

Are there any points to improve?
}}
{{Instruction Remarks Trainer
|Has Remarks='''List of contributors:'''

Volkan Kavas, Joana Araújo, Ana Sofia Carvalho, Giulia Inguaggiato and Margreet Stolper

This training has been developed by the VIRT2UE project, which has received funding form the European Union’s H2020 research programme under grant agreement N 741782.
}}
{{Custom TabContent Close Trainer}}
{{Related To}}
{{Tags}}

Instruction:522ba3d0-9f26-41d5-9ecf-b4c88214887c

2020-10-27T08:49:39Z

0000-0001-5942-5204:

{{Instruction
|Title=The middle position
|Instruction Goal=This exercise helps to develop moral sensitivity with respect to basic virtues related to Research Integrity (RI). In particular it fosters reflection on the inherent moral ambiguity of specific virtues related and how this ambiguity looks like in concrete research practice.
|Has Requirements=You need to have read the instructions before experiencing the exercise.

Moreover, you need to be acquainted with:

a) The concept of [https://www.embassy.science/theme/virtues-in-research-integrity virtue] and its importance for ERI;

b) The concept of “middle position” or golden mean as described by Aristotle (see video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PrvtOWEXDIQ );

c) The content of the European Code of Conduct for Research Integrity (especially the first section);

e) The definition of [https://www.embassy.science/theme/dialogue-versus-debate dialogue versus debate].

You need to have a background in research (i.e. be employed as researchers) or be a trainer/educator/teacher who has had experience in research in the past.
|Has Duration=1 and 1/2
|Has Participants=20
|Important For=Trainers in training; Research itegrity trainers; Researchers
|Has Method=Face to Face; Participatory sessions
}}
{{Custom TabContent Trainee Open}}
{{Instruction Steps Foldout Trainee}}
{{Instruction Perspective Trainee
|Is About=This exercise is based on the assumption that it is not always clear what research integrity means in concrete situations, and more in particular how virtuous behaviors look like in concrete situations in which research integrity is at stake. Virtues are often described as in between two extremes of vices. For example, courage is a virtue between two extremes: cowardice and reckless. This exercise aims at looking critically into the nuances of the practical meanings of virtues related to research integrity (RI) in your everyday research practice.
|Important Because=According to various RI codes of conduct or guidelines, researchers are expected to possess and to behave according to specific virtues such as: ‘honesty’, ‘reliability’, ‘responsibility’ and ‘accountability’<ref>ALLEA - All European Academies. The European code of conduct for research integrity. ''Promoting Research Integrity in a Global Environment'' 161–168 (2017). doi:10.1142/9789814340984_0003</ref>. But which specific behavior can make justice to for example ‘honesty’? Moreover, can I as researcher be too honest? Or too little honest? This exercise aims to foster a critical and joint moral inquiry into what it means to demonstrate virtuous behavior in a challenging research integrity situation.
<references />
|Has Practical Tips='''List of virtues:'''

honesty; curiosity; attentiveness or observance; perseverance or patience; objectivity; humility to evidence; skepticism; meticulousness; courage; collaboration; resoluteness; accountability; availability; competency; reliability; sincerity; creativity; accountability; punctuality; truthfulness; selflessness; reflexivity; clarity of purpose; collaborative spirit; fairness; loyalty; moderation; positivity/open-mindedness; respectfulness.

'''Handout 1'''

'''FOR THE INDIVIDUAL PART OF THE EXERCISE'''

a. Situation & specific virtue that is at stake in your situation

Recall a concrete situation in your own research in which you had concerns about research integrity (or a virtue related to research integrity such as honesty, reliability, accountability), in which you were morally in doubt whether you as researcher should have done something differently. Which specific virtue is at stake in your situation?

b. Draw the continuum of your selected virtue

In order to decide which behavior fits well with the specific virtue at hand for each person and situation a balancing act is always required between two extreme positions (or vices): too little of the behavior related to the specific virtue, too much of the behavior related to of the specific virtue. To reflect on this for yourself in your specific situation, imagine a continuum of your selected virtue

1.Behavior A. (virtue is too weak) 2. Middle Position Behavior. 3. Behavior B. (virtue is too strong)

1.‘Right end: What would you do if too much of the behavior related to the specific virtue characterized your action?

2. Left end: What would you do if too little of the behavior related to the specific virtue characterized your action?

3. Middle position: What would you do if you demonstrated the right behavior, which perfectly represents your specific virtue in that situation.

An example of this continuum could be:

‘Imagine a situation in which your supervisor claims to be the first author on a paper you wrote by yourself. Depending on the person you are and the specific characteristics of the situation, reckless behavior could be that you start to complain about this claim from your supervisor in the local media and that you threat him with quitting your job. Cowardice behavior could be that you say nothing and just do what the supervisor asks. Courageous behavior in the middle could be that you ask for a specific meeting with you and other supervisors in order to discuss your moral questions giving this claim, referring to the author guidelines of Vancouver.’

cowardice behavior ------------------ courage behavior------------------------ reckless behavior

'''Handout 2'''

'''FOR THE SUBGROUP PART OF EXERCISE'''

According to your viewpoint, which virtue is at stake in the presented situation of the chosen case presenter?

Describe your own three kinds of behavior in the situation of the chosen case presenter

#‘Right end: What would you do if too much of the behavior related to the specific virtue characterized your action?

#Left end: What would you do if too little of the behavior related to the specific virtue characterized your action?

#Middle position: What would you do if you demonstrated the right behavior which perfectly represents your specific virtue in that situation?
}}
{{Instruction Step Trainee
|Instruction Step Title=Prepare for the session
|Instruction Step Text=One week before the exercise takes place you will be asked to think about a situation within your work as researcher in which you experienced a kind of moral doubt about what happened or about what you could/should do/have done. The case does not have to be written down beforehand. It does not have to be a dramatic case; ordinary cases which you are willing to share with others are also suitable.
}}
{{Instruction Step Trainee
|Instruction Step Title=Protect confidentiality
|Instruction Step Text=Prior to the session you will be asked to sign a confidentiality statement in order to formalize the fact that the information shared during the exercise will be kept confidential by you and the other participants in the session.
}}
{{Instruction Step Trainee
|Instruction Step Title=Experience the exercise
|Instruction Step Text=The trainer will facilitate the exercise by following the three parts.

PART I:

INDIVIDUAL REFLECTION

#Recall a concrete situation in which you had concerns about research integrity, and in which you had doubts about the right thing to do.
#Select one virtue, which was at stake in that situation.
#Reflect on which behavior fits well with the specific virtue at hand.

PART II:

REFLECTIONS IN SUBGROUP

#Select a spokesperson who can report on your group process to the larger group.
#Share your case with the group and listen carefully to other’s cases.
#Select a case to reflect upon collectively.
#Fill in the handout 2 individually (see practical tips).
#Share your notes with your subgroup by engaging in a group reflection/dialogue about differences/similarities related to the virtues and behaviors, which were chosen.

Part III:

PLENARY: SUMMARY OF THE SUBGROUP WORK AND OVERALL LESSONS LEARNED

#Report back on the discussion in subgroups.
#Formulate lesson(s) learned.
#Evaluate the session.

(For a detailed description of the steps see the trainers instructions).
}}
{{Instruction Remarks Trainee
|Has Remarks='''List of contributors:'''

Bert Molewijk, Giulia Inguaggiato, Rose Bernabe, Panagiotis Kavouras, Eleni Spayrakou, Vicko Tomic, Franca Marino.

This training has been developed by the VIRT2UE project, which has received funding form the European Union’s H2020 research programme under grant agreement N 741782.
}}
{{Custom TabContent Close Trainee}}
{{Custom TabContent Trainer Open}}
{{Instruction Steps Foldout Trainer}}
{{Instruction Perspective Trainer
|Is About=This exercise is inspired by an Aristotelian method of moral inquiry into emotions within clinical ethics support. Its main focus is letting participants look critically into the nuances of the practical meanings of abstract research integrity (RI) virtues in their everyday research practice. This exercise is based on the assumption that it is not always clear what research integrity means in concrete situations. Within this exercise, trainers foster reflection about virtues related to Research Integrity such as courage, accountability, honesty. By means of this exercise, participants reflect on which virtues are associated with research integrity and how virtuous behavior look like. Virtues are often described as in between two extremes of vices. This exercise aims at looking critically into the nuances of the practical meanings of virtues related to research integrity (RI) in your everyday research practice.
|Important Because=In various RI codes of conduct or guidelines, researchers are expected to possess and to behave according to specific virtues by being: ‘honest’, ‘reliable’, ‘responsible’ and ‘accountable’1. These virtues are intended to guide researchers in acting with integrity when they are confronted with moral issues regarding research integrity. But which specific behavior can best honor for example ‘honesty’? Moreover, can a researcher be too honest? Or: too little honest? Following the example of honesty: what is, for a specific person in a specific context, the right way to be honest?

This exercise aims to train you as trainer to foster a critical and joint moral inquiry among the trainees into what it means to demonstrate virtuous behaviors.
|Has Practical Tips='''List of virtues'''<ref>From The Europeand Code of conduct, available at http://www.allea.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/03/ALLEA-European-Code-of-Conduct-for-Research-Integrity-2017-1.pdf and the “Report on the results from the stakeholder focus group” by Ana Marusic et al.</ref>''':'''

honesty; curiosity; attentiveness or observance; perseverance or patience; objectivity; humility to evidence; skepticism; meticulousness; courage; collaboration; resoluteness; accountability; availability; competency; reliability; sincerity; creativity; accountability; punctuality; truthfulness; selflessness; reflexivity; clarity of purpose; collaborative spirit; fairness; loyalty; moderation; positivity/open-mindedness; respectfulness.

'''Handout 1'''

'''FOR THE INDIVIDUAL PART OF THE EXERCISE'''

a. Situation & specific virtue that is at stake in your situation

Recall a concrete situation in your own research in which you had concerns about research integrity (or a virtue related to research integrity such as honesty, reliability, accountability), in which you were morally in doubt whether you as researcher should have done something differently. Which specific virtue is at stake in your situation?

b. Draw the continuum of your selected virtue

In order to decide which behavior fits well with the specific virtue at hand for each person and situation a balancing act is always required between two extreme positions (or vices): too little of the behavior related to the specific virtue, too much of the behavior related to of the specific virtue. To reflect on this for yourself in your specific situation, imagine a continuum of your selected virtue.

1. Behavior A. (virtue is too weak) 2. Middle Position Behavior. 3. Behavior B. (virtue is too strong)

#‘Right end: What would you do if too much of the behavior related to the specific virtue characterized your action?
#Left end: What would you do if too little of the behavior related to the specific virtue characterized your action?
#Middle position: What would you do if you demonstrated the right behavior, which perfectly represents your specific virtue in that situation.

An example of this continuum could be:

''‘Imagine a situation in which your supervisor claims to be the first author on a paper you wrote by yourself. Depending on the person you are and the specific characteristics of the situation, reckless behavior could be that you start to complain about this claim from your supervisor in the local media and that you threat him with quitting your job. Cowardice behavior could be that you say nothing and just do what the supervisor asks. Courageous behavior in the middle could be that you ask for a specific meeting with you and other supervisors in order to discuss your moral questions giving this claim, referring to the author guidelines of Vancouver.’''

'''''cowardice behavior ------------------ courage behavior------------------------ reckless behavior'''''

'''Handout 2'''

'''FOR THE SUBGROUP PART OF EXERCISE'''

According to your viewpoint, which virtue is at stake in the presented situation of the chosen case presenter?

Describe your own three kinds of behavior in the situation of the chosen case presenter

#‘Right end: What would you do if too much of the behavior related to the specific virtue characterized your action?

#Left end: What would you do if too little of the behavior related to the specific virtue characterized your action?

#Middle position: What would you do if you demonstrated the right behavior which perfectly represents your specific virtue in that situation?
<references />
}}
{{Instruction Step Trainer
|Instruction Step Title=Prepare for the session
|Instruction Step Text=Prior to the exercise you get in contact with participants and ask them to reflect on a personal case or experienced situation within their work as researcher in which they experienced a kind of moral doubt about what happened or about what they could/should do/have done (i.e. clear-cut cases in which it is absolutely clear that something is morally wrong with respect to RI are not good cases).

It is important that participants reflect on their own experienced case, yet the case does not have to be written down beforehand. It does not have to be a dramatic case; ordinary cases which they are willing to share with others are also suitable.
}}
{{Instruction Step Trainer
|Instruction Step Title=Protect confidentiality
|Instruction Step Text=Within this exercise you foster reflection about personal experiences and moral uncertainty. For this reason, it is important to create a safe learning environment where participants feel confident to share their cases and ideas.

While facilitating the exercise try to protect participants’ vulnerability and encourage participate to respect others’ opinions.

Moreover, prior to the session we recommend asking participants to sign a confidentiality statement, in order to formalize the fact that the information shared during the exercise will be kept confidential by you and the other participants in the session.
}}
{{Instruction Step Trainer
|Instruction Step Title=Introduce the exercise – 20 min
|Instruction Step Text=a. Welcome participants and start the session by engaging participants in an open reflection (ice breaker). Ask participants:

*Are you always honest (as researcher)?
*Can you be too honest (as researcher)?

b. After collecting a couple of answers move to the explanation of the aims/learning objectives of the exercise. Underline that within this exercise participants are invited to reflect on their own moral challenges related to research integrity (i.e. one should not morally judge or condemn the other participants if they present their own personal case).

c. Give a brief introduction to the meaning of virtues, virtue ethics and the Middle Position (you can choose to use this PPT). You should keep in mind and convey to the trainees the fact that the process of finding the middle position as described by Aristotle is something which requires practice and education. In that sense becoming accustomed to the virtuous life is something you develop by day by day experience. Furthermore, remind participant that the Middle Position does not have to be exactly in the middle (see the You Tube video on virtue ethics). The golden mean varies according to the situation. At this point it might be helpful to refer participants to the page “Virtues in research integrity” where a list of virtues can be found (see practical tips).

TIP:

During the exercise, it is recommended to refrain from having a theoretical discussion on (Aristotelian) virtue ethics and the respective meta-theoretical issues since this put participants in an abstract academic discussion which is not the aim of this exercise.
}}
{{Instruction Step Trainer
|Instruction Step Title=Individual reflection on personal case - 15 minutes
|Instruction Step Text=a. Ask each trainee to recall the concrete situation they experienced (this was part of the assignment prior to this meeting\exercise which you as trainer distributed before to the session). This should be a concrete situation in their own research in which they had concerns about research integrity (or a virtue related to research integrity such as honesty, reliability, accountability), and in which they were morally in doubt whether they as researchers should have done something differently.

b. Ask trainees to select one virtue which was at stake in their specific situation. Ask trainees to check whether and to which degree the virtues mentioned in the European Code of Conduct for Research Integrity (ECoC) are relevant here. If so, in which way? If not, why not?

c. Ask trainees to reflect on which concrete behavior in the specific situation fits well with the specific virtue at hand. A balancing act is always required to determine the right course of action. To reflect on this, ask participants to reflect on their own situation and imagine a continuum. For example, if courage is the selected virtue:

coward behavior -------------- courageous behavior-------------------- reckless behavior

d. Invite participants to write down three kinds of behaviors to answer the following questions (please ask the participants to use the handout 1 in the practical tips section).

1) What would you do if your behavior represents too much of the specific virtue? In other words, what would you do concretely if your behavior which should represent the virtue is too strong (right end of the spectrum)?

2) What would you do if your behavior represents too little of the specific virtue? In other words, what would you do concretely if the virtue which should guide your behavior is not prominent enough (left end of the spectrum)?

3) What would you do if you demonstrated the right behavior which perfectly represents your specific virtue in that situation? This means, according to your conviction and the particular person you are in that specific context. In this case your behavior representing the specific virtue is neither too strong and nor too weak. You stand between both extremes in your actions/thoughts/decisions as researcher. This is the middle position.

 
}}
{{Instruction Step Trainer
|Instruction Step Title=Group reflection on other’s cases (groups of 4 to 6 participants) (30 minutes)
|Instruction Step Text=a. Divide participants into small group and ask each group to set a moderator/rapporteur (for the plenary session at the end of the exercise).

b. Ask each participant to present (in 1 minute) the situation to their subgroup by describing the moral uncertainty or concern they experienced, including the specific virtue important in that situation. At this point participants should not disclose how the situation ended (what did they do in that situation).

a. Ask each subgroup to choose (e.g. by voting) which situation and virtue they want to reflect upon as a group among the ones presented. Invite participants in each group to place themselves in the selected situation and ask the case owner factual clarification questions (i.e. no judgments, advice or conclusions);

b. Invite the participants to choose which virtue they think is at stake in the presented situation and to write the three notes themselves for their virtue (by using the handout 2 available in the practical tips);

c. After each participant completed the form, ask them to briefly share their notes with their subgroups by engaging in a group reflection/dialogue about differences/similarities related to the virtues and behaviors which were chosen. Invite participants to reflect on:

*What is interesting or surprising?
*Did you have different virtues in the first place?
*What did you learn from each other with respect to how the middle position was described and reflected upon?
*In which way were the virtues of the ECoC represented in the virtues mentioned by the participants?
}}
{{Instruction Step Trainer
|Instruction Step Title=Plenary reflection (20 minutes)
|Instruction Step Text=Ask rapporteurs to very briefly:

*summarize the virtues discussed in the subgroup discussions, including differences and similarities;
*summarize differences and similarities in how persons formulated the middle position (not the differences and similarities themselves but in general);

''Tip: focus especially on virtues, and middle positions (not on the specific cases themselves)''

To start a plenary conversation after the brief summaries of the rapporteurs ask participants the following questions:

- Was it easy or difficult to find a personal case, and, to select a virtue for it?

- Did you learn to look at inherent moral ambiguity of specific virtues in a broader or in a different way when these were identified by others?

- Would the case owner want to describe how he/she experienced the exercise?
}}
{{Instruction Step Trainer
|Instruction Step Title=Final reflections and lessons learned
|Instruction Step Text=Together with all participants formulate some overarching lessons-learned (for the group). Pay specific attention to the identification and justification of the middle position.

Ask participants how the lessons learned from this exercise relate to the ECoC and in which way this exercise will help them in fostering the principles and virtues mentioned in the ECoC;

*Ask participants if and how this exercise and the idea of finding a Middle Position might help them when being confronted with a moral issue regarding Research Integrity in their work as researcher.
*Briefly repeat the aims of this exercise and ask participants in which degree there are met.

Please write down on the flip-chart the main lessons-learned and some reflections on how this exercise might help when being confronted with a moral issue regarding Research Integrity in participants’ work as researchers.
}}
{{Instruction Remarks Trainer
|Has Remarks='''List of contributors:'''

Bert Molewijk, Giulia Inguaggiato, Rose Bernabe, Panagiotis Kavouras, Eleni Spayrakou, Vicko Tomic, Franca Marino.

This training has been developed by the VIRT2UE project, which has received funding form the European Union’s H2020 research programme under grant agreement N 741782.
}}
{{Custom TabContent Close Trainer}}
{{Related To}}
{{Tags}}

Instruction:522ba3d0-9f26-41d5-9ecf-b4c88214887c

2020-10-27T08:34:18Z

0000-0001-5942-5204:

{{Instruction
|Title=The middle position
|Instruction Goal=This exercise helps to develop moral sensitivity with respect to basic virtues related to Research Integrity (RI). In particular it fosters reflection on the inherent moral ambiguity of specific virtues related and how this ambiguity looks like in concrete research practice.
|Has Requirements=You need to have read the instructions before experiencing the exercise.

Moreover, you need to be acquainted with:

a) The concept of [https://www.embassy.science/theme/virtues-in-research-integrity virtue] and its importance for ERI;

b) The concept of “middle position” or golden mean as described by Aristotle (see video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PrvtOWEXDIQ );

c) The content of the European Code of Conduct for Research Integrity (especially the first section);

e) The definition of [https://www.embassy.science/theme/dialogue-versus-debate dialogue versus debate].

You need to have a background in research (i.e. be employed as researchers) or be a trainer/educator/teacher who has had experience in research in the past.
|Has Duration=1 and 1/2
|Has Participants=20
|Important For=Trainers in training; Research itegrity trainers; Researchers
|Has Method=Face to Face; Participatory sessions
}}
{{Custom TabContent Trainee Open}}
{{Instruction Steps Foldout Trainee}}
{{Instruction Perspective Trainee
|Is About=This exercise is based on the assumption that it is not always clear what research integrity means in concrete situations, and more in particular how virtuous behaviors look like in concrete situations in which research integrity is at stake. Virtues are often described as in between two extremes of vices. For example, courage is a virtue between two extremes: cowardice and reckless. This exercise aims at looking critically into the nuances of the practical meanings of virtues related to research integrity (RI) in your everyday research practice.
|Important Because=According to various RI codes of conduct or guidelines, researchers are expected to possess and to behave according to specific virtues such as: ‘honesty’, ‘reliability’, ‘responsibility’ and ‘accountability’<ref>ALLEA - All European Academies. The European code of conduct for research integrity. ''Promoting Research Integrity in a Global Environment'' 161–168 (2017). doi:10.1142/9789814340984_0003</ref>. But which specific behavior can make justice to for example ‘honesty’? Moreover, can I as researcher be too honest? Or too little honest? This exercise aims to foster a critical and joint moral inquiry into what it means to demonstrate virtuous behavior in a challenging research integrity situation.
<references />
|Has Practical Tips='''List of virtues:'''

honesty; curiosity; attentiveness or observance; perseverance or patience; objectivity; humility to evidence; skepticism; meticulousness; courage; collaboration; resoluteness; accountability; availability; competency; reliability; sincerity; creativity; accountability; punctuality; truthfulness; selflessness; reflexivity; clarity of purpose; collaborative spirit; fairness; loyalty; moderation; positivity/open-mindedness; respectfulness.

'''Handout 1'''

'''FOR THE INDIVIDUAL PART OF THE EXERCISE'''

a. Situation & specific virtue that is at stake in your situation

Recall a concrete situation in your own research in which you had concerns about research integrity (or a virtue related to research integrity such as honesty, reliability, accountability), in which you were morally in doubt whether you as researcher should have done something differently. Which specific virtue is at stake in your situation?

b. Draw the continuum of your selected virtue

In order to decide which behavior fits well with the specific virtue at hand for each person and situation a balancing act is always required between two extreme positions (or vices): too little of the behavior related to the specific virtue, too much of the behavior related to of the specific virtue. To reflect on this for yourself in your specific situation, imagine a continuum of your selected virtue

1.Behavior A. (virtue is too weak) 2. Middle Position Behavior. 3. Behavior B. (virtue is too strong)

1.‘Right end: What would you do if too much of the behavior related to the specific virtue characterized your action?

2. Left end: What would you do if too little of the behavior related to the specific virtue characterized your action?

3. Middle position: What would you do if you demonstrated the right behavior, which perfectly represents your specific virtue in that situation.

An example of this continuum could be:

‘Imagine a situation in which your supervisor claims to be the first author on a paper you wrote by yourself. Depending on the person you are and the specific characteristics of the situation, reckless behavior could be that you start to complain about this claim from your supervisor in the local media and that you threat him with quitting your job. Cowardice behavior could be that you say nothing and just do what the supervisor asks. Courageous behavior in the middle could be that you ask for a specific meeting with you and other supervisors in order to discuss your moral questions giving this claim, referring to the author guidelines of Vancouver.’

cowardice behavior ------------------ courage behavior------------------------ reckless behavior

'''Handout 2'''

'''FOR THE SUBGROUP PART OF EXERCISE'''

According to your viewpoint, which virtue is at stake in the presented situation of the chosen case presenter?

Describe your own three kinds of behavior in the situation of the chosen case presenter

#‘Right end: What would you do if too much of the behavior related to the specific virtue characterized your action?

#Left end: What would you do if too little of the behavior related to the specific virtue characterized your action?

#Middle position: What would you do if you demonstrated the right behavior which perfectly represents your specific virtue in that situation?
}}
{{Instruction Step Trainee
|Instruction Step Title=Prepare for the session
|Instruction Step Text=One week before the exercise takes place you will be asked to think about a situation within your work as researcher in which you experienced a kind of moral doubt about what happened or about what you could/should do/have done. The case does not have to be written down beforehand. It does not have to be a dramatic case; ordinary cases which you are willing to share with others are also suitable.
}}
{{Instruction Step Trainee
|Instruction Step Title=Protect confidentiality
|Instruction Step Text=Prior to the session you will be asked to sign a confidentiality statement in order to formalize the fact that the information shared during the exercise will be kept confidential by you and the other participants in the session.
}}
{{Instruction Step Trainee
|Instruction Step Title=Experience the exercise
|Instruction Step Text=The trainer will facilitate the exercise by following the three parts.

PART I:

INDIVIDUAL REFLECTION

#Recall a concrete situation in which you had concerns about research integrity, and in which you had doubts about the right thing to do.
#Select one virtue, which was at stake in that situation.
#Reflect on which behavior fits well with the specific virtue at hand.

PART II:

REFLECTIONS IN SUBGROUP

#Select a spokesperson who can report on your group process to the larger group.
#Share your case with the group and listen carefully to other’s cases.
#Select a case to reflect upon collectively.
#Fill in the handout 2 individually (see practical tips).
#Share your notes with your subgroup by engaging in a group reflection/dialogue about differences/similarities related to the virtues and behaviors, which were chosen.

Part III:

PLENARY: SUMMARY OF THE SUBGROUP WORK AND OVERALL LESSONS LEARNED

#Report back on the discussion in subgroups.
#Formulate lesson learned.
#Evaluate the session.

(For a detailed description of the steps see the trainers instructions).
}}
{{Instruction Remarks Trainee
|Has Remarks='''List of contributors:'''

Bert Molewijk, Giulia Inguaggiato, Rose Bernabe, Panagiotis Kavouras, Eleni Spayrakou, Vicko Tomic, Franca Marino.

This training has been developed by the VIRT2UE project, which has received funding form the European Union’s H2020 research programme under grant agreement N 741782.
}}
{{Custom TabContent Close Trainee}}
{{Custom TabContent Trainer Open}}
{{Instruction Steps Foldout Trainer}}
{{Instruction Perspective Trainer
|Is About=This exercise is inspired by an Aristotelian method of moral inquiry into emotions within clinical ethics support. Its main focus is letting participants look critically into the nuances of the practical meanings of abstract research integrity (RI) virtues in their everyday research practice. This exercise is based on the assumption that it is not always clear what research integrity means in concrete situations. Within this exercise, trainers foster reflection about virtues related to Research Integrity such as courage, accountability, honesty. By means of this exercise, participants reflect on which virtues are associated with research integrity and how virtuous behavior look like. Virtues are often described as in between two extremes of vices. This exercise aims at looking critically into the nuances of the practical meanings of virtues related to research integrity (RI) in your everyday research practice.
|Important Because=In various RI codes of conduct or guidelines, researchers are expected to possess and to behave according to specific virtues by being: ‘honest’, ‘reliable’, ‘responsible’ and ‘accountable’1. These virtues are intended to guide researchers in acting with integrity when they are confronted with moral issues regarding research integrity. But which specific behavior can best honor for example ‘honesty’? Moreover, can a researcher be too honest? Or: too little honest? Following the example of honesty: what is, for a specific person in a specific context, the right way to be honest?

This exercise aims to train you as trainer to foster a critical and joint moral inquiry among the trainees into what it means to demonstrate virtuous behaviors.
|Has Practical Tips='''List of virtues'''<ref>From The Europeand Code of conduct, available at http://www.allea.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/03/ALLEA-European-Code-of-Conduct-for-Research-Integrity-2017-1.pdf and the “Report on the results from the stakeholder focus group” by Ana Marusic et al.</ref>''':'''

honesty; curiosity; attentiveness or observance; perseverance or patience; objectivity; humility to evidence; skepticism; meticulousness; courage; collaboration; resoluteness; accountability; availability; competency; reliability; sincerity; creativity; accountability; punctuality; truthfulness; selflessness; reflexivity; clarity of purpose; collaborative spirit; fairness; loyalty; moderation; positivity/open-mindedness; respectfulness.

'''Handout 1'''

'''FOR THE INDIVIDUAL PART OF THE EXERCISE'''

a. Situation & specific virtue that is at stake in your situation

Recall a concrete situation in your own research in which you had concerns about research integrity (or a virtue related to research integrity such as honesty, reliability, accountability), in which you were morally in doubt whether you as researcher should have done something differently. Which specific virtue is at stake in your situation?

b. Draw the continuum of your selected virtue

In order to decide which behavior fits well with the specific virtue at hand for each person and situation a balancing act is always required between two extreme positions (or vices): too little of the behavior related to the specific virtue, too much of the behavior related to of the specific virtue. To reflect on this for yourself in your specific situation, imagine a continuum of your selected virtue.

1. Behavior A. (virtue is too weak) 2. Middle Position Behavior. 3. Behavior B. (virtue is too strong)

#‘Right end: What would you do if too much of the behavior related to the specific virtue characterized your action?
#Left end: What would you do if too little of the behavior related to the specific virtue characterized your action?
#Middle position: What would you do if you demonstrated the right behavior, which perfectly represents your specific virtue in that situation.

An example of this continuum could be:

''‘Imagine a situation in which your supervisor claims to be the first author on a paper you wrote by yourself. Depending on the person you are and the specific characteristics of the situation, reckless behavior could be that you start to complain about this claim from your supervisor in the local media and that you threat him with quitting your job. Cowardice behavior could be that you say nothing and just do what the supervisor asks. Courageous behavior in the middle could be that you ask for a specific meeting with you and other supervisors in order to discuss your moral questions giving this claim, referring to the author guidelines of Vancouver.’''

'''''cowardice behavior ------------------ courage behavior------------------------ reckless behavior'''''

'''Handout 2'''

'''FOR THE SUBGROUP PART OF EXERCISE'''

According to your viewpoint, which virtue is at stake in the presented situation of the chosen case presenter?

Describe your own three kinds of behavior in the situation of the chosen case presenter

#‘Right end: What would you do if too much of the behavior related to the specific virtue characterized your action?

#Left end: What would you do if too little of the behavior related to the specific virtue characterized your action?

#Middle position: What would you do if you demonstrated the right behavior which perfectly represents your specific virtue in that situation?
<references />
}}
{{Instruction Step Trainer
|Instruction Step Title=Prepare for the session
|Instruction Step Text=Prior to the exercise you get in contact with participants and ask them to reflect on a personal case or experienced situation within their work as researcher in which they experienced a kind of moral doubt about what happened or about what they could/should do/have done (i.e. clear-cut cases in which it is absolutely clear that something is morally wrong with respect to RI are not good cases).

It is important that participants reflect on their own experienced case, yet the case does not have to be written down beforehand. It does not have to be a dramatic case; ordinary cases which they are willing to share with others are also suitable.
}}
{{Instruction Step Trainer
|Instruction Step Title=Protect confidentiality
|Instruction Step Text=Within this exercise you foster reflection about personal experiences and moral uncertainty. For this reason, it is important to create a safe learning environment where participants feel confident to share their cases and ideas.

While facilitating the exercise try to protect participants’ vulnerability and encourage participate to respect others’ opinions.

Moreover, prior to the session we recommend asking participants to sign a confidentiality statement, in order to formalize the fact that the information shared during the exercise will be kept confidential by you and the other participants in the session.
}}
{{Instruction Step Trainer
|Instruction Step Title=Introduce the exercise – 20 min
|Instruction Step Text=a. Welcome participants and start the session by engaging participants in an open reflection (ice breaker). Ask participants:

*Are you always honest (as researcher)?
*Can you be too honest (as researcher)?

b. After collecting a couple of answers move to the explanation of the aims/learning objectives of the exercise. Underline that within this exercise participants are invited to reflect on their own moral challenges related to research integrity (i.e. one should not morally judge or condemn the other participants if they present their own personal case).

c. Give a brief introduction to the meaning of virtues, virtue ethics and the Middle Position (you can choose to use this PPT). You should keep in mind and convey to the trainees the fact that the process of finding the middle position as described by Aristotle is something which requires practice and education. In that sense becoming accustomed to the virtuous life is something you develop by day by day experience. Furthermore, remind participant that the Middle Position does not have to be exactly in the middle (see the You Tube video on virtue ethics). The golden mean varies according to the situation. At this point it might be helpful to refer participants to the page “Virtues in research integrity” where a list of virtues can be found (see practical tips).

TIP:

During the exercise, it is recommended to refrain from having a theoretical discussion on (Aristotelian) virtue ethics and the respective meta-theoretical issues since this put participants in an abstract academic discussion which is not the aim of this exercise.
}}
{{Instruction Step Trainer
|Instruction Step Title=Individual reflection on personal case - 15 minutes
|Instruction Step Text=a. Ask each trainee to recall the concrete situation they experienced (this was part of the assignment prior to this meeting\exercise which you as trainer distributed before to the session). This should be a concrete situation in their own research in which they had concerns about research integrity (or a virtue related to research integrity such as honesty, reliability, accountability), and in which they were morally in doubt whether they as researchers should have done something differently.

b. Ask trainees to select one virtue which was at stake in their specific situation. Ask trainees to check whether and to which degree the virtues mentioned in the European Code of Conduct for Research Integrity (ECoC) are relevant here. If so, in which way? If not, why not?

c. Ask trainees to reflect on which concrete behavior in the specific situation fits well with the specific virtue at hand. A balancing act is always required to determine the right course of action. To reflect on this, ask participants to reflect on their own situation and imagine a continuum. For example, if courage is the selected virtue:

coward behavior -------------- courageous behavior-------------------- reckless behavior

d. Invite participants to write down three kinds of behaviors to answer the following questions (please ask the participants to use the handout 1 in the practical tips section).

1) What would you do if your behavior represents too much of the specific virtue? In other words, what would you do concretely if your behavior which should represent the virtue is too strong (right end of the spectrum)?

2) What would you do if your behavior represents too little of the specific virtue? In other words, what would you do concretely if the virtue which should guide your behavior is not prominent enough (left end of the spectrum)?

3) What would you do if you demonstrated the right behavior which perfectly represents your specific virtue in that situation? This means, according to your conviction and the particular person you are in that specific context. In this case your behavior representing the specific virtue is neither too strong and nor too weak. You stand between both extremes in your actions/thoughts/decisions as researcher. This is the middle position.

 
}}
{{Instruction Step Trainer
|Instruction Step Title=Group reflection on other’s cases (groups of 4 to 6 participants) (30 minutes)
|Instruction Step Text=a. Divide participants into small group and ask each group to set a moderator/rapporteur (for the plenary session at the end of the exercise).

b. Ask each participant to present (in 1 minute) the situation to their subgroup by describing the moral uncertainty or concern they experienced, including the specific virtue important in that situation. At this point participants should not disclose how the situation ended (what did they do in that situation).

a. Ask each subgroup to choose (e.g. by voting) which situation and virtue they want to reflect upon as a group among the ones presented. Invite participants in each group to place themselves in the selected situation and ask the case owner factual clarification questions (i.e. no judgments, advice or conclusions);

b. Invite the participants to choose which virtue they think is at stake in the presented situation and to write the three notes themselves for their virtue (by using the handout 2 available in the practical tips);

c. After each participant completed the form, ask them to briefly share their notes with their subgroups by engaging in a group reflection/dialogue about differences/similarities related to the virtues and behaviors which were chosen. Invite participants to reflect on:

*What is interesting or surprising?
*Did you have different virtues in the first place?
*What did you learn from each other with respect to how the middle position was described and reflected upon?
*In which way were the virtues of the ECoC represented in the virtues mentioned by the participants?
}}
{{Instruction Step Trainer
|Instruction Step Title=Plenary reflection (20 minutes)
|Instruction Step Text=Ask rapporteurs to very briefly:

*summarize the virtues discussed in the subgroup discussions, including differences and similarities;
*summarize differences and similarities in how persons formulated the middle position (not the differences and similarities themselves but in general);

''Tip: focus especially on virtues, and middle positions (not on the specific cases themselves)''

To start a plenary conversation after the brief summaries of the rapporteurs ask participants the following questions:

- Was it easy or difficult to find a personal case, and, to select a virtue for it?

- Did you learn to look at inherent moral ambiguity of specific virtues in a broader or in a different way when these were identified by others?

- Would the case owner want to describe how he/she experienced the exercise?
}}
{{Instruction Step Trainer
|Instruction Step Title=Final reflections and lessons learned
|Instruction Step Text=Together with all participants formulate some overarching lessons-learned (for the group). Pay specific attention to the identification and justification of the middle position.

Ask participants how the lessons learned from this exercise relate to the ECoC and in which way this exercise will help them in fostering the principles and virtues mentioned in the ECoC;

*Ask participants if and how this exercise and the idea of finding a Middle Position might help them when being confronted with a moral issue regarding Research Integrity in their work as researcher.
*Briefly repeat the aims of this exercise and ask participants in which degree there are met.

Please write down on the flip-chart the main lessons-learned and some reflections on how this exercise might help when being confronted with a moral issue regarding Research Integrity in participants’ work as researchers.
}}
{{Instruction Remarks Trainer
|Has Remarks='''List of contributors:'''

Bert Molewijk, Giulia Inguaggiato, Rose Bernabe, Panagiotis Kavouras, Eleni Spayrakou, Vicko Tomic, Franca Marino.

This training has been developed by the VIRT2UE project, which has received funding form the European Union’s H2020 research programme under grant agreement N 741782.
}}
{{Custom TabContent Close Trainer}}
{{Related To}}
{{Tags}}

User:0000-0001-5942-5204

2020-10-27T08:23:24Z

0000-0001-5942-5204: create user page