The Embassy of Good Science - User contributions [en]

Resource:67caae86-68db-49ea-8305-2010fe701aa6

2021-10-19T13:24:46Z

0000-0002-2385-985X:

{{Resource
|Resource Type=Scenarios
|Title=Training, Supervision and Mentoring with Integrity: An Educational Scenario by the EnTIRE project
|Is About=Members of The Embassy of Good Science have developed a set of eight scenarios for educational purposes and to stimulate strategic thinking about issues in research ethics and research integrity.

This scenario presents a hypothetical narrative that addresses specific ways in which [https://zenodo.org/record/4063900#.X3dC2pNKhjU '''training, supervision and mentoring practices can undermine the standards of research integrity'''].

It focuses on issues regarding:

*The obligations of research ethics committee members when it comes to their knowledge of different disciplinary designs, methodologies and analytical tools;
*The obligations to promote and provide training in different research integrity guidelines and standards;
*The relationships between discipline-specific, institutional and national codes of conduct;
*The navigation of the differences between discipline-specific, institutional and national codes of conduct;
*Allegations of conflicts of interest;
*The duties and obligations of project coordinators and principal investigators.

It is interspersed with questions and resource suggestions that help guide researchers, research ethics committees ('RECs'), research integrity offices ('RIOs') and research administrators in their deliberations concerning the research integrity issues raised by the narrative.
|Important Because=The scenarios are designed to help researchers, research ethics committees ('RECs'), research integrity offices ('RIOs') and research administrators to become better acquainted with The European Code of Conduct for Research Integrity ('ECCRI' or 'ECoC') as a regulatory document that articulates the standards of good research practice.

They also allow users to reflect on and apply their own national and institutional research ethics and research integrity codes as well as other key regulatory documents and guidelines.

The goal is for the user to gain knowledge of the standards associated with good research practices and to make sense of these standards in different research contexts.

According to the ECCRI/ECoC, there are eight categories of research contexts that are covered by the standards of good research practice:

1) Research Environment

2) [https://zenodo.org/record/4063900#.X3dC2pNKhjU '''Training, Supervision and Mentoring''']

3) Research Procedures

4) Safeguards

5) Data Practices and Management

6) Collaborative Working

7) Publication and Dissemination

8) Reviewing, Evaluating and Editing
|Important For=Academic staff; Administrators; Doctoral students; Postdocs; Early career researchers; Ethics committee members; Research Ethics Committees; Graduate students; PhD Students; Junior researchers; Professors; Research Integrity Officers; Researchers; Universities; Research institutions; Supervisors; Principal investigators; Research integrity trainers
|Has Best Practice=The aim of all eight scenarios is to allow researchers, research ethics committees ('RECs'), research integrity offices ('RIOs') and research administrators to focus their reflection on core principles and research contexts that enshrine good research practice as well as their local rules and practices.
}}
{{Link
|Has Link=https://zenodo.org/record/4063900#.X3dC2pNKhjU
}}
{{Related To
|Related To Resource=Resource:5bbdd729-8f96-432a-a0ee-56510e343d01;Resource:Aef6b98d-9cc5-4db0-bffd-4a3daa99a3f3;Resource:C99f17ec-3d1e-4f7a-bfc7-3e3607934ead;Resource:F6100097-fddb-4c77-9098-1bc767c34a6a;Resource:1d26fd13-1ced-44bc-8d19-e094b37f8f70;Resource:E99e20d0-8116-4d77-84ec-7df396703bf4;Resource:45a04c31-5a75-4816-8484-2dd9b71d1674;Resource:7f7810d8-74a2-42ac-906c-7f6a73fcd183
|Related To Theme=Theme:6d71bd59-c3bc-4cd5-9c9f-1ab4e53fc320;Theme:65e6f304-51e2-4e41-93d3-e48518248b39;Theme:8540d0c5-84a0-4c77-9f30-d1be51da0aa4;Theme:639528ea-d2c2-4565-8b44-15bb9646f74b;Theme:721dc5c7-8e47-41ca-a7b8-73d6a225c3c3;Theme:34a864d0-43b3-48bc-aaa3-438dcc124c02;Theme:Bd54dd3d-50ed-4f42-b5fb-473f2391714a;Theme:177ca35b-14f3-4f62-8bb2-f9cf9db28a70;Theme:73bfb9ec-b7f5-4a0a-a0b0-e460990b59cb;Theme:Ab4200ca-c14d-413d-a9f6-aa5a93e1800e
}}
{{Tags
|Has Virtue And Value=Fairness; Honesty; Respect; Responsibility
|Has Good Practice And Misconduct=Authorship; Bias; Conflict of Interest; Good Practice; Institutional Responsibilities; Mentoring; REC approval; Research Environments; Research culture; Research methods; Methodology; Responsibility; Supervision; Training
}}

Resource:E99e20d0-8116-4d77-84ec-7df396703bf4

2021-10-19T13:24:19Z

0000-0002-2385-985X:

{{Resource
|Resource Type=Scenarios
|Title=Safeguards, Data-sharing and the Disclosure of Sensitive Results: An Educational Scenario by the EnTIRE project
|Is About=Members of The Embassy of Good Science have developed a set of eight scenarios for educational purposes and to stimulate strategic thinking about issues in research ethics and research integrity.

This scenario presents a hypothetical narrative concerning the '''[https://zenodo.org/record/4063633#.X3cGu5NKjxQ safeguards required for data-sharing and data disclosure practices]'''.

It focuses on issues regarding:

*The ethical and regulatory standards governing data-sharing practices;
*The ethical dimensions of research involving children and schools;
*Amendments to research ethics protocols;
*Research participant complaints against researchers;
*Disclosure of sensitive research results.

It is interspersed with questions and resource suggestions that help guide researchers, research ethics committees ('RECs'), research integrity offices ('RIOs') and research administrators in their deliberations concerning the research integrity issues raised by the narrative.
|Important Because=The scenarios are designed to help researchers, research ethics committees ('RECs'), research integrity offices ('RIOs') and research administrators to become better acquainted with [https://ec.europa.eu/research/participants/data/ref/h2020/other/hi/h2020-ethics_code-of-conduct_en.pdf The European Code of Conduct for Research Integrity] ('ECCRI' or 'ECoC') as a regulatory document that articulates the standards of good research practice.

They also allow users to reflect on and apply their own national and institutional research ethics and research integrity codes as well as other key regulatory documents and guidelines.

The goal is for the user to gain knowledge of the standards associated with good research practices and to make sense of these standards in different research contexts.

According to the ECCRI/ECoC, there are eight categories of research contexts that are covered by the standards of good research practice:

1) Research Environment

2) Training, Supervision and Mentoring

3) Research Procedures

4) [https://zenodo.org/record/4063633#.X3cGu5NKjxQ '''Safeguards''']

5) Data Practices and Management

6) Collaborative Working

7) Publication and Dissemination

8) Reviewing, Evaluating and Editing
|Important For=Academic staff; Administrators; Doctoral students; Postdocs; Early career researchers; Ethics committee members; Research Ethics Committees; Graduate students; Junior researchers; PhD Students; Professors; Research Integrity Officers; Researchers; Supervisors; Universities; Research institutions; Research subjects
|Has Best Practice=The aim of all eight scenarios is to allow researchers, research ethics committees ('RECs'), research integrity offices ('RIOs') and research administrators to focus their reflection on core principles and research contexts that enshrine good research practice as well as their local rules and practices.
}}
{{Link
|Has Link=https://zenodo.org/record/4063633#.X3cGu5NKjxQ
}}
{{Related To
|Related To Resource=Resource:5bbdd729-8f96-432a-a0ee-56510e343d01;Resource:Aef6b98d-9cc5-4db0-bffd-4a3daa99a3f3;Resource:C99f17ec-3d1e-4f7a-bfc7-3e3607934ead;Resource:F6100097-fddb-4c77-9098-1bc767c34a6a;Resource:1d26fd13-1ced-44bc-8d19-e094b37f8f70;Resource:45a04c31-5a75-4816-8484-2dd9b71d1674;Resource:7f7810d8-74a2-42ac-906c-7f6a73fcd183;Resource:67caae86-68db-49ea-8305-2010fe701aa6
|Related To Theme=Theme:E5629f68-81f6-490d-84d6-fd1e63b8dbc7;Theme:A1a1b736-7002-405c-8375-711a11f20e04;Theme:0d054575-ca21-4209-b7c5-6120fc0ed647;Theme:540c9ba0-bc9c-4311-b3e1-7a650d2b9f0f;Theme:B14a910a-3bc4-40ff-a0e6-eb7119f51ed9;Theme:D44fd22a-ed5d-4120-a78b-8881747131fd;Theme:61d9a3f5-8f8b-4f6f-8363-fa53f959f131
}}
{{Tags
|Has Virtue And Value=Fairness; Honesty; Respect; Responsibility
|Has Good Practice And Misconduct=Allegation of Misconduct; Balancing harms and benefits; Complaints procedure; Confidentiality; Consent; Data Protection; Data sharing; Good Practice; Harm; Misconduct Investigations; Ownership; Personal Information; Safety; Safeguards; Privacy; REC approval; Research ethics; Research with Humans; Responsibility; Social responsibilities; Vulnerable and non-competent subjects
}}

Resource:7f7810d8-74a2-42ac-906c-7f6a73fcd183

2021-10-19T13:23:37Z

0000-0002-2385-985X:

{{Resource
|Resource Type=Scenarios
|Title=Reviewing, Evaluating, Editing and Research Integrity: An Educational Scenario by the EnTIRE project
|Is About=Members of The Embassy of Good Science have developed a set of eight scenarios for educational purposes and to stimulate strategic thinking about issues in research ethics and research integrity.

This scenario presents a hypothetical narrative concerning [https://zenodo.org/record/4063746#.X3cXC5NKjxQ '''the ethical and integrity standards governing peer review processes'''].

It focuses on issues regarding:

*The integrity of peer review processes;
*Institutional obligations to uphold the standards of good peer review practices;
*Plagiarism.

It is interspersed with questions and resource suggestions that help guide researchers, research ethics committees ('RECs'), research integrity offices ('RIOs') and research administrators in their deliberations concerning the research integrity issues raised by the narrative.
|Important Because=The scenarios are designed to help researchers, research ethics committees ('RECs'), research integrity offices ('RIOs') and research administrators to become better acquainted with [https://ec.europa.eu/research/participants/data/ref/h2020/other/hi/h2020-ethics_code-of-conduct_en.pdf The European Code of Conduct for Research Integrity] ('ECCRI' or 'ECoC') as a regulatory document that articulates the standards of good research practice.

They also allow users to reflect on and apply their own national and institutional research ethics and research integrity codes as well as other key regulatory documents and guidelines.

The goal is for the user to gain knowledge of the standards associated with good research practices and to make sense of these standards in different research contexts.

According to the ECCRI/ECoC, there are eight categories of research contexts that are covered by the standards of good research practice:

1) Research Environment

2) Training, Supervision and Mentoring

3) Research Procedures

4) Safeguards

5) Data Practices and Management

6) Collaborative Working

7) Publication and Dissemination

8) [https://zenodo.org/record/4063746#.X3cXC5NKjxQ '''Reviewing, Evaluating and Editing''']

 
|Important For=Academic staff; Administrators; Doctoral students; Postdocs; Early career researchers; Ethics committee members; Research Ethics Committees; Graduate students; PhD Students; Early career researchers; Junior researchers; Professors; Research Integrity Officers; Peer reviewers; Researchers; Universities; Research institutions; Supervisors; Editors; Journal editors; Journals
|Has Best Practice=The aim of all eight scenarios is to allow researchers, research ethics committees ('RECs'), research integrity offices ('RIOs') and research administrators to focus their reflection on core principles and research contexts that enshrine good research practice as well as their local rules and practices.
}}
{{Link
|Has Link=https://zenodo.org/record/4063746#.X3cXC5NKjxQ
}}
{{Related To
|Related To Resource=Resource:5bbdd729-8f96-432a-a0ee-56510e343d01;Resource:Aef6b98d-9cc5-4db0-bffd-4a3daa99a3f3;Resource:C99f17ec-3d1e-4f7a-bfc7-3e3607934ead;Resource:F6100097-fddb-4c77-9098-1bc767c34a6a;Resource:1d26fd13-1ced-44bc-8d19-e094b37f8f70;Resource:E99e20d0-8116-4d77-84ec-7df396703bf4;Resource:45a04c31-5a75-4816-8484-2dd9b71d1674;Resource:67caae86-68db-49ea-8305-2010fe701aa6;Resource:55cea558-b370-4eec-b4f5-0de97f815e67;Resource:38cabc43-2b53-4c98-80ea-89b97ef5107d;Resource:Aea9471a-e48b-4fe0-8df4-8013763c4b08
|Related To Theme=Theme:A6b06cb6-13ec-4d48-9f1e-efc84449f501;Theme:Ecc7ac02-6e53-4634-b053-91045c50390c;Theme:29d64b53-eba2-489b-937d-440d6cd118d8;Theme:02592695-e4f8-473c-a944-adfe0d8094c0;Theme:Be1e45a1-50a7-43e6-ba8f-440fbdcca636;Theme:9fc17763-af35-4688-a87f-165f3b120897
}}
{{Tags
|Has Virtue And Value=Fairness; Honesty; Responsibility; Respect
|Has Good Practice And Misconduct=Allegation of Misconduct; Citing; Complaints procedure; Conflict of Interest; Editorial review; Good Practice; Peer Review; Peer review ethics violation; Peer reviewing; Publication Ethics; Reusing Published Data; Reusing Published Material
}}

Resource:C99f17ec-3d1e-4f7a-bfc7-3e3607934ead

2021-10-19T13:23:11Z

0000-0002-2385-985X:

{{Resource
|Resource Type=Scenarios
|Title=Research Environments and Research Integrity: An Educational Scenario by the EnTIRE project
|Is About=Members of The Embassy of Good Science have developed a set of eight scenarios for educational purposes and to stimulate strategic thinking about issues in research ethics and research integrity.

This scenario presents a hypothetical narrative concerning the links between '''[https://zenodo.org/record/4063597#.X3cFmpNKjxQ research environments and research integrity]'''.

It focuses on issues regarding:

*Communication of the standards governing research integrity by universities and research organizations;
*Environmental pressures to commit research misconduct;
*Whistleblowing and the monitoring of research misconduct;
*Barriers to reporting cases of research misconduct;
*Power imbalances between students/early-career researchers and senior academics.

It is interspersed with questions and resource suggestions that help guide researchers, research ethics committees ('RECs'), research integrity offices ('RIOs') and research administrators in their deliberations concerning the research integrity issues raised by the narrative.
|Important Because=The scenarios are designed to help researchers, research ethics committees ('RECs'), research integrity offices ('RIOs') and research administrators to become better acquainted with [https://ec.europa.eu/research/participants/data/ref/h2020/other/hi/h2020-ethics_code-of-conduct_en.pdf The European Code of Conduct for Research Integrity] ('ECCRI' or 'ECoC') as a regulatory document that articulates the standards of good research practice.

They also allow users to reflect on and apply their own national and institutional research ethics and research integrity codes as well as other key regulatory documents and guidelines.

The goal is for the user to gain knowledge of the standards associated with good research practices and to make sense of these standards in different research contexts.

According to the ECCRI/ECoC, there are eight categories of research contexts that are covered by the standards of good research practice:

1) [https://zenodo.org/record/4063597#.X3cFmpNKjxQ '''Research Environment''']

2) Training, Supervision and Mentoring

3) Research Procedures

4) Safeguards

5) Data Practices and Management

6) Collaborative Working

7) Publication and Dissemination

8) Reviewing, Evaluating and Editing
|Important For=Academic staff; Administrators; Doctoral students; Early career researchers; Ethics committee members; Graduate students; Junior researchers; PhD Students; Postdocs; Professors; Research Integrity Officers; Researchers; Supervisors; Research institutions; Universities
|Has Best Practice=The aim of all eight scenarios is to allow researchers, research ethics committees ('RECs'), research integrity offices ('RIOs') and research administrators to focus their reflection on core principles and research contexts that enshrine good research practice as well as their local rules and practices.
}}
{{Link
|Has Link=https://zenodo.org/record/4063597#.X3cFmpNKjxQ
}}
{{Related To
|Related To Resource=04 - Publication, Dissemination and Research Integrity: An Educational Scenario by the EnTIRE project;Resource:5bbdd729-8f96-432a-a0ee-56510e343d01;Resource:F6100097-fddb-4c77-9098-1bc767c34a6a;Resource:1d26fd13-1ced-44bc-8d19-e094b37f8f70;Resource:E99e20d0-8116-4d77-84ec-7df396703bf4;Resource:45a04c31-5a75-4816-8484-2dd9b71d1674;Resource:7f7810d8-74a2-42ac-906c-7f6a73fcd183;Resource:67caae86-68db-49ea-8305-2010fe701aa6
|Related To Theme=Theme:13ae94da-15d6-426f-8f6e-9134fb57e267;Theme:B2331451-5a6a-4aa2-a3d5-c68d2c96c8e1;Theme:639528ea-d2c2-4565-8b44-15bb9646f74b;Theme:883697c8-d319-4224-991e-ce063d648efd;Theme:34a864d0-43b3-48bc-aaa3-438dcc124c02;Theme:Ab4200ca-c14d-413d-a9f6-aa5a93e1800e;Theme:Bd54dd3d-50ed-4f42-b5fb-473f2391714a;Theme:Fe62e07c-2e75-4a55-82e6-1908fa543b7a
}}
{{Tags
|Has Virtue And Value=Fairness; Honesty; Respect; Responsibility
|Has Good Practice And Misconduct=Allegation of Misconduct; Career; Complaints procedure; Research culture; Whistleblowers; Whistleblowing; Whistleblower retaliation; Fairness; Good Practice; Institutional Responsibilities; Mentoring; Power abuse; Research Environments; Responsibility; Scope of University's Complaints Procedure; Supervision
}}

Resource:Aef6b98d-9cc5-4db0-bffd-4a3daa99a3f3

2021-10-19T13:22:24Z

0000-0002-2385-985X:

{{Resource
|Resource Type=Scenarios
|Title=Publication, Dissemination and Research Integrity: An Educational Scenario by the EnTIRE project
|Is About=Members of The Embassy of Good Science have developed a set of eight scenarios for educational purposes and to stimulate strategic thinking about issues in research ethics and research integrity.

This scenario presents a hypothetical narrative on the theme of [https://zenodo.org/record/4062216#.X3YCVZNKhjU '''Publication and Dissemination'''.]

It focuses on issues regarding:

*Dual submissions
*Authorship lists
*Plagiarism
*Complaints procedures
*Editorial decisions
*Retraction

It is interspersed with questions and resource suggestions that help guide researchers, research ethics committees ('RECs'), research integrity offices ('RIOs') and research administrators in their deliberations concerning the research integrity issues raised by the narrative.
|Important Because=The scenarios are designed to help researchers, research ethics committees ('RECs'), research integrity offices ('RIOs') and research administrators to become better acquainted with ''[https://ec.europa.eu/research/participants/data/ref/h2020/other/hi/h2020-ethics_code-of-conduct_en.pdf The European Code of Conduct for Research Integrity]'' ('ECCRI' or 'ECoC') as a regulatory document that articulates the standards of good research practice.

They also allow users to reflect on and apply their own national and institutional research ethics and research integrity codes as well as other key regulatory documents and guidelines.

The goal is for the user to gain knowledge of the standards associated with good research practices and to make sense of these standards in different research contexts.

According to the ECCRI/ECoC, there are eight categories of research contexts that are covered by the standards of good research practice:

1) Research Environment

2) Training, Supervision and Mentoring

3) Research Procedures

4) Safeguards

5) Data Practices and Management

6) Collaborative Working

7) [https://zenodo.org/record/4062216#.X3YCVZNKhjU '''Publication and Dissemination''']

8) Reviewing, Evaluating and Editing
|Important For=Academic staff; Administrators; Doctoral students; Early career researchers; Editors; Ethics committee members; Graduate students; Journal editors; Junior researchers; PhD Students; Postdocs; Professors; Research Integrity Officers; Research institutions; Researchers; Supervisors
|Has Best Practice=The aim of all eight scenarios is to allow researchers, research ethics committees ('RECs'), research integrity offices ('RIOs') and research administrators to focus their reflection on core principles and research contexts that enshrine good research practice as well as their local rules and practices.
}}
{{Link
|Has Link=https://zenodo.org/record/4062216#.X3YCVZNKhjU
}}
{{Related To
|Related To Resource=Resource:5bbdd729-8f96-432a-a0ee-56510e343d01;Resource:38cabc43-2b53-4c98-80ea-89b97ef5107d;Resource:55cea558-b370-4eec-b4f5-0de97f815e67;Resource:31097e7a-2080-4aee-b60d-e1e1a5b15888;Resource:C99f17ec-3d1e-4f7a-bfc7-3e3607934ead;Resource:F6100097-fddb-4c77-9098-1bc767c34a6a;Resource:1d26fd13-1ced-44bc-8d19-e094b37f8f70;Resource:E99e20d0-8116-4d77-84ec-7df396703bf4;Resource:45a04c31-5a75-4816-8484-2dd9b71d1674;Resource:7f7810d8-74a2-42ac-906c-7f6a73fcd183;Resource:67caae86-68db-49ea-8305-2010fe701aa6
|Related To Theme=Theme:Cbe88760-7f0e-4d6d-952b-b724bb0f375e;Theme:83f33f33-e9ba-4589-b450-92e3992a22db;Theme:A22bd155-7f88-4750-aa9c-cba9ad72cbec;Theme:13ae94da-15d6-426f-8f6e-9134fb57e267;Theme:02592695-e4f8-473c-a944-adfe0d8094c0;Theme:F3ddbf9b-e3c4-47b7-97cd-6239ce7a32c3;Theme:9fc17763-af35-4688-a87f-165f3b120897;Theme:883697c8-d319-4224-991e-ce063d648efd;Theme:0953795c-fb38-4080-a56f-fe503c4875bd;Theme:9ac8c1db-f98b-41ee-858d-a8c93a647108;Theme:4d29ae67-bee8-4203-b78f-320bc63025d0
}}
{{Tags
|Has Virtue And Value=Fairness; Honesty; Respect; Responsibility
|Has Good Practice And Misconduct=Authorship; Publication Ethics; Plagiarism; Editorial review; Complaints procedure; Respect; Peer Review; Peer review; Peer reviewing
}}

Resource:45a04c31-5a75-4816-8484-2dd9b71d1674

2021-10-19T13:21:42Z

0000-0002-2385-985X:

{{Resource
|Resource Type=Scenarios
|Title=Data Practices, Data Management and FAIR Principles: An Educational Scenario by the EnTIRE project
|Is About=Members of The Embassy of Good Science have developed a set of eight scenarios for educational purposes and to stimulate strategic thinking about issues in research ethics and research integrity.

This scenario presents a hypothetical narrative concerning '''[https://zenodo.org/record/4063648#.X3cHCpNKjxQ data practices and data management and their links with research ethics and research integrity]'''.

It focuses on issues regarding:

*Data protection and consent;
*FAIR principles for data management and stewardship;
*Data copyright and data citation;
*Data for personal research use.

It is interspersed with questions and resource suggestions that help guide researchers, research ethics committees ('RECs'), research integrity offices ('RIOs') and research administrators in their deliberations concerning the research integrity issues raised by the narrative.
|Important Because=The scenarios are designed to help researchers, research ethics committees ('RECs'), research integrity offices ('RIOs') and research administrators to become better acquainted with [https://ec.europa.eu/research/participants/data/ref/h2020/other/hi/h2020-ethics_code-of-conduct_en.pdf The European Code of Conduct for Research Integrity] ('ECCRI' or 'ECoC') as a regulatory document that articulates the standards of good research practice.

They also allow users to reflect on and apply their own national and institutional research ethics and research integrity codes as well as other key regulatory documents and guidelines.

The goal is for the user to gain knowledge of the standards associated with good research practices and to make sense of these standards in different research contexts.

According to the ECCRI/ECoC, there are eight categories of research contexts that are covered by the standards of good research practice:

1) Research Environment

2) Training, Supervision and Mentoring

3) Research Procedures

4) Safeguards

5) [https://zenodo.org/record/4063648#.X3cHCpNKjxQ '''Data Practices and Management''']

6) Collaborative Working

7) Publication and Dissemination

8) Reviewing, Evaluating and Editing

 
|Important For=Academic staff; Administrators; Doctoral students; Postdocs; Early career researchers; Ethics committee members; Research Ethics Committees; Graduate students; PhD Students; Early career researchers; Junior researchers; Professors; Research Integrity Officers; Researchers; Supervisors; Universities; Research institutions
|Has Best Practice=The aim of all eight scenarios is to allow researchers, research ethics committees ('RECs'), research integrity offices ('RIOs') and research administrators to focus their reflection on core principles and research contexts that enshrine good research practice as well as their local rules and practices.
}}
{{Link
|Has Link=https://zenodo.org/record/4063648#.X3cHCpNKjxQ
}}
{{Related To
|Related To Resource=Resource:5bbdd729-8f96-432a-a0ee-56510e343d01;Resource:Aef6b98d-9cc5-4db0-bffd-4a3daa99a3f3;Resource:C99f17ec-3d1e-4f7a-bfc7-3e3607934ead;Resource:F6100097-fddb-4c77-9098-1bc767c34a6a;Resource:1d26fd13-1ced-44bc-8d19-e094b37f8f70;Resource:E99e20d0-8116-4d77-84ec-7df396703bf4;Resource:7f7810d8-74a2-42ac-906c-7f6a73fcd183;Resource:67caae86-68db-49ea-8305-2010fe701aa6
|Related To Theme=Theme:A1a1b736-7002-405c-8375-711a11f20e04;Theme:0bd48e3b-3590-44ae-a21b-7cf2b425d6cb;Theme:0d054575-ca21-4209-b7c5-6120fc0ed647;Theme:540c9ba0-bc9c-4311-b3e1-7a650d2b9f0f;Theme:D44fd22a-ed5d-4120-a78b-8881747131fd;Theme:61d9a3f5-8f8b-4f6f-8363-fa53f959f131
}}
{{Tags
|Has Virtue And Value=Fairness; Honesty; Respect; Responsibility
|Has Good Practice And Misconduct=Anonymization; Confidentiality; Consent; Copyright; Data Management; Data Protection; Data sharing; Good Practice; Ownership; Personal Information; Privacy; Reusing Published Data
}}

Resource:1d26fd13-1ced-44bc-8d19-e094b37f8f70

2021-10-19T13:21:15Z

0000-0002-2385-985X:

{{Resource
|Resource Type=Scenarios
|Title=Collaborative Working Between Academia and Industry: An Educational Scenario by the EnTIRE project
|Is About=Members of The Embassy of Good Science have developed a set of eight scenarios for educational purposes and to stimulate strategic thinking about issues in research ethics and research integrity.

This scenario presents a hypothetical narrative concerning '''[https://zenodo.org/record/4063619#.X3cGT5NKjxQ collaborative working between academia and industry and the links with research integrity]'''.

It focuses on issues regarding:

*Conflicts of Interest between academia and industry;
*Data usage and data privacy;
*HARKing (Hypothesizing after the results are known);
*Preregistration of studies;
*Authorship criteria for academic publications;
*The duties of corresponding authors;
*Non-publication of results;
*Divergences in research integrity standards and processes between international collaborators.

It is interspersed with questions and resource suggestions that help guide researchers, research ethics committees ('RECs'), research integrity offices ('RIOs') and research administrators in their deliberations concerning the research integrity issues raised by the narrative.
|Important Because=The scenarios are designed to help researchers, research ethics committees ('RECs'), research integrity offices ('RIOs') and research administrators to become better acquainted with [https://ec.europa.eu/research/participants/data/ref/h2020/other/hi/h2020-ethics_code-of-conduct_en.pdf The European Code of Conduct for Research Integrity] ('ECCRI' or 'ECoC') as a regulatory document that articulates the standards of good research practice.

They also allow users to reflect on and apply their own national and institutional research ethics and research integrity codes as well as other key regulatory documents and guidelines.

The goal is for the user to gain knowledge of the standards associated with good research practices and to make sense of these standards in different research contexts.

According to the ECCRI/ECoC, there are eight categories of research contexts that are covered by the standards of good research practice:

1) Research Environment

2) Training, Supervision and Mentoring

3) Research Procedures

4) Safeguards

5) Data Practices and Management

6) [https://zenodo.org/record/4063619#.X3cGT5NKjxQ '''Collaborative Working''']

7) Publication and Dissemination

8) Reviewing, Evaluating and Editing
|Important For=Academic staff; Administrators; Doctoral students; Postdocs; Early career researchers; Ethics committee members; Research Ethics Committees; Graduate students; Junior researchers; PhD students; Professors; Research Integrity Officers; Researchers; Supervisors; Universities; Industry; industry stakeholders; Principal investigators; Funders
|Has Best Practice=The aim of all eight scenarios is to allow researchers, research ethics committees ('RECs'), research integrity offices ('RIOs') and research administrators to focus their reflection on core principles and research contexts that enshrine good research practice as well as their local rules and practices.
}}
{{Link
|Has Link=https://zenodo.org/record/4063619#.X3cGT5NKjxQ
}}
{{Related To
|Related To Resource=Resource:5bbdd729-8f96-432a-a0ee-56510e343d01;Resource:Aef6b98d-9cc5-4db0-bffd-4a3daa99a3f3;Resource:C99f17ec-3d1e-4f7a-bfc7-3e3607934ead;Resource:F6100097-fddb-4c77-9098-1bc767c34a6a;Resource:E99e20d0-8116-4d77-84ec-7df396703bf4;Resource:45a04c31-5a75-4816-8484-2dd9b71d1674;Resource:7f7810d8-74a2-42ac-906c-7f6a73fcd183;Resource:67caae86-68db-49ea-8305-2010fe701aa6
|Related To Theme=Theme:Cbe88760-7f0e-4d6d-952b-b724bb0f375e;Theme:72c8ab8d-bbf8-4503-8b48-9de7eac37673;Theme:6d71bd59-c3bc-4cd5-9c9f-1ab4e53fc320;Theme:A1a1b736-7002-405c-8375-711a11f20e04;Theme:307c6cc0-20d5-432f-bc4a-51aff0c985fe;Theme:26631aa0-18f0-4635-b71b-80a6f4e58d33;Theme:8704dd29-f972-45ca-993c-3e93f834dbfb;Theme:E14104ce-3608-4069-b297-f93b2d77b095;Theme:Dc1ed216-1d37-49a9-9725-2b34e90b3ede;Theme:13ae94da-15d6-426f-8f6e-9134fb57e267;Theme:24e87492-7020-4fc0-ab37-dd88bcf9f637;Theme:E0384a98-fbfd-4df9-9caa-3fe4afa95951;Theme:9ac8c1db-f98b-41ee-858d-a8c93a647108;Theme:0953795c-fb38-4080-a56f-fe503c4875bd;Theme:83f33f33-e9ba-4589-b450-92e3992a22db
}}
{{Tags
|Has Virtue And Value=Fairness; Honesty; Respect; Responsibility
|Has Good Practice And Misconduct=Authorship; Bias; Collaborative research; Communication; Confidentiality; Conflict of Interest; Consent; Data Protection; Good Practice; HARKing; International collaboration; Non-publication; Pre-registrations; Privacy; Supervision
}}

Resource:F6100097-fddb-4c77-9098-1bc767c34a6a

2021-10-19T13:20:02Z

0000-0002-2385-985X:

{{Resource
|Resource Type=Scenarios
|Title=Research Procedures and Research Integrity: An Educational Scenario by the EnTIRE project
|Is About=Members of The Embassy of Good Science have developed a set of eight scenarios for educational purposes and to stimulate strategic thinking about issues in research ethics and research integrity.

This scenario presents a hypothetical narrative concerning the links between '''[https://zenodo.org/record/4063611#.X3cGAJNKjxQ research procedures and research integrity]'''.

It focuses on issues regarding:

*Hypothesizing after the results ('HARKing');
*P-hacking;
*Selection bias;
*University procedures, processes and guidelines to address HARKing, P-hacking and selection bias.

It is interspersed with questions and resource suggestions that help guide researchers, research ethics committees ('RECs'), research integrity offices ('RIOs') and research administrators in their deliberations concerning the research integrity issues raised by the narrative.
|Important Because=The scenarios are designed to help researchers, research ethics committees ('RECs'), research integrity offices ('RIOs') and research administrators to become better acquainted with [https://ec.europa.eu/research/participants/data/ref/h2020/other/hi/h2020-ethics_code-of-conduct_en.pdf The European Code of Conduct for Research Integrity] ('ECCRI' or 'ECoC') as a regulatory document that articulates the standards of good research practice.

They also allow users to reflect on and apply their own national and institutional research ethics and research integrity codes as well as other key regulatory documents and guidelines.

The goal is for the user to gain knowledge of the standards associated with good research practices and to make sense of these standards in different research contexts.

According to the ECCRI/ECoC, there are eight categories of research contexts that are covered by the standards of good research practice:

1) Research Environment

2) Training, Supervision and Mentoring

3) [https://zenodo.org/record/4063611#.X3cGAJNKjxQ '''Research Procedures''']

4) Safeguards

5) Data Practices and Management

6) Collaborative Working

7) Publication and Dissemination

8) Reviewing, Evaluating and Editing
|Important For=Academic staff; Administrators; Doctoral students; Postdocs; Early career researchers; Ethics committee members; Research Ethics Committees; Graduate students; Junior researchers; PhD Students; Professors; Research Integrity Officers; Researchers; Supervisors; Research institutions; Universities
|Has Best Practice=The aim of all eight scenarios is to allow researchers, research ethics committees ('RECs'), research integrity offices ('RIOs') and research administrators to focus their reflection on core principles and research contexts that enshrine good research practice as well as their local rules and practices.
}}
{{Link
|Has Link=https://zenodo.org/record/4063611#.X3cGAJNKjxQ
}}
{{Related To
|Related To Resource=Resource:Aef6b98d-9cc5-4db0-bffd-4a3daa99a3f3;Resource:C99f17ec-3d1e-4f7a-bfc7-3e3607934ead;Resource:5bbdd729-8f96-432a-a0ee-56510e343d01;Resource:1d26fd13-1ced-44bc-8d19-e094b37f8f70;Resource:E99e20d0-8116-4d77-84ec-7df396703bf4;Resource:45a04c31-5a75-4816-8484-2dd9b71d1674;Resource:7f7810d8-74a2-42ac-906c-7f6a73fcd183;Resource:67caae86-68db-49ea-8305-2010fe701aa6
|Related To Theme=Theme:26631aa0-18f0-4635-b71b-80a6f4e58d33;Theme:88b73549-fec0-4fb9-99f6-fe1055d6b76a;Theme:E14104ce-3608-4069-b297-f93b2d77b095;Theme:24e87492-7020-4fc0-ab37-dd88bcf9f637;Theme:7df709ce-fb89-4703-966f-b33e68b83ad5;Theme:6b584d4e-2c9d-4e27-b370-5fbdb983ab46
}}
{{Tags
|Has Virtue And Value=Fairness; Honesty; Respect; Responsibility
|Has Good Practice And Misconduct=Allegation of Misconduct; Bias; Experimental design; Faked Data; Methodology; Misrepresentation of results; Research methods; Selection bias; P-value Hacking; P-Hacking; HARKing
}}

Instruction:Ffff98bc-b81b-43ee-8fef-a264c1e25741

2021-08-08T11:21:03Z

0000-0002-2385-985X:

{{Instruction
|Title=06 - Teaching Research Ethics Tool : A Method for Analysing Cases in Research Ethics
|Instruction Goal=Members of The Embassy of Good Science have developed a set of six user-friendly, accessible methods for analysing research ethics and research integrity cases.

These methods have been identified, adapted and presented so that they can be appropriated by all users, without prior philosophical knowledge, in local contexts.
|Has Requirements=The key aim for the case analysis method described here is that it can be appropriated by all users, without prior philosophical knowledge, in local contexts.

In order to apply this method in the analysis of specific cases, it is advised that RECs, RIOs and IRBs engage with the regulatory frameworks and normative standards that apply to their respective organizations in the form of codes of ethics, codes of conduct, funding body standards and, if applicable, broader national and international research ethics and research integrity regulatory documents.
|Has Duration=2
|Important For=Researchers; Ethics committee members; Research Integrity Officers
|Has Method=Case analysis method; Individual learning
}}
{{Custom TabContent Trainee Open}}
{{Instruction Steps Foldout Trainee}}
{{Instruction Perspective Trainee
|Is About=This method was developed by Ferrer[[#%20ftn1|[1]]] and applied by a group of investigators from Graduate Education in Research Ethics for Scientists and Engineers (GERESE) at the University of Puerto Rico, Mayaguez campus (UPRM). The aim of the project was to integrate research ethics into the graduate curriculum in science and engineering[[#%20ftn2|[2]]].
----[[#%20ftnref1|[1]]] Ferrer, J.J. (2007), “Deber y Deliberación una Invitación a la Bioética” Cep, Mayagüez, Puerto Rico.

[[#%20ftnref2|[2]]] Valdes, D., & Jaramillo Giraldo, E., & Ferrer, J., & Frey, W. (2009, June), Case Analysis: A Tool for Teaching Research Ethics In Science And Engineering For Graduate Students Paper presented at 2009 Annual Conference & Exposition, Austin, Texas. <nowiki>https://peer.asee.org/5729</nowiki>
|Important Because=This method is used as a conceptual tool to guide students though the moral deliberation process in a systematic way.
|Has Practical Tips=A case analysed by this method is openly available on the Zenodo repository and can be accessed using the following link: https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.5035531
}}
{{Instruction Step Trainee
|Instruction Step Title=Determination of facts
|Instruction Step Text=Identify the situations, people and environment through which the case unfolds. A good understanding of facts is essential for this deliberation procedure.
}}
{{Instruction Step Trainee
|Instruction Step Title=Identification of morally problematic situations
|Instruction Step Text=There are usually several morally problematic situations that require attention. This step provides students with an opportunity to improve their sensibility to ethically problematic situations.
}}
{{Instruction Step Trainee
|Instruction Step Title=Identification of possible courses of action
|Instruction Step Text=Usually, there are several possible courses of action. Some result in misconduct while others effectively and ethically solve the problem(s).
}}
{{Instruction Step Trainee
|Instruction Step Title=Distinguishing “moral questions”, “moral disagreements”, and “moral conflicts”
|Instruction Step Text=A moral question is a situation in which moral duties are clear to the subject, although they may be in conflict with other issues of interest to the agent such as financial and political interests. These situations do not require moral deliberation so much as moral courage. Moral disagreements arise when the agent feels subjectively certain but holds a point of view in conflict with another persons’ moral judgments. These situations call for moral dialogue and argumentation. Finally, moral conflicts (or moral problems) arise when agents face conflicting moral duties. These instances call for moral deliberation.
}}
{{Instruction Step Trainee
|Instruction Step Title=Establish a hierarchy of values related to morally problematic situations
|Instruction Step Text=If there are moral conflicts, examination of the relative hierarchy of values is required in order to determine the overriding duty or duties in the situation.
}}
{{Instruction Step Trainee
|Instruction Step Title=Consequence analysis (if necessary)
|Instruction Step Text=If the previous step is not sufficient to identify the preferred course of action, a further step is required consisting of the analysis of foreseeable consequences of each course of action. The analysis of consequences depends on a good determination of the facts. It should include foreseeable consequences related to the persons involved, the working environment, the external environment, and society at large.
}}
{{Instruction Step Trainee
|Instruction Step Title=Justification of the moral choice
|Instruction Step Text=After analysing different possible courses of action, students identify those that are morally justified.
}}
{{Instruction Remarks Trainee}}
{{Custom TabContent Close Trainee}}
{{Custom TabContent Trainer Open}}
{{Instruction Steps Foldout Trainer}}
{{Instruction Perspective Trainer}}
{{Instruction Remarks Trainer}}
{{Custom TabContent Close Trainer}}
{{Related To
|Related To Theme=Theme:17d406f9-0b0f-4325-aa2d-2fe186d5ff34;Theme:Cda80c83-0101-4e27-bdc0-87a45846e5ed
|Related To Instruction=Instruction:A440eed0-f9f4-4415-a2c4-2d6ff9f44b80;Instruction:6b129846-c455-4849-9eaf-0d25f3c5600e;Instruction:41bc2a1d-26f7-49f9-8bf7-9fc6b4ecf10c;Instruction:C0cf8cfb-6090-49e3-94f5-20f530f83ffd;Instruction:6cc77174-4f7b-48a6-95f3-eeb4dadcb0a3
}}
{{Tags
|Has Virtue And Value=Fairness; Respect; Accountability; Transparency; Responsibility
}}

Instruction:6cc77174-4f7b-48a6-95f3-eeb4dadcb0a3

2021-08-08T11:20:41Z

0000-0002-2385-985X:

{{Instruction
|Title=05 - REalistiC Decisions: A Method for Analysing Cases in Research Ethics and Research Integrity
|Instruction Goal=Members of The Embassy of Good Science have developed a set of six user-friendly, accessible methods for analysing research ethics and research integrity cases.

These methods have been identified, adapted and presented so that they can be appropriated by all users, without prior philosophical knowledge, in local contexts.
|Has Requirements=The key aim for the case analysis method described here is that it can be appropriated by all users, without prior philosophical knowledge, in local contexts.

In order to apply this method in the analysis of specific cases, it is advised that RECs, RIOs and IRBs engage with the regulatory frameworks and normative standards that apply to their respective organizations in the form of codes of ethics, codes of conduct, funding body standards and, if applicable, broader national and international research ethics and research integrity regulatory documents.
|Has Duration=2
|Important For=Researchers; Ethics committee members; Research Ethics Committees; Research Integrity Officers; Administrators
|Has Method=Case analysis method; Individual learning
}}
{{Custom TabContent Trainee Open}}
{{Instruction Steps Foldout Trainee}}
{{Instruction Perspective Trainee
|Is About=[http://www.reviewingresearch.com/realistic-decisions-making-judgements-in-committee/ REalistiC Decisions] is a case analysis method proposed by [https://uk.linkedin.com/in/hugh-davies-61029750 Hugh Davies] MB BS, Research Ethics Advisor for the Health Research Authority (‘HRA’) and former Consultant Paediatrician at Oxford University Hospitals.

Although intended to be a procedure for reviewing research ethics proposals, it is flexible enough to be used to analyse research integrity cases.<ref>Davies H. REalistiC Decisions: making judgements in review (and design). [Online]. <nowiki>http://www.reviewingresearch.com/realistic-decisions-making-judgements-in-committee/</nowiki>. Accessed 10 March 2019.</ref>
<references />
|Important Because=The method is founded on the idea that each member of a research ethics committee (‘REC’), research integrity office (‘RIO’) or institutional review board (‘IRB’) will deliberate based on their initial views and beliefs about a particular case.

The purpose is to move from individual opinions to the underlying reasons for those opinions in order turn ‘I think’ claims regarding a particular case into ‘We agree’ judgments.
[[File:REalistiC Decisions Case Analysis Diagram.png|thumb]]
This procedure is only part of the process of coming to decisions about individual cases. Although the procedure helps members of RECs, RIOs and IRBs to shape and share their deliberations, it cannot make the decision for them.<ref>Davies H. How we can make better decisions in review and design of research using a simple ethics model. ''Journal of Medical Ethics: Blog''. [Online]. <nowiki>https://blogs.bmj.com/medical-ethics/2018/10/11/how-we-can-make-better-decisions-in-review-and-design-of-research-using-a-simple-ethics-model/</nowiki>. Published 18 October 2019. Accessed 10 March 2019.</ref><ref>Davies H. REalistiC Decisions: making judgements in review (and design). [Online]. <nowiki>http://www.reviewingresearch.com/realistic-decisions-making-judgements-in-committee/</nowiki>. Accessed 10 March 2019.</ref><ref>Davies H. Moral engineering - how we can improve research review with a simple ethics decision making model. [Online]. <nowiki>http://www.reviewingresearch.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/08/A-model-to-help-resolve-differences180828forRR.pdf</nowiki>. Accessed 10 March 2019.</ref>
<references />
|Has Practical Tips=A case analysed by this method is openly available on the Zenodo repository and can be accessed using the following link: https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.5035520
}}
{{Instruction Step Trainee
|Instruction Step Title=Identify and Clarify the Issue
|Instruction Step Text=Produce a synopsis of the case

 

*Only include the facts of the case
*If the issue is ambiguous, then attempt to clarify what issue or set of issues are at stake
}}
{{Instruction Step Trainee
|Instruction Step Title=Early View (‘What do I think?’)
|Instruction Step Text=Once an issue has been identified and clarified, the next step is to ask:

 

*"What do I think?"

When formulating an Early View, I need to:

 

*Know when I can and can’t rely on this Early View;
*Ensure my view does not prejudice against diverging opinions.
}}
{{Instruction Step Trainee
|Instruction Step Title=What are My Reasons for Thinking This?
|Instruction Step Text=Once I have formed my Early View, the next step is to ask:

 

*"What are my reasons for thinking this?"

When formulating these reasons, I need to:

 

*Assess the strengths and weaknesses of the reasons for my view.
}}
{{Instruction Step Trainee
|Instruction Step Title=Communicate My Early View
|Instruction Step Text=Communicate my Early View and associated reasons to the rest of the committee
}}
{{Instruction Step Trainee
|Instruction Step Title=Listen to and Recognise the Early Views and Associated Reasons of All Other Members of the Committee
|Instruction Step Text=Is there disagreement between members of the committee?

 

*On which issues and views do we disagree?
*What reasons are given that either support or undermine my Early View?
}}
{{Instruction Step Trainee
|Instruction Step Title=Review My Early View
|Instruction Step Text=Review my Early View and associated reasons by addressing each of the following themes and questions:

'''Normative Standards'''

''"How do normative frameworks help us?"''

In order to answer this question, we need:

 

*A basic knowledge of the appropriate regulations that apply to the issue;
*To be able to use these regulations to analyse our Early View;
*To revise our Early View and to provide reasons for any revisions.

'''Experience'''

''"How have we approached this issue before?"''

In order to answer this question, we need:

 

*To access past decisions;
*To compare past cases and the current case and determine whether previous decisions are relevant;
*To use disagreement to develop new standards for guiding future considerations;
*To be able to explain why, if relevant, we haven’t followed such precedent.

'''Expertise'''

''"What expertise has been applied to this before?"''

To answer this question, we need to:

 

*Access independent expert review;
*Access an up-to-date library of authoritative guidance;
*Balance guidance documents and judge the relative authority of guidance documents;
*Provide reasons if our decisions run contrary to guidance.

'''Empathy'''

''"What views and opinions do other parties have?"''

We turn to the views of those with a legitimate interest in the case (for example, the accused, the complainant, individuals involved with the case, and the public).

To answer this question, we need to:

 

*Identify all those with an interest in the case and see it ‘through their eyes’;
*Recognize limitations to our empathy;
*Confirm or refute any ‘empathy-based decisions’ using answers to the other questions listed above;

'''Evidence'''

''"What evidence is there on this issue?"''

We turn to any published research concerning similar cases. However, we need to be careful when forming prescriptive conclusions based on factual premises. After all, the quality of the evidence may be questionable and there may be significant normative and factual differences between the case in question and situations discussed in published research.

In order to answer this question, we need:

 

*To locate, assess, and apply published evidence;
*To recognize the proper place of facts when making judgments;
*To encourage published research on research integrity and research ethics.

'''Expediency'''

''"What is possible or realistic in the circumstances?"''

We need to ensure that we have not interpreted the case against sets of unrealistic standards. Expediency is built on a realistic evaluation of research constraints and consequences and imposes proportionate and realistic conditions.

In order to answer this question, we need to:

 

*Understand and accommodate realistic standards when assessing the case;
*Judge when expediency is adequate justification;
*Balance expediency and fair standards when forming a judgment about a case.

'''Escape'''

''"How can we manage this problem of our disagreement?"''

In order to answer this question, we might be required to:

 

*Agree to disagree (if it will not affect the final judgment);
*Seek elaboration on any of the answers to the questions listed above;
*Vote on a set of judgments;
*Consider alternatives.
}}
{{Instruction Step Trainee
|Instruction Step Title=Develop an Informed Judgment
|Instruction Step Text=Having addressed all the themes and associated questions in the previous step, I now need to come up with an Informed Judgment.

To come up with my Informed Judgment, I should be aware that:

 

*Answering each question in the previous step leads to reasons to justify (or refute) a position;
*No single answer can provide a firm base for judgment;
*My Informed Judgment will involve balancing the answers to the different questions.
}}
{{Instruction Step Trainee
|Instruction Step Title=Reach a Consensus with Other Members of the Committee
|Instruction Step Text=In order for our committee to reach a consensus regarding a specific case:

 

*I must share my Informed Judgment and associated reasons with the rest of the committee;
*Listen to and recognise the Informed Judgments and associated reasons of all other members of the committee.

The final step is to deliberate and debate with our fellow committee members.

 

*If we all agree, then the decision is made and little needs to be done, although, from time to time, we should critique our views;

*If we fail to obtain a consensus, we can ask for further involvement from interested parties ("Empathy"), outside advice and deliberation ("Expertise") and/or new research ("Evidence").
}}
{{Instruction Remarks Trainee
|Has Remarks=By following the instructions, a user will be able to:

*Analyse specific research ethics and research integrity cases;
*Understand and explain the process by which they came to their judgment regarding a particular case;
*Identity and explain their reasons for their judgment.

In addition, by following the instructions, a research ethics committee ('REC'), research integrity office ('RIO') or institutional review board ('IRB') will be able to:

*Facilitate the analysis of research ethics and research integrity cases in accordance with an explicit procedure;
*Involve its members in structured deliberation and debate regarding a particular case in accordance with an explicit procedure;
*Generate a consensus regarding a specific case.
}}
{{Custom TabContent Close Trainee}}
{{Custom TabContent Trainer Open}}
{{Instruction Steps Foldout Trainer}}
{{Instruction Perspective Trainer}}
{{Instruction Remarks Trainer}}
{{Custom TabContent Close Trainer}}
{{Related To
|Related To Theme=Theme:65e6f304-51e2-4e41-93d3-e48518248b39;Theme:13ae94da-15d6-426f-8f6e-9134fb57e267;Theme:0953795c-fb38-4080-a56f-fe503c4875bd;Theme:D1477512-52a3-48a3-8ab6-72404cef4ab4;Theme:9ac8c1db-f98b-41ee-858d-a8c93a647108
|Related To Instruction=Instruction:A440eed0-f9f4-4415-a2c4-2d6ff9f44b80;Instruction:6b129846-c455-4849-9eaf-0d25f3c5600e;Instruction:41bc2a1d-26f7-49f9-8bf7-9fc6b4ecf10c;Instruction:C0cf8cfb-6090-49e3-94f5-20f530f83ffd;Instruction:Ffff98bc-b81b-43ee-8fef-a264c1e25741
}}
{{Tags
|Has Virtue And Value=Fairness; Respect; Responsibility; Accountability; Transparency
|Has Good Practice And Misconduct=Academic Responsibility of University; Allegations of misconduct; Communication; Complaints procedure; Ethical Dilemma; Good Practice; Institutional Responsibilities; Investigation; Misconduct Investigations; Research Misconduct Investigation
}}

Instruction:C0cf8cfb-6090-49e3-94f5-20f530f83ffd

2021-08-08T11:20:09Z

0000-0002-2385-985X:

{{Instruction
|Title=04 - Moral Case Deliberation: A Method for Analysing Cases in Research Ethics and Research Integrity
|Instruction Goal=Members of The Embassy of Good Science have developed a set of six user-friendly, accessible methods for analysing research ethics and research integrity cases.

These methods have been identified, adapted and presented so that they can be appropriated by all users, without prior philosophical knowledge, in local contexts.
|Has Requirements=The key aim for the case analysis method described here is that it can be appropriated by all users, without prior philosophical knowledge, in local contexts.

In order to apply this method in the analysis of specific cases, it is advised that RECs, RIOs and IRBs engage with the regulatory frameworks and normative standards that apply to their respective organizations in the form of codes of ethics, codes of conduct, funding body standards and, if applicable, broader national and international research ethics and research integrity regulatory documents.
|Has Duration=2
|Important For=Researchers; Ethics committee members; Research Integrity Officers; Research integrity trainers
|Has Method=Case analysis method; Individual learning
}}
{{Custom TabContent Trainee Open}}
{{Instruction Steps Foldout Trainee}}
{{Instruction Perspective Trainee
|Is About=Moral Case Deliberation (MCD) aims to combine reflection on concrete cases with procedures to foster moral learning. In MCD in health care settings, patients, family members and health care staff discuss a moral question. MCD can be regarded as a form of Clinical Ethics Support (CES) or REC assessment in health care and biomedical research, helping health care professionals to reflect on their actual ethical questions and reasoning, and to find answers in acute cases. MCD is about listening and asking the right questions, rather than convincing the other, and postponing one’s own judgements in the interests of being open to other viewpoints.

The validity and reliability of knowledge claims and moral judgments are constructed and examined within the practice itself. In the end, the reliability and validity of the judgments are determined in experience and in the practice of daily life. The MCD facilitator or the MCD participants can refer to existing theories and concepts, as well as existing normative frameworks (such as policies, laws, professional codes etc.). The point is, however, that ethical issues are not defined beforehand, but are derived from practice.

In MCD, the moral problem under consideration is always a concrete moral issue, experienced by one of the participants. This issue is presented as a case (for example, concerning a treatment decision with an individual patient). The case is analysed not by applying general moral concepts or principles but by investigating the values and norms of the stakeholders. In a MCD, different viewpoints are examined. The initial aim is not to decide which perspective or answer is right, but to ask open and critical questions in order to elaborate assumptions behind the perspective and find out how they are applicable to the case at hand.[[#%20ftn1|[1]]]
----[[#%20ftnref1|[1]]] Stolper M, Molewijk B, Widdershoven G. Bioethics education in clinical settings: theory and practice of the dilemma method of moral case deliberation. ''BMC Med Ethics'' 2016;17(1):45.
|Important Because=Though MCD is primarily designed to examine clinical cases, given that many research ethics deliberations – e.g. the work of RECs when assessing research protocols – take place before the research in question, this methodology could be used to assess research ethics dilemmas as well. Also, an MCD can be undertaken by a single individual – for example, by considering ‘imaginary’ research ethics committees and other stakeholders as part of a ‘virtual’ deliberation. Since such imaginary and empathy-based techniques are considered to be important aspects of our ethical thinking – in thought experiments, for example – MCD might be a useful tool for such assessments.
|Has Practical Tips=A case analysed by this method is openly available on the Zenodo repository and can be accessed using the following link: https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.5035533
}}
{{Instruction Step Trainee
|Instruction Step Title=Introduction
|Instruction Step Text=During the first step, the aim and procedure of MCD is explained by the facilitator. The facilitator addresses issues such as the nature of MCD, the context surrounding the MCD, the aim of the meeting, mutual expectations (e.g. open and honest communication) and the steps in the method.
}}
{{Instruction Step Trainee
|Instruction Step Title=Presentation of the case
|Instruction Step Text=This step focuses on the experience of the case presenter. The presenter is asked to describe a concrete personal situation in which he or she experienced the moral issue at stake. The case presenter is asked to provide a short but thick description of the facts of the situation. Facts can include the ‘feelings’ he or she experienced since feelings can be a useful indicator of the moral discomfort of the presenter and can often implicitly refer to certain values.
}}
{{Instruction Step Trainee
|Instruction Step Title=Formulating the moral question and the dilemma
|Instruction Step Text=In this step, the case presenter’s underlying moral question is made explicit. By formulating his/her moral question, the other participants can better understand what is at stake and what (morally) matters for the case presenter. Furthermore, to make the moral question more concrete, the case presenter is asked to formulate the situation in terms of a dilemma: what are the concrete choices available in this situation?
}}
{{Instruction Step Trainee
|Instruction Step Title=Clarification in order to place oneself in the situation of the case presenter
|Instruction Step Text=The fourth step aims to foster a clear understanding of the situation so that participants can ‘put themselves in the shoes’ of the case presenter. Clarification aims to (re)construct as clearly as possible the situation presented by the case presenter in order to investigate the moral dilemma. Within MCD, participants try to answer the dilemma with which the case presenter is faced.
}}
{{Instruction Step Trainee
|Instruction Step Title=Analyzing the case in terms of perspectives, values and norms
|Instruction Step Text=The participants make a list of the relevant stakeholder perspectives, and, for each perspective, identify the values related to the dilemma and the possible actions that realize a specific value (we call this value a ‘norm’). The analysis of the perspective of the case presenter will lead to the identification of values and norms that support or undermine different options.
}}
{{Instruction Step Trainee
|Instruction Step Title=Looking for alternatives
|Instruction Step Text=The aim of this step is to brainstorm in order to get a view on possible courses or actions which lie beyond the dilemma.
}}
{{Instruction Step Trainee
|Instruction Step Title=Making an individual choice and making explicit one’s considerations
|Instruction Step Text=This step involves the formulation of the personal views, values, norms, arguments and choices in relation to the case. The participants express their own views of what they consider to be right.The facilitator might ask the participants to individually address the following points:

a) It is morally justified that I choose option … (A, B or an alternative).

b) Because of…. (which value or norm?)

c) Despite of…. (which value or norm?)

d) How can you limit the damage of your choice mentioned under (c)?
}}
{{Instruction Step Trainee
|Instruction Step Title=Dialogical inquiry
|Instruction Step Text=In this step, similarities and differences between the individual considerations are examined. Sometimes, two participants make a different choice based on the same value. Alternatively, participants may choose the same option based on different values or norms. Identifying similarities and differences may lead to better understanding and a better insight of what is at stake in a specific case.
}}
{{Instruction Step Trainee
|Instruction Step Title=Conclusion
|Instruction Step Text=In this step, participants are invited to draw conclusions and develop a plan for action. The facilitator returns to the moral question formulated at the start of the MCD and asks the group to make explicit their conclusions. Reaching consensus is not necessary; the conclusion can also be that there is a plurality of ideas with different practical implications.
}}
{{Instruction Step Trainee
|Instruction Step Title=Evaluation
|Instruction Step Text=Lastly, learning experiences and the outcome are evaluated.
}}
{{Instruction Remarks Trainee}}
{{Custom TabContent Close Trainee}}
{{Custom TabContent Trainer Open}}
{{Instruction Steps Foldout Trainer}}
{{Instruction Perspective Trainer}}
{{Instruction Remarks Trainer}}
{{Custom TabContent Close Trainer}}
{{Related To
|Related To Theme=Theme:Cda80c83-0101-4e27-bdc0-87a45846e5ed;Theme:17d406f9-0b0f-4325-aa2d-2fe186d5ff34
|Related To Instruction=Instruction:A440eed0-f9f4-4415-a2c4-2d6ff9f44b80;Instruction:6b129846-c455-4849-9eaf-0d25f3c5600e;Instruction:41bc2a1d-26f7-49f9-8bf7-9fc6b4ecf10c;Instruction:Ffff98bc-b81b-43ee-8fef-a264c1e25741;Instruction:6cc77174-4f7b-48a6-95f3-eeb4dadcb0a3
}}
{{Tags
|Has Virtue And Value=Accountability; Honesty; Transparency; Fairness; Resepct
}}

Instruction:41bc2a1d-26f7-49f9-8bf7-9fc6b4ecf10c

2021-08-08T11:19:45Z

0000-0002-2385-985X:

{{Instruction
|Title=03 - Four Quadrant Approach: A Method for Analysing Cases in Research Ethics and Research Integrity
|Instruction Goal=Members of The Embassy of Good Science have developed a set of six user-friendly, accessible methods for analysing research ethics and research integrity cases.

These methods have been identified, adapted and presented so that they can be appropriated by all users, without prior philosophical knowledge, in local contexts.
|Has Requirements=The key aim for the case analysis method described here is that it can be appropriated by all users, without prior philosophical knowledge, in local contexts.

In order to apply this method in the analysis of specific cases, it is advised that RECs, RIOs and IRBs engage with the regulatory frameworks and normative standards that apply to their respective organizations in the form of codes of ethics, codes of conduct, funding body standards and, if applicable, broader national and international research ethics and research integrity regulatory documents.
|Has Duration=2
|Important For=Researchers; Ethics committee members; Research Integrity Officers; Research integrity trainers
|Has Method=Case analysis method; Individual learning
}}
{{Custom TabContent Trainee Open}}
{{Instruction Steps Foldout Trainee}}
{{Instruction Perspective Trainee
|Is About=In a collaborative effort, three clinical ethicists, a philosopher, Jonsen, a physician, Siegler, and a lawyer, Winslade, developed the ‘four quadrant approach’ (‘4QA’) for dealing with difficult cases in clinical settings.[[#%20ftn1|[1]]] The process can be viewed as an “ethics workup,” similar to the “History and Physical” skills that all medical students come to use when learning how to “workup” a patient’s primary complaints.

The full procedure of the 4QA involves three stages and a list of distinctive steps:

#The first stage identifies and describes our initial perception of the case;
#The second involves the four quadrants (medical indications, patient preferences, quality of life, contextual features) and the identification of information relevant to a given quadrant;
#The third involves the application of case-based reasoning to identify and justify the best course of action.

----[[#%20ftnref1|[1]]] Jonsen A, Siegler M, Winslade W. Clinical ethics: a practical approach to ethical decisions in clinical medicine. Mc-Graw Hill, 6th edition, 2010.

[[#%20ftnref2|[2]]] http://depts.washington.edu/bioethx/tools/cesumm.html
|Important Because=While this method has deep philosophical roots, what clinicians like about it is the ease with which it fits with how we normally think about tough medical cases.[[#%20ftn1|[1]]]
----[[#%20ftnref1|[1]]] http://depts.washington.edu/bioethx/tools/cesumm.html
|Has Practical Tips=A case analysed by this method is openly available on the Zenodo repository and can be accessed using the following link: https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.5035537
}}
{{Instruction Step Trainee
|Instruction Step Title=STAGE 1: Initial Perception
|Instruction Step Text=The user should attend to some general questions in order to identify relevant aspects and major characteristics of the situation:

*What are the morally relevant facts?
*What are the ethical or moral issues at stake in this case?
*Who are the stakeholders?
*What particular normative standards in pertinent regulatory documents apply to the case?
*What possible courses of action are available?
*What are the predictable effects of each action?
*Which set of possible outcomes seem to be better?
}}
{{Instruction Step Trainee
|Instruction Step Title=STAGE 2: The Four Quadrant Analysis
|Instruction Step Text=#'''Relevant Facts''': What are the most relevant facts concerning the situation?
#'''Uncertainties''': Which features of the situation are uncertain, lacking in clarity, or controversial?
#'''Courses of Action''': What are the practically available options for providing a solution to the case?
#'''Contextual Features''': What legal, financial and institutional policies and regulations apply to the case?
}}
{{Instruction Step Trainee
|Instruction Step Title=STAGE 3: Casuistic Reasoning and Justification
|Instruction Step Text=Once the details of a case have been outlined according to the four quadrants, there are a series of questions that should be considered:

 

*What is at issue? Try to list what is the major ethical issue at the case, e.g researchers’ dishonesty, negligent conduct, informed consent, rules of data collection etc.)
*Where is the conflict? Is there a conflict between principles of research or principles of research integrity? (e.g. autonomy, justice, beneficence or between honesty, reliability and respect for colleagues)
*What is this a case of? Does it sound like other cases you may have encountered? (e.g. Is it a case of "self-plagiarism", “fabrication of data in a grant application” or “low risk research involving humans without a valid informed consent”?)
*What do we know about other cases like this one? Is there clear precedent? If so, we call this a paradigm case. A paradigm case is one in which the facts of the case are very clear cut and there has been much professional and/or public agreement about resolution of the case.
*How is the present case similar to the paradigm case? How is it different? Is it similar (or different) in significant ways?
}}
{{Instruction Remarks Trainee
|Has Remarks=The original version of the 4QA was developed to deal with clinical decisions involving patients and dilemmas or conflicts within the doctor-patient relationship.[https://embassy.science/wiki-wiki/index.php/Instruction:41bc2a1d-26f7-49f9-8bf7-9fc6b4ecf10c#_ftn1 <nowiki>[1]</nowiki>] Therefore, there is little room for developing, altering or adapting the method even in clinical settings.[https://embassy.science/wiki-wiki/index.php/Instruction:41bc2a1d-26f7-49f9-8bf7-9fc6b4ecf10c#_ftn2 <nowiki>[2]</nowiki>] Moreover, the four quadrants are said to be responsive to the four principles of biomedical ethics, specifically, autonomy, beneficence, non-maleficence and justice. This is a normative framework originally developed for biomedicine.

Here, we have adapted the “original version” to test its applicability in different research ethics and research integrity scenarios.

The basic structure and the general decision-making procedure embedded in the 4QA approach seem to be adaptable to any cases where various options for decision-making need to be assessed and clarified.

In adapting the 4QA, the aim is to enable a focused discussion around normative standards pertinent to research ethics and research integrity, leading to the application of case-based reasoning to the facts of the particular case at hand.

Consequently, the four quadrants of the procedure have been revised so that they not only are responsive to the regulatory frameworks and normative standards that apply to a user’s respective organization in the form of codes of ethics, codes of conduct, and, if applicable, broader national and international research ethics and research integrity codes, but can be applied to non-clinical settings to deal with cases in research ethics and research integrity.
----[https://embassy.science/wiki-wiki/index.php/Instruction:41bc2a1d-26f7-49f9-8bf7-9fc6b4ecf10c#_ftnref1 <nowiki>[1]</nowiki>] Sokol DK. The “four quadrants” approach to clinical ethics case analysis; an application and review. J Med Ethics. 2008;34(7):513-516.

[https://embassy.science/wiki-wiki/index.php/Instruction:41bc2a1d-26f7-49f9-8bf7-9fc6b4ecf10c#_ftnref2 <nowiki>[2]</nowiki>] Schumann JH, Alfandre D. Clinical ethical decision making: the four topics approach. Semin Med Pract 2008;11:36–42.
}}
{{Custom TabContent Close Trainee}}
{{Custom TabContent Trainer Open}}
{{Instruction Steps Foldout Trainer}}
{{Instruction Perspective Trainer}}
{{Instruction Remarks Trainer}}
{{Custom TabContent Close Trainer}}
{{Related To
|Related To Theme=Theme:Cda80c83-0101-4e27-bdc0-87a45846e5ed;Theme:17d406f9-0b0f-4325-aa2d-2fe186d5ff34
|Related To Instruction=Instruction:C0cf8cfb-6090-49e3-94f5-20f530f83ffd;Instruction:6cc77174-4f7b-48a6-95f3-eeb4dadcb0a3;Instruction:Ffff98bc-b81b-43ee-8fef-a264c1e25741;Instruction:6b129846-c455-4849-9eaf-0d25f3c5600e;Instruction:A440eed0-f9f4-4415-a2c4-2d6ff9f44b80
}}
{{Tags
|Has Virtue And Value=Accountability; Honesty; Transparency; Fairness; Respect
}}

Instruction:6b129846-c455-4849-9eaf-0d25f3c5600e

2021-08-08T11:19:04Z

0000-0002-2385-985X:

{{Instruction
|Title=02 - The Seven Steps Method: A Method for Analysing Cases in Research Ethics and Research Integrity
|Instruction Goal=Members of The Embassy of Good Science have developed a set of six user-friendly, accessible methods for analysing research ethics and research integrity cases.

These methods have been identified, adapted and presented so that they can be appropriated by all users, without prior philosophical knowledge, in local contexts.
|Has Requirements=The key aim for the case analysis method described here is that it can be appropriated by all users, without prior philosophical knowledge, in local contexts.

In order to apply this method in the analysis of specific cases, it is advised that RECs, RIOs and IRBs engage with the regulatory frameworks and normative standards that apply to their respective organizations in the form of codes of ethics, codes of conduct, funding body standards and, if applicable, broader national and international research ethics and research integrity regulatory documents.
|Has Duration=2
|Important For=Researchers; Research Ethics Committees; Research Integrity Officers
|Has Method=Individual learning; Case analysis method
}}
{{Custom TabContent Trainee Open}}
{{Instruction Steps Foldout Trainee}}
{{Instruction Perspective Trainee
|Is About=The Seven Steps Method is a checklist developed to assist with ethical decision making. The method involves responding to the following seven “what” questions:

 

*What are the facts?
*What are the ethical issues?
*What are the alternatives?
*What are the stakeholders?
*What are the ethics of alternatives?
*What are the practical constraints?
*What is the action to take? (Werhane et al. 1990[[#%20ftn1|[1]]])

These questions are designed to encourage a dialectical way of engaging with an ethical problem, so that (in cases where there is enough time) one can revise previous answers several times during the process. Various versions of this model are suggested for different professions. For instance, the Seven Step Method for ethical decision making in counselling (Miller and Davis 2016[[#%20ftn2|[2]]]) or management (Harold Fogelberg 2018[[#%20ftn3|[3]]]) are slightly different than the above model. Nevertheless, in principle, they all aim to help ethical decision making.

A more extensive version of this model is developed to address the ethical issues faced in scientific and academic contexts. In ''Ethics and the University'', Michael Davis adds several sub-questions to the original model and fine-tunes it for academic purposes (Davis 1999[[#%20ftn1|[4]]]). Being aware of the complexities of using moral theories for non-philosophers, his version of the model provides a framework for an orderly discussion of ethical issues using common sense.
----

[[#%20ftnref1|[1]]] Werhane, P., Bowie, N., Boatright, J., Velasquez, M. (1990), The Seven Step Method for Analyzing Ethical Situations [Online Material]. Retrieved February 25, 2019, from <nowiki>https://studylib.net/doc/18058307/model-g---the-seven-step-method-for-analyzing-ethical-sit</nowiki>

[[#%20ftnref2|[2]]] Miller, H. F., Davis, T. E. (2016). Practitioner’s Guide to Ethical Decision Making. Published by: The Center for Counseling Practice, Policy, and Research. Retrieved February 26 2019, from <nowiki>https://www.counseling.org/docs/default-source/ethics/practioner-39-s-guide-to-ethical-decision-making.pdf</nowiki>

[[#%20ftnref3|[3]]] Fogelberg, H. (2018, August 28). 7 Step model for ethical decision making [Web blog post]. Retrieved February 25, 2019, from <nowiki>https://compassexecutives.com/2018/08/28/7-step-model-for-ethical-decision-making/</nowiki>

[[#%20ftnref1|[4]]] Davis, M. (1999). Ethics and the university. London: Routledge.
|Has Practical Tips=A case analysed by this method is openly available on the Zenodo repository and can be accessed using the following link: https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.4905905
}}
{{Instruction Step Trainee
|Instruction Step Title=1. State problem
|Instruction Step Text=For example, “there’s something about this decision that makes me uncomfortable” or “do I have a conflict of interest?”
}}
{{Instruction Step Trainee
|Instruction Step Title=2. Check facts
|Instruction Step Text=Many problems disappear upon closer examination of the situation, while others change radically.
}}
{{Instruction Step Trainee
|Instruction Step Title=3. Identify relevant factors
|Instruction Step Text=For example, persons involved, laws, professional codes, and other practical constraints.
}}
{{Instruction Step Trainee
|Instruction Step Title=4. Develop a list of options
|Instruction Step Text=Be imaginative, try to avoid “dilemma”; not “yes” or “no” but whom to go to, what to say.
}}
{{Instruction Step Trainee
|Instruction Step Title=5. Test options
|Instruction Step Text=Employ one or more of the following tests:

 

*''Harm test'': does this option do less harm than alternatives?
*''Publicity test'': would I want my decision published in the newspaper?
*''Defensibility test'': could I defend my choice before a committee?
*''Reversibility test'': would I still make my choice if I were adversely affected by it?
*''Colleague test'': what are my colleagues’ responses to the options?
*''Professional test'': what might my profession’s governing body or ethics committee say about my choice?
*''Organization test'': what does the company’s ethics officer or legal counsel say about my choice?
}}
{{Instruction Step Trainee
|Instruction Step Title=6. Make a choice
|Instruction Step Text=All things considered, make a choice.
}}
{{Instruction Step Trainee
|Instruction Step Title=7. Review steps 1–6
|Instruction Step Text=*Are there any precautions you can take?
*Is there any way to access more support next time?
*Is there any way to change the organisation (for example, suggest policy changes at next departmental meeting)?
}}
{{Instruction Remarks Trainee}}
{{Custom TabContent Close Trainee}}
{{Custom TabContent Trainer Open}}
{{Instruction Steps Foldout Trainer}}
{{Instruction Perspective Trainer}}
{{Instruction Remarks Trainer}}
{{Custom TabContent Close Trainer}}
{{Related To
|Related To Instruction=Instruction:A440eed0-f9f4-4415-a2c4-2d6ff9f44b80;Instruction:41bc2a1d-26f7-49f9-8bf7-9fc6b4ecf10c;Instruction:C0cf8cfb-6090-49e3-94f5-20f530f83ffd;Instruction:6cc77174-4f7b-48a6-95f3-eeb4dadcb0a3;Instruction:Ffff98bc-b81b-43ee-8fef-a264c1e25741
}}
{{Tags
|Has Virtue And Value=Accountability; Respect; Honesty; Reliability
|Has Good Practice And Misconduct=Allegation of Misconduct; Ethical Dilemma
}}

Instruction:A440eed0-f9f4-4415-a2c4-2d6ff9f44b80

2021-08-08T11:05:43Z

0000-0002-2385-985X:

{{Instruction
|Title=01 - Value Analysis: A Method for Analysing Cases in Research Ethics and Research Integrity
|Instruction Goal=Members of The Embassy of Good Science have developed a set of six user-friendly, accessible methods for analysing research ethics and research integrity cases.

These methods have been identified, adapted and presented so that they can be appropriated by all users, without prior philosophical knowledge, in local contexts.
|Has Requirements=The key aim for the case analysis method described here is that it can be appropriated by all users, without prior philosophical knowledge, in local contexts.

In order to apply this method in the analysis of specific cases, it is advised that RECs, RIOs and IRBs engage with the regulatory frameworks and normative standards that apply to their respective organizations in the form of codes of ethics, codes of conduct, funding body standards and, if applicable, broader national and international research ethics and research integrity regulatory documents.
|Has Duration=2
|Important For=researchers; Ethics committee members; Research Integrity Officers
|Has Method=Participatory sessions; Case analysis method
}}
{{Custom TabContent Trainee Open}}
{{Instruction Steps Foldout Trainee}}
{{Instruction Perspective Trainee
|Is About=This case analysis uses a procedure advanced by Jack R. Fraenkel (1976) for the purpose of values education.<ref>Fraenkel, Jack, R. (1976). Teaching about Values. In: Ubbelohde, Carl, and Jack R. Fraenkel. (Eds.) Values of the American Heritage: Challenges, Case Studies, and Teaching Strategies. The Bicentennial Yearbook, 46th Yearbook." (1976).</ref> Fraenkel (1932-2013) earned a PhD from Stanford University in 1966 and subsequently worked at San Francisco State University for more than 30 years. When he retired, he was Professor of Interdisciplinary Studies in Education.<ref>Obituary (2014). Jack Fraenkel Obituary, San Francisco Chronicle on Mar. 7, 2014, https://www.legacy.com/obituaries/sfgate/obituary.aspx?n=jack-fraenkel&pid=170037290 (accessed on March, 15th 2019)</ref>
<references />
|Important Because=Fraenkel published a lot on research methodology, curriculum development and research in education. Guided by the work of Coombs and Meux<ref>Coombs, Jerrold R., and Milton Meux, ‘Teaching strategies for values analysis’. In: Metcalf, L. E. (Eds.) (1071). Values education: Values education: Rationale, strategies and procedures. Washington D. C.: National Council for Social Studies. S. 29–74.</ref>, Fraenkel (1976) advanced an interesting method to analyse value conflicts meant for teachers “[…] to help students determine for themselves what individuals caught in value dilemmas should do […]”.<ref>Fraenkel, Jack, R. (1976). Teaching about Values. In: Ubbelohde, Carl, and Jack R. Fraenkel. (Eds.) Values of the American Heritage: Challenges, Case Studies, and Teaching Strategies. The Bicentennial Yearbook, 46th Yearbook." (1976).</ref>
<references />
|Has Practical Tips=A case analysed by this method is openly available on the Zenodo repository and can be accessed using the following link: [https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.5035506 https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.4905905]

 
<references />
}}
{{Instruction Step Trainee
|Instruction Step Title=What is the incident about?
|Instruction Step Text=What is the dilemma?
}}
{{Instruction Step Trainee
|Instruction Step Title=What might (the central character) do to try and resolve the dilemma?
|Instruction Step Text=What alternatives exist?
}}
{{Instruction Step Trainee
|Instruction Step Title=What might happen if he or she does each of these things?
|Instruction Step Text=What might be the consequences of the various alternatives?
}}
{{Instruction Step Trainee
|Instruction Step Title=What might happen to those who are not immediately involved?
|Instruction Step Text=What might be the short- as well as the long-range consequences?
}}
{{Instruction Step Trainee
|Instruction Step Title=What evidence, if any, is there that these consequences would indeed occur?
|Instruction Step Text=What could be considered as forseeable consequences?
}}
{{Instruction Step Trainee
|Instruction Step Title=Would each consequence be good or bad? Why?
|Instruction Step Text=Is there a positive balance between good and bad consequences?
}}
{{Instruction Step Trainee
|Instruction Step Title=What do you think X should do?
|Instruction Step Text=What do you think is the best thing for X to do?
}}
{{Instruction Remarks Trainee
|Has Remarks=Ad. 1: Fraenkel stresses the importance of identifying whether the conflict is about ends or means to ends that have been agreed upon. Equally important is to establish the factual context of the situation.<ref>Fraenkel, Jack, R. (1976). Teaching about Values. In: Ubbelohde, Carl, and Jack R. Fraenkel. (Eds.) Values of the American Heritage: Challenges, Case Studies, and Teaching Strategies. The Bicentennial Yearbook, 46th Yearbook." (1976).</ref>

Ad. 2: This step involves brainstorming for all the available action alternatives for the agent(s) facing the value conflict at hand.

Ad. 3 and 4: These questions are focused on the expected consequences of the different alternative actions available to those facing the value conflict. What might be the effects of each alternative respectively? Which parties might be affected? Could the consequences spill over to future generations? It might make sense here to distinguish between short- and long-range effects for the individual and other parties. In order to map these consequences, a Values Information Chart ('''Table 1''') could be used.
{{{!}} class="wikitable" border="1" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="0"
{{!}} rowspan="3" width="62"{{!}}'''Facts'''
{{!}} rowspan="3" width="67"{{!}}'''Alternatives'''
{{!}} colspan="4" width="476"{{!}}'''Consequences'''
{{!}}-
{{!}} colspan="2" width="283"{{!}}'''Short-Range'''
{{!}} colspan="2" width="193"{{!}}'''Long-Range'''
{{!}}-
{{!}} width="136"{{!}}'''Self'''
{{!}} width="147"{{!}}'''Others'''
{{!}} width="97"{{!}}'''Self'''
{{!}} width="97"{{!}}'''Others'''
{{!}}-
{{!}} rowspan="3" width="62" valign="top"{{!}}
{{!}} width="67" valign="top"{{!}}
{{!}} width="136" valign="top"{{!}}
{{!}} width="147" valign="top"{{!}}
{{!}} width="97" valign="top"{{!}}
{{!}} width="97" valign="top"{{!}}
{{!}}-
{{!}} width="67" valign="top"{{!}}
{{!}} width="136" valign="top"{{!}}
{{!}} width="147" valign="top"{{!}}
{{!}} width="97" valign="top"{{!}}
{{!}} width="97" valign="top"{{!}}
{{!}}-
{{!}} width="67" valign="top"{{!}}
{{!}} width="136" valign="top"{{!}}
{{!}} width="147" valign="top"{{!}}
{{!}} width="97" valign="top"{{!}}
{{!}} width="97" valign="top"{{!}}
{{!}}}'''Table 1: Values Information Chart Template'''

Ad. 5: This question zooms in on the evidence supporting or refuting the potential effects of the alternative actions as identified above. If the case at hand is similar to case studies from the past, it might be useful to study what happened there. Data to that effect should be gathered, and their truthfulness and relevance to the case at hand established.

Ad. 6: A discussion of the desirability of the expected consequences is needed. This should happen based on certain criteria. These criteria might be of a moral, legal, aesthetic, ecological, economic, health and safety and/or a completely different nature. A Value Analysis Chart ('''Table 2''') could be used to keep track of the assessment of the different consequences along the different criteria. In the last column of this chart the desirability of the different consequences is ranked from the most to the least desirable.

Ad. 7: Fraenkel does not explain how the answer to this final question should follow from the analysis above. It seems to be implicit in his method that the answer automatically matches the alternative that turns out to be most desirable over all.
 
{{{!}} class="wikitable" border="1" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="0" width="604"
{{!}} rowspan="2" width="67"{{!}}'''Alternatives'''
{{!}} rowspan="2" width="120"{{!}}'''Consequences'''
{{!}} colspan="7" width="354"{{!}}'''Desirability from various points of view'''
{{!}} rowspan="2" width="64"{{!}}'''Ranking'''
{{!}}-
{{!}} width="41"{{!}}'''Moral'''
{{!}} width="39"{{!}}'''Legal'''
{{!}} width="55"{{!}}'''Aesthetic'''
{{!}} width="60"{{!}}'''Ecological'''
{{!}} width="58"{{!}}'''Economic'''
{{!}} width="51"{{!}}'''Health and Safety'''
{{!}} width="51"{{!}}'''Etc.'''
{{!}}-
{{!}} width="67" valign="top"{{!}}
{{!}} width="120" valign="top"{{!}}
{{!}} width="41" valign="top"{{!}}
{{!}} width="39" valign="top"{{!}}
{{!}} width="55" valign="top"{{!}}
{{!}} width="60" valign="top"{{!}}
{{!}} width="58" valign="top"{{!}}
{{!}} width="51" valign="top"{{!}}
{{!}} width="51" valign="top"{{!}}
{{!}} width="64" valign="top"{{!}}
{{!}}-
{{!}} width="67" valign="top"{{!}}
{{!}} width="120" valign="top"{{!}}
{{!}} width="41" valign="top"{{!}}
{{!}} width="39" valign="top"{{!}}
{{!}} width="55" valign="top"{{!}}
{{!}} width="60" valign="top"{{!}}
{{!}} width="58" valign="top"{{!}}
{{!}} width="51" valign="top"{{!}}
{{!}} width="51" valign="top"{{!}}
{{!}} width="64" valign="top"{{!}}
{{!}}-
{{!}} width="67" valign="top"{{!}}
{{!}} width="120" valign="top"{{!}}
{{!}} width="41" valign="top"{{!}}
{{!}} width="39" valign="top"{{!}}
{{!}} width="55" valign="top"{{!}}
{{!}} width="60" valign="top"{{!}}
{{!}} width="58" valign="top"{{!}}
{{!}} width="51" valign="top"{{!}}
{{!}} width="51" valign="top"{{!}}
{{!}} width="64" valign="top"{{!}}
{{!}}-
{{!}} width="67" valign="top"{{!}}
{{!}} width="120" valign="top"{{!}}
{{!}} width="41" valign="top"{{!}}
{{!}} width="39" valign="top"{{!}}
{{!}} width="55" valign="top"{{!}}
{{!}} width="60" valign="top"{{!}}
{{!}} width="58" valign="top"{{!}}
{{!}} width="51" valign="top"{{!}}
{{!}} width="51" valign="top"{{!}}
{{!}} width="64" valign="top"{{!}}
{{!}}}

'''Table 2: Value Analysis Chart Template'''[[File:The Value Analysis Method.jpg|thumb|Figure 1. Fraenkel's value analysis method.]]
<references />
}}
{{Custom TabContent Close Trainee}}
{{Custom TabContent Trainer Open}}
{{Instruction Steps Foldout Trainer}}
{{Instruction Perspective Trainer}}
{{Instruction Remarks Trainer}}
{{Custom TabContent Close Trainer}}
{{Related To
|Related To Instruction=Instruction:6b129846-c455-4849-9eaf-0d25f3c5600e;Instruction:41bc2a1d-26f7-49f9-8bf7-9fc6b4ecf10c;Instruction:C0cf8cfb-6090-49e3-94f5-20f530f83ffd;Instruction:6cc77174-4f7b-48a6-95f3-eeb4dadcb0a3;Instruction:Ffff98bc-b81b-43ee-8fef-a264c1e25741
}}
{{Tags
|Has Virtue And Value=Fairness; Honesty; Respect
|Has Good Practice And Misconduct=Virtue ethics
}}

Instruction:6b129846-c455-4849-9eaf-0d25f3c5600e

2021-07-02T13:36:00Z

0000-0002-2385-985X:

{{Instruction
|Title=02 - The Seven Steps Method: A Method for Analysing Cases in Research Ethics and Research Integrity
|Instruction Goal=Members of The Embassy of Good Science have developed a set of six user-friendly, accessible methods for analysing research ethics and research integrity cases.

These methods have been identified, adapted and presented so that they can be appropriated by all users, without prior philosophical knowledge, in local contexts.
|Has Requirements=The key aim for the case analysis method described here is that it can be appropriated by all users, without prior philosophical knowledge, in local contexts.

In order to apply this method in the analysis of specific cases, it is advised that RECs, RIOs and IRBs engage with the regulatory frameworks and normative standards that apply to their respective organizations in the form of codes of ethics, codes of conduct, funding body standards and, if applicable, broader national and international research ethics and research integrity regulatory documents.
|Has Duration=2
|Important For=Researchers; Research Ethics Committees; Research Integrity Officers
|Has Method=Individual learning
}}
{{Custom TabContent Trainee Open}}
{{Instruction Steps Foldout Trainee}}
{{Instruction Perspective Trainee
|Is About=The Seven Steps Method is a checklist developed to assist with ethical decision making. The method involves responding to the following seven “what” questions:

 

*What are the facts?
*What are the ethical issues?
*What are the alternatives?
*What are the stakeholders?
*What are the ethics of alternatives?
*What are the practical constraints?
*What is the action to take? (Werhane et al. 1990[[#%20ftn1|[1]]])

These questions are designed to encourage a dialectical way of engaging with an ethical problem, so that (in cases where there is enough time) one can revise previous answers several times during the process. Various versions of this model are suggested for different professions. For instance, the Seven Step Method for ethical decision making in counselling (Miller and Davis 2016[[#%20ftn2|[2]]]) or management (Harold Fogelberg 2018[[#%20ftn3|[3]]]) are slightly different than the above model. Nevertheless, in principle, they all aim to help ethical decision making.

A more extensive version of this model is developed to address the ethical issues faced in scientific and academic contexts. In ''Ethics and the University'', Michael Davis adds several sub-questions to the original model and fine-tunes it for academic purposes (Davis 1999[[#%20ftn1|[4]]]). Being aware of the complexities of using moral theories for non-philosophers, his version of the model provides a framework for an orderly discussion of ethical issues using common sense.
----

[[#%20ftnref1|[1]]] Werhane, P., Bowie, N., Boatright, J., Velasquez, M. (1990), The Seven Step Method for Analyzing Ethical Situations [Online Material]. Retrieved February 25, 2019, from <nowiki>https://studylib.net/doc/18058307/model-g---the-seven-step-method-for-analyzing-ethical-sit</nowiki>

[[#%20ftnref2|[2]]] Miller, H. F., Davis, T. E. (2016). Practitioner’s Guide to Ethical Decision Making. Published by: The Center for Counseling Practice, Policy, and Research. Retrieved February 26 2019, from <nowiki>https://www.counseling.org/docs/default-source/ethics/practioner-39-s-guide-to-ethical-decision-making.pdf</nowiki>

[[#%20ftnref3|[3]]] Fogelberg, H. (2018, August 28). 7 Step model for ethical decision making [Web blog post]. Retrieved February 25, 2019, from <nowiki>https://compassexecutives.com/2018/08/28/7-step-model-for-ethical-decision-making/</nowiki>

[[#%20ftnref1|[4]]] Davis, M. (1999). Ethics and the university. London: Routledge.
|Has Practical Tips=A case analysed by this method is openly available on the Zenodo repository and can be accessed using the following link: https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.4905905
}}
{{Instruction Step Trainee
|Instruction Step Title=1. State problem
|Instruction Step Text=For example, “there’s something about this decision that makes me uncomfortable” or “do I have a conflict of interest?”
}}
{{Instruction Step Trainee
|Instruction Step Title=2. Check facts
|Instruction Step Text=Many problems disappear upon closer examination of the situation, while others change radically.
}}
{{Instruction Step Trainee
|Instruction Step Title=3. Identify relevant factors
|Instruction Step Text=For example, persons involved, laws, professional codes, and other practical constraints.
}}
{{Instruction Step Trainee
|Instruction Step Title=4. Develop a list of options
|Instruction Step Text=Be imaginative, try to avoid “dilemma”; not “yes” or “no” but whom to go to, what to say.
}}
{{Instruction Step Trainee
|Instruction Step Title=5. Test options
|Instruction Step Text=Employ one or more of the following tests:

 

*''Harm test'': does this option do less harm than alternatives?
*''Publicity test'': would I want my decision published in the newspaper?
*''Defensibility test'': could I defend my choice before a committee?
*''Reversibility test'': would I still make my choice if I were adversely affected by it?
*''Colleague test'': what are my colleagues’ responses to the options?
*''Professional test'': what might my profession’s governing body or ethics committee say about my choice?
*''Organization test'': what does the company’s ethics officer or legal counsel say about my choice?
}}
{{Instruction Step Trainee
|Instruction Step Title=6. Make a choice
|Instruction Step Text=All things considered, make a choice.
}}
{{Instruction Step Trainee
|Instruction Step Title=7. Review steps 1–6
|Instruction Step Text=*Are there any precautions you can take?
*Is there any way to access more support next time?
*Is there any way to change the organisation (for example, suggest policy changes at next departmental meeting)?
}}
{{Instruction Remarks Trainee}}
{{Custom TabContent Close Trainee}}
{{Custom TabContent Trainer Open}}
{{Instruction Steps Foldout Trainer}}
{{Instruction Perspective Trainer}}
{{Instruction Remarks Trainer}}
{{Custom TabContent Close Trainer}}
{{Related To
|Related To Instruction=Instruction:A440eed0-f9f4-4415-a2c4-2d6ff9f44b80;Instruction:41bc2a1d-26f7-49f9-8bf7-9fc6b4ecf10c;Instruction:C0cf8cfb-6090-49e3-94f5-20f530f83ffd;Instruction:6cc77174-4f7b-48a6-95f3-eeb4dadcb0a3;Instruction:Ffff98bc-b81b-43ee-8fef-a264c1e25741
}}
{{Tags
|Has Virtue And Value=Accountability; Respect; Honesty; Reliability
|Has Good Practice And Misconduct=Allegation of Misconduct; Ethical Dilemma
}}

Instruction:6b129846-c455-4849-9eaf-0d25f3c5600e

2021-06-29T13:44:58Z

0000-0002-2385-985X:

{{Instruction
|Title=02 - The Seven Step Method: A Method for Analysing Cases in Research Ethics and Research Integrity
|Instruction Goal=Members of The Embassy of Good Science have developed a set of six user-friendly, accessible methods for analysing research ethics and research integrity cases.

These methods have been identified, adapted and presented so that they can be appropriated by all users, without prior philosophical knowledge, in local contexts.
|Has Requirements=The key aim for the case analysis method described here is that it can be appropriated by all users, without prior philosophical knowledge, in local contexts.

In order to apply this method in the analysis of specific cases, it is advised that RECs, RIOs and IRBs engage with the regulatory frameworks and normative standards that apply to their respective organizations in the form of codes of ethics, codes of conduct, funding body standards and, if applicable, broader national and international research ethics and research integrity regulatory documents.
|Has Duration=2
|Important For=Researchers; Research Ethics Committees; Research Integrity Officers
|Has Method=Individual learning
}}
{{Custom TabContent Trainee Open}}
{{Instruction Steps Foldout Trainee}}
{{Instruction Perspective Trainee
|Is About=The Seven Step Method is a checklist developed to assist with ethical decision making. The method involves responding to the following seven “what” questions:

 

*What are the facts?
*What are the ethical issues?
*What are the alternatives?
*What are the stakeholders?
*What are the ethics of alternatives?
*What are the practical constraints?
*What is the action to take? (Werhane et al. 1990[[#%20ftn1|[1]]])

These questions are designed to encourage a dialectical way of engaging with an ethical problem, so that (in cases where there is enough time) one can revise previous answers several times during the process. Various versions of this model are suggested for different professions. For instance, the Seven Step Method for ethical decision making in counselling (Miller and Davis 2016[[#%20ftn2|[2]]]) or management (Harold Fogelberg 2018[[#%20ftn3|[3]]]) are slightly different than the above model. Nevertheless, in principle, they all aim to help ethical decision making.

A more extensive version of this model is developed to address the ethical issues faced in scientific and academic contexts. In ''Ethics and the University'', Michael Davis adds several sub-questions to the original model and fine-tunes it for academic purposes (Davis 1999[[#%20ftn1|[4]]]). Being aware of the complexities of using moral theories for non-philosophers, his version of the model provides a framework for an orderly discussion of ethical issues using common sense.
----

[[#%20ftnref1|[1]]] Werhane, P., Bowie, N., Boatright, J., Velasquez, M. (1990), The Seven Step Method for Analyzing Ethical Situations [Online Material]. Retrieved February 25, 2019, from <nowiki>https://studylib.net/doc/18058307/model-g---the-seven-step-method-for-analyzing-ethical-sit</nowiki>

[[#%20ftnref2|[2]]] Miller, H. F., Davis, T. E. (2016). Practitioner’s Guide to Ethical Decision Making. Published by: The Center for Counseling Practice, Policy, and Research. Retrieved February 26 2019, from <nowiki>https://www.counseling.org/docs/default-source/ethics/practioner-39-s-guide-to-ethical-decision-making.pdf</nowiki>

[[#%20ftnref3|[3]]] Fogelberg, H. (2018, August 28). 7 Step model for ethical decision making [Web blog post]. Retrieved February 25, 2019, from <nowiki>https://compassexecutives.com/2018/08/28/7-step-model-for-ethical-decision-making/</nowiki>

[[#%20ftnref1|[4]]] Davis, M. (1999). Ethics and the university. London: Routledge.
|Has Practical Tips=A case analysed by this method is openly available on the Zenodo repository and can be accessed using the following link: https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.4905905
}}
{{Instruction Step Trainee
|Instruction Step Title=1. State problem
|Instruction Step Text=For example, “there’s something about this decision that makes me uncomfortable” or “do I have a conflict of interest?”
}}
{{Instruction Step Trainee
|Instruction Step Title=2. Check facts
|Instruction Step Text=Many problems disappear upon closer examination of the situation, while others change radically.
}}
{{Instruction Step Trainee
|Instruction Step Title=3. Identify relevant factors
|Instruction Step Text=For example, persons involved, laws, professional codes, and other practical constraints.
}}
{{Instruction Step Trainee
|Instruction Step Title=4. Develop a list of options
|Instruction Step Text=Be imaginative, try to avoid “dilemma”; not “yes” or “no” but whom to go to, what to say.
}}
{{Instruction Step Trainee
|Instruction Step Title=5. Test options
|Instruction Step Text=Employ one or more of the following tests:

 

*''Harm test'': does this option do less harm than alternatives?
*''Publicity test'': would I want my decision published in the newspaper?
*''Defensibility test'': could I defend my choice before a committee?
*''Reversibility test'': would I still make my choice if I were adversely affected by it?
*''Colleague test'': what are my colleagues’ responses to the options?
*''Professional test'': what might my profession’s governing body or ethics committee say about my choice?
*''Organization test'': what does the company’s ethics officer or legal counsel say about my choice?
}}
{{Instruction Step Trainee
|Instruction Step Title=6. Make a choice
|Instruction Step Text=All things considered, make a choice.
}}
{{Instruction Step Trainee
|Instruction Step Title=7. Review steps 1–6
|Instruction Step Text=*Are there any precautions you can take?
*Is there any way to access more support next time?
*Is there any way to change the organisation (for example, suggest policy changes at next departmental meeting)?
}}
{{Instruction Remarks Trainee}}
{{Custom TabContent Close Trainee}}
{{Custom TabContent Trainer Open}}
{{Instruction Steps Foldout Trainer}}
{{Instruction Perspective Trainer}}
{{Instruction Remarks Trainer}}
{{Custom TabContent Close Trainer}}
{{Related To
|Related To Instruction=Instruction:A440eed0-f9f4-4415-a2c4-2d6ff9f44b80;Instruction:41bc2a1d-26f7-49f9-8bf7-9fc6b4ecf10c;Instruction:C0cf8cfb-6090-49e3-94f5-20f530f83ffd;Instruction:6cc77174-4f7b-48a6-95f3-eeb4dadcb0a3;Instruction:Ffff98bc-b81b-43ee-8fef-a264c1e25741
}}
{{Tags
|Has Virtue And Value=Accountability; Respect; Honesty; Reliability
|Has Good Practice And Misconduct=Allegation of Misconduct; Ethical Dilemma
}}

Instruction:6b129846-c455-4849-9eaf-0d25f3c5600e

2021-06-29T13:44:23Z

0000-0002-2385-985X:

{{Instruction
|Title=02 - The Seven Step Method: A Method for Analysing Cases in Research Ethics and Research Integrity
|Instruction Goal=Members of The Embassy of Good Science have developed a set of six user-friendly, accessible methods for analysing research ethics and research integrity cases.

These methods have been identified, adapted and presented so that they can be appropriated by all users, without prior philosophical knowledge, in local contexts.
|Has Requirements=The key aim for the case analysis method described here is that it can be appropriated by all users, without prior philosophical knowledge, in local contexts.

In order to apply this method in the analysis of specific cases, it is advised that RECs, RIOs and IRBs engage with the regulatory frameworks and normative standards that apply to their respective organizations in the form of codes of ethics, codes of conduct, funding body standards and, if applicable, broader national and international research ethics and research integrity regulatory documents.
|Has Duration=2
|Important For=Researchers; Research Ethics Committees; Research Integrity Officers
|Has Method=Individual learning
}}
{{Custom TabContent Trainee Open}}
{{Instruction Steps Foldout Trainee}}
{{Instruction Perspective Trainee
|Is About=The Seven Step Method is a checklist developed to assist with ethical decision making. The method involves responding to the following seven “what” questions:

 

*What are the facts?
*What are the ethical issues?
*What are the alternatives?
*What are the stakeholders?
*What are the ethics of alternatives?
*What are the practical constraints?
*What is the action to take? (Werhane et al. 1990[[#%20ftn1|[1]]])

These questions are designed to encourage a dialectical way of engaging with an ethical problem, so that (in cases where there is enough time) one can revise previous answers several times during the process. Various versions of this model are suggested for different professions. For instance, the Seven Step Method for ethical decision making in counselling (Miller and Davis 2016[[#%20ftn2|[2]]]) or management (Harold Fogelberg 2018[[#%20ftn3|[3]]]) are slightly different than the above model. Nevertheless, in principle, they all aim to help ethical decision making.

A more extensive version of this model is developed to address the ethical issues faced in scientific and academic contexts. In ''Ethics and the University'', Michael Davis adds several sub-questions to the original model and fine-tunes it for academic purposes (Davis 1999[[#%20ftn1|[4]]]). Being aware of the complexities of using moral theories for non-philosophers, his version of the model provides a framework for an orderly discussion of ethical issues using common sense.
----

[[#%20ftnref1|[1]]] Werhane, P., Bowie, N., Boatright, J., Velasquez, M. (1990), The Seven Step Method for Analyzing Ethical Situations [Online Material]. Retrieved February 25, 2019, from <nowiki>https://studylib.net/doc/18058307/model-g---the-seven-step-method-for-analyzing-ethical-sit</nowiki>

[[#%20ftnref2|[2]]] Miller, H. F., Davis, T. E. (2016). Practitioner’s Guide to Ethical Decision Making. Published by: The Center for Counseling Practice, Policy, and Research. Retrieved February 26 2019, from <nowiki>https://www.counseling.org/docs/default-source/ethics/practioner-39-s-guide-to-ethical-decision-making.pdf</nowiki>

[[#%20ftnref3|[3]]] Fogelberg, H. (2018, August 28). 7 Step model for ethical decision making [Web blog post]. Retrieved February 25, 2019, from <nowiki>https://compassexecutives.com/2018/08/28/7-step-model-for-ethical-decision-making/</nowiki>

[[#%20ftnref1|[4]]] Davis, M. (1999). Ethics and the university. London: Routledge.
|Has Practical Tips=A case analysed by this method is openly available on the Zenodo repository and can be accessed using the following link: https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.4905905
}}
{{Instruction Step Trainee
|Instruction Step Title=1. State problem
|Instruction Step Text=For example, “there’s something about this decision that makes me uncomfortable” or “do I have a conflict of interest?”
}}
{{Instruction Step Trainee
|Instruction Step Title=2. Check facts
|Instruction Step Text=Many problems disappear upon closer examination of the situation, while others change radically.
}}
{{Instruction Step Trainee
|Instruction Step Title=3. Identify relevant factors
|Instruction Step Text=For example, persons involved, laws, professional codes, and other practical constraints.
}}
{{Instruction Step Trainee
|Instruction Step Title=4. Develop a list of options
|Instruction Step Text=Be imaginative, try to avoid “dilemma”; not “yes” or “no” but whom to go to, what to say.
}}
{{Instruction Step Trainee
|Instruction Step Title=5. Test options
|Instruction Step Text=Employ one or more of the following tests:

* ''Harm test'': does this option do less harm than alternatives?
* ''Publicity test'': would I want my decision published in the newspaper?
* ''Defensibility test'': could I defend my choice before a committee?
* ''Reversibility test'': would I still make my choice if I were adversely affected by it?
* ''Colleague test'': what are my colleagues’ responses to the options?
* ''Professional test'': what might my profession’s governing body or ethics committee say about my choice?
* ''Organization test'': what does the company’s ethics officer or legal counsel say about my choice?
}}
{{Instruction Step Trainee
|Instruction Step Title=6. Make a choice
|Instruction Step Text=All things considered, make a choice.
}}
{{Instruction Step Trainee
|Instruction Step Title=7. Review steps 1–6
|Instruction Step Text=* Are there any precautions you can take?
* Is there any way to access more support next time?
* Is there any way to change the organisation (for example, suggest policy changes at next departmental meeting)?
}}
{{Instruction Remarks Trainee}}
{{Custom TabContent Close Trainee}}
{{Custom TabContent Trainer Open}}
{{Instruction Steps Foldout Trainer}}
{{Instruction Perspective Trainer}}
{{Instruction Remarks Trainer}}
{{Custom TabContent Close Trainer}}
{{Related To
|Related To Instruction=Instruction:A440eed0-f9f4-4415-a2c4-2d6ff9f44b80;Instruction:41bc2a1d-26f7-49f9-8bf7-9fc6b4ecf10c;Instruction:C0cf8cfb-6090-49e3-94f5-20f530f83ffd;Instruction:6cc77174-4f7b-48a6-95f3-eeb4dadcb0a3;Instruction:Ffff98bc-b81b-43ee-8fef-a264c1e25741
}}
{{Tags
|Has Virtue And Value=Accountability; Respect; Honesty; Reliability
|Has Good Practice And Misconduct=Allegation of Misconduct; Ethical Dilemma
}}

Instruction:Ffff98bc-b81b-43ee-8fef-a264c1e25741

2021-06-29T11:51:59Z

0000-0002-2385-985X:

{{Instruction
|Title=06 - Teaching Research Ethics Tool : A Method for Analysing Cases in Research Ethics
|Instruction Goal=Members of The Embassy of Good Science have developed a set of six user-friendly, accessible methods for analysing research ethics and research integrity cases.

These methods have been identified, adapted and presented so that they can be appropriated by all users, without prior philosophical knowledge, in local contexts.
|Has Requirements=The key aim for the case analysis method described here is that it can be appropriated by all users, without prior philosophical knowledge, in local contexts.

In order to apply this method in the analysis of specific cases, it is advised that RECs, RIOs and IRBs engage with the regulatory frameworks and normative standards that apply to their respective organizations in the form of codes of ethics, codes of conduct, funding body standards and, if applicable, broader national and international research ethics and research integrity regulatory documents.
|Has Duration=2
|Important For=Researchers; Ethics committee members; Research Integrity Officers
}}
{{Custom TabContent Trainee Open}}
{{Instruction Steps Foldout Trainee}}
{{Instruction Perspective Trainee
|Is About=This method was developed by Ferrer[[#%20ftn1|[1]]] and applied by a group of investigators from Graduate Education in Research Ethics for Scientists and Engineers (GERESE) at the University of Puerto Rico, Mayaguez campus (UPRM). The aim of the project was to integrate research ethics into the graduate curriculum in science and engineering[[#%20ftn2|[2]]].
----[[#%20ftnref1|[1]]] Ferrer, J.J. (2007), “Deber y Deliberación una Invitación a la Bioética” Cep, Mayagüez, Puerto Rico.

[[#%20ftnref2|[2]]] Valdes, D., & Jaramillo Giraldo, E., & Ferrer, J., & Frey, W. (2009, June), Case Analysis: A Tool for Teaching Research Ethics In Science And Engineering For Graduate Students Paper presented at 2009 Annual Conference & Exposition, Austin, Texas. <nowiki>https://peer.asee.org/5729</nowiki>
|Important Because=This method is used as a conceptual tool to guide students though the moral deliberation process in a systematic way.
|Has Practical Tips=A case analysed by this method is openly available on the Zenodo repository and can be accessed using the following link: https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.5035531
}}
{{Instruction Step Trainee
|Instruction Step Title=Determination of facts
|Instruction Step Text=Identify the situations, people and environment through which the case unfolds. A good understanding of facts is essential for this deliberation procedure.
}}
{{Instruction Step Trainee
|Instruction Step Title=Identification of morally problematic situations
|Instruction Step Text=There are usually several morally problematic situations that require attention. This step provides students with an opportunity to improve their sensibility to ethically problematic situations.
}}
{{Instruction Step Trainee
|Instruction Step Title=Identification of possible courses of action
|Instruction Step Text=Usually, there are several possible courses of action. Some result in misconduct while others effectively and ethically solve the problem(s).
}}
{{Instruction Step Trainee
|Instruction Step Title=Distinguishing “moral questions”, “moral disagreements”, and “moral conflicts”
|Instruction Step Text=A moral question is a situation in which moral duties are clear to the subject, although they may be in conflict with other issues of interest to the agent such as financial and political interests. These situations do not require moral deliberation so much as moral courage. Moral disagreements arise when the agent feels subjectively certain but holds a point of view in conflict with another persons’ moral judgments. These situations call for moral dialogue and argumentation. Finally, moral conflicts (or moral problems) arise when agents face conflicting moral duties. These instances call for moral deliberation.
}}
{{Instruction Step Trainee
|Instruction Step Title=Establish a hierarchy of values related to morally problematic situations
|Instruction Step Text=If there are moral conflicts, examination of the relative hierarchy of values is required in order to determine the overriding duty or duties in the situation.
}}
{{Instruction Step Trainee
|Instruction Step Title=Consequence analysis (if necessary)
|Instruction Step Text=If the previous step is not sufficient to identify the preferred course of action, a further step is required consisting of the analysis of foreseeable consequences of each course of action. The analysis of consequences depends on a good determination of the facts. It should include foreseeable consequences related to the persons involved, the working environment, the external environment, and society at large.
}}
{{Instruction Step Trainee
|Instruction Step Title=Justification of the moral choice
|Instruction Step Text=After analysing different possible courses of action, students identify those that are morally justified.
}}
{{Instruction Remarks Trainee}}
{{Custom TabContent Close Trainee}}
{{Custom TabContent Trainer Open}}
{{Instruction Steps Foldout Trainer}}
{{Instruction Perspective Trainer}}
{{Instruction Remarks Trainer}}
{{Custom TabContent Close Trainer}}
{{Related To
|Related To Theme=Theme:17d406f9-0b0f-4325-aa2d-2fe186d5ff34;Theme:Cda80c83-0101-4e27-bdc0-87a45846e5ed
|Related To Instruction=Instruction:A440eed0-f9f4-4415-a2c4-2d6ff9f44b80;Instruction:6b129846-c455-4849-9eaf-0d25f3c5600e;Instruction:41bc2a1d-26f7-49f9-8bf7-9fc6b4ecf10c;Instruction:C0cf8cfb-6090-49e3-94f5-20f530f83ffd;Instruction:6cc77174-4f7b-48a6-95f3-eeb4dadcb0a3
}}
{{Tags
|Has Virtue And Value=Fairness; Respect; Accountability; Transparency; Responsibility
}}

Instruction:6cc77174-4f7b-48a6-95f3-eeb4dadcb0a3

2021-06-29T11:51:21Z

0000-0002-2385-985X:

{{Instruction
|Title=05 - REalistiC Decisions: A Method for Analysing Cases in Research Ethics and Research Integrity
|Instruction Goal=Members of The Embassy of Good Science have developed a set of six user-friendly, accessible methods for analysing research ethics and research integrity cases.

These methods have been identified, adapted and presented so that they can be appropriated by all users, without prior philosophical knowledge, in local contexts.
|Has Requirements=The key aim for the case analysis method described here is that it can be appropriated by all users, without prior philosophical knowledge, in local contexts.

In order to apply this method in the analysis of specific cases, it is advised that RECs, RIOs and IRBs engage with the regulatory frameworks and normative standards that apply to their respective organizations in the form of codes of ethics, codes of conduct, funding body standards and, if applicable, broader national and international research ethics and research integrity regulatory documents.
|Has Duration=2
|Important For=Researchers; Ethics committee members; Research Ethics Committees; Research Integrity Officers; Administrators
|Has Method=Participatory sessions
}}
{{Custom TabContent Trainee Open}}
{{Instruction Steps Foldout Trainee}}
{{Instruction Perspective Trainee
|Is About=[http://www.reviewingresearch.com/realistic-decisions-making-judgements-in-committee/ REalistiC Decisions] is a case analysis method proposed by [https://uk.linkedin.com/in/hugh-davies-61029750 Hugh Davies] MB BS, Research Ethics Advisor for the Health Research Authority (‘HRA’) and former Consultant Paediatrician at Oxford University Hospitals.

Although intended to be a procedure for reviewing research ethics proposals, it is flexible enough to be used to analyse research integrity cases.<ref>Davies H. REalistiC Decisions: making judgements in review (and design). [Online]. <nowiki>http://www.reviewingresearch.com/realistic-decisions-making-judgements-in-committee/</nowiki>. Accessed 10 March 2019.</ref>
<references />
|Important Because=The method is founded on the idea that each member of a research ethics committee (‘REC’), research integrity office (‘RIO’) or institutional review board (‘IRB’) will deliberate based on their initial views and beliefs about a particular case.

The purpose is to move from individual opinions to the underlying reasons for those opinions in order turn ‘I think’ claims regarding a particular case into ‘We agree’ judgments.
[[File:REalistiC Decisions Case Analysis Diagram.png|thumb]]
This procedure is only part of the process of coming to decisions about individual cases. Although the procedure helps members of RECs, RIOs and IRBs to shape and share their deliberations, it cannot make the decision for them.<ref>Davies H. How we can make better decisions in review and design of research using a simple ethics model. ''Journal of Medical Ethics: Blog''. [Online]. <nowiki>https://blogs.bmj.com/medical-ethics/2018/10/11/how-we-can-make-better-decisions-in-review-and-design-of-research-using-a-simple-ethics-model/</nowiki>. Published 18 October 2019. Accessed 10 March 2019.</ref><ref>Davies H. REalistiC Decisions: making judgements in review (and design). [Online]. <nowiki>http://www.reviewingresearch.com/realistic-decisions-making-judgements-in-committee/</nowiki>. Accessed 10 March 2019.</ref><ref>Davies H. Moral engineering - how we can improve research review with a simple ethics decision making model. [Online]. <nowiki>http://www.reviewingresearch.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/08/A-model-to-help-resolve-differences180828forRR.pdf</nowiki>. Accessed 10 March 2019.</ref>
<references />
|Has Practical Tips=A case analysed by this method is openly available on the Zenodo repository and can be accessed using the following link: https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.5035520
}}
{{Instruction Step Trainee
|Instruction Step Title=Identify and Clarify the Issue
|Instruction Step Text=Produce a synopsis of the case

 

*Only include the facts of the case
*If the issue is ambiguous, then attempt to clarify what issue or set of issues are at stake
}}
{{Instruction Step Trainee
|Instruction Step Title=Early View (‘What do I think?’)
|Instruction Step Text=Once an issue has been identified and clarified, the next step is to ask:

 

*"What do I think?"

When formulating an Early View, I need to:

 

*Know when I can and can’t rely on this Early View;
*Ensure my view does not prejudice against diverging opinions.
}}
{{Instruction Step Trainee
|Instruction Step Title=What are My Reasons for Thinking This?
|Instruction Step Text=Once I have formed my Early View, the next step is to ask:

 

*"What are my reasons for thinking this?"

When formulating these reasons, I need to:

 

*Assess the strengths and weaknesses of the reasons for my view.
}}
{{Instruction Step Trainee
|Instruction Step Title=Communicate My Early View
|Instruction Step Text=Communicate my Early View and associated reasons to the rest of the committee
}}
{{Instruction Step Trainee
|Instruction Step Title=Listen to and Recognise the Early Views and Associated Reasons of All Other Members of the Committee
|Instruction Step Text=Is there disagreement between members of the committee?

 

*On which issues and views do we disagree?
*What reasons are given that either support or undermine my Early View?
}}
{{Instruction Step Trainee
|Instruction Step Title=Review My Early View
|Instruction Step Text=Review my Early View and associated reasons by addressing each of the following themes and questions:

'''Normative Standards'''

''"How do normative frameworks help us?"''

In order to answer this question, we need:

 

*A basic knowledge of the appropriate regulations that apply to the issue;
*To be able to use these regulations to analyse our Early View;
*To revise our Early View and to provide reasons for any revisions.

'''Experience'''

''"How have we approached this issue before?"''

In order to answer this question, we need:

 

*To access past decisions;
*To compare past cases and the current case and determine whether previous decisions are relevant;
*To use disagreement to develop new standards for guiding future considerations;
*To be able to explain why, if relevant, we haven’t followed such precedent.

'''Expertise'''

''"What expertise has been applied to this before?"''

To answer this question, we need to:

 

*Access independent expert review;
*Access an up-to-date library of authoritative guidance;
*Balance guidance documents and judge the relative authority of guidance documents;
*Provide reasons if our decisions run contrary to guidance.

'''Empathy'''

''"What views and opinions do other parties have?"''

We turn to the views of those with a legitimate interest in the case (for example, the accused, the complainant, individuals involved with the case, and the public).

To answer this question, we need to:

 

*Identify all those with an interest in the case and see it ‘through their eyes’;
*Recognize limitations to our empathy;
*Confirm or refute any ‘empathy-based decisions’ using answers to the other questions listed above;

'''Evidence'''

''"What evidence is there on this issue?"''

We turn to any published research concerning similar cases. However, we need to be careful when forming prescriptive conclusions based on factual premises. After all, the quality of the evidence may be questionable and there may be significant normative and factual differences between the case in question and situations discussed in published research.

In order to answer this question, we need:

 

*To locate, assess, and apply published evidence;
*To recognize the proper place of facts when making judgments;
*To encourage published research on research integrity and research ethics.

'''Expediency'''

''"What is possible or realistic in the circumstances?"''

We need to ensure that we have not interpreted the case against sets of unrealistic standards. Expediency is built on a realistic evaluation of research constraints and consequences and imposes proportionate and realistic conditions.

In order to answer this question, we need to:

 

*Understand and accommodate realistic standards when assessing the case;
*Judge when expediency is adequate justification;
*Balance expediency and fair standards when forming a judgment about a case.

'''Escape'''

''"How can we manage this problem of our disagreement?"''

In order to answer this question, we might be required to:

 

*Agree to disagree (if it will not affect the final judgment);
*Seek elaboration on any of the answers to the questions listed above;
*Vote on a set of judgments;
*Consider alternatives.
}}
{{Instruction Step Trainee
|Instruction Step Title=Develop an Informed Judgment
|Instruction Step Text=Having addressed all the themes and associated questions in the previous step, I now need to come up with an Informed Judgment.

To come up with my Informed Judgment, I should be aware that:

 

*Answering each question in the previous step leads to reasons to justify (or refute) a position;
*No single answer can provide a firm base for judgment;
*My Informed Judgment will involve balancing the answers to the different questions.
}}
{{Instruction Step Trainee
|Instruction Step Title=Reach a Consensus with Other Members of the Committee
|Instruction Step Text=In order for our committee to reach a consensus regarding a specific case:

 

*I must share my Informed Judgment and associated reasons with the rest of the committee;
*Listen to and recognise the Informed Judgments and associated reasons of all other members of the committee.

The final step is to deliberate and debate with our fellow committee members.

 

*If we all agree, then the decision is made and little needs to be done, although, from time to time, we should critique our views;

*If we fail to obtain a consensus, we can ask for further involvement from interested parties ("Empathy"), outside advice and deliberation ("Expertise") and/or new research ("Evidence").
}}
{{Instruction Remarks Trainee
|Has Remarks=By following the instructions, a user will be able to:

*Analyse specific research ethics and research integrity cases;
*Understand and explain the process by which they came to their judgment regarding a particular case;
*Identity and explain their reasons for their judgment.

In addition, by following the instructions, a research ethics committee ('REC'), research integrity office ('RIO') or institutional review board ('IRB') will be able to:

*Facilitate the analysis of research ethics and research integrity cases in accordance with an explicit procedure;
*Involve its members in structured deliberation and debate regarding a particular case in accordance with an explicit procedure;
*Generate a consensus regarding a specific case.
}}
{{Custom TabContent Close Trainee}}
{{Custom TabContent Trainer Open}}
{{Instruction Steps Foldout Trainer}}
{{Instruction Perspective Trainer}}
{{Instruction Remarks Trainer}}
{{Custom TabContent Close Trainer}}
{{Related To
|Related To Theme=Theme:65e6f304-51e2-4e41-93d3-e48518248b39;Theme:13ae94da-15d6-426f-8f6e-9134fb57e267;Theme:0953795c-fb38-4080-a56f-fe503c4875bd;Theme:D1477512-52a3-48a3-8ab6-72404cef4ab4;Theme:9ac8c1db-f98b-41ee-858d-a8c93a647108
|Related To Instruction=Instruction:A440eed0-f9f4-4415-a2c4-2d6ff9f44b80;Instruction:6b129846-c455-4849-9eaf-0d25f3c5600e;Instruction:41bc2a1d-26f7-49f9-8bf7-9fc6b4ecf10c;Instruction:C0cf8cfb-6090-49e3-94f5-20f530f83ffd;Instruction:Ffff98bc-b81b-43ee-8fef-a264c1e25741
}}
{{Tags
|Has Virtue And Value=Fairness; Respect; Responsibility; Accountability; Transparency
|Has Good Practice And Misconduct=Academic Responsibility of University; Allegations of misconduct; Communication; Complaints procedure; Ethical Dilemma; Good Practice; Institutional Responsibilities; Investigation; Misconduct Investigations; Research Misconduct Investigation
}}

Instruction:C0cf8cfb-6090-49e3-94f5-20f530f83ffd

2021-06-29T11:50:29Z

0000-0002-2385-985X:

{{Instruction
|Title=04 - Moral Case Deliberation: A Method for Analysing Cases in Research Ethics and Research Integrity
|Instruction Goal=Members of The Embassy of Good Science have developed a set of six user-friendly, accessible methods for analysing research ethics and research integrity cases.

These methods have been identified, adapted and presented so that they can be appropriated by all users, without prior philosophical knowledge, in local contexts.
|Has Requirements=The key aim for the case analysis method described here is that it can be appropriated by all users, without prior philosophical knowledge, in local contexts.

In order to apply this method in the analysis of specific cases, it is advised that RECs, RIOs and IRBs engage with the regulatory frameworks and normative standards that apply to their respective organizations in the form of codes of ethics, codes of conduct, funding body standards and, if applicable, broader national and international research ethics and research integrity regulatory documents.
|Has Duration=2
|Important For=Researchers; Ethics committee members; Research Integrity Officers; Research integrity trainers
}}
{{Custom TabContent Trainee Open}}
{{Instruction Steps Foldout Trainee}}
{{Instruction Perspective Trainee
|Is About=Moral Case Deliberation (MCD) aims to combine reflection on concrete cases with procedures to foster moral learning. In MCD in health care settings, patients, family members and health care staff discuss a moral question. MCD can be regarded as a form of Clinical Ethics Support (CES) or REC assessment in health care and biomedical research, helping health care professionals to reflect on their actual ethical questions and reasoning, and to find answers in acute cases. MCD is about listening and asking the right questions, rather than convincing the other, and postponing one’s own judgements in the interests of being open to other viewpoints.

The validity and reliability of knowledge claims and moral judgments are constructed and examined within the practice itself. In the end, the reliability and validity of the judgments are determined in experience and in the practice of daily life. The MCD facilitator or the MCD participants can refer to existing theories and concepts, as well as existing normative frameworks (such as policies, laws, professional codes etc.). The point is, however, that ethical issues are not defined beforehand, but are derived from practice.

In MCD, the moral problem under consideration is always a concrete moral issue, experienced by one of the participants. This issue is presented as a case (for example, concerning a treatment decision with an individual patient). The case is analysed not by applying general moral concepts or principles but by investigating the values and norms of the stakeholders. In a MCD, different viewpoints are examined. The initial aim is not to decide which perspective or answer is right, but to ask open and critical questions in order to elaborate assumptions behind the perspective and find out how they are applicable to the case at hand.[[#%20ftn1|[1]]]
----[[#%20ftnref1|[1]]] Stolper M, Molewijk B, Widdershoven G. Bioethics education in clinical settings: theory and practice of the dilemma method of moral case deliberation. ''BMC Med Ethics'' 2016;17(1):45.
|Important Because=Though MCD is primarily designed to examine clinical cases, given that many research ethics deliberations – e.g. the work of RECs when assessing research protocols – take place before the research in question, this methodology could be used to assess research ethics dilemmas as well. Also, an MCD can be undertaken by a single individual – for example, by considering ‘imaginary’ research ethics committees and other stakeholders as part of a ‘virtual’ deliberation. Since such imaginary and empathy-based techniques are considered to be important aspects of our ethical thinking – in thought experiments, for example – MCD might be a useful tool for such assessments.
|Has Practical Tips=A case analysed by this method is openly available on the Zenodo repository and can be accessed using the following link: https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.5035533
}}
{{Instruction Step Trainee
|Instruction Step Title=Introduction
|Instruction Step Text=During the first step, the aim and procedure of MCD is explained by the facilitator. The facilitator addresses issues such as the nature of MCD, the context surrounding the MCD, the aim of the meeting, mutual expectations (e.g. open and honest communication) and the steps in the method.
}}
{{Instruction Step Trainee
|Instruction Step Title=Presentation of the case
|Instruction Step Text=This step focuses on the experience of the case presenter. The presenter is asked to describe a concrete personal situation in which he or she experienced the moral issue at stake. The case presenter is asked to provide a short but thick description of the facts of the situation. Facts can include the ‘feelings’ he or she experienced since feelings can be a useful indicator of the moral discomfort of the presenter and can often implicitly refer to certain values.
}}
{{Instruction Step Trainee
|Instruction Step Title=Formulating the moral question and the dilemma
|Instruction Step Text=In this step, the case presenter’s underlying moral question is made explicit. By formulating his/her moral question, the other participants can better understand what is at stake and what (morally) matters for the case presenter. Furthermore, to make the moral question more concrete, the case presenter is asked to formulate the situation in terms of a dilemma: what are the concrete choices available in this situation?
}}
{{Instruction Step Trainee
|Instruction Step Title=Clarification in order to place oneself in the situation of the case presenter
|Instruction Step Text=The fourth step aims to foster a clear understanding of the situation so that participants can ‘put themselves in the shoes’ of the case presenter. Clarification aims to (re)construct as clearly as possible the situation presented by the case presenter in order to investigate the moral dilemma. Within MCD, participants try to answer the dilemma with which the case presenter is faced.
}}
{{Instruction Step Trainee
|Instruction Step Title=Analyzing the case in terms of perspectives, values and norms
|Instruction Step Text=The participants make a list of the relevant stakeholder perspectives, and, for each perspective, identify the values related to the dilemma and the possible actions that realize a specific value (we call this value a ‘norm’). The analysis of the perspective of the case presenter will lead to the identification of values and norms that support or undermine different options.
}}
{{Instruction Step Trainee
|Instruction Step Title=Looking for alternatives
|Instruction Step Text=The aim of this step is to brainstorm in order to get a view on possible courses or actions which lie beyond the dilemma.
}}
{{Instruction Step Trainee
|Instruction Step Title=Making an individual choice and making explicit one’s considerations
|Instruction Step Text=This step involves the formulation of the personal views, values, norms, arguments and choices in relation to the case. The participants express their own views of what they consider to be right.The facilitator might ask the participants to individually address the following points:

a) It is morally justified that I choose option … (A, B or an alternative).

b) Because of…. (which value or norm?)

c) Despite of…. (which value or norm?)

d) How can you limit the damage of your choice mentioned under (c)?
}}
{{Instruction Step Trainee
|Instruction Step Title=Dialogical inquiry
|Instruction Step Text=In this step, similarities and differences between the individual considerations are examined. Sometimes, two participants make a different choice based on the same value. Alternatively, participants may choose the same option based on different values or norms. Identifying similarities and differences may lead to better understanding and a better insight of what is at stake in a specific case.
}}
{{Instruction Step Trainee
|Instruction Step Title=Conclusion
|Instruction Step Text=In this step, participants are invited to draw conclusions and develop a plan for action. The facilitator returns to the moral question formulated at the start of the MCD and asks the group to make explicit their conclusions. Reaching consensus is not necessary; the conclusion can also be that there is a plurality of ideas with different practical implications.
}}
{{Instruction Step Trainee
|Instruction Step Title=Evaluation
|Instruction Step Text=Lastly, learning experiences and the outcome are evaluated.
}}
{{Instruction Remarks Trainee}}
{{Custom TabContent Close Trainee}}
{{Custom TabContent Trainer Open}}
{{Instruction Steps Foldout Trainer}}
{{Instruction Perspective Trainer}}
{{Instruction Remarks Trainer}}
{{Custom TabContent Close Trainer}}
{{Related To
|Related To Theme=Theme:Cda80c83-0101-4e27-bdc0-87a45846e5ed;Theme:17d406f9-0b0f-4325-aa2d-2fe186d5ff34
|Related To Instruction=Instruction:A440eed0-f9f4-4415-a2c4-2d6ff9f44b80;Instruction:6b129846-c455-4849-9eaf-0d25f3c5600e;Instruction:41bc2a1d-26f7-49f9-8bf7-9fc6b4ecf10c;Instruction:Ffff98bc-b81b-43ee-8fef-a264c1e25741;Instruction:6cc77174-4f7b-48a6-95f3-eeb4dadcb0a3
}}
{{Tags
|Has Virtue And Value=Accountability; Honesty; Transparency; Fairness; Resepct
}}

Instruction:A440eed0-f9f4-4415-a2c4-2d6ff9f44b80

2021-06-29T11:48:36Z

0000-0002-2385-985X:

{{Instruction
|Title=01 - Value Analysis: A Method for Analysing Cases in Research Ethics and Research Integrity
|Instruction Goal=Members of The Embassy of Good Science have developed a set of six user-friendly, accessible methods for analysing research ethics and research integrity cases.

These methods have been identified, adapted and presented so that they can be appropriated by all users, without prior philosophical knowledge, in local contexts.
|Has Requirements=The key aim for the case analysis method described here is that it can be appropriated by all users, without prior philosophical knowledge, in local contexts.

In order to apply this method in the analysis of specific cases, it is advised that RECs, RIOs and IRBs engage with the regulatory frameworks and normative standards that apply to their respective organizations in the form of codes of ethics, codes of conduct, funding body standards and, if applicable, broader national and international research ethics and research integrity regulatory documents.
|Has Duration=2
|Important For=researchers; Ethics committee members; Research Integrity Officers
|Has Method=Participatory sessions
}}
{{Custom TabContent Trainee Open}}
{{Instruction Steps Foldout Trainee}}
{{Instruction Perspective Trainee
|Is About=This case analysis uses a procedure advanced by Jack R. Fraenkel (1976) for the purpose of values education.<ref>Fraenkel, Jack, R. (1976). Teaching about Values. In: Ubbelohde, Carl, and Jack R. Fraenkel. (Eds.) Values of the American Heritage: Challenges, Case Studies, and Teaching Strategies. The Bicentennial Yearbook, 46th Yearbook." (1976).</ref> Fraenkel (1932-2013) earned a PhD from Stanford University in 1966 and subsequently worked at San Francisco State University for more than 30 years. When he retired, he was Professor of Interdisciplinary Studies in Education.<ref>Obituary (2014). Jack Fraenkel Obituary, San Francisco Chronicle on Mar. 7, 2014, https://www.legacy.com/obituaries/sfgate/obituary.aspx?n=jack-fraenkel&pid=170037290 (accessed on March, 15th 2019)</ref>
<references />
|Important Because=Fraenkel published a lot on research methodology, curriculum development and research in education. Guided by the work of Coombs and Meux<ref>Coombs, Jerrold R., and Milton Meux, ‘Teaching strategies for values analysis’. In: Metcalf, L. E. (Eds.) (1071). Values education: Values education: Rationale, strategies and procedures. Washington D. C.: National Council for Social Studies. S. 29–74.</ref>, Fraenkel (1976) advanced an interesting method to analyse value conflicts meant for teachers “[…] to help students determine for themselves what individuals caught in value dilemmas should do […]”.<ref>Fraenkel, Jack, R. (1976). Teaching about Values. In: Ubbelohde, Carl, and Jack R. Fraenkel. (Eds.) Values of the American Heritage: Challenges, Case Studies, and Teaching Strategies. The Bicentennial Yearbook, 46th Yearbook." (1976).</ref>
<references />
|Has Practical Tips=A case analysed by this method is openly available on the Zenodo repository and can be accessed using the following link: [https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.5035506 https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.4905905]

 
<references />
}}
{{Instruction Step Trainee
|Instruction Step Title=What is the incident about?
|Instruction Step Text=What is the dilemma?
}}
{{Instruction Step Trainee
|Instruction Step Title=What might (the central character) do to try and resolve the dilemma?
|Instruction Step Text=What alternatives exist?
}}
{{Instruction Step Trainee
|Instruction Step Title=What might happen if he or she does each of these things?
|Instruction Step Text=What might be the consequences of the various alternatives?
}}
{{Instruction Step Trainee
|Instruction Step Title=What might happen to those who are not immediately involved?
|Instruction Step Text=What might be the short- as well as the long-range consequences?
}}
{{Instruction Step Trainee
|Instruction Step Title=What evidence, if any, is there that these consequences would indeed occur?
|Instruction Step Text=What could be considered as forseeable consequences?
}}
{{Instruction Step Trainee
|Instruction Step Title=Would each consequence be good or bad? Why?
|Instruction Step Text=Is there a positive balance between good and bad consequences?
}}
{{Instruction Step Trainee
|Instruction Step Title=What do you think X should do?
|Instruction Step Text=What do you think is the best thing for X to do?
}}
{{Instruction Remarks Trainee
|Has Remarks=Ad. 1: Fraenkel stresses the importance of identifying whether the conflict is about ends or means to ends that have been agreed upon. Equally important is to establish the factual context of the situation.<ref>Fraenkel, Jack, R. (1976). Teaching about Values. In: Ubbelohde, Carl, and Jack R. Fraenkel. (Eds.) Values of the American Heritage: Challenges, Case Studies, and Teaching Strategies. The Bicentennial Yearbook, 46th Yearbook." (1976).</ref>

Ad. 2: This step involves brainstorming for all the available action alternatives for the agent(s) facing the value conflict at hand.

Ad. 3 and 4: These questions are focused on the expected consequences of the different alternative actions available to those facing the value conflict. What might be the effects of each alternative respectively? Which parties might be affected? Could the consequences spill over to future generations? It might make sense here to distinguish between short- and long-range effects for the individual and other parties. In order to map these consequences, a Values Information Chart ('''Table 1''') could be used.
{{{!}} class="wikitable" border="1" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="0"
{{!}} rowspan="3" width="62"{{!}}'''Facts'''
{{!}} rowspan="3" width="67"{{!}}'''Alternatives'''
{{!}} colspan="4" width="476"{{!}}'''Consequences'''
{{!}}-
{{!}} colspan="2" width="283"{{!}}'''Short-Range'''
{{!}} colspan="2" width="193"{{!}}'''Long-Range'''
{{!}}-
{{!}} width="136"{{!}}'''Self'''
{{!}} width="147"{{!}}'''Others'''
{{!}} width="97"{{!}}'''Self'''
{{!}} width="97"{{!}}'''Others'''
{{!}}-
{{!}} rowspan="3" width="62" valign="top"{{!}}
{{!}} width="67" valign="top"{{!}}
{{!}} width="136" valign="top"{{!}}
{{!}} width="147" valign="top"{{!}}
{{!}} width="97" valign="top"{{!}}
{{!}} width="97" valign="top"{{!}}
{{!}}-
{{!}} width="67" valign="top"{{!}}
{{!}} width="136" valign="top"{{!}}
{{!}} width="147" valign="top"{{!}}
{{!}} width="97" valign="top"{{!}}
{{!}} width="97" valign="top"{{!}}
{{!}}-
{{!}} width="67" valign="top"{{!}}
{{!}} width="136" valign="top"{{!}}
{{!}} width="147" valign="top"{{!}}
{{!}} width="97" valign="top"{{!}}
{{!}} width="97" valign="top"{{!}}
{{!}}}'''Table 1: Values Information Chart Template'''

Ad. 5: This question zooms in on the evidence supporting or refuting the potential effects of the alternative actions as identified above. If the case at hand is similar to case studies from the past, it might be useful to study what happened there. Data to that effect should be gathered, and their truthfulness and relevance to the case at hand established.

Ad. 6: A discussion of the desirability of the expected consequences is needed. This should happen based on certain criteria. These criteria might be of a moral, legal, aesthetic, ecological, economic, health and safety and/or a completely different nature. A Value Analysis Chart ('''Table 2''') could be used to keep track of the assessment of the different consequences along the different criteria. In the last column of this chart the desirability of the different consequences is ranked from the most to the least desirable.

Ad. 7: Fraenkel does not explain how the answer to this final question should follow from the analysis above. It seems to be implicit in his method that the answer automatically matches the alternative that turns out to be most desirable over all.
 
{{{!}} class="wikitable" border="1" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="0" width="604"
{{!}} rowspan="2" width="67"{{!}}'''Alternatives'''
{{!}} rowspan="2" width="120"{{!}}'''Consequences'''
{{!}} colspan="7" width="354"{{!}}'''Desirability from various points of view'''
{{!}} rowspan="2" width="64"{{!}}'''Ranking'''
{{!}}-
{{!}} width="41"{{!}}'''Moral'''
{{!}} width="39"{{!}}'''Legal'''
{{!}} width="55"{{!}}'''Aesthetic'''
{{!}} width="60"{{!}}'''Ecological'''
{{!}} width="58"{{!}}'''Economic'''
{{!}} width="51"{{!}}'''Health and Safety'''
{{!}} width="51"{{!}}'''Etc.'''
{{!}}-
{{!}} width="67" valign="top"{{!}}
{{!}} width="120" valign="top"{{!}}
{{!}} width="41" valign="top"{{!}}
{{!}} width="39" valign="top"{{!}}
{{!}} width="55" valign="top"{{!}}
{{!}} width="60" valign="top"{{!}}
{{!}} width="58" valign="top"{{!}}
{{!}} width="51" valign="top"{{!}}
{{!}} width="51" valign="top"{{!}}
{{!}} width="64" valign="top"{{!}}
{{!}}-
{{!}} width="67" valign="top"{{!}}
{{!}} width="120" valign="top"{{!}}
{{!}} width="41" valign="top"{{!}}
{{!}} width="39" valign="top"{{!}}
{{!}} width="55" valign="top"{{!}}
{{!}} width="60" valign="top"{{!}}
{{!}} width="58" valign="top"{{!}}
{{!}} width="51" valign="top"{{!}}
{{!}} width="51" valign="top"{{!}}
{{!}} width="64" valign="top"{{!}}
{{!}}-
{{!}} width="67" valign="top"{{!}}
{{!}} width="120" valign="top"{{!}}
{{!}} width="41" valign="top"{{!}}
{{!}} width="39" valign="top"{{!}}
{{!}} width="55" valign="top"{{!}}
{{!}} width="60" valign="top"{{!}}
{{!}} width="58" valign="top"{{!}}
{{!}} width="51" valign="top"{{!}}
{{!}} width="51" valign="top"{{!}}
{{!}} width="64" valign="top"{{!}}
{{!}}-
{{!}} width="67" valign="top"{{!}}
{{!}} width="120" valign="top"{{!}}
{{!}} width="41" valign="top"{{!}}
{{!}} width="39" valign="top"{{!}}
{{!}} width="55" valign="top"{{!}}
{{!}} width="60" valign="top"{{!}}
{{!}} width="58" valign="top"{{!}}
{{!}} width="51" valign="top"{{!}}
{{!}} width="51" valign="top"{{!}}
{{!}} width="64" valign="top"{{!}}
{{!}}}

'''Table 2: Value Analysis Chart Template'''[[File:The Value Analysis Method.jpg|thumb|Figure 1. Fraenkel's value analysis method.]]
<references />
}}
{{Custom TabContent Close Trainee}}
{{Custom TabContent Trainer Open}}
{{Instruction Steps Foldout Trainer}}
{{Instruction Perspective Trainer}}
{{Instruction Remarks Trainer}}
{{Custom TabContent Close Trainer}}
{{Related To
|Related To Instruction=Instruction:6b129846-c455-4849-9eaf-0d25f3c5600e;Instruction:41bc2a1d-26f7-49f9-8bf7-9fc6b4ecf10c;Instruction:C0cf8cfb-6090-49e3-94f5-20f530f83ffd;Instruction:6cc77174-4f7b-48a6-95f3-eeb4dadcb0a3;Instruction:Ffff98bc-b81b-43ee-8fef-a264c1e25741
}}
{{Tags
|Has Virtue And Value=Fairness; Honesty; Respect
|Has Good Practice And Misconduct=Virtue ethics
}}

Instruction:Ffff98bc-b81b-43ee-8fef-a264c1e25741

2021-06-29T11:46:35Z

0000-0002-2385-985X:

{{Instruction
|Title=06 - Teaching Research Ethics Tool : A Method for Analysing Cases in Research Ethics
|Instruction Goal=Members of The Embassy of Good Science have developed a set of six user-friendly, accessible methods for analysing research ethics and research integrity cases.

These methods have been identified, adapted and presented so that they can be appropriated by all users, without prior philosophical knowledge, in local contexts.
|Has Requirements=The key aim for the case analysis method described here is that it can be appropriated by all users, without prior philosophical knowledge, in local contexts.

In order to apply this method in the analysis of specific cases, it is advised that RECs, RIOs and IRBs engage with the regulatory frameworks and normative standards that apply to their respective organizations in the form of codes of ethics, codes of conduct, funding body standards and, if applicable, broader national and international research ethics and research integrity regulatory documents.
|Has Duration=2
|Important For=Researchers; Ethics committee members; Research Integrity Officers
}}
{{Custom TabContent Trainee Open}}
{{Instruction Steps Foldout Trainee}}
{{Instruction Perspective Trainee
|Is About=This method was developed by Ferrer[[#%20ftn1|[1]]] and applied by a group of investigators from Graduate Education in Research Ethics for Scientists and Engineers (GERESE) at the University of Puerto Rico, Mayaguez campus (UPRM). The aim of the project was to integrate research ethics into the graduate curriculum in science and engineering[[#%20ftn2|[2]]].
----[[#%20ftnref1|[1]]] Ferrer, J.J. (2007), “Deber y Deliberación una Invitación a la Bioética” Cep, Mayagüez, Puerto Rico.

[[#%20ftnref2|[2]]] Valdes, D., & Jaramillo Giraldo, E., & Ferrer, J., & Frey, W. (2009, June), Case Analysis: A Tool for Teaching Research Ethics In Science And Engineering For Graduate Students Paper presented at 2009 Annual Conference & Exposition, Austin, Texas. <nowiki>https://peer.asee.org/5729</nowiki>
|Important Because=This method is used as a conceptual tool to guide students though the moral deliberation process in a systematic way.
|Has Practical Tips=A case analysed by this method is openly available on the Zenodo repository and can be accessed using the following link: https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.5035531
}}
{{Instruction Step Trainee
|Instruction Step Title=Determination of facts
|Instruction Step Text=Identify the situations, people and environment through which the case unfolds. A good understanding of facts is essential for this deliberation procedure.
}}
{{Instruction Step Trainee
|Instruction Step Title=Identification of morally problematic situations
|Instruction Step Text=There are usually several morally problematic situations that require attention. This step provides students with an opportunity to improve their sensibility to ethically problematic situations.
}}
{{Instruction Step Trainee
|Instruction Step Title=Identification of possible courses of action
|Instruction Step Text=Usually, there are several possible courses of action. Some result in misconduct while others effectively and ethically solve the problem(s).
}}
{{Instruction Step Trainee
|Instruction Step Title=Distinguishing “moral questions”, “moral disagreements”, and “moral conflicts”
|Instruction Step Text=A moral question is a situation in which moral duties are clear to the subject, although they may be in conflict with other issues of interest to the agent such as financial and political interests. These situations do not require moral deliberation so much as moral courage. Moral disagreements arise when the agent feels subjectively certain but holds a point of view in conflict with another persons’ moral judgments. These situations call for moral dialogue and argumentation. Finally, moral conflicts (or moral problems) arise when agents face conflicting moral duties. These instances call for moral deliberation.
}}
{{Instruction Step Trainee
|Instruction Step Title=Establish a hierarchy of values related to morally problematic situations
|Instruction Step Text=If there are moral conflicts, examination of the relative hierarchy of values is required in order to determine the overriding duty or duties in the situation.
}}
{{Instruction Step Trainee
|Instruction Step Title=Consequence analysis (if necessary)
|Instruction Step Text=If the previous step is not sufficient to identify the preferred course of action, a further step is required consisting of the analysis of foreseeable consequences of each course of action. The analysis of consequences depends on a good determination of the facts. It should include foreseeable consequences related to the persons involved, the working environment, the external environment, and society at large.
}}
{{Instruction Step Trainee
|Instruction Step Title=Justification of the moral choice
|Instruction Step Text=After analysing different possible courses of action, students identify those that are morally justified.
}}
{{Instruction Remarks Trainee}}
{{Custom TabContent Close Trainee}}
{{Custom TabContent Trainer Open}}
{{Instruction Steps Foldout Trainer}}
{{Instruction Perspective Trainer}}
{{Instruction Remarks Trainer}}
{{Custom TabContent Close Trainer}}
{{Related To
|Related To Theme=Theme:17d406f9-0b0f-4325-aa2d-2fe186d5ff34;Theme:Cda80c83-0101-4e27-bdc0-87a45846e5ed
|Related To Instruction=Instruction:6cc77174-4f7b-48a6-95f3-eeb4dadcb0a3;Instruction:6b129846-c455-4849-9eaf-0d25f3c5600e;Instruction:A440eed0-f9f4-4415-a2c4-2d6ff9f44b80
}}
{{Tags
|Has Virtue And Value=Fairness; Respect; Accountability; Transparency; Responsibility
}}

Instruction:C0cf8cfb-6090-49e3-94f5-20f530f83ffd

2021-06-29T11:44:18Z

0000-0002-2385-985X:

{{Instruction
|Title=04 - Moral Case Deliberation: A Method for Analysing Cases in Research Ethics and Research Integrity
|Instruction Goal=Members of The Embassy of Good Science have developed a set of six user-friendly, accessible methods for analysing research ethics and research integrity cases.

These methods have been identified, adapted and presented so that they can be appropriated by all users, without prior philosophical knowledge, in local contexts.
|Has Requirements=The key aim for the case analysis method described here is that it can be appropriated by all users, without prior philosophical knowledge, in local contexts.

In order to apply this method in the analysis of specific cases, it is advised that RECs, RIOs and IRBs engage with the regulatory frameworks and normative standards that apply to their respective organizations in the form of codes of ethics, codes of conduct, funding body standards and, if applicable, broader national and international research ethics and research integrity regulatory documents.
|Has Duration=2
|Important For=Researchers; Ethics committee members; Research Integrity Officers; Research integrity trainers
}}
{{Custom TabContent Trainee Open}}
{{Instruction Steps Foldout Trainee}}
{{Instruction Perspective Trainee
|Is About=Moral Case Deliberation (MCD) aims to combine reflection on concrete cases with procedures to foster moral learning. In MCD in health care settings, patients, family members and health care staff discuss a moral question. MCD can be regarded as a form of Clinical Ethics Support (CES) or REC assessment in health care and biomedical research, helping health care professionals to reflect on their actual ethical questions and reasoning, and to find answers in acute cases. MCD is about listening and asking the right questions, rather than convincing the other, and postponing one’s own judgements in the interests of being open to other viewpoints.

The validity and reliability of knowledge claims and moral judgments are constructed and examined within the practice itself. In the end, the reliability and validity of the judgments are determined in experience and in the practice of daily life. The MCD facilitator or the MCD participants can refer to existing theories and concepts, as well as existing normative frameworks (such as policies, laws, professional codes etc.). The point is, however, that ethical issues are not defined beforehand, but are derived from practice.

In MCD, the moral problem under consideration is always a concrete moral issue, experienced by one of the participants. This issue is presented as a case (for example, concerning a treatment decision with an individual patient). The case is analysed not by applying general moral concepts or principles but by investigating the values and norms of the stakeholders. In a MCD, different viewpoints are examined. The initial aim is not to decide which perspective or answer is right, but to ask open and critical questions in order to elaborate assumptions behind the perspective and find out how they are applicable to the case at hand.[[#%20ftn1|[1]]]
----[[#%20ftnref1|[1]]] Stolper M, Molewijk B, Widdershoven G. Bioethics education in clinical settings: theory and practice of the dilemma method of moral case deliberation. ''BMC Med Ethics'' 2016;17(1):45.
|Important Because=Though MCD is primarily designed to examine clinical cases, given that many research ethics deliberations – e.g. the work of RECs when assessing research protocols – take place before the research in question, this methodology could be used to assess research ethics dilemmas as well. Also, an MCD can be undertaken by a single individual – for example, by considering ‘imaginary’ research ethics committees and other stakeholders as part of a ‘virtual’ deliberation. Since such imaginary and empathy-based techniques are considered to be important aspects of our ethical thinking – in thought experiments, for example – MCD might be a useful tool for such assessments.
|Has Practical Tips=A case analysed by this method is openly available on the Zenodo repository and can be accessed using the following link: https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.5035533
}}
{{Instruction Step Trainee
|Instruction Step Title=Introduction
|Instruction Step Text=During the first step, the aim and procedure of MCD is explained by the facilitator. The facilitator addresses issues such as the nature of MCD, the context surrounding the MCD, the aim of the meeting, mutual expectations (e.g. open and honest communication) and the steps in the method.
}}
{{Instruction Step Trainee
|Instruction Step Title=Presentation of the case
|Instruction Step Text=This step focuses on the experience of the case presenter. The presenter is asked to describe a concrete personal situation in which he or she experienced the moral issue at stake. The case presenter is asked to provide a short but thick description of the facts of the situation. Facts can include the ‘feelings’ he or she experienced since feelings can be a useful indicator of the moral discomfort of the presenter and can often implicitly refer to certain values.
}}
{{Instruction Step Trainee
|Instruction Step Title=Formulating the moral question and the dilemma
|Instruction Step Text=In this step, the case presenter’s underlying moral question is made explicit. By formulating his/her moral question, the other participants can better understand what is at stake and what (morally) matters for the case presenter. Furthermore, to make the moral question more concrete, the case presenter is asked to formulate the situation in terms of a dilemma: what are the concrete choices available in this situation?
}}
{{Instruction Step Trainee
|Instruction Step Title=Clarification in order to place oneself in the situation of the case presenter
|Instruction Step Text=The fourth step aims to foster a clear understanding of the situation so that participants can ‘put themselves in the shoes’ of the case presenter. Clarification aims to (re)construct as clearly as possible the situation presented by the case presenter in order to investigate the moral dilemma. Within MCD, participants try to answer the dilemma with which the case presenter is faced.
}}
{{Instruction Step Trainee
|Instruction Step Title=Analyzing the case in terms of perspectives, values and norms
|Instruction Step Text=The participants make a list of the relevant stakeholder perspectives, and, for each perspective, identify the values related to the dilemma and the possible actions that realize a specific value (we call this value a ‘norm’). The analysis of the perspective of the case presenter will lead to the identification of values and norms that support or undermine different options.
}}
{{Instruction Step Trainee
|Instruction Step Title=Looking for alternatives
|Instruction Step Text=The aim of this step is to brainstorm in order to get a view on possible courses or actions which lie beyond the dilemma.
}}
{{Instruction Step Trainee
|Instruction Step Title=Making an individual choice and making explicit one’s considerations
|Instruction Step Text=This step involves the formulation of the personal views, values, norms, arguments and choices in relation to the case. The participants express their own views of what they consider to be right.The facilitator might ask the participants to individually address the following points:

a) It is morally justified that I choose option … (A, B or an alternative).

b) Because of…. (which value or norm?)

c) Despite of…. (which value or norm?)

d) How can you limit the damage of your choice mentioned under (c)?
}}
{{Instruction Step Trainee
|Instruction Step Title=Dialogical inquiry
|Instruction Step Text=In this step, similarities and differences between the individual considerations are examined. Sometimes, two participants make a different choice based on the same value. Alternatively, participants may choose the same option based on different values or norms. Identifying similarities and differences may lead to better understanding and a better insight of what is at stake in a specific case.
}}
{{Instruction Step Trainee
|Instruction Step Title=Conclusion
|Instruction Step Text=In this step, participants are invited to draw conclusions and develop a plan for action. The facilitator returns to the moral question formulated at the start of the MCD and asks the group to make explicit their conclusions. Reaching consensus is not necessary; the conclusion can also be that there is a plurality of ideas with different practical implications.
}}
{{Instruction Step Trainee
|Instruction Step Title=Evaluation
|Instruction Step Text=Lastly, learning experiences and the outcome are evaluated.
}}
{{Instruction Remarks Trainee}}
{{Custom TabContent Close Trainee}}
{{Custom TabContent Trainer Open}}
{{Instruction Steps Foldout Trainer}}
{{Instruction Perspective Trainer}}
{{Instruction Remarks Trainer}}
{{Custom TabContent Close Trainer}}
{{Related To
|Related To Theme=Theme:Cda80c83-0101-4e27-bdc0-87a45846e5ed;Theme:17d406f9-0b0f-4325-aa2d-2fe186d5ff34
|Related To Instruction=Instruction:6cc77174-4f7b-48a6-95f3-eeb4dadcb0a3;Instruction:Ffff98bc-b81b-43ee-8fef-a264c1e25741;Instruction:6b129846-c455-4849-9eaf-0d25f3c5600e;Instruction:A440eed0-f9f4-4415-a2c4-2d6ff9f44b80
}}
{{Tags
|Has Virtue And Value=Accountability; Honesty; Transparency; Fairness; Resepct
}}

Instruction:6cc77174-4f7b-48a6-95f3-eeb4dadcb0a3

2021-06-29T11:43:34Z

0000-0002-2385-985X:

{{Instruction
|Title=05 - REalistiC Decisions: A Method for Analysing Cases in Research Ethics and Research Integrity
|Instruction Goal=Members of The Embassy of Good Science have developed a set of six user-friendly, accessible methods for analysing research ethics and research integrity cases.

These methods have been identified, adapted and presented so that they can be appropriated by all users, without prior philosophical knowledge, in local contexts.
|Has Requirements=The key aim for the case analysis method described here is that it can be appropriated by all users, without prior philosophical knowledge, in local contexts.

In order to apply this method in the analysis of specific cases, it is advised that RECs, RIOs and IRBs engage with the regulatory frameworks and normative standards that apply to their respective organizations in the form of codes of ethics, codes of conduct, funding body standards and, if applicable, broader national and international research ethics and research integrity regulatory documents.
|Has Duration=2
|Important For=Researchers; Ethics committee members; Research Ethics Committees; Research Integrity Officers; Administrators
|Has Method=Participatory sessions
}}
{{Custom TabContent Trainee Open}}
{{Instruction Steps Foldout Trainee}}
{{Instruction Perspective Trainee
|Is About=[http://www.reviewingresearch.com/realistic-decisions-making-judgements-in-committee/ REalistiC Decisions] is a case analysis method proposed by [https://uk.linkedin.com/in/hugh-davies-61029750 Hugh Davies] MB BS, Research Ethics Advisor for the Health Research Authority (‘HRA’) and former Consultant Paediatrician at Oxford University Hospitals.

Although intended to be a procedure for reviewing research ethics proposals, it is flexible enough to be used to analyse research integrity cases.<ref>Davies H. REalistiC Decisions: making judgements in review (and design). [Online]. <nowiki>http://www.reviewingresearch.com/realistic-decisions-making-judgements-in-committee/</nowiki>. Accessed 10 March 2019.</ref>
<references />
|Important Because=The method is founded on the idea that each member of a research ethics committee (‘REC’), research integrity office (‘RIO’) or institutional review board (‘IRB’) will deliberate based on their initial views and beliefs about a particular case.

The purpose is to move from individual opinions to the underlying reasons for those opinions in order turn ‘I think’ claims regarding a particular case into ‘We agree’ judgments.
[[File:REalistiC Decisions Case Analysis Diagram.png|thumb]]
This procedure is only part of the process of coming to decisions about individual cases. Although the procedure helps members of RECs, RIOs and IRBs to shape and share their deliberations, it cannot make the decision for them.<ref>Davies H. How we can make better decisions in review and design of research using a simple ethics model. ''Journal of Medical Ethics: Blog''. [Online]. <nowiki>https://blogs.bmj.com/medical-ethics/2018/10/11/how-we-can-make-better-decisions-in-review-and-design-of-research-using-a-simple-ethics-model/</nowiki>. Published 18 October 2019. Accessed 10 March 2019.</ref><ref>Davies H. REalistiC Decisions: making judgements in review (and design). [Online]. <nowiki>http://www.reviewingresearch.com/realistic-decisions-making-judgements-in-committee/</nowiki>. Accessed 10 March 2019.</ref><ref>Davies H. Moral engineering - how we can improve research review with a simple ethics decision making model. [Online]. <nowiki>http://www.reviewingresearch.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/08/A-model-to-help-resolve-differences180828forRR.pdf</nowiki>. Accessed 10 March 2019.</ref>
<references />
|Has Practical Tips=A case analysed by this method is openly available on the Zenodo repository and can be accessed using the following link: https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.5035520
}}
{{Instruction Step Trainee
|Instruction Step Title=Identify and Clarify the Issue
|Instruction Step Text=Produce a synopsis of the case

 

*Only include the facts of the case
*If the issue is ambiguous, then attempt to clarify what issue or set of issues are at stake
}}
{{Instruction Step Trainee
|Instruction Step Title=Early View (‘What do I think?’)
|Instruction Step Text=Once an issue has been identified and clarified, the next step is to ask:

 

*"What do I think?"

When formulating an Early View, I need to:

 

*Know when I can and can’t rely on this Early View;
*Ensure my view does not prejudice against diverging opinions.
}}
{{Instruction Step Trainee
|Instruction Step Title=What are My Reasons for Thinking This?
|Instruction Step Text=Once I have formed my Early View, the next step is to ask:

 

*"What are my reasons for thinking this?"

When formulating these reasons, I need to:

 

*Assess the strengths and weaknesses of the reasons for my view.
}}
{{Instruction Step Trainee
|Instruction Step Title=Communicate My Early View
|Instruction Step Text=Communicate my Early View and associated reasons to the rest of the committee
}}
{{Instruction Step Trainee
|Instruction Step Title=Listen to and Recognise the Early Views and Associated Reasons of All Other Members of the Committee
|Instruction Step Text=Is there disagreement between members of the committee?

 

*On which issues and views do we disagree?
*What reasons are given that either support or undermine my Early View?
}}
{{Instruction Step Trainee
|Instruction Step Title=Review My Early View
|Instruction Step Text=Review my Early View and associated reasons by addressing each of the following themes and questions:

'''Normative Standards'''

''"How do normative frameworks help us?"''

In order to answer this question, we need:

 

*A basic knowledge of the appropriate regulations that apply to the issue;
*To be able to use these regulations to analyse our Early View;
*To revise our Early View and to provide reasons for any revisions.

'''Experience'''

''"How have we approached this issue before?"''

In order to answer this question, we need:

 

*To access past decisions;
*To compare past cases and the current case and determine whether previous decisions are relevant;
*To use disagreement to develop new standards for guiding future considerations;
*To be able to explain why, if relevant, we haven’t followed such precedent.

'''Expertise'''

''"What expertise has been applied to this before?"''

To answer this question, we need to:

 

*Access independent expert review;
*Access an up-to-date library of authoritative guidance;
*Balance guidance documents and judge the relative authority of guidance documents;
*Provide reasons if our decisions run contrary to guidance.

'''Empathy'''

''"What views and opinions do other parties have?"''

We turn to the views of those with a legitimate interest in the case (for example, the accused, the complainant, individuals involved with the case, and the public).

To answer this question, we need to:

 

*Identify all those with an interest in the case and see it ‘through their eyes’;
*Recognize limitations to our empathy;
*Confirm or refute any ‘empathy-based decisions’ using answers to the other questions listed above;

'''Evidence'''

''"What evidence is there on this issue?"''

We turn to any published research concerning similar cases. However, we need to be careful when forming prescriptive conclusions based on factual premises. After all, the quality of the evidence may be questionable and there may be significant normative and factual differences between the case in question and situations discussed in published research.

In order to answer this question, we need:

 

*To locate, assess, and apply published evidence;
*To recognize the proper place of facts when making judgments;
*To encourage published research on research integrity and research ethics.

'''Expediency'''

''"What is possible or realistic in the circumstances?"''

We need to ensure that we have not interpreted the case against sets of unrealistic standards. Expediency is built on a realistic evaluation of research constraints and consequences and imposes proportionate and realistic conditions.

In order to answer this question, we need to:

 

*Understand and accommodate realistic standards when assessing the case;
*Judge when expediency is adequate justification;
*Balance expediency and fair standards when forming a judgment about a case.

'''Escape'''

''"How can we manage this problem of our disagreement?"''

In order to answer this question, we might be required to:

 

*Agree to disagree (if it will not affect the final judgment);
*Seek elaboration on any of the answers to the questions listed above;
*Vote on a set of judgments;
*Consider alternatives.
}}
{{Instruction Step Trainee
|Instruction Step Title=Develop an Informed Judgment
|Instruction Step Text=Having addressed all the themes and associated questions in the previous step, I now need to come up with an Informed Judgment.

To come up with my Informed Judgment, I should be aware that:

 

*Answering each question in the previous step leads to reasons to justify (or refute) a position;
*No single answer can provide a firm base for judgment;
*My Informed Judgment will involve balancing the answers to the different questions.
}}
{{Instruction Step Trainee
|Instruction Step Title=Reach a Consensus with Other Members of the Committee
|Instruction Step Text=In order for our committee to reach a consensus regarding a specific case:

 

*I must share my Informed Judgment and associated reasons with the rest of the committee;
*Listen to and recognise the Informed Judgments and associated reasons of all other members of the committee.

The final step is to deliberate and debate with our fellow committee members.

 

*If we all agree, then the decision is made and little needs to be done, although, from time to time, we should critique our views;

*If we fail to obtain a consensus, we can ask for further involvement from interested parties ("Empathy"), outside advice and deliberation ("Expertise") and/or new research ("Evidence").
}}
{{Instruction Remarks Trainee
|Has Remarks=By following the instructions, a user will be able to:

*Analyse specific research ethics and research integrity cases;
*Understand and explain the process by which they came to their judgment regarding a particular case;
*Identity and explain their reasons for their judgment.

In addition, by following the instructions, a research ethics committee ('REC'), research integrity office ('RIO') or institutional review board ('IRB') will be able to:

*Facilitate the analysis of research ethics and research integrity cases in accordance with an explicit procedure;
*Involve its members in structured deliberation and debate regarding a particular case in accordance with an explicit procedure;
*Generate a consensus regarding a specific case.
}}
{{Custom TabContent Close Trainee}}
{{Custom TabContent Trainer Open}}
{{Instruction Steps Foldout Trainer}}
{{Instruction Perspective Trainer}}
{{Instruction Remarks Trainer}}
{{Custom TabContent Close Trainer}}
{{Related To
|Related To Theme=Theme:65e6f304-51e2-4e41-93d3-e48518248b39;Theme:13ae94da-15d6-426f-8f6e-9134fb57e267;Theme:0953795c-fb38-4080-a56f-fe503c4875bd;Theme:D1477512-52a3-48a3-8ab6-72404cef4ab4;Theme:9ac8c1db-f98b-41ee-858d-a8c93a647108
}}
{{Tags
|Has Virtue And Value=Fairness; Respect; Responsibility; Accountability; Transparency
|Has Good Practice And Misconduct=Academic Responsibility of University; Allegations of misconduct; Communication; Complaints procedure; Ethical Dilemma; Good Practice; Institutional Responsibilities; Investigation; Misconduct Investigations; Research Misconduct Investigation
}}

Instruction:6cc77174-4f7b-48a6-95f3-eeb4dadcb0a3

2021-06-29T11:42:41Z

0000-0002-2385-985X:

{{Instruction
|Title=05 - REalistiC Decisions: A Method for Analysing Cases in Research Ethics and Research Integrity
|Instruction Goal=Members of The Embassy of Good Science have developed a set of six user-friendly, accessible methods for analysing research ethics and research integrity cases.

These methods have been identified, adapted and presented so that they can be appropriated by all users, without prior philosophical knowledge, in local contexts.
|Has Requirements=The key aim for the case analysis method described here is that it can be appropriated by all users, without prior philosophical knowledge, in local contexts.

In order to apply this method in the analysis of specific cases, it is advised that RECs, RIOs and IRBs engage with the regulatory frameworks and normative standards that apply to their respective organizations in the form of codes of ethics, codes of conduct, funding body standards and, if applicable, broader national and international research ethics and research integrity regulatory documents.
|Has Duration=2
|Important For=Researchers; Ethics committee members; Research Ethics Committees; Research Integrity Officers; Administrators
|Has Method=Participatory sessions
}}
{{Custom TabContent Trainee Open}}
{{Instruction Steps Foldout Trainee}}
{{Instruction Perspective Trainee
|Is About=[http://www.reviewingresearch.com/realistic-decisions-making-judgements-in-committee/ REalistiC Decisions] is a case analysis method proposed by [https://uk.linkedin.com/in/hugh-davies-61029750 Hugh Davies] MB BS, Research Ethics Advisor for the Health Research Authority (‘HRA’) and former Consultant Paediatrician at Oxford University Hospitals.

Although intended to be a procedure for reviewing research ethics proposals, it is flexible enough to be used to analyse research integrity cases.<ref>Davies H. REalistiC Decisions: making judgements in review (and design). [Online]. <nowiki>http://www.reviewingresearch.com/realistic-decisions-making-judgements-in-committee/</nowiki>. Accessed 10 March 2019.</ref>
<references />
|Important Because=The method is founded on the idea that each member of a research ethics committee (‘REC’), research integrity office (‘RIO’) or institutional review board (‘IRB’) will deliberate based on their initial views and beliefs about a particular case.

The purpose is to move from individual opinions to the underlying reasons for those opinions in order turn ‘I think’ claims regarding a particular case into ‘We agree’ judgments.
[[File:REalistiC Decisions Case Analysis Diagram.png|thumb]]
This procedure is only part of the process of coming to decisions about individual cases. Although the procedure helps members of RECs, RIOs and IRBs to shape and share their deliberations, it cannot make the decision for them.<ref>Davies H. How we can make better decisions in review and design of research using a simple ethics model. ''Journal of Medical Ethics: Blog''. [Online]. <nowiki>https://blogs.bmj.com/medical-ethics/2018/10/11/how-we-can-make-better-decisions-in-review-and-design-of-research-using-a-simple-ethics-model/</nowiki>. Published 18 October 2019. Accessed 10 March 2019.</ref><ref>Davies H. REalistiC Decisions: making judgements in review (and design). [Online]. <nowiki>http://www.reviewingresearch.com/realistic-decisions-making-judgements-in-committee/</nowiki>. Accessed 10 March 2019.</ref><ref>Davies H. Moral engineering - how we can improve research review with a simple ethics decision making model. [Online]. <nowiki>http://www.reviewingresearch.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/08/A-model-to-help-resolve-differences180828forRR.pdf</nowiki>. Accessed 10 March 2019.</ref>
<references />
|Has Practical Tips=A case analysed by this method is openly available on the Zenodo repository and can be accessed using the following link: <nowiki>https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.5035520</nowiki>
}}
{{Instruction Step Trainee
|Instruction Step Title=Identify and Clarify the Issue
|Instruction Step Text=Produce a synopsis of the case

 

*Only include the facts of the case
*If the issue is ambiguous, then attempt to clarify what issue or set of issues are at stake
}}
{{Instruction Step Trainee
|Instruction Step Title=Early View (‘What do I think?’)
|Instruction Step Text=Once an issue has been identified and clarified, the next step is to ask:

 

*"What do I think?"

When formulating an Early View, I need to:

 

*Know when I can and can’t rely on this Early View;
*Ensure my view does not prejudice against diverging opinions.
}}
{{Instruction Step Trainee
|Instruction Step Title=What are My Reasons for Thinking This?
|Instruction Step Text=Once I have formed my Early View, the next step is to ask:

 

*"What are my reasons for thinking this?"

When formulating these reasons, I need to:

 

*Assess the strengths and weaknesses of the reasons for my view.
}}
{{Instruction Step Trainee
|Instruction Step Title=Communicate My Early View
|Instruction Step Text=Communicate my Early View and associated reasons to the rest of the committee
}}
{{Instruction Step Trainee
|Instruction Step Title=Listen to and Recognise the Early Views and Associated Reasons of All Other Members of the Committee
|Instruction Step Text=Is there disagreement between members of the committee?

 

*On which issues and views do we disagree?
*What reasons are given that either support or undermine my Early View?
}}
{{Instruction Step Trainee
|Instruction Step Title=Review My Early View
|Instruction Step Text=Review my Early View and associated reasons by addressing each of the following themes and questions:

'''Normative Standards'''

''"How do normative frameworks help us?"''

In order to answer this question, we need:

 

*A basic knowledge of the appropriate regulations that apply to the issue;
*To be able to use these regulations to analyse our Early View;
*To revise our Early View and to provide reasons for any revisions.

'''Experience'''

''"How have we approached this issue before?"''

In order to answer this question, we need:

 

*To access past decisions;
*To compare past cases and the current case and determine whether previous decisions are relevant;
*To use disagreement to develop new standards for guiding future considerations;
*To be able to explain why, if relevant, we haven’t followed such precedent.

'''Expertise'''

''"What expertise has been applied to this before?"''

To answer this question, we need to:

 

*Access independent expert review;
*Access an up-to-date library of authoritative guidance;
*Balance guidance documents and judge the relative authority of guidance documents;
*Provide reasons if our decisions run contrary to guidance.

'''Empathy'''

''"What views and opinions do other parties have?"''

We turn to the views of those with a legitimate interest in the case (for example, the accused, the complainant, individuals involved with the case, and the public).

To answer this question, we need to:

 

*Identify all those with an interest in the case and see it ‘through their eyes’;
*Recognize limitations to our empathy;
*Confirm or refute any ‘empathy-based decisions’ using answers to the other questions listed above;

'''Evidence'''

''"What evidence is there on this issue?"''

We turn to any published research concerning similar cases. However, we need to be careful when forming prescriptive conclusions based on factual premises. After all, the quality of the evidence may be questionable and there may be significant normative and factual differences between the case in question and situations discussed in published research.

In order to answer this question, we need:

 

*To locate, assess, and apply published evidence;
*To recognize the proper place of facts when making judgments;
*To encourage published research on research integrity and research ethics.

'''Expediency'''

''"What is possible or realistic in the circumstances?"''

We need to ensure that we have not interpreted the case against sets of unrealistic standards. Expediency is built on a realistic evaluation of research constraints and consequences and imposes proportionate and realistic conditions.

In order to answer this question, we need to:

 

*Understand and accommodate realistic standards when assessing the case;
*Judge when expediency is adequate justification;
*Balance expediency and fair standards when forming a judgment about a case.

'''Escape'''

''"How can we manage this problem of our disagreement?"''

In order to answer this question, we might be required to:

 

*Agree to disagree (if it will not affect the final judgment);
*Seek elaboration on any of the answers to the questions listed above;
*Vote on a set of judgments;
*Consider alternatives.
}}
{{Instruction Step Trainee
|Instruction Step Title=Develop an Informed Judgment
|Instruction Step Text=Having addressed all the themes and associated questions in the previous step, I now need to come up with an Informed Judgment.

To come up with my Informed Judgment, I should be aware that:

 

*Answering each question in the previous step leads to reasons to justify (or refute) a position;
*No single answer can provide a firm base for judgment;
*My Informed Judgment will involve balancing the answers to the different questions.
}}
{{Instruction Step Trainee
|Instruction Step Title=Reach a Consensus with Other Members of the Committee
|Instruction Step Text=In order for our committee to reach a consensus regarding a specific case:

 

*I must share my Informed Judgment and associated reasons with the rest of the committee;
*Listen to and recognise the Informed Judgments and associated reasons of all other members of the committee.

The final step is to deliberate and debate with our fellow committee members.

 

*If we all agree, then the decision is made and little needs to be done, although, from time to time, we should critique our views;

*If we fail to obtain a consensus, we can ask for further involvement from interested parties ("Empathy"), outside advice and deliberation ("Expertise") and/or new research ("Evidence").
}}
{{Instruction Remarks Trainee
|Has Remarks=By following the instructions, a user will be able to:

*Analyse specific research ethics and research integrity cases;
*Understand and explain the process by which they came to their judgment regarding a particular case;
*Identity and explain their reasons for their judgment.

In addition, by following the instructions, a research ethics committee ('REC'), research integrity office ('RIO') or institutional review board ('IRB') will be able to:

*Facilitate the analysis of research ethics and research integrity cases in accordance with an explicit procedure;
*Involve its members in structured deliberation and debate regarding a particular case in accordance with an explicit procedure;
*Generate a consensus regarding a specific case.
}}
{{Custom TabContent Close Trainee}}
{{Custom TabContent Trainer Open}}
{{Instruction Steps Foldout Trainer}}
{{Instruction Perspective Trainer}}
{{Instruction Remarks Trainer}}
{{Custom TabContent Close Trainer}}
{{Related To
|Related To Theme=Theme:65e6f304-51e2-4e41-93d3-e48518248b39;Theme:13ae94da-15d6-426f-8f6e-9134fb57e267;Theme:0953795c-fb38-4080-a56f-fe503c4875bd;Theme:D1477512-52a3-48a3-8ab6-72404cef4ab4;Theme:9ac8c1db-f98b-41ee-858d-a8c93a647108
}}
{{Tags
|Has Virtue And Value=Fairness; Respect; Responsibility; Accountability; Transparency
|Has Good Practice And Misconduct=Academic Responsibility of University; Allegations of misconduct; Communication; Complaints procedure; Ethical Dilemma; Good Practice; Institutional Responsibilities; Investigation; Misconduct Investigations; Research Misconduct Investigation
}}

Instruction:C0cf8cfb-6090-49e3-94f5-20f530f83ffd

2021-06-29T11:40:12Z

0000-0002-2385-985X:

{{Instruction
|Title=04 - Moral Case Deliberation: A Method for Analysing Cases in Research Ethics and Research Integrity
|Instruction Goal=Members of The Embassy of Good Science have developed a set of six user-friendly, accessible methods for analysing research ethics and research integrity cases.

These methods have been identified, adapted and presented so that they can be appropriated by all users, without prior philosophical knowledge, in local contexts.
|Has Requirements=The key aim for the case analysis method described here is that it can be appropriated by all users, without prior philosophical knowledge, in local contexts.

In order to apply this method in the analysis of specific cases, it is advised that RECs, RIOs and IRBs engage with the regulatory frameworks and normative standards that apply to their respective organizations in the form of codes of ethics, codes of conduct, funding body standards and, if applicable, broader national and international research ethics and research integrity regulatory documents.
|Has Duration=2
|Important For=Researchers; Ethics committee members; Research Integrity Officers; Research integrity trainers
}}
{{Custom TabContent Trainee Open}}
{{Instruction Steps Foldout Trainee}}
{{Instruction Perspective Trainee
|Is About=Moral Case Deliberation (MCD) aims to combine reflection on concrete cases with procedures to foster moral learning. In MCD in health care settings, patients, family members and health care staff discuss a moral question. MCD can be regarded as a form of Clinical Ethics Support (CES) or REC assessment in health care and biomedical research, helping health care professionals to reflect on their actual ethical questions and reasoning, and to find answers in acute cases. MCD is about listening and asking the right questions, rather than convincing the other, and postponing one’s own judgements in the interests of being open to other viewpoints.

The validity and reliability of knowledge claims and moral judgments are constructed and examined within the practice itself. In the end, the reliability and validity of the judgments are determined in experience and in the practice of daily life. The MCD facilitator or the MCD participants can refer to existing theories and concepts, as well as existing normative frameworks (such as policies, laws, professional codes etc.). The point is, however, that ethical issues are not defined beforehand, but are derived from practice.

In MCD, the moral problem under consideration is always a concrete moral issue, experienced by one of the participants. This issue is presented as a case (for example, concerning a treatment decision with an individual patient). The case is analysed not by applying general moral concepts or principles but by investigating the values and norms of the stakeholders. In a MCD, different viewpoints are examined. The initial aim is not to decide which perspective or answer is right, but to ask open and critical questions in order to elaborate assumptions behind the perspective and find out how they are applicable to the case at hand.[[#%20ftn1|[1]]]
----[[#%20ftnref1|[1]]] Stolper M, Molewijk B, Widdershoven G. Bioethics education in clinical settings: theory and practice of the dilemma method of moral case deliberation. ''BMC Med Ethics'' 2016;17(1):45.
|Important Because=Though MCD is primarily designed to examine clinical cases, given that many research ethics deliberations – e.g. the work of RECs when assessing research protocols – take place before the research in question, this methodology could be used to assess research ethics dilemmas as well. Also, an MCD can be undertaken by a single individual – for example, by considering ‘imaginary’ research ethics committees and other stakeholders as part of a ‘virtual’ deliberation. Since such imaginary and empathy-based techniques are considered to be important aspects of our ethical thinking – in thought experiments, for example – MCD might be a useful tool for such assessments.
|Has Practical Tips=A case analysed by this method is openly available on the Zenodo repository and can be accessed using the following link: <nowiki>https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.5035533</nowiki>
}}
{{Instruction Step Trainee
|Instruction Step Title=Introduction
|Instruction Step Text=During the first step, the aim and procedure of MCD is explained by the facilitator. The facilitator addresses issues such as the nature of MCD, the context surrounding the MCD, the aim of the meeting, mutual expectations (e.g. open and honest communication) and the steps in the method.
}}
{{Instruction Step Trainee
|Instruction Step Title=Presentation of the case
|Instruction Step Text=This step focuses on the experience of the case presenter. The presenter is asked to describe a concrete personal situation in which he or she experienced the moral issue at stake. The case presenter is asked to provide a short but thick description of the facts of the situation. Facts can include the ‘feelings’ he or she experienced since feelings can be a useful indicator of the moral discomfort of the presenter and can often implicitly refer to certain values.
}}
{{Instruction Step Trainee
|Instruction Step Title=Formulating the moral question and the dilemma
|Instruction Step Text=In this step, the case presenter’s underlying moral question is made explicit. By formulating his/her moral question, the other participants can better understand what is at stake and what (morally) matters for the case presenter. Furthermore, to make the moral question more concrete, the case presenter is asked to formulate the situation in terms of a dilemma: what are the concrete choices available in this situation?
}}
{{Instruction Step Trainee
|Instruction Step Title=Clarification in order to place oneself in the situation of the case presenter
|Instruction Step Text=The fourth step aims to foster a clear understanding of the situation so that participants can ‘put themselves in the shoes’ of the case presenter. Clarification aims to (re)construct as clearly as possible the situation presented by the case presenter in order to investigate the moral dilemma. Within MCD, participants try to answer the dilemma with which the case presenter is faced.
}}
{{Instruction Step Trainee
|Instruction Step Title=Analyzing the case in terms of perspectives, values and norms
|Instruction Step Text=The participants make a list of the relevant stakeholder perspectives, and, for each perspective, identify the values related to the dilemma and the possible actions that realize a specific value (we call this value a ‘norm’). The analysis of the perspective of the case presenter will lead to the identification of values and norms that support or undermine different options.
}}
{{Instruction Step Trainee
|Instruction Step Title=Looking for alternatives
|Instruction Step Text=The aim of this step is to brainstorm in order to get a view on possible courses or actions which lie beyond the dilemma.
}}
{{Instruction Step Trainee
|Instruction Step Title=Making an individual choice and making explicit one’s considerations
|Instruction Step Text=This step involves the formulation of the personal views, values, norms, arguments and choices in relation to the case. The participants express their own views of what they consider to be right.The facilitator might ask the participants to individually address the following points:

a) It is morally justified that I choose option … (A, B or an alternative).

b) Because of…. (which value or norm?)

c) Despite of…. (which value or norm?)

d) How can you limit the damage of your choice mentioned under (c)?
}}
{{Instruction Step Trainee
|Instruction Step Title=Dialogical inquiry
|Instruction Step Text=In this step, similarities and differences between the individual considerations are examined. Sometimes, two participants make a different choice based on the same value. Alternatively, participants may choose the same option based on different values or norms. Identifying similarities and differences may lead to better understanding and a better insight of what is at stake in a specific case.
}}
{{Instruction Step Trainee
|Instruction Step Title=Conclusion
|Instruction Step Text=In this step, participants are invited to draw conclusions and develop a plan for action. The facilitator returns to the moral question formulated at the start of the MCD and asks the group to make explicit their conclusions. Reaching consensus is not necessary; the conclusion can also be that there is a plurality of ideas with different practical implications.
}}
{{Instruction Step Trainee
|Instruction Step Title=Evaluation
|Instruction Step Text=Lastly, learning experiences and the outcome are evaluated.
}}
{{Instruction Remarks Trainee}}
{{Custom TabContent Close Trainee}}
{{Custom TabContent Trainer Open}}
{{Instruction Steps Foldout Trainer}}
{{Instruction Perspective Trainer}}
{{Instruction Remarks Trainer}}
{{Custom TabContent Close Trainer}}
{{Related To
|Related To Theme=Theme:Cda80c83-0101-4e27-bdc0-87a45846e5ed;Theme:17d406f9-0b0f-4325-aa2d-2fe186d5ff34
|Related To Instruction=Instruction:6cc77174-4f7b-48a6-95f3-eeb4dadcb0a3;Instruction:Ffff98bc-b81b-43ee-8fef-a264c1e25741;Instruction:6b129846-c455-4849-9eaf-0d25f3c5600e;Instruction:A440eed0-f9f4-4415-a2c4-2d6ff9f44b80
}}
{{Tags
|Has Virtue And Value=Accountability; Honesty; Transparency; Fairness; Resepct
}}

Instruction:41bc2a1d-26f7-49f9-8bf7-9fc6b4ecf10c

2021-06-29T11:31:49Z

0000-0002-2385-985X:

{{Instruction
|Title=03 - Four Quadrant Approach: A Method for Analysing Cases in Research Ethics and Research Integrity
|Instruction Goal=Members of The Embassy of Good Science have developed a set of six user-friendly, accessible methods for analysing research ethics and research integrity cases.

These methods have been identified, adapted and presented so that they can be appropriated by all users, without prior philosophical knowledge, in local contexts.
|Has Requirements=The key aim for the case analysis method described here is that it can be appropriated by all users, without prior philosophical knowledge, in local contexts.

In order to apply this method in the analysis of specific cases, it is advised that RECs, RIOs and IRBs engage with the regulatory frameworks and normative standards that apply to their respective organizations in the form of codes of ethics, codes of conduct, funding body standards and, if applicable, broader national and international research ethics and research integrity regulatory documents.
|Has Duration=2
|Important For=Researchers; Ethics committee members; Research Integrity Officers; Research integrity trainers
}}
{{Custom TabContent Trainee Open}}
{{Instruction Steps Foldout Trainee}}
{{Instruction Perspective Trainee
|Is About=In a collaborative effort, three clinical ethicists, a philosopher, Jonsen, a physician, Siegler, and a lawyer, Winslade, developed the ‘four quadrant approach’ (‘4QA’) for dealing with difficult cases in clinical settings.[[#%20ftn1|[1]]] The process can be viewed as an “ethics workup,” similar to the “History and Physical” skills that all medical students come to use when learning how to “workup” a patient’s primary complaints.

The full procedure of the 4QA involves three stages and a list of distinctive steps:

#The first stage identifies and describes our initial perception of the case;
#The second involves the four quadrants (medical indications, patient preferences, quality of life, contextual features) and the identification of information relevant to a given quadrant;
#The third involves the application of case-based reasoning to identify and justify the best course of action.

----[[#%20ftnref1|[1]]] Jonsen A, Siegler M, Winslade W. Clinical ethics: a practical approach to ethical decisions in clinical medicine. Mc-Graw Hill, 6th edition, 2010.

[[#%20ftnref2|[2]]] http://depts.washington.edu/bioethx/tools/cesumm.html
|Important Because=While this method has deep philosophical roots, what clinicians like about it is the ease with which it fits with how we normally think about tough medical cases.[[#%20ftn1|[1]]]
----[[#%20ftnref1|[1]]] http://depts.washington.edu/bioethx/tools/cesumm.html
|Has Practical Tips=A case analysed by this method is openly available on the Zenodo repository and can be accessed using the following link: https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.5035537
}}
{{Instruction Step Trainee
|Instruction Step Title=STAGE 1: Initial Perception
|Instruction Step Text=The user should attend to some general questions in order to identify relevant aspects and major characteristics of the situation:

*What are the morally relevant facts?
*What are the ethical or moral issues at stake in this case?
*Who are the stakeholders?
*What particular normative standards in pertinent regulatory documents apply to the case?
*What possible courses of action are available?
*What are the predictable effects of each action?
*Which set of possible outcomes seem to be better?
}}
{{Instruction Step Trainee
|Instruction Step Title=STAGE 2: The Four Quadrant Analysis
|Instruction Step Text=#'''Relevant Facts''': What are the most relevant facts concerning the situation?
#'''Uncertainties''': Which features of the situation are uncertain, lacking in clarity, or controversial?
#'''Courses of Action''': What are the practically available options for providing a solution to the case?
#'''Contextual Features''': What legal, financial and institutional policies and regulations apply to the case?
}}
{{Instruction Step Trainee
|Instruction Step Title=STAGE 3: Casuistic Reasoning and Justification
|Instruction Step Text=Once the details of a case have been outlined according to the four quadrants, there are a series of questions that should be considered:

 

*What is at issue? Try to list what is the major ethical issue at the case, e.g researchers’ dishonesty, negligent conduct, informed consent, rules of data collection etc.)
*Where is the conflict? Is there a conflict between principles of research or principles of research integrity? (e.g. autonomy, justice, beneficence or between honesty, reliability and respect for colleagues)
*What is this a case of? Does it sound like other cases you may have encountered? (e.g. Is it a case of "self-plagiarism", “fabrication of data in a grant application” or “low risk research involving humans without a valid informed consent”?)
*What do we know about other cases like this one? Is there clear precedent? If so, we call this a paradigm case. A paradigm case is one in which the facts of the case are very clear cut and there has been much professional and/or public agreement about resolution of the case.
*How is the present case similar to the paradigm case? How is it different? Is it similar (or different) in significant ways?
}}
{{Instruction Remarks Trainee
|Has Remarks=The original version of the 4QA was developed to deal with clinical decisions involving patients and dilemmas or conflicts within the doctor-patient relationship.[https://embassy.science/wiki-wiki/index.php/Instruction:41bc2a1d-26f7-49f9-8bf7-9fc6b4ecf10c#_ftn1 <nowiki>[1]</nowiki>] Therefore, there is little room for developing, altering or adapting the method even in clinical settings.[https://embassy.science/wiki-wiki/index.php/Instruction:41bc2a1d-26f7-49f9-8bf7-9fc6b4ecf10c#_ftn2 <nowiki>[2]</nowiki>] Moreover, the four quadrants are said to be responsive to the four principles of biomedical ethics, specifically, autonomy, beneficence, non-maleficence and justice. This is a normative framework originally developed for biomedicine.

Here, we have adapted the “original version” to test its applicability in different research ethics and research integrity scenarios.

The basic structure and the general decision-making procedure embedded in the 4QA approach seem to be adaptable to any cases where various options for decision-making need to be assessed and clarified.

In adapting the 4QA, the aim is to enable a focused discussion around normative standards pertinent to research ethics and research integrity, leading to the application of case-based reasoning to the facts of the particular case at hand.

Consequently, the four quadrants of the procedure have been revised so that they not only are responsive to the regulatory frameworks and normative standards that apply to a user’s respective organization in the form of codes of ethics, codes of conduct, and, if applicable, broader national and international research ethics and research integrity codes, but can be applied to non-clinical settings to deal with cases in research ethics and research integrity.
----[https://embassy.science/wiki-wiki/index.php/Instruction:41bc2a1d-26f7-49f9-8bf7-9fc6b4ecf10c#_ftnref1 <nowiki>[1]</nowiki>] Sokol DK. The “four quadrants” approach to clinical ethics case analysis; an application and review. J Med Ethics. 2008;34(7):513-516.

[https://embassy.science/wiki-wiki/index.php/Instruction:41bc2a1d-26f7-49f9-8bf7-9fc6b4ecf10c#_ftnref2 <nowiki>[2]</nowiki>] Schumann JH, Alfandre D. Clinical ethical decision making: the four topics approach. Semin Med Pract 2008;11:36–42.
}}
{{Custom TabContent Close Trainee}}
{{Custom TabContent Trainer Open}}
{{Instruction Steps Foldout Trainer}}
{{Instruction Perspective Trainer}}
{{Instruction Remarks Trainer}}
{{Custom TabContent Close Trainer}}
{{Related To
|Related To Theme=Theme:Cda80c83-0101-4e27-bdc0-87a45846e5ed;Theme:17d406f9-0b0f-4325-aa2d-2fe186d5ff34
|Related To Instruction=Instruction:C0cf8cfb-6090-49e3-94f5-20f530f83ffd;Instruction:6cc77174-4f7b-48a6-95f3-eeb4dadcb0a3;Instruction:Ffff98bc-b81b-43ee-8fef-a264c1e25741;Instruction:6b129846-c455-4849-9eaf-0d25f3c5600e;Instruction:A440eed0-f9f4-4415-a2c4-2d6ff9f44b80
}}
{{Tags
|Has Virtue And Value=Accountability; Honesty; Transparency; Fairness; Respect
}}

Instruction:41bc2a1d-26f7-49f9-8bf7-9fc6b4ecf10c

2021-06-29T11:28:11Z

0000-0002-2385-985X:

{{Instruction
|Title=03 - Four Quadrant Approach: A Method for Analysing Cases in Research Ethics and Research Integrity
|Instruction Goal=Members of The Embassy of Good Science have developed a set of six user-friendly, accessible methods for analysing research ethics and research integrity cases.

These methods have been identified, adapted and presented so that they can be appropriated by all users, without prior philosophical knowledge, in local contexts.
|Has Requirements=The key aim for the case analysis method described here is that it can be appropriated by all users, without prior philosophical knowledge, in local contexts.

In order to apply this method in the analysis of specific cases, it is advised that RECs, RIOs and IRBs engage with the regulatory frameworks and normative standards that apply to their respective organizations in the form of codes of ethics, codes of conduct, funding body standards and, if applicable, broader national and international research ethics and research integrity regulatory documents.
|Has Duration=2
|Important For=Researchers; Ethics committee members; Research Integrity Officers; Research integrity trainers
}}
{{Custom TabContent Trainee Open}}
{{Instruction Steps Foldout Trainee}}
{{Instruction Perspective Trainee
|Is About=In a collaborative effort, three clinical ethicists, a philosopher, Jonsen, a physician, Siegler, and a lawyer, Winslade, developed the ‘four quadrant approach’ (‘4QA’) for dealing with difficult cases in clinical settings.[[#%20ftn1|[1]]] The process can be viewed as an “ethics workup,” similar to the “History and Physical” skills that all medical students come to use when learning how to “workup” a patient’s primary complaints.

The full procedure of the 4QA involves three stages and a list of distinctive steps:

#The first stage identifies and describes our initial perception of the case;
#The second involves the four quadrants (medical indications, patient preferences, quality of life, contextual features) and the identification of information relevant to a given quadrant;
#The third involves the application of case-based reasoning to identify and justify the best course of action.

----[[#%20ftnref1|[1]]] Jonsen A, Siegler M, Winslade W. Clinical ethics: a practical approach to ethical decisions in clinical medicine. Mc-Graw Hill, 6th edition, 2010.

[[#%20ftnref2|[2]]] http://depts.washington.edu/bioethx/tools/cesumm.html
|Important Because=While this method has deep philosophical roots, what clinicians like about it is the ease with which it fits with how we normally think about tough medical cases.[[#%20ftn1|[1]]]
----[[#%20ftnref1|[1]]] http://depts.washington.edu/bioethx/tools/cesumm.html
|Has Practical Tips=A case analysed by this method is openly available on the Zenodo repository and can be accessed using the following link: [https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.4905905 https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.5035537]
}}
{{Instruction Step Trainee
|Instruction Step Title=STAGE 1: Initial Perception
|Instruction Step Text=The user should attend to some general questions in order to identify relevant aspects and major characteristics of the situation:

*What are the morally relevant facts?
*What are the ethical or moral issues at stake in this case?
*Who are the stakeholders?
*What particular normative standards in pertinent regulatory documents apply to the case?
*What possible courses of action are available?
*What are the predictable effects of each action?
*Which set of possible outcomes seem to be better?
}}
{{Instruction Step Trainee
|Instruction Step Title=STAGE 2: The Four Quadrant Analysis
|Instruction Step Text=#'''Relevant Facts''': What are the most relevant facts concerning the situation?
#'''Uncertainties''': Which features of the situation are uncertain, lacking in clarity, or controversial?
#'''Courses of Action''': What are the practically available options for providing a solution to the case?
#'''Contextual Features''': What legal, financial and institutional policies and regulations apply to the case?
}}
{{Instruction Step Trainee
|Instruction Step Title=STAGE 3: Casuistic Reasoning and Justification
|Instruction Step Text=Once the details of a case have been outlined according to the four quadrants, there are a series of questions that should be considered:

 

*What is at issue? Try to list what is the major ethical issue at the case, e.g researchers’ dishonesty, negligent conduct, informed consent, rules of data collection etc.)
*Where is the conflict? Is there a conflict between principles of research or principles of research integrity? (e.g. autonomy, justice, beneficence or between honesty, reliability and respect for colleagues)
*What is this a case of? Does it sound like other cases you may have encountered? (e.g. Is it a case of "self-plagiarism", “fabrication of data in a grant application” or “low risk research involving humans without a valid informed consent”?)
*What do we know about other cases like this one? Is there clear precedent? If so, we call this a paradigm case. A paradigm case is one in which the facts of the case are very clear cut and there has been much professional and/or public agreement about resolution of the case.
*How is the present case similar to the paradigm case? How is it different? Is it similar (or different) in significant ways?
}}
{{Instruction Remarks Trainee
|Has Remarks=The original version of the 4QA was developed to deal with clinical decisions involving patients and dilemmas or conflicts within the doctor-patient relationship.[https://embassy.science/wiki-wiki/index.php/Instruction:41bc2a1d-26f7-49f9-8bf7-9fc6b4ecf10c#_ftn1 <nowiki>[1]</nowiki>] Therefore, there is little room for developing, altering or adapting the method even in clinical settings.[https://embassy.science/wiki-wiki/index.php/Instruction:41bc2a1d-26f7-49f9-8bf7-9fc6b4ecf10c#_ftn2 <nowiki>[2]</nowiki>] Moreover, the four quadrants are said to be responsive to the four principles of biomedical ethics, specifically, autonomy, beneficence, non-maleficence and justice. This is a normative framework originally developed for biomedicine.

Here, we have adapted the “original version” to test its applicability in different research ethics and research integrity scenarios.

The basic structure and the general decision-making procedure embedded in the 4QA approach seem to be adaptable to any cases where various options for decision-making need to be assessed and clarified.

In adapting the 4QA, the aim is to enable a focused discussion around normative standards pertinent to research ethics and research integrity, leading to the application of case-based reasoning to the facts of the particular case at hand.

Consequently, the four quadrants of the procedure have been revised so that they not only are responsive to the regulatory frameworks and normative standards that apply to a user’s respective organization in the form of codes of ethics, codes of conduct, and, if applicable, broader national and international research ethics and research integrity codes, but can be applied to non-clinical settings to deal with cases in research ethics and research integrity.
----[https://embassy.science/wiki-wiki/index.php/Instruction:41bc2a1d-26f7-49f9-8bf7-9fc6b4ecf10c#_ftnref1 <nowiki>[1]</nowiki>] Sokol DK. The “four quadrants” approach to clinical ethics case analysis; an application and review. J Med Ethics. 2008;34(7):513-516.

[https://embassy.science/wiki-wiki/index.php/Instruction:41bc2a1d-26f7-49f9-8bf7-9fc6b4ecf10c#_ftnref2 <nowiki>[2]</nowiki>] Schumann JH, Alfandre D. Clinical ethical decision making: the four topics approach. Semin Med Pract 2008;11:36–42.
}}
{{Custom TabContent Close Trainee}}
{{Custom TabContent Trainer Open}}
{{Instruction Steps Foldout Trainer}}
{{Instruction Perspective Trainer}}
{{Instruction Remarks Trainer}}
{{Custom TabContent Close Trainer}}
{{Related To
|Related To Theme=Theme:Cda80c83-0101-4e27-bdc0-87a45846e5ed;Theme:17d406f9-0b0f-4325-aa2d-2fe186d5ff34
|Related To Instruction=Instruction:C0cf8cfb-6090-49e3-94f5-20f530f83ffd;Instruction:6cc77174-4f7b-48a6-95f3-eeb4dadcb0a3;Instruction:Ffff98bc-b81b-43ee-8fef-a264c1e25741;Instruction:6b129846-c455-4849-9eaf-0d25f3c5600e;Instruction:A440eed0-f9f4-4415-a2c4-2d6ff9f44b80
}}
{{Tags
|Has Virtue And Value=Accountability; Honesty; Transparency; Fairness; Respect
}}

Instruction:A440eed0-f9f4-4415-a2c4-2d6ff9f44b80

2021-06-29T11:21:21Z

0000-0002-2385-985X:

{{Instruction
|Title=01 - Value Analysis: A Method for Analysing Cases in Research Ethics and Research Integrity
|Instruction Goal=Members of The Embassy of Good Science have developed a set of six user-friendly, accessible methods for analysing research ethics and research integrity cases.

These methods have been identified, adapted and presented so that they can be appropriated by all users, without prior philosophical knowledge, in local contexts.
|Has Requirements=The key aim for the case analysis method described here is that it can be appropriated by all users, without prior philosophical knowledge, in local contexts.

In order to apply this method in the analysis of specific cases, it is advised that RECs, RIOs and IRBs engage with the regulatory frameworks and normative standards that apply to their respective organizations in the form of codes of ethics, codes of conduct, funding body standards and, if applicable, broader national and international research ethics and research integrity regulatory documents.
|Has Duration=2
|Important For=researchers; Ethics committee members; Research Integrity Officers
|Has Method=Participatory sessions
}}
{{Custom TabContent Trainee Open}}
{{Instruction Steps Foldout Trainee}}
{{Instruction Perspective Trainee
|Is About=This case analysis uses a procedure advanced by Jack R. Fraenkel (1976) for the purpose of values education.<ref>Fraenkel, Jack, R. (1976). Teaching about Values. In: Ubbelohde, Carl, and Jack R. Fraenkel. (Eds.) Values of the American Heritage: Challenges, Case Studies, and Teaching Strategies. The Bicentennial Yearbook, 46th Yearbook." (1976).</ref> Fraenkel (1932-2013) earned a PhD from Stanford University in 1966 and subsequently worked at San Francisco State University for more than 30 years. When he retired, he was Professor of Interdisciplinary Studies in Education.<ref>Obituary (2014). Jack Fraenkel Obituary, San Francisco Chronicle on Mar. 7, 2014, https://www.legacy.com/obituaries/sfgate/obituary.aspx?n=jack-fraenkel&pid=170037290 (accessed on March, 15th 2019)</ref>
<references />
|Important Because=Fraenkel published a lot on research methodology, curriculum development and research in education. Guided by the work of Coombs and Meux<ref>Coombs, Jerrold R., and Milton Meux, ‘Teaching strategies for values analysis’. In: Metcalf, L. E. (Eds.) (1071). Values education: Values education: Rationale, strategies and procedures. Washington D. C.: National Council for Social Studies. S. 29–74.</ref>, Fraenkel (1976) advanced an interesting method to analyse value conflicts meant for teachers “[…] to help students determine for themselves what individuals caught in value dilemmas should do […]”.<ref>Fraenkel, Jack, R. (1976). Teaching about Values. In: Ubbelohde, Carl, and Jack R. Fraenkel. (Eds.) Values of the American Heritage: Challenges, Case Studies, and Teaching Strategies. The Bicentennial Yearbook, 46th Yearbook." (1976).</ref>
<references />
|Has Practical Tips=A case analysed by this method is openly available on the Zenodo repository and can be accessed using the following link: [https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.5035506 https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.4905905]

 
<references />
}}
{{Instruction Step Trainee
|Instruction Step Title=What is the incident about?
|Instruction Step Text=What is the dilemma?
}}
{{Instruction Step Trainee
|Instruction Step Title=What might (the central character) do to try and resolve the dilemma?
|Instruction Step Text=What alternatives exist?
}}
{{Instruction Step Trainee
|Instruction Step Title=What might happen if he or she does each of these things?
|Instruction Step Text=What might be the consequences of the various alternatives?
}}
{{Instruction Step Trainee
|Instruction Step Title=What might happen to those who are not immediately involved?
|Instruction Step Text=What might be the short- as well as the long-range consequences?
}}
{{Instruction Step Trainee
|Instruction Step Title=What evidence, if any, is there that these consequences would indeed occur?
|Instruction Step Text=What could be considered as forseeable consequences?
}}
{{Instruction Step Trainee
|Instruction Step Title=Would each consequence be good or bad? Why?
|Instruction Step Text=Is there a positive balance between good and bad consequences?
}}
{{Instruction Step Trainee
|Instruction Step Title=What do you think X should do?
|Instruction Step Text=What do you think is the best thing for X to do?
}}
{{Instruction Remarks Trainee
|Has Remarks=Ad. 1: Fraenkel stresses the importance of identifying whether the conflict is about ends or means to ends that have been agreed upon. Equally important is to establish the factual context of the situation.<ref>Fraenkel, Jack, R. (1976). Teaching about Values. In: Ubbelohde, Carl, and Jack R. Fraenkel. (Eds.) Values of the American Heritage: Challenges, Case Studies, and Teaching Strategies. The Bicentennial Yearbook, 46th Yearbook." (1976).</ref>

Ad. 2: This step involves brainstorming for all the available action alternatives for the agent(s) facing the value conflict at hand.

Ad. 3 and 4: These questions are focused on the expected consequences of the different alternative actions available to those facing the value conflict. What might be the effects of each alternative respectively? Which parties might be affected? Could the consequences spill over to future generations? It might make sense here to distinguish between short- and long-range effects for the individual and other parties. In order to map these consequences, a Values Information Chart ('''Table 1''') could be used.
{{{!}} class="wikitable" border="1" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="0"
{{!}} rowspan="3" width="62"{{!}}'''Facts'''
{{!}} rowspan="3" width="67"{{!}}'''Alternatives'''
{{!}} colspan="4" width="476"{{!}}'''Consequences'''
{{!}}-
{{!}} colspan="2" width="283"{{!}}'''Short-Range'''
{{!}} colspan="2" width="193"{{!}}'''Long-Range'''
{{!}}-
{{!}} width="136"{{!}}'''Self'''
{{!}} width="147"{{!}}'''Others'''
{{!}} width="97"{{!}}'''Self'''
{{!}} width="97"{{!}}'''Others'''
{{!}}-
{{!}} rowspan="3" width="62" valign="top"{{!}}
{{!}} width="67" valign="top"{{!}}
{{!}} width="136" valign="top"{{!}}
{{!}} width="147" valign="top"{{!}}
{{!}} width="97" valign="top"{{!}}
{{!}} width="97" valign="top"{{!}}

{{!}}-
{{!}} width="67" valign="top"{{!}}
{{!}} width="136" valign="top"{{!}}
{{!}} width="147" valign="top"{{!}}
{{!}} width="97" valign="top"{{!}}
{{!}} width="97" valign="top"{{!}}

{{!}}-
{{!}} width="67" valign="top"{{!}}
{{!}} width="136" valign="top"{{!}}
{{!}} width="147" valign="top"{{!}}
{{!}} width="97" valign="top"{{!}}
{{!}} width="97" valign="top"{{!}}

{{!}}}'''Table 1: Values Information Chart Template'''

Ad. 5: This question zooms in on the evidence supporting or refuting the potential effects of the alternative actions as identified above. If the case at hand is similar to case studies from the past, it might be useful to study what happened there. Data to that effect should be gathered, and their truthfulness and relevance to the case at hand established.

Ad. 6: A discussion of the desirability of the expected consequences is needed. This should happen based on certain criteria. These criteria might be of a moral, legal, aesthetic, ecological, economic, health and safety and/or a completely different nature. A Value Analysis Chart ('''Table 2''') could be used to keep track of the assessment of the different consequences along the different criteria. In the last column of this chart the desirability of the different consequences is ranked from the most to the least desirable.

Ad. 7: Fraenkel does not explain how the answer to this final question should follow from the analysis above. It seems to be implicit in his method that the answer automatically matches the alternative that turns out to be most desirable over all.
 
{{{!}} class="wikitable" border="1" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="0" width="604"
{{!}} rowspan="2" width="67"{{!}}'''Alternatives'''
{{!}} rowspan="2" width="120"{{!}}'''Consequences'''
{{!}} colspan="7" width="354"{{!}}'''Desirability from various points of view'''
{{!}} rowspan="2" width="64"{{!}}'''Ranking'''
{{!}}-
{{!}} width="41"{{!}}'''Moral'''
{{!}} width="39"{{!}}'''Legal'''
{{!}} width="55"{{!}}'''Aesthetic'''
{{!}} width="60"{{!}}'''Ecological'''
{{!}} width="58"{{!}}'''Economic'''
{{!}} width="51"{{!}}'''Health and Safety'''
{{!}} width="51"{{!}}'''Etc.'''
{{!}}-
{{!}} width="67" valign="top"{{!}}
{{!}} width="120" valign="top"{{!}}
{{!}} width="41" valign="top"{{!}}
{{!}} width="39" valign="top"{{!}}
{{!}} width="55" valign="top"{{!}}
{{!}} width="60" valign="top"{{!}}
{{!}} width="58" valign="top"{{!}}
{{!}} width="51" valign="top"{{!}}
{{!}} width="51" valign="top"{{!}}
{{!}} width="64" valign="top"{{!}}

{{!}}-
{{!}} width="67" valign="top"{{!}}
{{!}} width="120" valign="top"{{!}}
{{!}} width="41" valign="top"{{!}}
{{!}} width="39" valign="top"{{!}}
{{!}} width="55" valign="top"{{!}}
{{!}} width="60" valign="top"{{!}}
{{!}} width="58" valign="top"{{!}}
{{!}} width="51" valign="top"{{!}}
{{!}} width="51" valign="top"{{!}}
{{!}} width="64" valign="top"{{!}}

{{!}}-
{{!}} width="67" valign="top"{{!}}
{{!}} width="120" valign="top"{{!}}
{{!}} width="41" valign="top"{{!}}
{{!}} width="39" valign="top"{{!}}
{{!}} width="55" valign="top"{{!}}
{{!}} width="60" valign="top"{{!}}
{{!}} width="58" valign="top"{{!}}
{{!}} width="51" valign="top"{{!}}
{{!}} width="51" valign="top"{{!}}
{{!}} width="64" valign="top"{{!}}

{{!}}-
{{!}} width="67" valign="top"{{!}}
{{!}} width="120" valign="top"{{!}}
{{!}} width="41" valign="top"{{!}}
{{!}} width="39" valign="top"{{!}}
{{!}} width="55" valign="top"{{!}}
{{!}} width="60" valign="top"{{!}}
{{!}} width="58" valign="top"{{!}}
{{!}} width="51" valign="top"{{!}}
{{!}} width="51" valign="top"{{!}}
{{!}} width="64" valign="top"{{!}}

{{!}}}

'''Table 2: Value Analysis Chart Template'''[[File:The Value Analysis Method.jpg|thumb|Figure 1. Fraenkel's value analysis method.]]
}}
{{Custom TabContent Close Trainee}}
{{Custom TabContent Trainer Open}}
{{Instruction Steps Foldout Trainer}}
{{Instruction Perspective Trainer}}
{{Instruction Remarks Trainer}}
{{Custom TabContent Close Trainer}}
{{Related To
|Related To Instruction=Instruction:6b129846-c455-4849-9eaf-0d25f3c5600e;Instruction:6cc77174-4f7b-48a6-95f3-eeb4dadcb0a3
}}
{{Tags
|Has Virtue And Value=Fairness; Honesty; Respect
|Has Good Practice And Misconduct=Virtue ethics
}}

Instruction:A440eed0-f9f4-4415-a2c4-2d6ff9f44b80

2021-06-29T11:17:16Z

0000-0002-2385-985X: Undo revision 6860 by 0000-0002-2385-985X (talk)

{{Instruction
|Title=Value Analysis: A Method for Analysing Cases in Research Ethics and Research Integrity
|Instruction Goal=Members of The Embassy of Good Science have developed a set of six user-friendly, accessible methods for analysing research ethics and research integrity cases.

These methods have been identified, adapted and presented so that they can be appropriated by all users, without prior philosophical knowledge, in local contexts.
|Has Requirements=The key aim for the case analysis method described here is that it can be appropriated by all users, without prior philosophical knowledge, in local contexts.

In order to apply this method in the analysis of specific cases, it is advised that RECs, RIOs and IRBs engage with the regulatory frameworks and normative standards that apply to their respective organizations in the form of codes of ethics, codes of conduct, funding body standards and, if applicable, broader national and international research ethics and research integrity regulatory documents.
|Has Duration=2
|Important For=researchers; Ethics committee members; Research Integrity Officers
|Has Method=Participatory sessions
}}
{{Custom TabContent Trainee Open}}
{{Instruction Steps Foldout Trainee}}
{{Instruction Perspective Trainee
|Is About=This case analysis uses a procedure advanced by Jack R. Fraenkel (1976) for the purpose of values education.<ref>Fraenkel, Jack, R. (1976). Teaching about Values. In: Ubbelohde, Carl, and Jack R. Fraenkel. (Eds.) Values of the American Heritage: Challenges, Case Studies, and Teaching Strategies. The Bicentennial Yearbook, 46th Yearbook." (1976).</ref> Fraenkel (1932-2013) earned a PhD from Stanford University in 1966 and subsequently worked at San Francisco State University for more than 30 years. When he retired, he was Professor of Interdisciplinary Studies in Education.<ref>Obituary (2014). Jack Fraenkel Obituary, San Francisco Chronicle on Mar. 7, 2014, https://www.legacy.com/obituaries/sfgate/obituary.aspx?n=jack-fraenkel&pid=170037290 (accessed on March, 15th 2019)</ref>
<references />
|Important Because=Fraenkel published a lot on research methodology, curriculum development and research in education. Guided by the work of Coombs and Meux<ref>Coombs, Jerrold R., and Milton Meux, ‘Teaching strategies for values analysis’. In: Metcalf, L. E. (Eds.) (1071). Values education: Values education: Rationale, strategies and procedures. Washington D. C.: National Council for Social Studies. S. 29–74.</ref>, Fraenkel (1976) advanced an interesting method to analyse value conflicts meant for teachers “[…] to help students determine for themselves what individuals caught in value dilemmas should do […]”.<ref>Fraenkel, Jack, R. (1976). Teaching about Values. In: Ubbelohde, Carl, and Jack R. Fraenkel. (Eds.) Values of the American Heritage: Challenges, Case Studies, and Teaching Strategies. The Bicentennial Yearbook, 46th Yearbook." (1976).</ref>
<references />
|Has Practical Tips=Ad. 1: Fraenkel stresses the importance of identifying whether the conflict is about ends or means to ends that have been agreed upon. Equally important is to establish the factual context of the situation.<ref>Fraenkel, Jack, R. (1976). Teaching about Values. In: Ubbelohde, Carl, and Jack R. Fraenkel. (Eds.) Values of the American Heritage: Challenges, Case Studies, and Teaching Strategies. The Bicentennial Yearbook, 46th Yearbook." (1976).</ref>

Ad. 2: This step involves brainstorming for all the available action alternatives for the agent(s) facing the value conflict at hand.

Ad. 3 and 4: These questions are focused on the expected consequences of the different alternative actions available to those facing the value conflict. What might be the effects of each alternative respectively? Which parties might be affected? Could the consequences spill over to future generations? It might make sense here to distinguish between short- and long-range effects for the individual and other parties. In order to map these consequences, a Values Information Chart ('''Table 1''') could be used. 
{{{!}} class="wikitable" border="1" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="0"
{{!}} rowspan="3" width="62"{{!}}'''Facts'''
{{!}} rowspan="3" width="67"{{!}}'''Alternatives'''
{{!}} colspan="4" width="476"{{!}}'''Consequences'''
{{!}}-
{{!}} colspan="2" width="283"{{!}}'''Short-Range'''
{{!}} colspan="2" width="193"{{!}}'''Long-Range'''
{{!}}-
{{!}} width="136"{{!}}'''Self'''
{{!}} width="147"{{!}}'''Others'''
{{!}} width="97"{{!}}'''Self'''
{{!}} width="97"{{!}}'''Others'''
{{!}}-
{{!}} rowspan="3" width="62" valign="top"{{!}}
{{!}} width="67" valign="top"{{!}}
{{!}} width="136" valign="top"{{!}}
{{!}} width="147" valign="top"{{!}}
{{!}} width="97" valign="top"{{!}}
{{!}} width="97" valign="top"{{!}}

 
{{!}}-
{{!}} width="67" valign="top"{{!}}
{{!}} width="136" valign="top"{{!}}
{{!}} width="147" valign="top"{{!}}
{{!}} width="97" valign="top"{{!}}
{{!}} width="97" valign="top"{{!}}

 
{{!}}-
{{!}} width="67" valign="top"{{!}}
{{!}} width="136" valign="top"{{!}}
{{!}} width="147" valign="top"{{!}}
{{!}} width="97" valign="top"{{!}}
{{!}} width="97" valign="top"{{!}}

 
{{!}}}

'''Table 1: Values Information Chart Template'''

Ad. 5: This question zooms in on the evidence supporting or refuting the potential effects of the alternative actions as identified above. If the case at hand is similar to case studies from the past, it might be useful to study what happened there. Data to that effect should be gathered, and their truthfulness and relevance to the case at hand established.

Ad. 6: A discussion of the desirability of the expected consequences is needed. This should happen based on certain criteria. These criteria might be of a moral, legal, aesthetic, ecological, economic, health and safety and/or a completely different nature. A Value Analysis Chart ('''Table 2''') could be used to keep track of the assessment of the different consequences along the different criteria. In the last column of this chart the desirability of the different consequences is ranked from the most to the least desirable.

Ad. 7: Fraenkel does not explain how the answer to this final question should follow from the analysis above. It seems to be implicit in his method that the answer automatically matches the alternative that turns out to be most desirable over all.

{{{!}} class="wikitable" border="1" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="0" width="604"
{{!}} rowspan="2" width="67"{{!}}'''Alternatives'''
{{!}} rowspan="2" width="120"{{!}}'''Consequences'''
{{!}} colspan="7" width="354"{{!}}'''Desirability from various points of view'''
{{!}} rowspan="2" width="64"{{!}}'''Ranking'''
{{!}}-
{{!}} width="41"{{!}}'''Moral'''
{{!}} width="39"{{!}}'''Legal'''
{{!}} width="55"{{!}}'''Aesthetic'''
{{!}} width="60"{{!}}'''Ecological'''
{{!}} width="58"{{!}}'''Economic'''
{{!}} width="51"{{!}}'''Health and Safety'''
{{!}} width="51"{{!}}'''Etc.'''
{{!}}-
{{!}} width="67" valign="top"{{!}}
{{!}} width="120" valign="top"{{!}}
{{!}} width="41" valign="top"{{!}}
{{!}} width="39" valign="top"{{!}}
{{!}} width="55" valign="top"{{!}}
{{!}} width="60" valign="top"{{!}}
{{!}} width="58" valign="top"{{!}}
{{!}} width="51" valign="top"{{!}}
{{!}} width="51" valign="top"{{!}}
{{!}} width="64" valign="top"{{!}}

 
{{!}}-
{{!}} width="67" valign="top"{{!}}
{{!}} width="120" valign="top"{{!}}
{{!}} width="41" valign="top"{{!}}
{{!}} width="39" valign="top"{{!}}
{{!}} width="55" valign="top"{{!}}
{{!}} width="60" valign="top"{{!}}
{{!}} width="58" valign="top"{{!}}
{{!}} width="51" valign="top"{{!}}
{{!}} width="51" valign="top"{{!}}
{{!}} width="64" valign="top"{{!}}

 
{{!}}-
{{!}} width="67" valign="top"{{!}}
{{!}} width="120" valign="top"{{!}}
{{!}} width="41" valign="top"{{!}}
{{!}} width="39" valign="top"{{!}}
{{!}} width="55" valign="top"{{!}}
{{!}} width="60" valign="top"{{!}}
{{!}} width="58" valign="top"{{!}}
{{!}} width="51" valign="top"{{!}}
{{!}} width="51" valign="top"{{!}}
{{!}} width="64" valign="top"{{!}}

 
{{!}}-
{{!}} width="67" valign="top"{{!}}
{{!}} width="120" valign="top"{{!}}
{{!}} width="41" valign="top"{{!}}
{{!}} width="39" valign="top"{{!}}
{{!}} width="55" valign="top"{{!}}
{{!}} width="60" valign="top"{{!}}
{{!}} width="58" valign="top"{{!}}
{{!}} width="51" valign="top"{{!}}
{{!}} width="51" valign="top"{{!}}
{{!}} width="64" valign="top"{{!}}

 
{{!}}}

'''Table 2: Value Analysis Chart Template'''
}}
{{Instruction Step Trainee
|Instruction Step Title=What is the incident about?
|Instruction Step Text=What is the dilemma?
}}
{{Instruction Step Trainee
|Instruction Step Title=What might (the central character) do to try and resolve the dilemma?
|Instruction Step Text=What alternatives exist?
}}
{{Instruction Step Trainee
|Instruction Step Title=What might happen if he or she does each of these things?
|Instruction Step Text=What might be the consequences of the various alternatives?
}}
{{Instruction Step Trainee
|Instruction Step Title=What might happen to those who are not immediately involved?
|Instruction Step Text=What might be the short- as well as the long-range consequences?
}}
{{Instruction Step Trainee
|Instruction Step Title=What evidence, if any, is there that these consequences would indeed occur?
|Instruction Step Text=What could be considered as forseeable consequences?
}}
{{Instruction Step Trainee
|Instruction Step Title=Would each consequence be good or bad? Why?
|Instruction Step Text=Is there a positive balance between good and bad consequences?
}}
{{Instruction Step Trainee
|Instruction Step Title=What do you think X should do?
|Instruction Step Text=What do you think is the best thing for X to do?
}}
{{Instruction Remarks Trainee
|Has Remarks=[[File:The Value Analysis Method.jpg|thumb|Figure 1. Fraenkel's value analysis method.]]
}}
{{Custom TabContent Close Trainee}}
{{Custom TabContent Trainer Open}}
{{Instruction Steps Foldout Trainer}}
{{Instruction Perspective Trainer}}
{{Instruction Remarks Trainer}}
{{Custom TabContent Close Trainer}}
{{Related To
|Related To Instruction=Instruction:6b129846-c455-4849-9eaf-0d25f3c5600e;Instruction:6cc77174-4f7b-48a6-95f3-eeb4dadcb0a3
}}
{{Tags
|Has Virtue And Value=Fairness; Honesty; Respect
|Has Good Practice And Misconduct=Virtue ethics
}}

Instruction:41bc2a1d-26f7-49f9-8bf7-9fc6b4ecf10c

2021-06-29T11:11:50Z

0000-0002-2385-985X:

{{Instruction
|Title=03 - Four Quadrant Approach: A Method for Analysing Cases in Research Ethics and Research Integrity
|Instruction Goal=Members of The Embassy of Good Science have developed a set of six user-friendly, accessible methods for analysing research ethics and research integrity cases.

These methods have been identified, adapted and presented so that they can be appropriated by all users, without prior philosophical knowledge, in local contexts.
|Has Requirements=The key aim for the case analysis method described here is that it can be appropriated by all users, without prior philosophical knowledge, in local contexts.

In order to apply this method in the analysis of specific cases, it is advised that RECs, RIOs and IRBs engage with the regulatory frameworks and normative standards that apply to their respective organizations in the form of codes of ethics, codes of conduct, funding body standards and, if applicable, broader national and international research ethics and research integrity regulatory documents.
|Has Duration=2
|Important For=Researchers; Ethics committee members; Research Integrity Officers; Research integrity trainers
}}
{{Custom TabContent Trainee Open}}
{{Instruction Steps Foldout Trainee}}
{{Instruction Perspective Trainee
|Is About=In a collaborative effort, three clinical ethicists, a philosopher, Jonsen, a physician, Siegler, and a lawyer, Winslade, developed the ‘four quadrant approach’ (‘4QA’) for dealing with difficult cases in clinical settings.[[#%20ftn1|[1]]] The process can be viewed as an “ethics workup,” similar to the “History and Physical” skills that all medical students come to use when learning how to “workup” a patient’s primary complaints.

The full procedure of the 4QA involves three stages and a list of distinctive steps:

#The first stage identifies and describes our initial perception of the case;
#The second involves the four quadrants (medical indications, patient preferences, quality of life, contextual features) and the identification of information relevant to a given quadrant;
#The third involves the application of case-based reasoning to identify and justify the best course of action.

----[[#%20ftnref1|[1]]] Jonsen A, Siegler M, Winslade W. Clinical ethics: a practical approach to ethical decisions in clinical medicine. Mc-Graw Hill, 6th edition, 2010.

[[#%20ftnref2|[2]]] http://depts.washington.edu/bioethx/tools/cesumm.html
|Important Because=While this method has deep philosophical roots, what clinicians like about it is the ease with which it fits with how we normally think about tough medical cases.[[#%20ftn1|[1]]]
----[[#%20ftnref1|[1]]] http://depts.washington.edu/bioethx/tools/cesumm.html
|Has Practical Tips=The original version of the 4QA was developed to deal with clinical decisions involving patients and dilemmas or conflicts within the doctor-patient relationship.[[#%20ftn1|[1]]] Therefore, there is little room for developing, altering or adapting the method even in clinical settings.[[#%20ftn2|[2]]] Moreover, the four quadrants are said to be responsive to the four principles of biomedical ethics, specifically, autonomy, beneficence, non-maleficence and justice. This is a normative framework originally developed for biomedicine.

Here, we have adapted the “original version” to test its applicability in different research ethics and research integrity scenarios.

The basic structure and the general decision-making procedure embedded in the 4QA approach seem to be adaptable to any cases where various options for decision-making need to be assessed and clarified.

In adapting the 4QA, the aim is to enable a focused discussion around normative standards pertinent to research ethics and research integrity, leading to the application of case-based reasoning to the facts of the particular case at hand.

Consequently, the four quadrants of the procedure have been revised so that they not only are responsive to the regulatory frameworks and normative standards that apply to a user’s respective organization in the form of codes of ethics, codes of conduct, and, if applicable, broader national and international research ethics and research integrity codes, but can be applied to non-clinical settings to deal with cases in research ethics and research integrity.
----[[#%20ftnref1|[1]]] Sokol DK. The “four quadrants” approach to clinical ethics case analysis; an application and review. J Med Ethics. 2008;34(7):513-516.

[[#%20ftnref2|[2]]] Schumann JH, Alfandre D. Clinical ethical decision making: the four topics approach. Semin Med Pract 2008;11:36–42.
}}
{{Instruction Step Trainee
|Instruction Step Title=STAGE 1: Initial Perception
|Instruction Step Text=The user should attend to some general questions in order to identify relevant aspects and major characteristics of the situation:

*What are the morally relevant facts?
*What are the ethical or moral issues at stake in this case?
*Who are the stakeholders?
*What particular normative standards in pertinent regulatory documents apply to the case?
*What possible courses of action are available?
*What are the predictable effects of each action?
*Which set of possible outcomes seem to be better?
}}
{{Instruction Step Trainee
|Instruction Step Title=STAGE 2: The Four Quadrant Analysis
|Instruction Step Text=#'''Relevant Facts''': What are the most relevant facts concerning the situation?
#'''Uncertainties''': Which features of the situation are uncertain, lacking in clarity, or controversial?
#'''Courses of Action''': What are the practically available options for providing a solution to the case?
#'''Contextual Features''': What legal, financial and institutional policies and regulations apply to the case?
}}
{{Instruction Step Trainee
|Instruction Step Title=STAGE 3: Casuistic Reasoning and Justification
|Instruction Step Text=Once the details of a case have been outlined according to the four quadrants, there are a series of questions that should be considered:

 

*What is at issue? Try to list what is the major ethical issue at the case, e.g researchers’ dishonesty, negligent conduct, informed consent, rules of data collection etc.)
*Where is the conflict? Is there a conflict between principles of research or principles of research integrity? (e.g. autonomy, justice, beneficence or between honesty, reliability and respect for colleagues)
*What is this a case of? Does it sound like other cases you may have encountered? (e.g. Is it a case of "self-plagiarism", “fabrication of data in a grant application” or “low risk research involving humans without a valid informed consent”?)
*What do we know about other cases like this one? Is there clear precedent? If so, we call this a paradigm case. A paradigm case is one in which the facts of the case are very clear cut and there has been much professional and/or public agreement about resolution of the case.
*How is the present case similar to the paradigm case? How is it different? Is it similar (or different) in significant ways?
}}
{{Instruction Remarks Trainee}}
{{Custom TabContent Close Trainee}}
{{Custom TabContent Trainer Open}}
{{Instruction Steps Foldout Trainer}}
{{Instruction Perspective Trainer}}
{{Instruction Remarks Trainer}}
{{Custom TabContent Close Trainer}}
{{Related To
|Related To Theme=Theme:Cda80c83-0101-4e27-bdc0-87a45846e5ed;Theme:17d406f9-0b0f-4325-aa2d-2fe186d5ff34
|Related To Instruction=Instruction:C0cf8cfb-6090-49e3-94f5-20f530f83ffd;Instruction:6cc77174-4f7b-48a6-95f3-eeb4dadcb0a3;Instruction:Ffff98bc-b81b-43ee-8fef-a264c1e25741;Instruction:6b129846-c455-4849-9eaf-0d25f3c5600e;Instruction:A440eed0-f9f4-4415-a2c4-2d6ff9f44b80
}}
{{Tags
|Has Virtue And Value=Accountability; Honesty; Transparency; Fairness; Respect
}}

Instruction:41bc2a1d-26f7-49f9-8bf7-9fc6b4ecf10c

2021-06-29T11:11:35Z

0000-0002-2385-985X: Undo revision 6862 by 0000-0002-2385-985X (talk)

{{Instruction
|Title=Four Quadrant Approach: A Method for Analysing Cases in Research Ethics and Research Integrity
|Instruction Goal=Members of The Embassy of Good Science have developed a set of six user-friendly, accessible methods for analysing research ethics and research integrity cases.

These methods have been identified, adapted and presented so that they can be appropriated by all users, without prior philosophical knowledge, in local contexts.
|Has Requirements=The key aim for the case analysis method described here is that it can be appropriated by all users, without prior philosophical knowledge, in local contexts.

In order to apply this method in the analysis of specific cases, it is advised that RECs, RIOs and IRBs engage with the regulatory frameworks and normative standards that apply to their respective organizations in the form of codes of ethics, codes of conduct, funding body standards and, if applicable, broader national and international research ethics and research integrity regulatory documents.
|Has Duration=2
|Important For=Researchers; Ethics committee members; Research Integrity Officers; Research integrity trainers
}}
{{Custom TabContent Trainee Open}}
{{Instruction Steps Foldout Trainee}}
{{Instruction Perspective Trainee
|Is About=In a collaborative effort, three clinical ethicists, a philosopher, Jonsen, a physician, Siegler, and a lawyer, Winslade, developed the ‘four quadrant approach’ (‘4QA’) for dealing with difficult cases in clinical settings.[[#%20ftn1|[1]]] The process can be viewed as an “ethics workup,” similar to the “History and Physical” skills that all medical students come to use when learning how to “workup” a patient’s primary complaints.

The full procedure of the 4QA involves three stages and a list of distinctive steps:

# The first stage identifies and describes our initial perception of the case;
# The second involves the four quadrants (medical indications, patient preferences, quality of life, contextual features) and the identification of information relevant to a given quadrant;
# The third involves the application of case-based reasoning to identify and justify the best course of action.

----[[#%20ftnref1|[1]]] Jonsen A, Siegler M, Winslade W. Clinical ethics: a practical approach to ethical decisions in clinical medicine. Mc-Graw Hill, 6th edition, 2010.

[[#%20ftnref2|[2]]] http://depts.washington.edu/bioethx/tools/cesumm.html
|Important Because=While this method has deep philosophical roots, what clinicians like about it is the ease with which it fits with how we normally think about tough medical cases.[[#%20ftn1|[1]]]
----[[#%20ftnref1|[1]]] http://depts.washington.edu/bioethx/tools/cesumm.html
|Has Practical Tips=The original version of the 4QA was developed to deal with clinical decisions involving patients and dilemmas or conflicts within the doctor-patient relationship.[[#%20ftn1|[1]]] Therefore, there is little room for developing, altering or adapting the method even in clinical settings.[[#%20ftn2|[2]]] Moreover, the four quadrants are said to be responsive to the four principles of biomedical ethics, specifically, autonomy, beneficence, non-maleficence and justice. This is a normative framework originally developed for biomedicine.

Here, we have adapted the “original version” to test its applicability in different research ethics and research integrity scenarios.

The basic structure and the general decision-making procedure embedded in the 4QA approach seem to be adaptable to any cases where various options for decision-making need to be assessed and clarified.

In adapting the 4QA, the aim is to enable a focused discussion around normative standards pertinent to research ethics and research integrity, leading to the application of case-based reasoning to the facts of the particular case at hand.

Consequently, the four quadrants of the procedure have been revised so that they not only are responsive to the regulatory frameworks and normative standards that apply to a user’s respective organization in the form of codes of ethics, codes of conduct, and, if applicable, broader national and international research ethics and research integrity codes, but can be applied to non-clinical settings to deal with cases in research ethics and research integrity.
----[[#%20ftnref1|[1]]] Sokol DK. The “four quadrants” approach to clinical ethics case analysis; an application and review. J Med Ethics. 2008;34(7):513-516.

[[#%20ftnref2|[2]]] Schumann JH, Alfandre D. Clinical ethical decision making: the four topics approach. Semin Med Pract 2008;11:36–42.
}}
{{Instruction Step Trainee
|Instruction Step Title=STAGE 1: Initial Perception
|Instruction Step Text=The user should attend to some general questions in order to identify relevant aspects and major characteristics of the situation:

* What are the morally relevant facts?
* What are the ethical or moral issues at stake in this case?
* Who are the stakeholders?
* What particular normative standards in pertinent regulatory documents apply to the case?
* What possible courses of action are available?
* What are the predictable effects of each action?
* Which set of possible outcomes seem to be better?
}}
{{Instruction Step Trainee
|Instruction Step Title=STAGE 2: The Four Quadrant Analysis
|Instruction Step Text=# '''Relevant Facts''': What are the most relevant facts concerning the situation?
# '''Uncertainties''': Which features of the situation are uncertain, lacking in clarity, or controversial?
# '''Courses of Action''': What are the practically available options for providing a solution to the case?
# '''Contextual Features''': What legal, financial and institutional policies and regulations apply to the case?
}}
{{Instruction Step Trainee
|Instruction Step Title=STAGE 3: Casuistic Reasoning and Justification
|Instruction Step Text=Once the details of a case have been outlined according to the four quadrants, there are a series of questions that should be considered:

 

* What is at issue? Try to list what is the major ethical issue at the case, e.g researchers’ dishonesty, negligent conduct, informed consent, rules of data collection etc.)
* Where is the conflict? Is there a conflict between principles of research or principles of research integrity? (e.g. autonomy, justice, beneficence or between honesty, reliability and respect for colleagues)
* What is this a case of? Does it sound like other cases you may have encountered? (e.g. Is it a case of "self-plagiarism", “fabrication of data in a grant application” or “low risk research involving humans without a valid informed consent”?)
* What do we know about other cases like this one? Is there clear precedent? If so, we call this a paradigm case. A paradigm case is one in which the facts of the case are very clear cut and there has been much professional and/or public agreement about resolution of the case.
* How is the present case similar to the paradigm case? How is it different? Is it similar (or different) in significant ways?
}}
{{Instruction Remarks Trainee}}
{{Custom TabContent Close Trainee}}
{{Custom TabContent Trainer Open}}
{{Instruction Steps Foldout Trainer}}
{{Instruction Perspective Trainer}}
{{Instruction Remarks Trainer}}
{{Custom TabContent Close Trainer}}
{{Related To
|Related To Theme=Theme:Cda80c83-0101-4e27-bdc0-87a45846e5ed;Theme:17d406f9-0b0f-4325-aa2d-2fe186d5ff34
|Related To Instruction=Instruction:C0cf8cfb-6090-49e3-94f5-20f530f83ffd;Instruction:6cc77174-4f7b-48a6-95f3-eeb4dadcb0a3;Instruction:Ffff98bc-b81b-43ee-8fef-a264c1e25741;Instruction:6b129846-c455-4849-9eaf-0d25f3c5600e;Instruction:A440eed0-f9f4-4415-a2c4-2d6ff9f44b80
}}
{{Tags
|Has Virtue And Value=Accountability; Honesty; Transparency; Fairness; Respect
}}

Instruction:Ffff98bc-b81b-43ee-8fef-a264c1e25741

2021-06-29T11:08:44Z

0000-0002-2385-985X:

{{Instruction
|Title=06 - Teaching Research Ethics Tool : A Method for Analysing Cases in Research Ethics
|Instruction Goal=Members of The Embassy of Good Science have developed a set of six user-friendly, accessible methods for analysing research ethics and research integrity cases.

These methods have been identified, adapted and presented so that they can be appropriated by all users, without prior philosophical knowledge, in local contexts.
|Has Requirements=The key aim for the case analysis method described here is that it can be appropriated by all users, without prior philosophical knowledge, in local contexts.

In order to apply this method in the analysis of specific cases, it is advised that RECs, RIOs and IRBs engage with the regulatory frameworks and normative standards that apply to their respective organizations in the form of codes of ethics, codes of conduct, funding body standards and, if applicable, broader national and international research ethics and research integrity regulatory documents.
|Has Duration=2
|Important For=Researchers; Ethics committee members; Research Integrity Officers
}}
{{Custom TabContent Trainee Open}}
{{Instruction Steps Foldout Trainee}}
{{Instruction Perspective Trainee
|Is About=This method was developed by Ferrer[[#%20ftn1|[1]]] and applied by a group of investigators from Graduate Education in Research Ethics for Scientists and Engineers (GERESE) at the University of Puerto Rico, Mayaguez campus (UPRM). The aim of the project was to integrate research ethics into the graduate curriculum in science and engineering[[#%20ftn2|[2]]].
----[[#%20ftnref1|[1]]] Ferrer, J.J. (2007), “Deber y Deliberación una Invitación a la Bioética” Cep, Mayagüez, Puerto Rico.

[[#%20ftnref2|[2]]] Valdes, D., & Jaramillo Giraldo, E., & Ferrer, J., & Frey, W. (2009, June), Case Analysis: A Tool for Teaching Research Ethics In Science And Engineering For Graduate Students Paper presented at 2009 Annual Conference & Exposition, Austin, Texas. <nowiki>https://peer.asee.org/5729</nowiki>
|Important Because=This method is used as a conceptual tool to guide students though the moral deliberation process in a systematic way.
}}
{{Instruction Step Trainee
|Instruction Step Title=Determination of facts
|Instruction Step Text=Identify the situations, people and environment through which the case unfolds. A good understanding of facts is essential for this deliberation procedure.
}}
{{Instruction Step Trainee
|Instruction Step Title=Identification of morally problematic situations
|Instruction Step Text=There are usually several morally problematic situations that require attention. This step provides students with an opportunity to improve their sensibility to ethically problematic situations.
}}
{{Instruction Step Trainee
|Instruction Step Title=Identification of possible courses of action
|Instruction Step Text=Usually, there are several possible courses of action. Some result in misconduct while others effectively and ethically solve the problem(s).
}}
{{Instruction Step Trainee
|Instruction Step Title=Distinguishing “moral questions”, “moral disagreements”, and “moral conflicts”
|Instruction Step Text=A moral question is a situation in which moral duties are clear to the subject, although they may be in conflict with other issues of interest to the agent such as financial and political interests. These situations do not require moral deliberation so much as moral courage. Moral disagreements arise when the agent feels subjectively certain but holds a point of view in conflict with another persons’ moral judgments. These situations call for moral dialogue and argumentation. Finally, moral conflicts (or moral problems) arise when agents face conflicting moral duties. These instances call for moral deliberation.
}}
{{Instruction Step Trainee
|Instruction Step Title=Establish a hierarchy of values related to morally problematic situations
|Instruction Step Text=If there are moral conflicts, examination of the relative hierarchy of values is required in order to determine the overriding duty or duties in the situation.
}}
{{Instruction Step Trainee
|Instruction Step Title=Consequence analysis (if necessary)
|Instruction Step Text=If the previous step is not sufficient to identify the preferred course of action, a further step is required consisting of the analysis of foreseeable consequences of each course of action. The analysis of consequences depends on a good determination of the facts. It should include foreseeable consequences related to the persons involved, the working environment, the external environment, and society at large.
}}
{{Instruction Step Trainee
|Instruction Step Title=Justification of the moral choice
|Instruction Step Text=After analysing different possible courses of action, students identify those that are morally justified.
}}
{{Instruction Remarks Trainee}}
{{Custom TabContent Close Trainee}}
{{Custom TabContent Trainer Open}}
{{Instruction Steps Foldout Trainer}}
{{Instruction Perspective Trainer}}
{{Instruction Remarks Trainer}}
{{Custom TabContent Close Trainer}}
{{Related To
|Related To Theme=Theme:17d406f9-0b0f-4325-aa2d-2fe186d5ff34;Theme:Cda80c83-0101-4e27-bdc0-87a45846e5ed
|Related To Instruction=Instruction:6cc77174-4f7b-48a6-95f3-eeb4dadcb0a3;Instruction:6b129846-c455-4849-9eaf-0d25f3c5600e;Instruction:A440eed0-f9f4-4415-a2c4-2d6ff9f44b80
}}
{{Tags
|Has Virtue And Value=Fairness; Respect; Accountability; Transparency; Responsibility
}}

Instruction:Ffff98bc-b81b-43ee-8fef-a264c1e25741

2021-06-29T11:08:18Z

0000-0002-2385-985X: Undo revision 6865 by 0000-0002-2385-985X (talk)

{{Instruction
|Title=Teaching Research Ethics Tool : A Method for Analysing Cases in Research Ethics
|Instruction Goal=Members of The Embassy of Good Science have developed a set of six user-friendly, accessible methods for analysing research ethics and research integrity cases.

These methods have been identified, adapted and presented so that they can be appropriated by all users, without prior philosophical knowledge, in local contexts.
|Has Requirements=The key aim for the case analysis method described here is that it can be appropriated by all users, without prior philosophical knowledge, in local contexts.

In order to apply this method in the analysis of specific cases, it is advised that RECs, RIOs and IRBs engage with the regulatory frameworks and normative standards that apply to their respective organizations in the form of codes of ethics, codes of conduct, funding body standards and, if applicable, broader national and international research ethics and research integrity regulatory documents.
|Has Duration=2
|Important For=Researchers; Ethics committee members; Research Integrity Officers
}}
{{Custom TabContent Trainee Open}}
{{Instruction Steps Foldout Trainee}}
{{Instruction Perspective Trainee
|Is About=This method was developed by Ferrer[[#%20ftn1|[1]]] and applied by a group of investigators from Graduate Education in Research Ethics for Scientists and Engineers (GERESE) at the University of Puerto Rico, Mayaguez campus (UPRM). The aim of the project was to integrate research ethics into the graduate curriculum in science and engineering[[#%20ftn2|[2]]].
----[[#%20ftnref1|[1]]] Ferrer, J.J. (2007), “Deber y Deliberación una Invitación a la Bioética” Cep, Mayagüez, Puerto Rico.

[[#%20ftnref2|[2]]] Valdes, D., & Jaramillo Giraldo, E., & Ferrer, J., & Frey, W. (2009, June), Case Analysis: A Tool for Teaching Research Ethics In Science And Engineering For Graduate Students Paper presented at 2009 Annual Conference & Exposition, Austin, Texas. <nowiki>https://peer.asee.org/5729</nowiki>
|Important Because=This method is used as a conceptual tool to guide students though the moral deliberation process in a systematic way.
}}
{{Instruction Step Trainee
|Instruction Step Title=Determination of facts
|Instruction Step Text=Identify the situations, people and environment through which the case unfolds. A good understanding of facts is essential for this deliberation procedure.
}}
{{Instruction Step Trainee
|Instruction Step Title=Identification of morally problematic situations
|Instruction Step Text=There are usually several morally problematic situations that require attention. This step provides students with an opportunity to improve their sensibility to ethically problematic situations.
}}
{{Instruction Step Trainee
|Instruction Step Title=Identification of possible courses of action
|Instruction Step Text=Usually, there are several possible courses of action. Some result in misconduct while others effectively and ethically solve the problem(s).
}}
{{Instruction Step Trainee
|Instruction Step Title=Distinguishing “moral questions”, “moral disagreements”, and “moral conflicts”
|Instruction Step Text=A moral question is a situation in which moral duties are clear to the subject, although they may be in conflict with other issues of interest to the agent such as financial and political interests. These situations do not require moral deliberation so much as moral courage. Moral disagreements arise when the agent feels subjectively certain but holds a point of view in conflict with another persons’ moral judgments. These situations call for moral dialogue and argumentation. Finally, moral conflicts (or moral problems) arise when agents face conflicting moral duties. These instances call for moral deliberation.
}}
{{Instruction Step Trainee
|Instruction Step Title=Establish a hierarchy of values related to morally problematic situations
|Instruction Step Text=If there are moral conflicts, examination of the relative hierarchy of values is required in order to determine the overriding duty or duties in the situation.
}}
{{Instruction Step Trainee
|Instruction Step Title=Consequence analysis (if necessary)
|Instruction Step Text=If the previous step is not sufficient to identify the preferred course of action, a further step is required consisting of the analysis of foreseeable consequences of each course of action. The analysis of consequences depends on a good determination of the facts. It should include foreseeable consequences related to the persons involved, the working environment, the external environment, and society at large.
}}
{{Instruction Step Trainee
|Instruction Step Title=Justification of the moral choice
|Instruction Step Text=After analysing different possible courses of action, students identify those that are morally justified.
}}
{{Instruction Remarks Trainee}}
{{Custom TabContent Close Trainee}}
{{Custom TabContent Trainer Open}}
{{Instruction Steps Foldout Trainer}}
{{Instruction Perspective Trainer}}
{{Instruction Remarks Trainer}}
{{Custom TabContent Close Trainer}}
{{Related To
|Related To Theme=Theme:17d406f9-0b0f-4325-aa2d-2fe186d5ff34;Theme:Cda80c83-0101-4e27-bdc0-87a45846e5ed
|Related To Instruction=Instruction:6cc77174-4f7b-48a6-95f3-eeb4dadcb0a3;Instruction:6b129846-c455-4849-9eaf-0d25f3c5600e;Instruction:A440eed0-f9f4-4415-a2c4-2d6ff9f44b80
}}
{{Tags
|Has Virtue And Value=Fairness; Respect; Accountability; Transparency; Responsibility
}}

Instruction:C0cf8cfb-6090-49e3-94f5-20f530f83ffd

2021-06-27T10:39:23Z

0000-0002-2385-985X:

{{Instruction
|Title=04 - Moral Case Deliberation: A Method for Analysing Cases in Research Ethics and Research Integrity
|Instruction Goal=Members of The Embassy of Good Science have developed a set of six user-friendly, accessible methods for analysing research ethics and research integrity cases.

These methods have been identified, adapted and presented so that they can be appropriated by all users, without prior philosophical knowledge, in local contexts.
|Has Requirements=The key aim for the case analysis method described here is that it can be appropriated by all users, without prior philosophical knowledge, in local contexts.

In order to apply this method in the analysis of specific cases, it is advised that RECs, RIOs and IRBs engage with the regulatory frameworks and normative standards that apply to their respective organizations in the form of codes of ethics, codes of conduct, funding body standards and, if applicable, broader national and international research ethics and research integrity regulatory documents.
|Has Duration=2
|Important For=Researchers; Ethics committee members; Research Integrity Officers; Research integrity trainers
}}
{{Custom TabContent Trainee Open}}
{{Instruction Steps Foldout Trainee}}
{{Instruction Perspective Trainee
|Is About=Moral Case Deliberation (MCD) aims to combine reflection on concrete cases with procedures to foster moral learning. In MCD in health care settings, patients, family members and health care staff discuss a moral question. MCD can be regarded as a form of Clinical Ethics Support (CES) or REC assessment in health care and biomedical research, helping health care professionals to reflect on their actual ethical questions and reasoning, and to find answers in acute cases. MCD is about listening and asking the right questions, rather than convincing the other, and postponing one’s own judgements in the interests of being open to other viewpoints.

The validity and reliability of knowledge claims and moral judgments are constructed and examined within the practice itself. In the end, the reliability and validity of the judgments are determined in experience and in the practice of daily life. The MCD facilitator or the MCD participants can refer to existing theories and concepts, as well as existing normative frameworks (such as policies, laws, professional codes etc.). The point is, however, that ethical issues are not defined beforehand, but are derived from practice.

In MCD, the moral problem under consideration is always a concrete moral issue, experienced by one of the participants. This issue is presented as a case (for example, concerning a treatment decision with an individual patient). The case is analysed not by applying general moral concepts or principles but by investigating the values and norms of the stakeholders. In a MCD, different viewpoints are examined. The initial aim is not to decide which perspective or answer is right, but to ask open and critical questions in order to elaborate assumptions behind the perspective and find out how they are applicable to the case at hand.[[#%20ftn1|[1]]]
----[[#%20ftnref1|[1]]] Stolper M, Molewijk B, Widdershoven G. Bioethics education in clinical settings: theory and practice of the dilemma method of moral case deliberation. ''BMC Med Ethics'' 2016;17(1):45.
|Important Because=Though MCD is primarily designed to examine clinical cases, given that many research ethics deliberations – e.g. the work of RECs when assessing research protocols – take place before the research in question, this methodology could be used to assess research ethics dilemmas as well. Also, an MCD can be undertaken by a single individual – for example, by considering ‘imaginary’ research ethics committees and other stakeholders as part of a ‘virtual’ deliberation. Since such imaginary and empathy-based techniques are considered to be important aspects of our ethical thinking – in thought experiments, for example – MCD might be a useful tool for such assessments.
}}
{{Instruction Step Trainee
|Instruction Step Title=Introduction
|Instruction Step Text=During the first step, the aim and procedure of MCD is explained by the facilitator. The facilitator addresses issues such as the nature of MCD, the context surrounding the MCD, the aim of the meeting, mutual expectations (e.g. open and honest communication) and the steps in the method.
}}
{{Instruction Step Trainee
|Instruction Step Title=Presentation of the case
|Instruction Step Text=This step focuses on the experience of the case presenter. The presenter is asked to describe a concrete personal situation in which he or she experienced the moral issue at stake. The case presenter is asked to provide a short but thick description of the facts of the situation. Facts can include the ‘feelings’ he or she experienced since feelings can be a useful indicator of the moral discomfort of the presenter and can often implicitly refer to certain values.
}}
{{Instruction Step Trainee
|Instruction Step Title=Formulating the moral question and the dilemma
|Instruction Step Text=In this step, the case presenter’s underlying moral question is made explicit. By formulating his/her moral question, the other participants can better understand what is at stake and what (morally) matters for the case presenter. Furthermore, to make the moral question more concrete, the case presenter is asked to formulate the situation in terms of a dilemma: what are the concrete choices available in this situation?
}}
{{Instruction Step Trainee
|Instruction Step Title=Clarification in order to place oneself in the situation of the case presenter
|Instruction Step Text=The fourth step aims to foster a clear understanding of the situation so that participants can ‘put themselves in the shoes’ of the case presenter. Clarification aims to (re)construct as clearly as possible the situation presented by the case presenter in order to investigate the moral dilemma. Within MCD, participants try to answer the dilemma with which the case presenter is faced.
}}
{{Instruction Step Trainee
|Instruction Step Title=Analyzing the case in terms of perspectives, values and norms
|Instruction Step Text=The participants make a list of the relevant stakeholder perspectives, and, for each perspective, identify the values related to the dilemma and the possible actions that realize a specific value (we call this value a ‘norm’). The analysis of the perspective of the case presenter will lead to the identification of values and norms that support or undermine different options.
}}
{{Instruction Step Trainee
|Instruction Step Title=Looking for alternatives
|Instruction Step Text=The aim of this step is to brainstorm in order to get a view on possible courses or actions which lie beyond the dilemma.
}}
{{Instruction Step Trainee
|Instruction Step Title=Making an individual choice and making explicit one’s considerations
|Instruction Step Text=This step involves the formulation of the personal views, values, norms, arguments and choices in relation to the case. The participants express their own views of what they consider to be right.The facilitator might ask the participants to individually address the following points:

a) It is morally justified that I choose option … (A, B or an alternative).

b) Because of…. (which value or norm?)

c) Despite of…. (which value or norm?)

d) How can you limit the damage of your choice mentioned under (c)?
}}
{{Instruction Step Trainee
|Instruction Step Title=Dialogical inquiry
|Instruction Step Text=In this step, similarities and differences between the individual considerations are examined. Sometimes, two participants make a different choice based on the same value. Alternatively, participants may choose the same option based on different values or norms. Identifying similarities and differences may lead to better understanding and a better insight of what is at stake in a specific case.
}}
{{Instruction Step Trainee
|Instruction Step Title=Conclusion
|Instruction Step Text=In this step, participants are invited to draw conclusions and develop a plan for action. The facilitator returns to the moral question formulated at the start of the MCD and asks the group to make explicit their conclusions. Reaching consensus is not necessary; the conclusion can also be that there is a plurality of ideas with different practical implications.
}}
{{Instruction Step Trainee
|Instruction Step Title=Evaluation
|Instruction Step Text=Lastly, learning experiences and the outcome are evaluated.
}}
{{Instruction Remarks Trainee}}
{{Custom TabContent Close Trainee}}
{{Custom TabContent Trainer Open}}
{{Instruction Steps Foldout Trainer}}
{{Instruction Perspective Trainer}}
{{Instruction Remarks Trainer}}
{{Custom TabContent Close Trainer}}
{{Related To
|Related To Theme=Theme:Cda80c83-0101-4e27-bdc0-87a45846e5ed;Theme:17d406f9-0b0f-4325-aa2d-2fe186d5ff34
|Related To Instruction=Instruction:6cc77174-4f7b-48a6-95f3-eeb4dadcb0a3;Instruction:Ffff98bc-b81b-43ee-8fef-a264c1e25741;Instruction:6b129846-c455-4849-9eaf-0d25f3c5600e;Instruction:A440eed0-f9f4-4415-a2c4-2d6ff9f44b80
}}
{{Tags
|Has Virtue And Value=Accountability; Honesty; Transparency; Fairness; Resepct
}}

Instruction:C0cf8cfb-6090-49e3-94f5-20f530f83ffd

2021-06-27T10:38:48Z

0000-0002-2385-985X: Undo revision 6863 by 0000-0002-2385-985X (talk)

{{Instruction
|Title=Moral Case Deliberation: A Method for Analysing Cases in Research Ethics and Research Integrity
|Instruction Goal=Members of The Embassy of Good Science have developed a set of six user-friendly, accessible methods for analysing research ethics and research integrity cases.

These methods have been identified, adapted and presented so that they can be appropriated by all users, without prior philosophical knowledge, in local contexts.
|Has Requirements=The key aim for the case analysis method described here is that it can be appropriated by all users, without prior philosophical knowledge, in local contexts.

In order to apply this method in the analysis of specific cases, it is advised that RECs, RIOs and IRBs engage with the regulatory frameworks and normative standards that apply to their respective organizations in the form of codes of ethics, codes of conduct, funding body standards and, if applicable, broader national and international research ethics and research integrity regulatory documents.
|Has Duration=2
|Important For=Researchers; Ethics committee members; Research Integrity Officers; Research integrity trainers
}}
{{Custom TabContent Trainee Open}}
{{Instruction Steps Foldout Trainee}}
{{Instruction Perspective Trainee
|Is About=Moral Case Deliberation (MCD) aims to combine reflection on concrete cases with procedures to foster moral learning. In MCD in health care settings, patients, family members and health care staff discuss a moral question. MCD can be regarded as a form of Clinical Ethics Support (CES) or REC assessment in health care and biomedical research, helping health care professionals to reflect on their actual ethical questions and reasoning, and to find answers in acute cases. MCD is about listening and asking the right questions, rather than convincing the other, and postponing one’s own judgements in the interests of being open to other viewpoints.

The validity and reliability of knowledge claims and moral judgments are constructed and examined within the practice itself. In the end, the reliability and validity of the judgments are determined in experience and in the practice of daily life. The MCD facilitator or the MCD participants can refer to existing theories and concepts, as well as existing normative frameworks (such as policies, laws, professional codes etc.). The point is, however, that ethical issues are not defined beforehand, but are derived from practice.

In MCD, the moral problem under consideration is always a concrete moral issue, experienced by one of the participants. This issue is presented as a case (for example, concerning a treatment decision with an individual patient). The case is analysed not by applying general moral concepts or principles but by investigating the values and norms of the stakeholders. In a MCD, different viewpoints are examined. The initial aim is not to decide which perspective or answer is right, but to ask open and critical questions in order to elaborate assumptions behind the perspective and find out how they are applicable to the case at hand.[[#%20ftn1|[1]]]
----[[#%20ftnref1|[1]]] Stolper M, Molewijk B, Widdershoven G. Bioethics education in clinical settings: theory and practice of the dilemma method of moral case deliberation. ''BMC Med Ethics'' 2016;17(1):45.
|Important Because=Though MCD is primarily designed to examine clinical cases, given that many research ethics deliberations – e.g. the work of RECs when assessing research protocols – take place before the research in question, this methodology could be used to assess research ethics dilemmas as well. Also, an MCD can be undertaken by a single individual – for example, by considering ‘imaginary’ research ethics committees and other stakeholders as part of a ‘virtual’ deliberation. Since such imaginary and empathy-based techniques are considered to be important aspects of our ethical thinking – in thought experiments, for example – MCD might be a useful tool for such assessments.
}}
{{Instruction Step Trainee
|Instruction Step Title=Introduction
|Instruction Step Text=During the first step, the aim and procedure of MCD is explained by the facilitator. The facilitator addresses issues such as the nature of MCD, the context surrounding the MCD, the aim of the meeting, mutual expectations (e.g. open and honest communication) and the steps in the method.
}}
{{Instruction Step Trainee
|Instruction Step Title=Presentation of the case
|Instruction Step Text=This step focuses on the experience of the case presenter. The presenter is asked to describe a concrete personal situation in which he or she experienced the moral issue at stake. The case presenter is asked to provide a short but thick description of the facts of the situation. Facts can include the ‘feelings’ he or she experienced since feelings can be a useful indicator of the moral discomfort of the presenter and can often implicitly refer to certain values.
}}
{{Instruction Step Trainee
|Instruction Step Title=Formulating the moral question and the dilemma
|Instruction Step Text=In this step, the case presenter’s underlying moral question is made explicit. By formulating his/her moral question, the other participants can better understand what is at stake and what (morally) matters for the case presenter. Furthermore, to make the moral question more concrete, the case presenter is asked to formulate the situation in terms of a dilemma: what are the concrete choices available in this situation?
}}
{{Instruction Step Trainee
|Instruction Step Title=Clarification in order to place oneself in the situation of the case presenter
|Instruction Step Text=The fourth step aims to foster a clear understanding of the situation so that participants can ‘put themselves in the shoes’ of the case presenter. Clarification aims to (re)construct as clearly as possible the situation presented by the case presenter in order to investigate the moral dilemma. Within MCD, participants try to answer the dilemma with which the case presenter is faced.
}}
{{Instruction Step Trainee
|Instruction Step Title=Analyzing the case in terms of perspectives, values and norms
|Instruction Step Text=The participants make a list of the relevant stakeholder perspectives, and, for each perspective, identify the values related to the dilemma and the possible actions that realize a specific value (we call this value a ‘norm’). The analysis of the perspective of the case presenter will lead to the identification of values and norms that support or undermine different options.
}}
{{Instruction Step Trainee
|Instruction Step Title=Looking for alternatives
|Instruction Step Text=The aim of this step is to brainstorm in order to get a view on possible courses or actions which lie beyond the dilemma.
}}
{{Instruction Step Trainee
|Instruction Step Title=Making an individual choice and making explicit one’s considerations
|Instruction Step Text=This step involves the formulation of the personal views, values, norms, arguments and choices in relation to the case. The participants express their own views of what they consider to be right.The facilitator might ask the participants to individually address the following points:

a) It is morally justified that I choose option … (A, B or an alternative).

b) Because of…. (which value or norm?)

c) Despite of…. (which value or norm?)

d) How can you limit the damage of your choice mentioned under (c)?
}}
{{Instruction Step Trainee
|Instruction Step Title=Dialogical inquiry
|Instruction Step Text=In this step, similarities and differences between the individual considerations are examined. Sometimes, two participants make a different choice based on the same value. Alternatively, participants may choose the same option based on different values or norms. Identifying similarities and differences may lead to better understanding and a better insight of what is at stake in a specific case.
}}
{{Instruction Step Trainee
|Instruction Step Title=Conclusion
|Instruction Step Text=In this step, participants are invited to draw conclusions and develop a plan for action. The facilitator returns to the moral question formulated at the start of the MCD and asks the group to make explicit their conclusions. Reaching consensus is not necessary; the conclusion can also be that there is a plurality of ideas with different practical implications.
}}
{{Instruction Step Trainee
|Instruction Step Title=Evaluation
|Instruction Step Text=Lastly, learning experiences and the outcome are evaluated.
}}
{{Instruction Remarks Trainee}}
{{Custom TabContent Close Trainee}}
{{Custom TabContent Trainer Open}}
{{Instruction Steps Foldout Trainer}}
{{Instruction Perspective Trainer}}
{{Instruction Remarks Trainer}}
{{Custom TabContent Close Trainer}}
{{Related To
|Related To Theme=Theme:Cda80c83-0101-4e27-bdc0-87a45846e5ed;Theme:17d406f9-0b0f-4325-aa2d-2fe186d5ff34
|Related To Instruction=Instruction:6cc77174-4f7b-48a6-95f3-eeb4dadcb0a3;Instruction:Ffff98bc-b81b-43ee-8fef-a264c1e25741;Instruction:6b129846-c455-4849-9eaf-0d25f3c5600e;Instruction:A440eed0-f9f4-4415-a2c4-2d6ff9f44b80
}}
{{Tags
|Has Virtue And Value=Accountability; Honesty; Transparency; Fairness; Resepct
}}

Instruction:6b129846-c455-4849-9eaf-0d25f3c5600e

2021-06-15T08:50:48Z

0000-0002-2385-985X:

{{Instruction
|Title=02 - The Seven Step Method: A Method for Analysing Cases in Research Ethics and Research Integrity
|Instruction Goal=Members of The Embassy of Good Science have developed a set of six user-friendly, accessible methods for analysing research ethics and research integrity cases.

These methods have been identified, adapted and presented so that they can be appropriated by all users, without prior philosophical knowledge, in local contexts.
|Has Requirements=The key aim for the case analysis method described here is that it can be appropriated by all users, without prior philosophical knowledge, in local contexts.

In order to apply this method in the analysis of specific cases, it is advised that RECs, RIOs and IRBs engage with the regulatory frameworks and normative standards that apply to their respective organizations in the form of codes of ethics, codes of conduct, funding body standards and, if applicable, broader national and international research ethics and research integrity regulatory documents.
|Has Duration=2
|Important For=Researchers; Research Ethics Committees; Research Integrity Officers
|Has Method=Individual learning
}}
{{Custom TabContent Trainee Open}}
{{Instruction Steps Foldout Trainee}}
{{Instruction Perspective Trainee
|Is About=The Seven Step Method is a checklist developed to assist with ethical decision making. The method involves responding to the following seven “what” questions:

 

*What are the facts?
*What are the ethical issues?
*What are the alternatives?
*What are the stakeholders?
*What are the ethics of alternatives?
*What are the practical constraints?
*What is the action to take? (Werhane et al. 1990[[#%20ftn1|[1]]])

These questions are designed to encourage a dialectical way of engaging with an ethical problem, so that (in cases where there is enough time) one can revise previous answers several times during the process. Various versions of this model are suggested for different professions. For instance, the Seven Step Method for ethical decision making in counselling (Miller and Davis 2016[[#%20ftn2|[2]]]) or management (Harold Fogelberg 2018[[#%20ftn3|[3]]]) are slightly different than the above model. Nevertheless, in principle, they all aim to help ethical decision making.

A more extensive version of this model is developed to address the ethical issues faced in scientific and academic contexts. In ''Ethics and the University'', Michael Davis adds several sub-questions to the original model and fine-tunes it for academic purposes (Davis 1999[[#%20ftn1|[4]]]). Being aware of the complexities of using moral theories for non-philosophers, his version of the model provides a framework for an orderly discussion of ethical issues using common sense.
----

[[#%20ftnref1|[1]]] Werhane, P., Bowie, N., Boatright, J., Velasquez, M. (1990), The Seven Step Method for Analyzing Ethical Situations [Online Material]. Retrieved February 25, 2019, from <nowiki>https://studylib.net/doc/18058307/model-g---the-seven-step-method-for-analyzing-ethical-sit</nowiki>

[[#%20ftnref2|[2]]] Miller, H. F., Davis, T. E. (2016). Practitioner’s Guide to Ethical Decision Making. Published by: The Center for Counseling Practice, Policy, and Research. Retrieved February 26 2019, from <nowiki>https://www.counseling.org/docs/default-source/ethics/practioner-39-s-guide-to-ethical-decision-making.pdf</nowiki>

[[#%20ftnref3|[3]]] Fogelberg, H. (2018, August 28). 7 Step model for ethical decision making [Web blog post]. Retrieved February 25, 2019, from <nowiki>https://compassexecutives.com/2018/08/28/7-step-model-for-ethical-decision-making/</nowiki>

[[#%20ftnref1|[4]]] Davis, M. (1999). Ethics and the university. London: Routledge.
|Has Practical Tips=A case analysed by this method is openly available on the Zenodo repository and can be accessed using the following link: https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.4905905
}}
{{Instruction Step Trainee
|Instruction Step Title=1. State problem
|Instruction Step Text=For example, “there’s something about this decision that makes me uncomfortable” or “do I have a conflict of interest?”
}}
{{Instruction Step Trainee
|Instruction Step Title=2. Check facts
|Instruction Step Text=Many problems disappear upon closer examination of the situation, while others change radically.
}}
{{Instruction Step Trainee
|Instruction Step Title=3. Identify relevant factors
|Instruction Step Text=For example, persons involved, laws, professional codes, and other practical constraints.
}}
{{Instruction Step Trainee
|Instruction Step Title=4. Develop a list of options
|Instruction Step Text=Be imaginative, try to avoid “dilemma”; not “yes” or “no” but whom to go to, what to say.
}}
{{Instruction Step Trainee
|Instruction Step Title=5. Test options
|Instruction Step Text=1. Employ one or more of the following tests:

· ''Harm test'': does this option do less harm than alternatives?

· ''Publicity test'': would I want my decision published in the newspaper?

· ''Defensibility test'': could I defend my choice before a committee?

· ''Reversibility test'': would I still make my choice if I were adversely affected by it?

· ''Colleague test'': what are my colleagues’ responses to the options?

· ''Professional test'': what might my profession’s governing body or ethics committee say about my choice?

· ''Organization test'': what does the company’s ethics officer or legal counsel say about my choice?
}}
{{Instruction Step Trainee
|Instruction Step Title=6. Make a choice
|Instruction Step Text=All things considered, make a choice.
}}
{{Instruction Step Trainee
|Instruction Step Title=7. Review steps 1–6
|Instruction Step Text=· Are there any precautions you can take?

· Is there any way to access more support next time?

· Is there any way to change the organization (for example, suggest policy changes at next departmental meeting)?
}}
{{Instruction Remarks Trainee}}
{{Custom TabContent Close Trainee}}
{{Custom TabContent Trainer Open}}
{{Instruction Steps Foldout Trainer}}
{{Instruction Perspective Trainer}}
{{Instruction Remarks Trainer}}
{{Custom TabContent Close Trainer}}
{{Related To
|Related To Instruction=Instruction:A440eed0-f9f4-4415-a2c4-2d6ff9f44b80;Instruction:41bc2a1d-26f7-49f9-8bf7-9fc6b4ecf10c;Instruction:C0cf8cfb-6090-49e3-94f5-20f530f83ffd;Instruction:6cc77174-4f7b-48a6-95f3-eeb4dadcb0a3;Instruction:Ffff98bc-b81b-43ee-8fef-a264c1e25741
}}
{{Tags
|Has Virtue And Value=Accountability; Respect; Honesty; Reliability
|Has Good Practice And Misconduct=Allegation of Misconduct; Ethical Dilemma
}}

Instruction:6b129846-c455-4849-9eaf-0d25f3c5600e

2021-06-15T08:36:54Z

0000-0002-2385-985X:

{{Instruction
|Title=02 - The Seven Step Method: A Method for Analysing Cases in Research Ethics and Research Integrity
|Instruction Goal=Members of The Embassy of Good Science have developed a set of six user-friendly, accessible methods for analysing research ethics and research integrity cases.

These methods have been identified, adapted and presented so that they can be appropriated by all users, without prior philosophical knowledge, in local contexts.
|Has Requirements=The key aim for the case analysis method described here is that it can be appropriated by all users, without prior philosophical knowledge, in local contexts.

In order to apply this method in the analysis of specific cases, it is advised that RECs, RIOs and IRBs engage with the regulatory frameworks and normative standards that apply to their respective organizations in the form of codes of ethics, codes of conduct, funding body standards and, if applicable, broader national and international research ethics and research integrity regulatory documents.
|Has Duration=2
|Important For=Researchers; Research Ethics Committees; Research Integrity Officers
|Has Method=Individual learning
}}
{{Custom TabContent Trainee Open}}
{{Instruction Steps Foldout Trainee}}
{{Instruction Perspective Trainee
|Is About=The Seven Step Method is a checklist developed to assist with ethical decision making. The method involves responding to the following seven “what” questions:

 

*What are the facts?
*What are the ethical issues?
*What are the alternatives?
*What are the stakeholders?
*What are the ethics of alternatives?
*What are the practical constraints?
*What is the action to take? (Werhane et al. 1990[[#%20ftn1|[1]]])

These questions are designed to encourage a dialectical way of engaging with an ethical problem, so that (in cases where there is enough time) one can revise previous answers several times during the process. Various versions of this model are suggested for different professions. For instance, the Seven Step Method for ethical decision making in counselling (Miller and Davis 2016[[#%20ftn2|[2]]]) or management (Harold Fogelberg 2018[[#%20ftn3|[3]]]) are slightly different than the above model. Nevertheless, in principle, they all aim to help ethical decision making.

A more extensive version of this model is developed to address the ethical issues faced in scientific and academic contexts. In ''Ethics and the University'', Michael Davis adds several sub-questions to the original model and fine-tunes it for academic purposes (Davis 1999[[#%20ftn1|[4]]]). Being aware of the complexities of using moral theories for non-philosophers, his version of the model provides a framework for an orderly discussion of ethical issues using common sense.
----

[[#%20ftnref1|[1]]] Werhane, P., Bowie, N., Boatright, J., Velasquez, M. (1990), The Seven Step Method for Analyzing Ethical Situations [Online Material]. Retrieved February 25, 2019, from <nowiki>https://studylib.net/doc/18058307/model-g---the-seven-step-method-for-analyzing-ethical-sit</nowiki>

[[#%20ftnref2|[2]]] Miller, H. F., Davis, T. E. (2016). Practitioner’s Guide to Ethical Decision Making. Published by: The Center for Counseling Practice, Policy, and Research. Retrieved February 26 2019, from <nowiki>https://www.counseling.org/docs/default-source/ethics/practioner-39-s-guide-to-ethical-decision-making.pdf</nowiki>

[[#%20ftnref3|[3]]] Fogelberg, H. (2018, August 28). 7 Step model for ethical decision making [Web blog post]. Retrieved February 25, 2019, from <nowiki>https://compassexecutives.com/2018/08/28/7-step-model-for-ethical-decision-making/</nowiki>

[[#%20ftnref1|[4]]] Davis, M. (1999). Ethics and the university. London: Routledge.
}}
{{Instruction Step Trainee
|Instruction Step Title=1. State problem
|Instruction Step Text=For example, “there’s something about this decision that makes me uncomfortable” or “do I have a conflict of interest?”
}}
{{Instruction Step Trainee
|Instruction Step Title=2. Check facts
|Instruction Step Text=Many problems disappear upon closer examination of the situation, while others change radically.
}}
{{Instruction Step Trainee
|Instruction Step Title=3. Identify relevant factors
|Instruction Step Text=For example, persons involved, laws, professional codes, and other practical constraints.
}}
{{Instruction Step Trainee
|Instruction Step Title=4. Develop a list of options
|Instruction Step Text=Be imaginative, try to avoid “dilemma”; not “yes” or “no” but whom to go to, what to say.
}}
{{Instruction Step Trainee
|Instruction Step Title=5. Test options
|Instruction Step Text=1. Employ one or more of the following tests:

· ''Harm test'': does this option do less harm than alternatives?

· ''Publicity test'': would I want my decision published in the newspaper?

· ''Defensibility test'': could I defend my choice before a committee?

· ''Reversibility test'': would I still make my choice if I were adversely affected by it?

· ''Colleague test'': what are my colleagues’ responses to the options?

· ''Professional test'': what might my profession’s governing body or ethics committee say about my choice?

· ''Organization test'': what does the company’s ethics officer or legal counsel say about my choice?
}}
{{Instruction Step Trainee
|Instruction Step Title=6. Make a choice
|Instruction Step Text=All things considered, make a choice.
}}
{{Instruction Step Trainee
|Instruction Step Title=7. Review steps 1–6
|Instruction Step Text=· Are there any precautions you can take?

· Is there any way to access more support next time?

· Is there any way to change the organization (for example, suggest policy changes at next departmental meeting)?
}}
{{Instruction Remarks Trainee
|Has Remarks=A case analysed by this method is openly available on the Zenodo repository and can be accessed using the following link: <nowiki>https://zenodo.org/deposit/4905906</nowiki>
}}
{{Custom TabContent Close Trainee}}
{{Custom TabContent Trainer Open}}
{{Instruction Steps Foldout Trainer}}
{{Instruction Perspective Trainer}}
{{Instruction Remarks Trainer}}
{{Custom TabContent Close Trainer}}
{{Related To
|Related To Instruction=Instruction:A440eed0-f9f4-4415-a2c4-2d6ff9f44b80;Instruction:41bc2a1d-26f7-49f9-8bf7-9fc6b4ecf10c;Instruction:C0cf8cfb-6090-49e3-94f5-20f530f83ffd;Instruction:6cc77174-4f7b-48a6-95f3-eeb4dadcb0a3;Instruction:Ffff98bc-b81b-43ee-8fef-a264c1e25741
}}
{{Tags
|Has Virtue And Value=Accountability; Respect; Honesty; Reliability
|Has Good Practice And Misconduct=Allegation of Misconduct; Ethical Dilemma
}}

Instruction:6b129846-c455-4849-9eaf-0d25f3c5600e

2021-06-15T08:30:53Z

0000-0002-2385-985X:

{{Instruction
|Title=02 - The Seven Step Method: A Method for Analysing Cases in Research Ethics and Research Integrity
|Instruction Goal=Members of The Embassy of Good Science have developed a set of six user-friendly, accessible methods for analysing research ethics and research integrity cases.

These methods have been identified, adapted and presented so that they can be appropriated by all users, without prior philosophical knowledge, in local contexts.
|Has Requirements=The key aim for the case analysis method described here is that it can be appropriated by all users, without prior philosophical knowledge, in local contexts.

In order to apply this method in the analysis of specific cases, it is advised that RECs, RIOs and IRBs engage with the regulatory frameworks and normative standards that apply to their respective organizations in the form of codes of ethics, codes of conduct, funding body standards and, if applicable, broader national and international research ethics and research integrity regulatory documents.
|Has Duration=2
|Important For=Researchers; Research Ethics Committees; Research Integrity Officers
|Has Method=Individual learning
}}
{{Custom TabContent Trainee Open}}
{{Instruction Steps Foldout Trainee}}
{{Instruction Perspective Trainee
|Is About=The Seven Step Method is a checklist developed to assist with ethical decision making. The method involves responding to the following seven “what” questions:

 

* What are the facts?
* What are the ethical issues?
* What are the alternatives?
* What are the stakeholders?
* What are the ethics of alternatives?
* What are the practical constraints?
* What is the action to take? (Werhane et al. 1990[[#%20ftn1|[1]]])

These questions are designed to encourage a dialectical way of engaging with an ethical problem, so that (in cases where there is enough time) one can revise previous answers several times during the process. Various versions of this model are suggested for different professions. For instance, the Seven Step Method for ethical decision making in counselling (Miller and Davis 2016[[#%20ftn2|[2]]]) or management (Harold Fogelberg 2018[[#%20ftn3|[3]]]) are slightly different than the above model. Nevertheless, in principle, they all aim to help ethical decision making.

A more extensive version of this model is developed to address the ethical issues faced in scientific and academic contexts. In ''Ethics and the University'', Michael Davis adds several sub-questions to the original model and fine-tunes it for academic purposes (Davis 1999[[#%20ftn1|[4]]]). Being aware of the complexities of using moral theories for non-philosophers, his version of the model provides a framework for an orderly discussion of ethical issues using common sense.
----

[[#%20ftnref1|[1]]] Werhane, P., Bowie, N., Boatright, J., Velasquez, M. (1990), The Seven Step Method for Analyzing Ethical Situations [Online Material]. Retrieved February 25, 2019, from <nowiki>https://studylib.net/doc/18058307/model-g---the-seven-step-method-for-analyzing-ethical-sit</nowiki>

[[#%20ftnref2|[2]]] Miller, H. F., Davis, T. E. (2016). Practitioner’s Guide to Ethical Decision Making. Published by: The Center for Counseling Practice, Policy, and Research. Retrieved February 26 2019, from <nowiki>https://www.counseling.org/docs/default-source/ethics/practioner-39-s-guide-to-ethical-decision-making.pdf</nowiki>

[[#%20ftnref3|[3]]] Fogelberg, H. (2018, August 28). 7 Step model for ethical decision making [Web blog post]. Retrieved February 25, 2019, from <nowiki>https://compassexecutives.com/2018/08/28/7-step-model-for-ethical-decision-making/</nowiki>

[[#%20ftnref1|[4]]] Davis, M. (1999). Ethics and the university. London: Routledge.
}}
{{Instruction Step Trainee
|Instruction Step Title=1. State problem
|Instruction Step Text=For example, “there’s something about this decision that makes me uncomfortable” or “do I have a conflict of interest?”
}}
{{Instruction Step Trainee
|Instruction Step Title=2. Check facts
|Instruction Step Text=Many problems disappear upon closer examination of the situation, while others change radically.
}}
{{Instruction Step Trainee
|Instruction Step Title=3. Identify relevant factors
|Instruction Step Text=For example, persons involved, laws, professional codes, and other practical constraints.
}}
{{Instruction Step Trainee
|Instruction Step Title=4. Develop a list of options
|Instruction Step Text=Be imaginative, try to avoid “dilemma”; not “yes” or “no” but whom to go to, what to say.
}}
{{Instruction Step Trainee
|Instruction Step Title=5. Test options
|Instruction Step Text=1. Employ one or more of the following tests:

· ''Harm test'': does this option do less harm than alternatives?

· ''Publicity test'': would I want my decision published in the newspaper?

· ''Defensibility test'': could I defend my choice before a committee?

· ''Reversibility test'': would I still make my choice if I were adversely affected by it?

· ''Colleague test'': what are my colleagues’ responses to the options?

· ''Professional test'': what might my profession’s governing body or ethics committee say about my choice?

· ''Organization test'': what does the company’s ethics officer or legal counsel say about my choice?
}}
{{Instruction Step Trainee
|Instruction Step Title=6. Make a choice
|Instruction Step Text=All things considered, make a choice.
}}
{{Instruction Step Trainee
|Instruction Step Title=7. Review steps 1–6
|Instruction Step Text=· Are there any precautions you can take?

· Is there any way to access more support next time?

· Is there any way to change the organization (for example, suggest policy changes at next departmental meeting)?
}}
{{Instruction Remarks Trainee
|Has Remarks=A case analysed by this method is openly available on the Zenodo repository and can be accessed using the following link: <nowiki>https://zenodo.org/deposit/4905906</nowiki>
}}
{{Custom TabContent Close Trainee}}
{{Custom TabContent Trainer Open}}
{{Instruction Steps Foldout Trainer}}
{{Instruction Perspective Trainer}}
{{Instruction Remarks Trainer}}
{{Custom TabContent Close Trainer}}
{{Related To
|Related To Instruction=Instruction:A440eed0-f9f4-4415-a2c4-2d6ff9f44b80;Instruction:41bc2a1d-26f7-49f9-8bf7-9fc6b4ecf10c;Instruction:C0cf8cfb-6090-49e3-94f5-20f530f83ffd;Instruction:6cc77174-4f7b-48a6-95f3-eeb4dadcb0a3;Instruction:Ffff98bc-b81b-43ee-8fef-a264c1e25741
}}
{{Tags
|Has Virtue And Value=Accountability; Respect; Honesty; Reliability
|Has Good Practice And Misconduct=Allegation of Misconduct; Ethical Dilemma
}}

Instruction:6cc77174-4f7b-48a6-95f3-eeb4dadcb0a3

2021-06-08T13:58:18Z

0000-0002-2385-985X:

{{Instruction
|Title=05 - REalistiC Decisions: A Method for Analysing Cases in Research Ethics and Research Integrity
|Instruction Goal=Members of The Embassy of Good Science have developed a set of six user-friendly, accessible methods for analysing research ethics and research integrity cases.

These methods have been identified, adapted and presented so that they can be appropriated by all users, without prior philosophical knowledge, in local contexts.
|Has Requirements=The key aim for the case analysis method described here is that it can be appropriated by all users, without prior philosophical knowledge, in local contexts.

In order to apply this method in the analysis of specific cases, it is advised that RECs, RIOs and IRBs engage with the regulatory frameworks and normative standards that apply to their respective organizations in the form of codes of ethics, codes of conduct, funding body standards and, if applicable, broader national and international research ethics and research integrity regulatory documents.
|Has Duration=2
|Important For=Researchers; Ethics committee members; Research Ethics Committees; Research Integrity Officers; Administrators
|Has Method=Participatory sessions
}}
{{Custom TabContent Trainee Open}}
{{Instruction Steps Foldout Trainee}}
{{Instruction Perspective Trainee
|Is About=[http://www.reviewingresearch.com/realistic-decisions-making-judgements-in-committee/ REalistiC Decisions] is a case analysis method proposed by [https://uk.linkedin.com/in/hugh-davies-61029750 Hugh Davies] MB BS, Research Ethics Advisor for the Health Research Authority (‘HRA’) and former Consultant Paediatrician at Oxford University Hospitals.

Although intended to be a procedure for reviewing research ethics proposals, it is flexible enough to be used to analyse research integrity cases.<ref>Davies H. REalistiC Decisions: making judgements in review (and design). [Online]. <nowiki>http://www.reviewingresearch.com/realistic-decisions-making-judgements-in-committee/</nowiki>. Accessed 10 March 2019.</ref>
<references />
|Important Because=The method is founded on the idea that each member of a research ethics committee (‘REC’), research integrity office (‘RIO’) or institutional review board (‘IRB’) will deliberate based on their initial views and beliefs about a particular case.

The purpose is to move from individual opinions to the underlying reasons for those opinions in order turn ‘I think’ claims regarding a particular case into ‘We agree’ judgments.
[[File:REalistiC Decisions Case Analysis Diagram.png|thumb]]
This procedure is only part of the process of coming to decisions about individual cases. Although the procedure helps members of RECs, RIOs and IRBs to shape and share their deliberations, it cannot make the decision for them.<ref>Davies H. How we can make better decisions in review and design of research using a simple ethics model. ''Journal of Medical Ethics: Blog''. [Online]. <nowiki>https://blogs.bmj.com/medical-ethics/2018/10/11/how-we-can-make-better-decisions-in-review-and-design-of-research-using-a-simple-ethics-model/</nowiki>. Published 18 October 2019. Accessed 10 March 2019.</ref><ref>Davies H. REalistiC Decisions: making judgements in review (and design). [Online]. <nowiki>http://www.reviewingresearch.com/realistic-decisions-making-judgements-in-committee/</nowiki>. Accessed 10 March 2019.</ref><ref>Davies H. Moral engineering - how we can improve research review with a simple ethics decision making model. [Online]. <nowiki>http://www.reviewingresearch.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/08/A-model-to-help-resolve-differences180828forRR.pdf</nowiki>. Accessed 10 March 2019.</ref>
<references />
|Has Practical Tips=By following the instructions, a user will be able to:

 

*Analyse specific research ethics and research integrity cases;
*Understand and explain the process by which they came to their judgment regarding a particular case;
*Identity and explain their reasons for their judgment.

In addition, by following the instructions, a research ethics committee ('REC'), research integrity office ('RIO') or institutional review board ('IRB') will be able to:

 

*Facilitate the analysis of research ethics and research integrity cases in accordance with an explicit procedure;
*Involve its members in structured deliberation and debate regarding a particular case in accordance with an explicit procedure;
*Generate a consensus regarding a specific case.
}}
{{Instruction Step Trainee
|Instruction Step Title=Identify and Clarify the Issue
|Instruction Step Text=Produce a synopsis of the case

 

*Only include the facts of the case
*If the issue is ambiguous, then attempt to clarify what issue or set of issues are at stake
}}
{{Instruction Step Trainee
|Instruction Step Title=Early View (‘What do I think?’)
|Instruction Step Text=Once an issue has been identified and clarified, the next step is to ask:

 

*"What do I think?"

When formulating an Early View, I need to:

 

*Know when I can and can’t rely on this Early View;
*Ensure my view does not prejudice against diverging opinions.
}}
{{Instruction Step Trainee
|Instruction Step Title=What are My Reasons for Thinking This?
|Instruction Step Text=Once I have formed my Early View, the next step is to ask:

 

*"What are my reasons for thinking this?"

When formulating these reasons, I need to:

 

*Assess the strengths and weaknesses of the reasons for my view.
}}
{{Instruction Step Trainee
|Instruction Step Title=Communicate My Early View
|Instruction Step Text=Communicate my Early View and associated reasons to the rest of the committee
}}
{{Instruction Step Trainee
|Instruction Step Title=Listen to and Recognise the Early Views and Associated Reasons of All Other Members of the Committee
|Instruction Step Text=Is there disagreement between members of the committee?

 

*On which issues and views do we disagree?
*What reasons are given that either support or undermine my Early View?
}}
{{Instruction Step Trainee
|Instruction Step Title=Review My Early View
|Instruction Step Text=Review my Early View and associated reasons by addressing each of the following themes and questions:

'''Normative Standards'''

''"How do normative frameworks help us?"''

In order to answer this question, we need:

 

*A basic knowledge of the appropriate regulations that apply to the issue;
*To be able to use these regulations to analyse our Early View;
*To revise our Early View and to provide reasons for any revisions.

'''Experience'''

''"How have we approached this issue before?"''

In order to answer this question, we need:

 

*To access past decisions;
*To compare past cases and the current case and determine whether previous decisions are relevant;
*To use disagreement to develop new standards for guiding future considerations;
*To be able to explain why, if relevant, we haven’t followed such precedent.

'''Expertise'''

''"What expertise has been applied to this before?"''

To answer this question, we need to:

 

*Access independent expert review;
*Access an up-to-date library of authoritative guidance;
*Balance guidance documents and judge the relative authority of guidance documents;
*Provide reasons if our decisions run contrary to guidance.

'''Empathy'''

''"What views and opinions do other parties have?"''

We turn to the views of those with a legitimate interest in the case (for example, the accused, the complainant, individuals involved with the case, and the public).

To answer this question, we need to:

 

*Identify all those with an interest in the case and see it ‘through their eyes’;
*Recognize limitations to our empathy;
*Confirm or refute any ‘empathy-based decisions’ using answers to the other questions listed above;

'''Evidence'''

''"What evidence is there on this issue?"''

We turn to any published research concerning similar cases. However, we need to be careful when forming prescriptive conclusions based on factual premises. After all, the quality of the evidence may be questionable and there may be significant normative and factual differences between the case in question and situations discussed in published research.

In order to answer this question, we need:

 

*To locate, assess, and apply published evidence;
*To recognize the proper place of facts when making judgments;
*To encourage published research on research integrity and research ethics.

'''Expediency'''

''"What is possible or realistic in the circumstances?"''

We need to ensure that we have not interpreted the case against sets of unrealistic standards. Expediency is built on a realistic evaluation of research constraints and consequences and imposes proportionate and realistic conditions.

In order to answer this question, we need to:

 

*Understand and accommodate realistic standards when assessing the case;
*Judge when expediency is adequate justification;
*Balance expediency and fair standards when forming a judgment about a case.

'''Escape'''

''"How can we manage this problem of our disagreement?"''

In order to answer this question, we might be required to:

 

*Agree to disagree (if it will not affect the final judgment);
*Seek elaboration on any of the answers to the questions listed above;
*Vote on a set of judgments;
*Consider alternatives.
}}
{{Instruction Step Trainee
|Instruction Step Title=Develop an Informed Judgment
|Instruction Step Text=Having addressed all the themes and associated questions in the previous step, I now need to come up with an Informed Judgment.

To come up with my Informed Judgment, I should be aware that:

 

*Answering each question in the previous step leads to reasons to justify (or refute) a position;
*No single answer can provide a firm base for judgment;
*My Informed Judgment will involve balancing the answers to the different questions.
}}
{{Instruction Step Trainee
|Instruction Step Title=Reach a Consensus with Other Members of the Committee
|Instruction Step Text=In order for our committee to reach a consensus regarding a specific case:

 

*I must share my Informed Judgment and associated reasons with the rest of the committee;
*Listen to and recognise the Informed Judgments and associated reasons of all other members of the committee.

The final step is to deliberate and debate with our fellow committee members.

 

*If we all agree, then the decision is made and little needs to be done, although, from time to time, we should critique our views;

*If we fail to obtain a consensus, we can ask for further involvement from interested parties ("Empathy"), outside advice and deliberation ("Expertise") and/or new research ("Evidence").
}}
{{Instruction Remarks Trainee}}
{{Custom TabContent Close Trainee}}
{{Custom TabContent Trainer Open}}
{{Instruction Steps Foldout Trainer}}
{{Instruction Perspective Trainer}}
{{Instruction Remarks Trainer}}
{{Custom TabContent Close Trainer}}
{{Related To
|Related To Theme=Theme:65e6f304-51e2-4e41-93d3-e48518248b39;Theme:13ae94da-15d6-426f-8f6e-9134fb57e267;Theme:0953795c-fb38-4080-a56f-fe503c4875bd;Theme:D1477512-52a3-48a3-8ab6-72404cef4ab4;Theme:9ac8c1db-f98b-41ee-858d-a8c93a647108
}}
{{Tags
|Has Virtue And Value=Fairness; Respect; Responsibility; Accountability; Transparency
|Has Good Practice And Misconduct=Academic Responsibility of University; Allegations of misconduct; Communication; Complaints procedure; Ethical Dilemma; Good Practice; Institutional Responsibilities; Investigation; Misconduct Investigations; Research Misconduct Investigation
}}

Instruction:6b129846-c455-4849-9eaf-0d25f3c5600e

2021-06-08T13:56:03Z

0000-0002-2385-985X:

Instruction:6b129846-c455-4849-9eaf-0d25f3c5600e

2021-06-08T13:55:14Z

0000-0002-2385-985X:

Instruction:6cc77174-4f7b-48a6-95f3-eeb4dadcb0a3

2021-06-08T13:54:31Z

0000-0002-2385-985X: Undo revision 6864 by 0000-0002-2385-985X (talk)

{{Instruction
|Title=REalistiC Decisions: A Method for Analysing Cases in Research Ethics and Research Integrity
|Instruction Goal=Members of The Embassy of Good Science have developed a set of six user-friendly, accessible methods for analysing research ethics and research integrity cases.

These methods have been identified, adapted and presented so that they can be appropriated by all users, without prior philosophical knowledge, in local contexts.
|Has Requirements=The key aim for the case analysis method described here is that it can be appropriated by all users, without prior philosophical knowledge, in local contexts.

In order to apply this method in the analysis of specific cases, it is advised that RECs, RIOs and IRBs engage with the regulatory frameworks and normative standards that apply to their respective organizations in the form of codes of ethics, codes of conduct, funding body standards and, if applicable, broader national and international research ethics and research integrity regulatory documents.
|Has Duration=2
|Important For=Researchers; Ethics committee members; Research Ethics Committees; Research Integrity Officers; Administrators
|Has Method=Participatory sessions
}}
{{Custom TabContent Trainee Open}}
{{Instruction Steps Foldout Trainee}}
{{Instruction Perspective Trainee
|Is About=[http://www.reviewingresearch.com/realistic-decisions-making-judgements-in-committee/ REalistiC Decisions] is a case analysis method proposed by [https://uk.linkedin.com/in/hugh-davies-61029750 Hugh Davies] MB BS, Research Ethics Advisor for the Health Research Authority (‘HRA’) and former Consultant Paediatrician at Oxford University Hospitals.

Although intended to be a procedure for reviewing research ethics proposals, it is flexible enough to be used to analyse research integrity cases.<ref>Davies H. REalistiC Decisions: making judgements in review (and design). [Online]. <nowiki>http://www.reviewingresearch.com/realistic-decisions-making-judgements-in-committee/</nowiki>. Accessed 10 March 2019.</ref>
<references />
|Important Because=The method is founded on the idea that each member of a research ethics committee (‘REC’), research integrity office (‘RIO’) or institutional review board (‘IRB’) will deliberate based on their initial views and beliefs about a particular case.

The purpose is to move from individual opinions to the underlying reasons for those opinions in order turn ‘I think’ claims regarding a particular case into ‘We agree’ judgments.
[[File:REalistiC Decisions Case Analysis Diagram.png|thumb]]
This procedure is only part of the process of coming to decisions about individual cases. Although the procedure helps members of RECs, RIOs and IRBs to shape and share their deliberations, it cannot make the decision for them.<ref>Davies H. How we can make better decisions in review and design of research using a simple ethics model. ''Journal of Medical Ethics: Blog''. [Online]. <nowiki>https://blogs.bmj.com/medical-ethics/2018/10/11/how-we-can-make-better-decisions-in-review-and-design-of-research-using-a-simple-ethics-model/</nowiki>. Published 18 October 2019. Accessed 10 March 2019.</ref><ref>Davies H. REalistiC Decisions: making judgements in review (and design). [Online]. <nowiki>http://www.reviewingresearch.com/realistic-decisions-making-judgements-in-committee/</nowiki>. Accessed 10 March 2019.</ref><ref>Davies H. Moral engineering - how we can improve research review with a simple ethics decision making model. [Online]. <nowiki>http://www.reviewingresearch.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/08/A-model-to-help-resolve-differences180828forRR.pdf</nowiki>. Accessed 10 March 2019.</ref>
<references />
|Has Practical Tips=By following the instructions, a user will be able to:

 

*Analyse specific research ethics and research integrity cases;
*Understand and explain the process by which they came to their judgment regarding a particular case;
*Identity and explain their reasons for their judgment.

In addition, by following the instructions, a research ethics committee ('REC'), research integrity office ('RIO') or institutional review board ('IRB') will be able to:

 

*Facilitate the analysis of research ethics and research integrity cases in accordance with an explicit procedure;
*Involve its members in structured deliberation and debate regarding a particular case in accordance with an explicit procedure;
*Generate a consensus regarding a specific case.
}}
{{Instruction Step Trainee
|Instruction Step Title=Identify and Clarify the Issue
|Instruction Step Text=Produce a synopsis of the case

 

*Only include the facts of the case
*If the issue is ambiguous, then attempt to clarify what issue or set of issues are at stake
}}
{{Instruction Step Trainee
|Instruction Step Title=Early View (‘What do I think?’)
|Instruction Step Text=Once an issue has been identified and clarified, the next step is to ask:

 

*"What do I think?"

When formulating an Early View, I need to:

 

*Know when I can and can’t rely on this Early View;
*Ensure my view does not prejudice against diverging opinions.
}}
{{Instruction Step Trainee
|Instruction Step Title=What are My Reasons for Thinking This?
|Instruction Step Text=Once I have formed my Early View, the next step is to ask:

 

*"What are my reasons for thinking this?"

When formulating these reasons, I need to:

 

*Assess the strengths and weaknesses of the reasons for my view.
}}
{{Instruction Step Trainee
|Instruction Step Title=Communicate My Early View
|Instruction Step Text=Communicate my Early View and associated reasons to the rest of the committee
}}
{{Instruction Step Trainee
|Instruction Step Title=Listen to and Recognise the Early Views and Associated Reasons of All Other Members of the Committee
|Instruction Step Text=Is there disagreement between members of the committee?

 

*On which issues and views do we disagree?
*What reasons are given that either support or undermine my Early View?
}}
{{Instruction Step Trainee
|Instruction Step Title=Review My Early View
|Instruction Step Text=Review my Early View and associated reasons by addressing each of the following themes and questions:

'''Normative Standards'''

''"How do normative frameworks help us?"''

In order to answer this question, we need:

 

*A basic knowledge of the appropriate regulations that apply to the issue;
*To be able to use these regulations to analyse our Early View;
*To revise our Early View and to provide reasons for any revisions.

'''Experience'''

''"How have we approached this issue before?"''

In order to answer this question, we need:

 

*To access past decisions;
*To compare past cases and the current case and determine whether previous decisions are relevant;
*To use disagreement to develop new standards for guiding future considerations;
*To be able to explain why, if relevant, we haven’t followed such precedent.

'''Expertise'''

''"What expertise has been applied to this before?"''

To answer this question, we need to:

 

*Access independent expert review;
*Access an up-to-date library of authoritative guidance;
*Balance guidance documents and judge the relative authority of guidance documents;
*Provide reasons if our decisions run contrary to guidance.

'''Empathy'''

''"What views and opinions do other parties have?"''

We turn to the views of those with a legitimate interest in the case (for example, the accused, the complainant, individuals involved with the case, and the public).

To answer this question, we need to:

 

*Identify all those with an interest in the case and see it ‘through their eyes’;
*Recognize limitations to our empathy;
*Confirm or refute any ‘empathy-based decisions’ using answers to the other questions listed above;

'''Evidence'''

''"What evidence is there on this issue?"''

We turn to any published research concerning similar cases. However, we need to be careful when forming prescriptive conclusions based on factual premises. After all, the quality of the evidence may be questionable and there may be significant normative and factual differences between the case in question and situations discussed in published research.

In order to answer this question, we need:

 

*To locate, assess, and apply published evidence;
*To recognize the proper place of facts when making judgments;
*To encourage published research on research integrity and research ethics.

'''Expediency'''

''"What is possible or realistic in the circumstances?"''

We need to ensure that we have not interpreted the case against sets of unrealistic standards. Expediency is built on a realistic evaluation of research constraints and consequences and imposes proportionate and realistic conditions.

In order to answer this question, we need to:

 

*Understand and accommodate realistic standards when assessing the case;
*Judge when expediency is adequate justification;
*Balance expediency and fair standards when forming a judgment about a case.

'''Escape'''

''"How can we manage this problem of our disagreement?"''

In order to answer this question, we might be required to:

 

*Agree to disagree (if it will not affect the final judgment);
*Seek elaboration on any of the answers to the questions listed above;
*Vote on a set of judgments;
*Consider alternatives.
}}
{{Instruction Step Trainee
|Instruction Step Title=Develop an Informed Judgment
|Instruction Step Text=Having addressed all the themes and associated questions in the previous step, I now need to come up with an Informed Judgment.

To come up with my Informed Judgment, I should be aware that:

 

*Answering each question in the previous step leads to reasons to justify (or refute) a position;
*No single answer can provide a firm base for judgment;
*My Informed Judgment will involve balancing the answers to the different questions.
}}
{{Instruction Step Trainee
|Instruction Step Title=Reach a Consensus with Other Members of the Committee
|Instruction Step Text=In order for our committee to reach a consensus regarding a specific case:

 

*I must share my Informed Judgment and associated reasons with the rest of the committee;
*Listen to and recognise the Informed Judgments and associated reasons of all other members of the committee.

The final step is to deliberate and debate with our fellow committee members.

 

*If we all agree, then the decision is made and little needs to be done, although, from time to time, we should critique our views;

*If we fail to obtain a consensus, we can ask for further involvement from interested parties ("Empathy"), outside advice and deliberation ("Expertise") and/or new research ("Evidence").
}}
{{Instruction Remarks Trainee}}
{{Custom TabContent Close Trainee}}
{{Custom TabContent Trainer Open}}
{{Instruction Steps Foldout Trainer}}
{{Instruction Perspective Trainer}}
{{Instruction Remarks Trainer}}
{{Custom TabContent Close Trainer}}
{{Related To
|Related To Theme=Theme:65e6f304-51e2-4e41-93d3-e48518248b39;Theme:13ae94da-15d6-426f-8f6e-9134fb57e267;Theme:0953795c-fb38-4080-a56f-fe503c4875bd;Theme:D1477512-52a3-48a3-8ab6-72404cef4ab4;Theme:9ac8c1db-f98b-41ee-858d-a8c93a647108
}}
{{Tags
|Has Virtue And Value=Fairness; Respect; Responsibility; Accountability; Transparency
|Has Good Practice And Misconduct=Academic Responsibility of University; Allegations of misconduct; Communication; Complaints procedure; Ethical Dilemma; Good Practice; Institutional Responsibilities; Investigation; Misconduct Investigations; Research Misconduct Investigation
}}

Instruction:6b129846-c455-4849-9eaf-0d25f3c5600e

2021-06-08T13:49:24Z

0000-0002-2385-985X:

{{Instruction
|Title=02 - The Seven Step Method: A Method for Analysing Cases in Research Ethics and Research Integrity
|Instruction Goal=Case analysis methods are valuable tools in exploring ethical questions and dilemmas.
|Has Duration=2
|Important For=Researchers; Research Ethics Committees; Research Integrity Officers
|Has Method=Individual learning
}}
{{Custom TabContent Trainee Open}}
{{Instruction Steps Foldout Trainee}}
{{Instruction Perspective Trainee}}
{{Instruction Step Trainee
|Instruction Step Title=1. State problem.
|Instruction Step Text=For example, “there’s something about this decision that makes me uncomfortable” or “do I have a conflict of interest?”
}}
{{Instruction Step Trainee
|Instruction Step Title=2. Check facts
|Instruction Step Text=Many problems disappear upon closer examination of the situation, while others change radically.
}}
{{Instruction Step Trainee
|Instruction Step Title=3. Identify relevant factors
|Instruction Step Text=For example, persons involved, laws, professional codes, and other practical constraints.
}}
{{Instruction Step Trainee
|Instruction Step Title=4. Develop a list of options
|Instruction Step Text=Be imaginative, try to avoid “dilemma”; not “yes” or “no” but whom to go to, what to say.
}}
{{Instruction Step Trainee
|Instruction Step Title=5. Test options
|Instruction Step Text=1. Employ one or more of the following tests:

· ''Harm test'': does this option do less harm than alternatives?

· ''Publicity test'': would I want my decision published in the newspaper?

· ''Defensibility test'': could I defend my choice before a committee?

· ''Reversibility test'': would I still make my choice if I were adversely affected by it?

· ''Colleague test'': what are my colleagues’ responses to the options?

· ''Professional test'': what might my profession’s governing body or ethics committee say about my choice?

· ''Organization test'': what does the company’s ethics officer or legal counsel say about my choice?
}}
{{Instruction Step Trainee
|Instruction Step Title=6. Make a choice
|Instruction Step Text=All things considered, make a choice.
}}
{{Instruction Step Trainee
|Instruction Step Title=7. Review steps 1–6.
|Instruction Step Text=· Are there any precautions you can take?

· Is there any way to access more support next time?

· Is there any way to change the organization (for example, suggest policy changes at next departmental meeting)?
}}
{{Instruction Remarks Trainee
|Has Remarks=A case analysed by this method is openly available on the Zenodo repository and can be accessed using the following link: <nowiki>https://zenodo.org/deposit/4905906</nowiki>
}}
{{Custom TabContent Close Trainee}}
{{Custom TabContent Trainer Open}}
{{Instruction Steps Foldout Trainer}}
{{Instruction Perspective Trainer}}
{{Instruction Remarks Trainer}}
{{Custom TabContent Close Trainer}}
{{Related To
|Related To Instruction=Instruction:A440eed0-f9f4-4415-a2c4-2d6ff9f44b80;Instruction:6b129846-c455-4849-9eaf-0d25f3c5600e;Instruction:41bc2a1d-26f7-49f9-8bf7-9fc6b4ecf10c;Instruction:C0cf8cfb-6090-49e3-94f5-20f530f83ffd;Instruction:6cc77174-4f7b-48a6-95f3-eeb4dadcb0a3;Instruction:Ffff98bc-b81b-43ee-8fef-a264c1e25741
}}
{{Tags
|Has Virtue And Value=Accountability; Respect; Honesty; Reliability
|Has Good Practice And Misconduct=Allegation of Misconduct; Ethical Dilemma
}}

Instruction:6b129846-c455-4849-9eaf-0d25f3c5600e

2021-06-08T13:48:11Z

0000-0002-2385-985X:

{{Instruction
|Title=02 - The Seven Step Method: A Method for Analysing Cases in Research Ethics and Research Integrity
|Instruction Goal=Case analysis methods are valuable tools in exploring ethical questions and dilemmas.
|Has Duration=2
|Important For=Researchers; Research Ethics Committees; Research Integrity Officers
|Has Method=Individual learning
}}
{{Custom TabContent Trainee Open}}
{{Instruction Steps Foldout Trainee}}
{{Instruction Perspective Trainee}}
{{Instruction Step Trainee
|Instruction Step Title=1. State problem.
|Instruction Step Text=For example, “there’s something about this decision that makes me uncomfortable” or “do I have a conflict of interest?”
}}
{{Instruction Step Trainee
|Instruction Step Title=2. Check facts
|Instruction Step Text=Many problems disappear upon closer examination of the situation, while others change radically.
}}
{{Instruction Step Trainee
|Instruction Step Title=3. Identify relevant factors
|Instruction Step Text=For example, persons involved, laws, professional codes, and other practical constraints.
}}
{{Instruction Step Trainee
|Instruction Step Title=4. Develop a list of options
|Instruction Step Text=Be imaginative, try to avoid “dilemma”; not “yes” or “no” but whom to go to, what to say.
}}
{{Instruction Step Trainee
|Instruction Step Title=5. Test options
|Instruction Step Text=1. Employ one or more of the following tests:

· ''Harm test'': does this option do less harm than alternatives?

· ''Publicity test'': would I want my decision published in the newspaper?

· ''Defensibility test'': could I defend my choice before a committee?

· ''Reversibility test'': would I still make my choice if I were adversely affected by it?

· ''Colleague test'': what are my colleagues’ responses to the options?

· ''Professional test'': what might my profession’s governing body or ethics committee say about my choice?

· ''Organization test'': what does the company’s ethics officer or legal counsel say about my choice?
}}
{{Instruction Step Trainee
|Instruction Step Title=6. Make a choice
|Instruction Step Text=All things considered, make a choice.
}}
{{Instruction Step Trainee
|Instruction Step Title=7. Review steps 1–6.
|Instruction Step Text=· Are there any precautions you can take?

· Is there any way to access more support next time?

· Is there any way to change the organization (for example, suggest policy changes at next departmental meeting)?
}}
{{Instruction Remarks Trainee
|Has Remarks=A case analysed by this method is openly available on the Zenodo repository and can be accessed using the following link: <nowiki>https://zenodo.org/deposit/4905906</nowiki>
}}
{{Custom TabContent Close Trainee}}
{{Custom TabContent Trainer Open}}
{{Instruction Steps Foldout Trainer}}
{{Instruction Perspective Trainer}}
{{Instruction Remarks Trainer}}
{{Custom TabContent Close Trainer}}
{{Related To
|Related To Instruction=Instruction:6cc77174-4f7b-48a6-95f3-eeb4dadcb0a3
}}
{{Tags
|Has Virtue And Value=Accountability; Respect; Honesty; Reliability
|Has Good Practice And Misconduct=Allegation of Misconduct; Ethical Dilemma
}}

Instruction:Ffff98bc-b81b-43ee-8fef-a264c1e25741

2021-06-07T12:49:50Z

0000-0002-2385-985X:

{{Instruction
|Title=06 - Teaching Research Ethics Tool : A Method for Analysing Cases in Research Ethics
|Has Duration=2
|Important For=Researchers; Ethics committee members; Research Integrity Officers
}}
{{Custom TabContent Trainee Open}}
{{Instruction Steps Foldout Trainee}}
{{Instruction Perspective Trainee}}
{{Instruction Step Trainee
|Instruction Step Title=Determination of facts
}}
{{Instruction Step Trainee
|Instruction Step Title=Identification of morally problematic situations
}}
{{Instruction Step Trainee
|Instruction Step Title=Identification of possible courses of action
}}
{{Instruction Step Trainee
|Instruction Step Title=Distinguishing “moral questions”, “moral disagreements”, and “moral conflicts”
}}
{{Instruction Step Trainee
|Instruction Step Title=Establish a hierarchy of values related to morally problematic situations
}}
{{Instruction Step Trainee
|Instruction Step Title=Consequence analysis (if necessary)
}}
{{Instruction Step Trainee
|Instruction Step Title=Justification of the moral choice
}}
{{Instruction Remarks Trainee}}
{{Custom TabContent Close Trainee}}
{{Custom TabContent Trainer Open}}
{{Instruction Steps Foldout Trainer}}
{{Instruction Perspective Trainer}}
{{Instruction Remarks Trainer}}
{{Custom TabContent Close Trainer}}
{{Related To
|Related To Theme=Theme:17d406f9-0b0f-4325-aa2d-2fe186d5ff34;Theme:Cda80c83-0101-4e27-bdc0-87a45846e5ed
|Related To Instruction=Instruction:6cc77174-4f7b-48a6-95f3-eeb4dadcb0a3;Instruction:6b129846-c455-4849-9eaf-0d25f3c5600e;Instruction:A440eed0-f9f4-4415-a2c4-2d6ff9f44b80
}}
{{Tags
|Has Virtue And Value=Fairness; Respect; Accountability; Transparency; Responsibility
}}

Instruction:6cc77174-4f7b-48a6-95f3-eeb4dadcb0a3

2021-06-07T12:49:34Z

0000-0002-2385-985X:

{{Instruction
|Title=05 - REalistiC Decisions: A Method for Analysing Cases in Research Ethics and Research Integrity
|Has Duration=2
|Important For=Researchers; Ethics committee members; Research Ethics Committees; Research Integrity Officers; Administrators
|Has Method=Participatory sessions
}}
{{Custom TabContent Trainee Open}}
{{Instruction Steps Foldout Trainee}}
{{Instruction Perspective Trainee}}
{{Instruction Step Trainee
|Instruction Step Title=Identify and Clarify the Issue
}}
{{Instruction Step Trainee
|Instruction Step Title=Early View (‘What do I think?’)
}}
{{Instruction Step Trainee
|Instruction Step Title=What are My Reasons for Thinking This?
}}
{{Instruction Step Trainee
|Instruction Step Title=Communicate My Early View
}}
{{Instruction Step Trainee
|Instruction Step Title=Listen to and Recognise the Early Views and Associated Reasons of All Other Members of the Committee
}}
{{Instruction Step Trainee
|Instruction Step Title=Review My Early View
}}
{{Instruction Step Trainee
|Instruction Step Title=Develop an Informed Judgment
}}
{{Instruction Step Trainee
|Instruction Step Title=Reach a Consensus with Other Members of the Committee
}}
{{Instruction Remarks Trainee}}
{{Custom TabContent Close Trainee}}
{{Custom TabContent Trainer Open}}
{{Instruction Steps Foldout Trainer}}
{{Instruction Perspective Trainer}}
{{Instruction Remarks Trainer}}
{{Custom TabContent Close Trainer}}
{{Related To
|Related To Theme=Theme:65e6f304-51e2-4e41-93d3-e48518248b39;Theme:13ae94da-15d6-426f-8f6e-9134fb57e267;Theme:0953795c-fb38-4080-a56f-fe503c4875bd;Theme:D1477512-52a3-48a3-8ab6-72404cef4ab4;Theme:9ac8c1db-f98b-41ee-858d-a8c93a647108
}}
{{Tags
|Has Virtue And Value=Fairness; Respect; Responsibility; Accountability; Transparency
|Has Good Practice And Misconduct=Academic Responsibility of University; Allegations of misconduct; Communication; Complaints procedure; Ethical Dilemma; Good Practice; Institutional Responsibilities; Investigation; Misconduct Investigations; Research Misconduct Investigation
}}

Instruction:C0cf8cfb-6090-49e3-94f5-20f530f83ffd

2021-06-07T12:49:18Z

0000-0002-2385-985X:

{{Instruction
|Title=04 - Moral Case Deliberation: A Method for Analysing Cases in Research Ethics and Research Integrity
|Has Duration=2
|Important For=Researchers; Ethics committee members; Research Integrity Officers; Research integrity trainers
}}
{{Custom TabContent Trainee Open}}
{{Instruction Steps Foldout Trainee}}
{{Instruction Perspective Trainee}}
{{Instruction Step Trainee
|Instruction Step Title=Introduction
}}
{{Instruction Step Trainee
|Instruction Step Title=Presentation of the case
}}
{{Instruction Step Trainee
|Instruction Step Title=Formulating the moral question and the dilemma
}}
{{Instruction Step Trainee
|Instruction Step Title=Clarification in order to place oneself in the situation of the case presenter
}}
{{Instruction Step Trainee
|Instruction Step Title=Analyzing the case in terms of perspectives, values and norms
}}
{{Instruction Step Trainee
|Instruction Step Title=Looking for alternatives
}}
{{Instruction Step Trainee
|Instruction Step Title=Making an individual choice and making explicit one’s considerations
}}
{{Instruction Step Trainee
|Instruction Step Title=Dialogical inquiry
}}
{{Instruction Step Trainee
|Instruction Step Title=Conclusion
}}
{{Instruction Step Trainee
|Instruction Step Title=Evaluation
}}
{{Instruction Remarks Trainee}}
{{Custom TabContent Close Trainee}}
{{Custom TabContent Trainer Open}}
{{Instruction Steps Foldout Trainer}}
{{Instruction Perspective Trainer}}
{{Instruction Remarks Trainer}}
{{Custom TabContent Close Trainer}}
{{Related To
|Related To Theme=Theme:Cda80c83-0101-4e27-bdc0-87a45846e5ed;Theme:17d406f9-0b0f-4325-aa2d-2fe186d5ff34
|Related To Instruction=Instruction:6cc77174-4f7b-48a6-95f3-eeb4dadcb0a3;Instruction:Ffff98bc-b81b-43ee-8fef-a264c1e25741;Instruction:6b129846-c455-4849-9eaf-0d25f3c5600e;Instruction:A440eed0-f9f4-4415-a2c4-2d6ff9f44b80
}}
{{Tags
|Has Virtue And Value=Accountability; Honesty; Transparency; Fairness; Resepct
}}

Instruction:41bc2a1d-26f7-49f9-8bf7-9fc6b4ecf10c

2021-06-07T12:48:59Z

0000-0002-2385-985X:

{{Instruction
|Title=03 - Four Quadrant Approach: A Method for Analysing Cases in Research Ethics and Research Integrity
|Has Duration=2
|Important For=Researchers; Ethics committee members; Research Integrity Officers; Research integrity trainers
}}
{{Custom TabContent Trainee Open}}
{{Instruction Steps Foldout Trainee}}
{{Instruction Perspective Trainee}}
{{Instruction Step Trainee
|Instruction Step Title=STAGE 1: Initial Perception
}}
{{Instruction Step Trainee
|Instruction Step Title=STAGE 2: The Four Quadrant Analysis
}}
{{Instruction Step Trainee
|Instruction Step Title=STAGE 3: Casuistic Reasoning and Justification
}}
{{Instruction Remarks Trainee}}
{{Custom TabContent Close Trainee}}
{{Custom TabContent Trainer Open}}
{{Instruction Steps Foldout Trainer}}
{{Instruction Perspective Trainer}}
{{Instruction Remarks Trainer}}
{{Custom TabContent Close Trainer}}
{{Related To
|Related To Theme=Theme:Cda80c83-0101-4e27-bdc0-87a45846e5ed;Theme:17d406f9-0b0f-4325-aa2d-2fe186d5ff34
|Related To Instruction=Instruction:C0cf8cfb-6090-49e3-94f5-20f530f83ffd;Instruction:6cc77174-4f7b-48a6-95f3-eeb4dadcb0a3;Instruction:Ffff98bc-b81b-43ee-8fef-a264c1e25741;Instruction:6b129846-c455-4849-9eaf-0d25f3c5600e;Instruction:A440eed0-f9f4-4415-a2c4-2d6ff9f44b80
}}
{{Tags
|Has Virtue And Value=Accountability; Honesty; Transparency; Fairness; Respect
}}

Instruction:6b129846-c455-4849-9eaf-0d25f3c5600e

2021-06-07T12:17:30Z

0000-0002-2385-985X:

{{Instruction
|Title=02 - The Seven Step Method: A Method for Analysing Cases in Research Ethics and Research Integrity
|Has Duration=2
|Important For=Researchers; Research Ethics Committees; Research Integrity Officers
|Has Method=Individual learning
}}
{{Custom TabContent Trainee Open}}
{{Instruction Steps Foldout Trainee}}
{{Instruction Perspective Trainee}}
{{Instruction Step Trainee
|Instruction Step Title=1. State problem.
}}
{{Instruction Step Trainee
|Instruction Step Title=2. Check facts
}}
{{Instruction Step Trainee
|Instruction Step Title=3. Identify relevant factors
}}
{{Instruction Step Trainee
|Instruction Step Title=4. Develop a list of options
}}
{{Instruction Step Trainee
|Instruction Step Title=5. Test options
}}
{{Instruction Step Trainee
|Instruction Step Title=6. Make a choice
}}
{{Instruction Step Trainee
|Instruction Step Title=7. Review steps 1–6.
}}
{{Instruction Remarks Trainee}}
{{Custom TabContent Close Trainee}}
{{Custom TabContent Trainer Open}}
{{Instruction Steps Foldout Trainer}}
{{Instruction Perspective Trainer}}
{{Instruction Remarks Trainer}}
{{Custom TabContent Close Trainer}}
{{Related To
|Related To Instruction=Instruction:6cc77174-4f7b-48a6-95f3-eeb4dadcb0a3
}}
{{Tags
|Has Virtue And Value=Accountability; Respect; Honesty; Reliability
|Has Good Practice And Misconduct=Allegation of Misconduct; Ethical Dilemma
}}