The Embassy of Good Science - User contributions [en]

Resource:B6b3c5a7-bee6-4767-83c7-227ba2e1fa84

2022-06-28T11:25:31Z

0000-0003-4446-327X:

{{Resource
|Resource Type=Guidelines
|Title=The Dutch Code on Prevention of Undue Influence through Conflicts of Interest
|Is About=Increasingly, excellence in research is dependent upon collaborations between different scientific institutions and disciplines. Moreover, collaborations between private and public organizations are also on the rise. This means that scientists form various domains are part of a large, well-connected network. While this is conducive to good science, it also means that scientists face greater conflicts of interest due to dual responsibilities or influence from peers. This document elaborates this issue, and provides advice to prevent such influence and maintain trust in science.

Note: The resource isn't currently available through the original hyperlink. Until this is solved, please find it [https://www.gezondheidsraad.nl/documenten/overige/2017/01/01/code-ter-voorkoming-van-oneigenlijke-beinvloeding-door-belangenverstrengeling here] or [https://www.zorginstituutnederland.nl/publicaties/publicatie/2016/09/15/code-ter-voorkoming-van-oneigenlijke-beinvloeding-door-belangenverstrengeling#:~:text=Zorginstituut%20Nederland%20Publicaties-,Code%20ter%20voorkoming%20van%20oneigenlijke%20be%C3%AFn here] (all in Dutch).
|Important For=Research institutions; Researchers; Policy makers
|Has Best Practice=- Policy measures to prevent undue influence

- Emphasis on personal scientific integrity
}}
{{Link
|Has Link=https://www.knaw.nl/shared/resources/actueel/publicaties/pdf/gedragscode-belangenverstrengeling
}}
{{Related To
|Related To Theme=Theme:6d71bd59-c3bc-4cd5-9c9f-1ab4e53fc320
}}
{{Tags
|Involves=Koninklijke Nederlandse Akademie van Wetenschappen (KNAW); Koninklijke Nederlandsche Maatschappij tot bevordering der Geneeskunst (KNMG); Gezondheidsraad (GR); Nederlands Huisartsen Genootschap(NHG); Federatie Medisch Specialisten (FMS); Others
|Has Timepoint=2017
|Has Location=The Netherlands
}}

Resource:B6b3c5a7-bee6-4767-83c7-227ba2e1fa84

2022-06-28T11:23:35Z

0000-0003-4446-327X:

{{Resource
|Resource Type=Guidelines
|Title=The Dutch Code on Prevention of Undue Influence through Conflicts of Interest
|Is About=Increasingly, excellence in research is dependent upon collaborations between different scientific institutions and disciplines. Moreover, collaborations between private and public organizations are also on the rise. This means that scientists form various domains are part of a large, well-connected network. While this is conducive to good science, it also means that scientists face greater conflicts of interest due to dual responsibilities or influence from peers. This document elaborates this issue, and provides advice to prevent such influence and maintain trust in science.

Note: The resource isn't currently available through the original hyperlink. Until this is solved, please find it [https://www.gezondheidsraad.nl/documenten/overige/2017/01/01/code-ter-voorkoming-van-oneigenlijke-beinvloeding-door-belangenverstrengeling here] (in Dutch).
|Important For=Research institutions; Researchers; Policy makers
|Has Best Practice=- Policy measures to prevent undue influence

- Emphasis on personal scientific integrity
}}
{{Link
|Has Link=https://www.knaw.nl/shared/resources/actueel/publicaties/pdf/gedragscode-belangenverstrengeling
}}
{{Related To
|Related To Theme=Theme:6d71bd59-c3bc-4cd5-9c9f-1ab4e53fc320
}}
{{Tags
|Involves=Koninklijke Nederlandse Akademie van Wetenschappen (KNAW); Koninklijke Nederlandsche Maatschappij tot bevordering der Geneeskunst (KNMG); Gezondheidsraad (GR); Nederlands Huisartsen Genootschap(NHG); Federatie Medisch Specialisten (FMS); Others
|Has Timepoint=2017
|Has Location=The Netherlands
}}

Theme:0e8da54a-acd0-43b1-8e17-151ee2df6b9b

2022-06-14T11:00:22Z

0000-0003-4446-327X:

{{Theme
|Theme Type=Good Practices
|Has Parent Theme=Theme:B2331451-5a6a-4aa2-a3d5-c68d2c96c8e1
|Title=Mental health in academia
|Is About=Pressures to excel, obtain grants and funding and publish in prestigious journals can take its toll on even the most resilient academics. Concerns about mental health in the academic community have increased in the last couple of years, particularly those concerns regarding the mental health of doctoral students and early-career researchers.
|Important Because=Different research has shown that the prevalence of depression among doctoral students in the US is high <ref>Panger G. Graduate Student Happiness & Well-Being Report 2015.</ref>, along with an increased risk for other psychiatric disorders, when compared to other highly educated groups. One in two PhD students experiences psychological distress<ref>Levecque K, Anseel F, De Beuckelaer A, Van der Heyden J, Gisle L. Work organization and mental health problems in PhD students. Research Policy. 2017;46(4):868-79.</ref>. These problems often result from organizational change, increased workload, the rise in short term contracts, budget cuts, increased competition, and academic culture of ‘publish or perish’<ref>Petersen AM, Riccaboni M, Stanley HE, Pammolli F. Persistence and uncertainty in the academic career. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. 2012;109(14):5213.</ref><ref>Biron C, Brun JP, Ivers H. Extent and sources of occupational stress in university staff. Work (Reading, Mass). 2008;30(4):511-22. Epub 2008/08/30.</ref>. Mental health problems include burnout, depression, anxiety and emotional exhaustion. This could impact the quality and number of published articles, influence the organizational climate of research teams, and lead to fewer students completing their PhDs <ref>Levecque K, Anseel F, De Beuckelaer A, Van der Heyden J, Gisle L. Work organization and mental health problems in PhD students. Research Policy. 2017;46(4):868-79.</ref>.
<references />
|Important For=All stakeholders in research; Early career researchers; Junior researchers; PhD students
|Has Best Practice=This is still a novel area of research. Official advice and policies regarding the prevention of mental health problems in academia is lacking. However, previous research has established connections between organizational climate and health <ref>Levecque K, Anseel F, De Beuckelaer A, Van der Heyden J, Gisle L. Work organization and mental health problems in PhD students. Research Policy. 2017;46(4):868-79.</ref>. Suggested actions to combat the rise of mental health problems in academia include raising awareness, creating more dialogue, providing training on mental health and emotional wellness, effective mentoring practices, monitoring mental health via anonymous surveys, and providing free counseling sessions for those marked as symptomatic or at high-risk. What should also be considered is the need to establish official policies that reward researchers not just for their scientific output and ability to obtain funding, but also for their educational, mentoring and “wellness” practices. <ref>Bira L, Evans T, Vanderford N. Mental health in academia: An invisible crisis - The Physiological Society [Internet]. The Physiological Society. 2019 [cited 27 November 2019]. Available from: <nowiki>https://www.physoc.org/magazine-articles/mental-health-in-academia-an-invisible-crisis/</nowiki></ref>

[https://embassy.science/wiki-wiki/index.php/Resource:D3784352-c18f-4c40-b862-d9ee2afabb0a This guide] was developed during the COVID pandemic by the department of Experimental Immunology of Amsterdam UMC and is implemented by this department to talk about stress with their PhD-candidates.
<references />
|Is Flagged=No
}}
{{Related To
|Related To Resource=Resource:D3784352-c18f-4c40-b862-d9ee2afabb0a
}}
{{Tags}}

Resource:D3784352-c18f-4c40-b862-d9ee2afabb0a

2022-06-14T10:56:55Z

0000-0003-4446-327X: Created page with "{{Resource |Resource Type=Guidelines |Title=Guideline for discussing work-related stress |Is About=Set of questions to guide the conversation about about work-related stress a..."

{{Resource
|Resource Type=Guidelines
|Title=Guideline for discussing work-related stress
|Is About=Set of questions to guide the conversation about about work-related stress and about stress influencing work.

The guide addresses the following themes:

# Work-related stress
# Work-life balance
# Atmosphere at work
# Evaluation & agreements
|Important Because=As described in [[Mental Health in Academia]], creating more dialogue about the topic is highly important. This guide is developed to assist opening up about stress.
|Important For=Supervisors; research leaders; PhD Students; Researchers; Mentors
|Has Best Practice=This guide was developed during the COVID pandemic by the department of Experimental Immunology of Amsterdam UMC and is implemented by this department to talk about stress with their PhD-candidates.
}}
{{Link
|Has Link=https://eur04.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.amsterdamumc.org%2Fdownload%2Fguideline-for-discussing-work-related-stress.htm&data=05%7C01%7Cf.blom%40amsterdamumc.nl%7Cbfd1cb6f9183444d454c08da4d2a7db5%7C68dfab1a11bb4cc6beb528d756984fb6%7C0%7C0%7C637907142126544571%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=nOdknT8rCYCJDPSqqRUwQ4O5x7swcDID65Q3qSwgrSE%3D&reserved=0
}}
{{Related To
|Related To Theme=Theme:0e8da54a-acd0-43b1-8e17-151ee2df6b9b
}}
{{Tags
|Involves=INSPIRE
|Has Location=Amsterdam UMC
|Has Virtue And Value=Openness; Care
}}

Resource:7506dc14-4fb0-45a5-aa02-93338457a4e9

2021-06-18T14:13:49Z

0000-0003-4446-327X:

{{Resource
|Resource Type=Cases
|Title=Harms and benefits - International research ethics and cultural values
|Is About=This is a case study about conducting research in traditional cultural settings. Implementing international research ethics in the complex realities of local contexts can be challenging. The representation of reseacrhers as guests and the cultural value of hospitality in Pakistan creates nuanced dilemmas. How to do field reseach without deepening local poverty, but respesting cultural values?
|Important For=Research Ethics Committees; Researchers
}}
{{Link
|Has Link=https://childethics.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/11/ERIC_Compendium_Case-Studies_Harms-and-Benefits_Sadaf-Shallwani.pdf
}}
{{Related To}}
{{Tags
|Has Location=Pakistan
|Has Virtue And Value=Care; Respect
|Has Good Practice And Misconduct=research with humans; good research practices; Vulnerable population; Research on Indigenous Groups
}}

Resource:3b2641c1-fc6a-4afb-912b-4c81482ccc37

2021-06-18T14:13:09Z

0000-0003-4446-327X:

{{Resource
|Resource Type=Cases
|Title=An author realized a paper had plagiarized his thesis. It took the journal four years to retract it.
|Is About=This blog post describes a case where the bachelor's thesis of a Hungarian mathematics student is plagiarised and published in ''Scientific Reports'' — a Springer Nature title.
|Important Because=This case demonstrates that even famous journals might publish plagiarised material. It also shows that sometimes it might take years before a flawed article is retracted.
|Important For=Researchers
}}
{{Link
|Has Link=https://retractionwatch.com/2020/04/20/an-author-realized-a-paper-had-plagiarized-his-thesis-it-took-the-journal-four-years-to-retract-it/
}}
{{Related To
|Related To Theme=Theme:02592695-e4f8-473c-a944-adfe0d8094c0
}}
{{Tags
|Involves=Meifeng Dai
|Has Timepoint=2015
|Has Location=Jiangsu University
|Has Virtue And Value=Honesty
|Has Good Practice And Misconduct=Plagiarism; Publication Ethics
|Related To Research Area=PE 01 - Mathematics
}}

Resource:F3cb1ea5-b32c-4716-af90-0b42b802416b

2021-06-18T14:12:48Z

0000-0003-4446-327X:

{{Resource
|Resource Type=Cases
|Title=Veterinary scientist fabricates data and manipulates images
|Is About=This blog post reports on the results of ORI investigation about a researcher who fabricated data and manipulated images in seven publications, all of which are flagged for retraction.
|Important Because=It shows that data and image integrity are part and parcel of modern research.
|Important For=Researchers
}}
{{Link
|Has Link=https://retractionwatch.com/2020/05/13/former-u-maryland-researcher-faked-data-in-seven-papers-two-federal-grants-ori/#more-119455
}}
{{Related To
|Related To Theme=Theme:5f65272f-6e95-4768-8236-bc821a97f3d8;Theme:20f32f16-72a1-46f0-b9a6-24fac05b0937;Theme:D61666e2-58df-470f-bfb6-9f8ac2eea64f
}}
{{Tags
|Involves=Shin-Hee Kim
|Has Timepoint=2020
|Has Location=United States; University of Maryland
|Has Virtue And Value=Honesty
|Has Good Practice And Misconduct=Fabrication; Research with Animals; Image Manipulation
|Related To Research Area=LS 06.13 - Veterinary medicine and infectious diseases in animals
}}

Resource:444d0db3-1213-42cc-91c6-e31bca342dd4

2021-06-18T14:12:28Z

0000-0003-4446-327X:

Resource:5f8ac4f9-974d-46c9-9f79-a6ffe01f23af

2021-06-18T14:12:05Z

0000-0003-4446-327X:

{{Resource
|Resource Type=Cases
|Title=Fraud, errors and gamesmanship in experimental toxicology: Extasy
|Is About=The paper discusses several case studies briefly, as examples from the field of toxicology, and a few with some details. One is, the case of Ricuarte and his colleagues, who reported that Ecstasy given to primates at doses intended to replicate the doses used by people caused dopaminergic neurotoxicity, which is known to lead to Parkinson’s disease. When they tried to repeat their work they found that the original bottles had been mislabelled and that the primates had been given amphetamine.
|Important For=Researchers
}}
{{Link
|Has Link=https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0300483X04003543?via%3Dihub
}}
{{Related To
|Related To Resource=Fraud, errors and gamesmanship in experimental toxicology
}}
{{Tags
|Has Virtue And Value=Reliability
|Has Good Practice And Misconduct=Negligence
|Related To Research Area=LS 07.05 - Toxicology
}}

Resource:74b057f6-ed6a-4f67-b2aa-2ac49b8eea42

2021-06-18T14:11:12Z

0000-0003-4446-327X:

{{Resource
|Resource Type=Cases
|Title=U.S. gov’t researchers withdraw climate paper after using pseudonyms
|Is About=This blog post describes a case where two scientists publish a paper using pseudonyms. Both authors have published with their real names in the past. The paper has gone through normal blind peer-review.
|Important Because=It highlights that using pseudonyms affects the reliability of claims and could result in the erosion of trust in academic publications.
|Important For=Journal editors; Researchers
}}
{{Link
|Has Link=https://retractionwatch.com/2016/09/13/u-s-govt-researchers-withdraw-climate-paper-after-using-pseudonyms/
}}
{{Related To
|Related To Theme=Theme:83f33f33-e9ba-4589-b450-92e3992a22db
}}
{{Tags
|Involves=Ned Nikolov; Karl Zeller
|Has Timepoint=2015
|Has Location=United States; U.S. Department of Agriculture
|Has Virtue And Value=Accountability
|Has Good Practice And Misconduct=Questionable Authorship Practices
|Related To Research Area=PE 09.15 - Space Sciences
}}

Resource:3758c3d9-cde3-4011-af46-4ebe9ac04d99

2021-06-18T14:10:16Z

0000-0003-4446-327X:

{{Resource
|Resource Type=Cases
|Title=Reproducibility of methodology
|Is About=The case focuses on editorial decision-making regarding controversial methodology and post-publication peer review. Two published articles focused on the effect of energy healing on an in-vitro model of disease. Whistleblower concerns were raised about the appropriateness and reproducibility of the energy healing methodology used.
|Important For=Editors; Peer reviewers; Researchers
}}
{{Link
|Has Link=https://publicationethics.org/case/reproducibility-methodology
}}
{{Related To
|Related To Resource=Resource:47bfd883-c518-4a97-98fb-86b5cf442d3e
|Related To Theme=Theme:9025f215-cc6a-4b00-894b-68b9a089f173;Theme:7e07b7fa-793a-4282-a036-6fefe8480b3a
}}
{{Tags
|Involves=COPE
|Has Virtue And Value=Reliability
|Has Good Practice And Misconduct=Reproducability
}}

Resource:71aaae35-0b8f-4894-87a9-37168726126d

2021-06-18T14:09:50Z

0000-0003-4446-327X:

{{Resource
|Resource Type=Cases
|Title=Objectivity and Incentives
|Is About=Dr Donnelly received an offer to conduct research for an employment-training firm in order to assess the effectiveness of thier job training and placement program. The offer is tied to $125,000 in funding for the purposes of the project, regardless of the results, and a promise of future collaboration if the results demonstrate the efficacy fo the program. The case study asks the questions about potential biases tied to financial and other incentives.
|Important For=All stakeholders in research; Funders; Research Integrity Officers; Researchers
}}
{{Link
|Has Link=https://www.asanet.org/teaching-learning/faculty/teaching-ethics-throughout-curriculum/case-21-objectivity-and-incentives
}}
{{Related To}}
{{Tags
|Involves=American Sociological Association
|Has Virtue And Value=Reliability; Honesty
|Has Good Practice And Misconduct=Misrepresentation; influencing results; Financial conflict of interest
|Related To Research Area=SH - Social Sciences and Humanities
}}

Resource:1d7dc41b-c22b-46ae-b93f-ff56e40e167f

2021-06-18T14:09:25Z

0000-0003-4446-327X:

{{Resource
|Resource Type=Education
|Title=Contemporary Science, Values and Animal Subjects in Research
|Is About=This is a website intended to be a learning tutorial regarding ethics and the use of animals in research. It consists of an essay with numerous links to other websites.
|Important For=Researchers
}}
{{Link
|Has Link=https://ori.hhs.gov/education/products/ncstate/index.htm
}}
{{Related To}}
{{Tags
|Involves=United States Office of Research Integrity
|Has Timepoint=2004
|Has Location=US
|Has Good Practice And Misconduct=Research with animals
|Related To Research Area=LS 07.08 - Health services, health care research; LS - Life Sciences
}}

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

2021-06-18T14:00:23Z

0000-0003-4446-327X:

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

Moreover, you need to be acquainted with:

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

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

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

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

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

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

'''Handout 1'''

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

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

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

b. Draw the continuum of your selected virtue

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

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

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

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

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

An example of this continuum could be:

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

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

'''Handout 2'''

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

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

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

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

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

#Middle position: What would you do if you demonstrated the right behavior which perfectly represents your specific virtue in that situation?
}}
{{Instruction Step Trainee
|Instruction Step Title=Prepare for the session
|Instruction Step Text=One week before the exercise takes place you will be asked to think about a situation within your work as researcher in which you experienced a kind of moral doubt about what happened or about what you could/should do/have done. The case does not have to be written down beforehand. It does not have to be a dramatic case; ordinary cases which you are willing to share with others are also suitable.
 
Watch the video to have an impression of the 'The Middle Position Exercise' of the VIRT2UE Train-the-Trainer program.

[[File: MPE.png|link=https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sjov1WIvKvg&list=PLabbUwyulAry4tzZ12eHl5JOJhJGiaE6k&index=5]]
}}
{{Instruction Step Trainee
|Instruction Step Title=Protect confidentiality
|Instruction Step Text=Prior to the session you will be asked to sign a confidentiality statement in order to formalize the fact that the information shared during the exercise will be kept confidential by you and the other participants in the session.
}}
{{Instruction Step Trainee
|Instruction Step Title=Experience the exercise
|Instruction Step Text=The trainer will facilitate the exercise by following the three parts.

PART I:

INDIVIDUAL REFLECTION

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

PART II:

REFLECTIONS IN SUBGROUP

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

Part III:

PLENARY: SUMMARY OF THE SUBGROUP WORK AND OVERALL LESSONS LEARNED

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

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

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

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

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

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

'''Handout 1'''

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

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

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

b. Draw the continuum of your selected virtue

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

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

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

An example of this continuum could be:

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

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

'''Handout 2'''

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

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

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

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

TIP:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

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

 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

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

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

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

This training has been developed by the VIRT2UE project, which has received funding form the European Union’s H2020 research programme under grant agreement N 741782.
}}
{{Custom TabContent Close Trainer}}
{{Related To
|Related To Resource=Resource:5bbdd729-8f96-432a-a0ee-56510e343d01
|Related To Theme=Theme:520b3bc7-a6ab-4617-95f2-89c9dee31c53
|Related To Instruction=Instruction:Bb064d3d-2ee3-4357-be3b-f08fa2bee9da;Instruction:A0d97625-d155-4f6f-abd0-2f84413888ad;Instruction:7ce7ad50-499a-4cca-b09d-b2c1573d94f3
}}
{{Tags
|Involves=VIRT2UE
|Has Location=Europe
}}

Instruction:D3ee617b-5d9b-4c47-a015-030b0354c9d2

2021-06-18T13:51:59Z

0000-0003-4446-327X:

{{Instruction
|Title=Introduction to responsible supervision, mentoring and role-modeling
|Instruction Goal=This series of eLearning modules highlights the relevance of supervision, mentoring, and role-modeling in research environments and provides definitions of roles and their corresponding responsibilities.
|Has Requirements=This is one of a four part series. The other three series are: [https://embassy.science/wiki/Instruction:6ceba4e4-fb32-4953-9138-5436807fcde6 "Introduction to Research Integrity"] , [[Instruction:86f47366-a189-4395-9301-36ddb6d1fc68|"Introduction of Virtue Ethics to Research Integrity"]] and [[Instruction:43c900ea-a317-4528-8ece-1f3fb3564867|"Virtue ethics under current research conditions]]".

You should have experience of research in practice (e.g. be employed as a researcher) or be a trainer/educator/teacher who has had experience in research in the past.

'''VIRT2UE Online modules privacy statement'''

This privacy statement concerns the VIRT2UE online modules. The modules are part of the VIRT2UE training program. They are produced by the [http://virt2ueconsortium.eu/ VIRT2UE consortium] and made freely and openly available on the [https://github.com/the-embassy-of-good-science Github platform].

'''''All information of users remains client side'''''

At no point during the use of the VIRT2UE online modules is any personal information collected or saved. Information entered into the modules remains ‘client side’ and is not sent back to servers, nor made available for use by third parties.

'''''Entering personal information in the modules'''''

At some places in the modules the user is invited to type input in open fields. Information entered into these fields is not sent back to any server. None of the entered information can be traced back to the user. It is not obligatory to use these fields. Users can also choose to document their responses elsewhere, for instance on paper.

[https://embassy.science/wiki/Special:Contact Contact us] if you have any further questions.
|Has Duration=1
|Important For=Research integrity trainers; Trainers in training; Researchers; Supervisors; Mentors
|Has Method=eLearning
}}
{{Custom TabContent Trainee Open}}
{{Instruction Steps Foldout Trainee}}
{{Instruction Perspective Trainee
|Is About=By taking these eLearning modules you will learn about and reflect on: Responsible supervision, mentoring and role-modeling.

*'''General responsibilities:''' You will be introduced to the general responsibilities that can apply to anyone enrolled in research, regardless of the role.
*'''Roles:''' You will be introduced to the different roles in a research environment and their corresponding responsibilities.
*'''Virtue Ethics approach:''' Virtue ethics will be applied to supervision, mentoring and role-modeling with some interactive exercises
*'''Role-modeling:''' You will be introduced to the concept of role-modeling, the responsibilities of a role model and how it can influence research practice and culture.
|Important Because=Supervision, mentoring, and role-modeling have a strong influence on research work environments. If a research environment is not open or is unsafe, researchers are less likely to raise concerns or admit mistakes. Therefore, contributing to an open, safe and responsible research environment is important to reduce problems such as poor mental health, drop-outs, fraudulent practices, discrimination, and harassment. For this reason, responsible and good supervision, and mentoring might be seen as duties of care to reduce and signal problems.
|Has Practical Tips=There are subtitles available. You may enable them by clicking on "CC" at the lower left corner of the player.

Please note that no information will be saved or stored after you have closed the browser window/tab. This has two major implications: (1) Whenever you close your browser window/tab, your progress will not be saved and you will have to start the module anew. It is not necessary to complete the course in one go, but recommended to leave the browser window/tab open (and the computer/laptop running). (2) In case you aim to save your reflections, you are kindly asked to copy/paste your input in a separate document and save it on your computer, BEFORE you submit your input.
}}
{{Instruction Step Trainee
|Instruction Step Title=Why responsible supervision, mentoring and role modeling?
|Instruction Step Text=This module highlights the importance of good and responsible supervision, mentoring and role-modeling in research environments. Such practices create open and safe environments where problems like poor mental health, anxiety, discrimination and harassment and fraudulent practices might be reduced.
[[File:Episode1.png|link=http://courses.embassy.science/Responsible_supervision_mentoring_role-modeling/story.html]]
}}
{{Instruction Step Trainee
|Instruction Step Title=Roles and responsibilities in supervision and mentoring
|Instruction Step Text=This module explores the different roles and corresponding responsibilities in research environments, allowing the researchers to recognize themselves in such roles and responsibilities. Furthermore, a virtue ethics approach is applied to supervision, mentoring and role-modeling with some interactive exercises.
[[File:Episode2.png|link=http://courses.embassy.science/Roles_and_responsibilities_in_supervision_and_mentoring/story.html]]
}}
{{Instruction Step Trainee
|Instruction Step Title=Challenges and ambitions
|Instruction Step Text=The third episode is currently under construction.
}}
{{Instruction Remarks Trainee
|Has Remarks='''List of contributors:'''

Fenneke Blom

We thank Nele Bracke, Stefanie van der Burght, Natalie Evans, Nicole Föger, Tamarinde Haven, Mike Kalichman, Armin Schmolmüller, and Guy Widdershoven for their constructive feedback during the process of developing!

This training has been developed by the VIRT2UE project, which has received funding form the European Union’s H2020 research programme under grant agreement N 741782.
}}
{{Custom TabContent Close Trainee}}
{{Custom TabContent Trainer Open}}
{{Instruction Steps Foldout Trainer}}
{{Instruction Perspective Trainer
|Is About=By taking these eLearning modules you will learn about and reflect on: Responsible supervision, mentoring and role-modeling.
|Important Because=Supervision, mentoring, and role-modeling have a strong influence on research work environments. If a research environment is not open or is unsafe, researchers are less likely to raise concerns or admit mistakes. Therefore, contributing to an open, safe and responsible research environment is important to reduce problems such as poor mental health, drop-outs, fraudulent practices, discrimination, and harassment. For this reason, responsible and good supervision, and mentoring might be seen as duties of care to reduce and signal problems.
|Has Practical Tips=There are subtitles available. You may enable them by clicking on "CC" at the lower left corner of the player.

Please note that no information will be saved or stored after users have closed the browser window/tab. This has two major implications: (1) Whenever users close their browser window/tab, their progress will not be saved and they will have to start the module anew. It is not necessary to complete the course in one go, but recommended to leave the browser window/tab open (and the computer/laptop running). (2) In case users aim to save their reflections, they are kindly asked to copy/paste their input in a separate document and save it on their computer.
}}
{{Instruction Step Trainer
|Instruction Step Title=Why responsible supervision, mentoring and role modeling?
|Instruction Step Text=This module highlights the importance of good and responsible supervision, mentoring and role-modeling in research environments. Such practices, create open and safe environments where problems like poor mental health, anxiety, discrimination and harassment and fraudulent practices might be reduced.
[[File:Episode1.png|link=http://courses.embassy.science/Responsible_supervision_mentoring_role-modeling/story.html]]
}}
{{Instruction Step Trainer
|Instruction Step Title=Roles and responsibilities in supervision and mentoring
|Instruction Step Text=This module explores the different roles and corresponding responsibilities in research environments, allowing the researchers to recognize themselves in such roles and responsabilities. Besides, a virtue ethics approach is applied to supervision, mentoring and role-modeling with some interactive exercises.
[[File:Episode2.png|link=http://courses.embassy.science/Roles_and_responsibilities_in_supervision_and_mentoring/story.html]]
}}
{{Instruction Step Trainer
|Instruction Step Title=Challenges and ambitions
|Instruction Step Text=The third episode is currently under construction.
}}
{{Instruction Remarks Trainer
|Has Remarks='''List of contributors:'''

Armin Schmolmüller

We thank Rosemarie Bernabe, Fenneke Blom, Birgit Buschbom, Ana Sofia Carvalho, Natalie Evans, Nicole Föger, Laura Hartman, Teodora Konach, Erika Löfström, Franca Marino, Ana Marusic, Signe Mezinska, Bert Molewijk, Daniel Pizzolato, and Guy Widdershoven for their constructive feedback during the process of developing!

This training has been developed by the VIRT2UE project, which has received funding form the European Union’s H2020 research programme under grant agreement N 741782.
}}
{{Custom TabContent Close Trainer}}
{{Related To
|Related To Resource=Resource:Bf7c9d54-cd9f-477c-8190-5c08bc4cf113;Resource:4bdb3879-4eb1-49b5-bcb9-e3e7ddf1a83e
|Related To Theme=Theme:Ab4200ca-c14d-413d-a9f6-aa5a93e1800e;Theme:177ca35b-14f3-4f62-8bb2-f9cf9db28a70;Theme:Bd54dd3d-50ed-4f42-b5fb-473f2391714a;Theme:73bfb9ec-b7f5-4a0a-a0b0-e460990b59cb;Theme:0e8da54a-acd0-43b1-8e17-151ee2df6b9b
}}
{{Tags
|Involves=VIRT2UE
|Has Location=Europe
|Has Virtue And Value=Care; Responsibility; Reflexivity
|Has Good Practice And Misconduct=Supervision; Supervisor-student relationship; Mentor-trainee relationship; Mentor-trainee responsibilities; Mentor/trainee relationship; Mentoring; Mentorship responsibilities; Interpersonal conflicts in mentoring
}}

Instruction:D3ee617b-5d9b-4c47-a015-030b0354c9d2

2021-06-18T13:51:01Z

0000-0003-4446-327X:

Instruction:D3ee617b-5d9b-4c47-a015-030b0354c9d2

2021-06-18T13:48:15Z

0000-0003-4446-327X:

{{Instruction
|Title=Introduction to responsible supervision, mentoring and role-modeling
|Instruction Goal=This series of eLearning modules highlights the relevance of supervision, mentoring, and role-modeling in research environments and provides definitions of roles and their corresponding responsibilities.
|Has Requirements=This is one of a four part series. The other three series are: [https://embassy.science/wiki/Instruction:6ceba4e4-fb32-4953-9138-5436807fcde6 "Introduction to Research Integrity"] , [[Instruction:86f47366-a189-4395-9301-36ddb6d1fc68|"Introduction of Virtue Ethics to Research Integrity"]] and [[Instruction:43c900ea-a317-4528-8ece-1f3fb3564867|"Virtue ethics under current research conditions]]".

You should have experience of research in practice (e.g. be employed as a researcher) or be a trainer/educator/teacher who has had experience in research in the past.

'''VIRT2UE Online modules privacy statement'''

This privacy statement concerns the VIRT2UE online modules. The modules are part of the VIRT2UE training program. They are produced by the [http://virt2ueconsortium.eu/ VIRT2UE consortium] and made freely and openly available on the [https://github.com/the-embassy-of-good-science Github platform].

'''''All information of users remains client side'''''

At no point during the use of the VIRT2UE online modules is any personal information collected or saved. Information entered into the modules remains ‘client side’ and is not sent back to servers, nor made available for use by third parties.

'''''Entering personal information in the modules'''''

At some places in the modules the user is invited to type input in open fields. Information entered into these fields is not sent back to any server. None of the entered information can be traced back to the user. It is not obligatory to use these fields. Users can also choose to document their responses elsewhere, for instance on paper.

[https://embassy.science/wiki/Special:Contact Contact us] if you have any further questions.
|Has Duration=1
|Important For=Research integrity trainers; Trainers in training; Researchers; Supervisors; Mentors
|Has Method=eLearning
}}
{{Custom TabContent Trainee Open}}
{{Instruction Steps Foldout Trainee}}
{{Instruction Perspective Trainee
|Is About=By taking these eLearning modules you will learn about and reflect on: Responsible supervision, mentoring and role-modeling.

*'''General responsibilities:''' You will be introduced to the general responsibilities that can apply to anyone enrolled in research, regardless of the role.
*'''Roles:''' You will be introduced to the different roles in a research environment and their corresponding responsibilities.
*'''Virtue Ethics approach:''' Virtue ethics will be applied to supervision, mentoring and role-modeling with some interactive exercises
*'''Role-modeling:''' You will be introduced to the concept of role-modeling, the responsibilities of a role model and how it can influence research practice and culture.
|Important Because=Supervision, mentoring, and role-modeling have a strong influence on research work environments. If a research environment is not open or is unsafe, researchers are less likely to raise concerns or admit mistakes. Therefore, contributing to an open, safe and responsible research environment is important to reduce problems such as poor mental health, drop-outs, fraudulent practices, discrimination, and harassment. For this reason, responsible and good supervision, and mentoring might be seen as duties of care to reduce and signal problems.
|Has Practical Tips=There are subtitles available. You may enable them by clicking on "CC" at the lower left corner of the player.

Please note that no information will be saved or stored after you have closed the browser window/tab. This has two major implications: (1) Whenever you close your browser window/tab, your progress will not be saved and you will have to start the module anew. It is not necessary to complete the course in one go, but recommended to leave the browser window/tab open (and the computer/laptop running). (2) In case you aim to save your reflections, you are kindly asked to copy/paste your input in a separate document and save it on your computer, BEFORE you submit your input.
}}
{{Instruction Step Trainee
|Instruction Step Title=Why responsible supervision, mentoring and role modeling?
|Instruction Step Text=This module highlights the importance of good and responsible supervision, mentoring and role-modeling in research environments. Such practices create open and safe environments where problems like poor mental health, anxiety, discrimination and harassment and fraudulent practices might be reduced.
[[File:Episode1.png|link=http://courses.embassy.science/Responsible_supervision_mentoring_role-modeling/story.html]]
}}
{{Instruction Step Trainee
|Instruction Step Title=Roles and responsibilities in supervision and mentoring
|Instruction Step Text=This module explores the different roles and corresponding responsibilities in research environments, allowing the researchers to recognize themselves in such roles and responsibilities. Furthermore, a virtue ethics approach is applied to supervision, mentoring and role-modeling with some interactive exercises.
[[File:Episode2.png|link=http://courses.embassy.science/Roles_and_responsibilities_in_supervision_and_mentoring/story.html]]
}}
{{Instruction Remarks Trainee
|Has Remarks='''List of contributors:'''

Fenneke Blom

We thank Nele Bracke, Stefanie van der Burght, Natalie Evans, Nicole Föger, Tamarinde Haven, Mike Kalichman, Armin Schmolmüller, and Guy Widdershoven for their constructive feedback during the process of developing!

This training has been developed by the VIRT2UE project, which has received funding form the European Union’s H2020 research programme under grant agreement N 741782.
}}
{{Custom TabContent Close Trainee}}
{{Custom TabContent Trainer Open}}
{{Instruction Steps Foldout Trainer}}
{{Instruction Perspective Trainer
|Is About=By taking these eLearning modules you will learn about and reflect on: Responsible supervision, mentoring and role-modeling.
|Important Because=Supervision, mentoring, and role-modeling have a strong influence on research work environments. If a research environment is not open or is unsafe, researchers are less likely to raise concerns or admit mistakes. Therefore, contributing to an open, safe and responsible research environment is important to reduce problems such as poor mental health, drop-outs, fraudulent practices, discrimination, and harassment. For this reason, responsible and good supervision, and mentoring might be seen as duties of care to reduce and signal problems.
|Has Practical Tips=There are subtitles available. You may enable them by clicking on "CC" at the lower left corner of the player.

Please note that no information will be saved or stored after users have closed the browser window/tab. This has two major implications: (1) Whenever users close their browser window/tab, their progress will not be saved and they will have to start the module anew. It is not necessary to complete the course in one go, but recommended to leave the browser window/tab open (and the computer/laptop running). (2) In case users aim to save their reflections, they are kindly asked to copy/paste their input in a separate document and save it on their computer.
}}
{{Instruction Step Trainer
|Instruction Step Title=Why responsible supervision, mentoring and role modeling?
|Instruction Step Text=This module highlights the importance of good and responsible supervision, mentoring and role-modeling in research environments. Such practices, create open and safe environments where problems like poor mental health, anxiety, discrimination and harassment and fraudulent practices might be reduced.
[[File:Episode1.png|link=http://courses.embassy.science/Responsible_supervision_mentoring_role-modeling/story.html]]
}}
{{Instruction Step Trainer
|Instruction Step Title=Roles and responsibilities in supervision and mentoring
|Instruction Step Text=This module explores the different roles and corresponding responsibilities in research environments, allowing the researchers to recognize themselves in such roles and responsabilities. Besides, a virtue ethics approach is applied to supervision, mentoring and role-modeling with some interactive exercises.
[[File:Episode2.png|link=http://courses.embassy.science/Roles_and_responsibilities_in_supervision_and_mentoring/story.html]]
}}
{{Instruction Remarks Trainer
|Has Remarks='''List of contributors:'''

Armin Schmolmüller

We thank Rosemarie Bernabe, Fenneke Blom, Birgit Buschbom, Ana Sofia Carvalho, Natalie Evans, Nicole Föger, Laura Hartman, Teodora Konach, Erika Löfström, Franca Marino, Ana Marusic, Signe Mezinska, Bert Molewijk, Daniel Pizzolato, and Guy Widdershoven for their constructive feedback during the process of developing!

This training has been developed by the VIRT2UE project, which has received funding form the European Union’s H2020 research programme under grant agreement N 741782.
}}
{{Custom TabContent Close Trainer}}
{{Related To
|Related To Resource=Resource:Bf7c9d54-cd9f-477c-8190-5c08bc4cf113;Resource:4bdb3879-4eb1-49b5-bcb9-e3e7ddf1a83e
|Related To Theme=Theme:Ab4200ca-c14d-413d-a9f6-aa5a93e1800e;Theme:177ca35b-14f3-4f62-8bb2-f9cf9db28a70;Theme:Bd54dd3d-50ed-4f42-b5fb-473f2391714a;Theme:73bfb9ec-b7f5-4a0a-a0b0-e460990b59cb;Theme:0e8da54a-acd0-43b1-8e17-151ee2df6b9b
}}
{{Tags
|Involves=VIRT2UE
|Has Location=Europe
|Has Virtue And Value=Care; Responsibility; Reflexivity
|Has Good Practice And Misconduct=Supervision; Supervisor-student relationship; Mentor-trainee relationship; Mentor-trainee responsibilities; Mentor/trainee relationship; Mentoring; Mentorship responsibilities
}}

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

2021-05-21T11:22:14Z

0000-0003-4446-327X:

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

Moreover, you need to be familiar with:

a) The concept of [[Theme:520b3bc7-a6ab-4617-95f2-89c9dee31c53|virtue]] and its importance for RI;

b) The concept of [[Theme:B4f7b2e3-af61-4466-94dc-2504affab5a8|norm;]]

c) The concept of moral [[Theme:17d406f9-0b0f-4325-aa2d-2fe186d5ff34|dilemma]];

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

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

The game may be used as an exercise for exchanging experiences, opinions, perspectives and justifications. It could also be used to develop a shared understanding of formally defined principles and the moral content of our actions, as well as of roles of values and norms in decision-making. The original game kit developed by the Erasmus University Rotterdam was adapted in the context of VIRT2UE project. The aim of this modification is to raise awareness about virtues and values in research processes and to bring attention to the principles adopted by the [https://allea.org/code-of-conduct/ European Code of Conduct for Research Integrity] (ECoC). Concordantly, the modified RDG has several alterations, such as focusing on a dialogical approach while exchanging justifications for a moral choice and associating them with the virtues and values presented in the ECoC.
|Important Because=Reflecting on a variety of moral dilemmas with others in a fun way makes researchers gain awareness about the moral content of their day-to-day decisions and actions. That might lead them to consider and understand other stakeholders’ positions and justifications as well as their own in the light of RI values and ECoC principles when faced a specific moral dilemma.
|Has Practical Tips='''Playing the game'''

1. The first participant reads the dilemma out loud.

2. Each participant chooses one of the four alternative courses of action, which best reflects his/her preference.

3. Each participant picks an option and places the relevant option card face down on the table. (Putting the option cards face down ensures participants make an independent choice first.)

4. Depending on the size of the group, in a round each participant moves to the corner of the room that represents her/his each choice or turns the option card over and explains her/his preferred course of action.

5. The participants have a dialogue on individual choices and avoid socially desirable answer.

6. Before the final decision the group seeks consensus. At this stage participants are allowed to propose alternative courses of action.

7. The participants fill in the tables (see below) in order to reflect on the principles and virtues articulated in ECoC in the context of the selected dilemma.

'''Table 1: Which virtues from ECoC can you identify in each dilemma?'''
{{{!}} class="wikitable" border="0" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="0" width="597"
{{!}}'''VIRTUES'''
{{!}}'''DILEMMA NO _____'''
{{!}}-
{{!}} width="410" valign="top"{{!}}'''Reliability''' in ensuring the quality of research, reflected in the design, the methodology, the analysis and the use of resources.
{{!}} width="105" valign="top"{{!}}
{{!}}-
{{!}} width="410" valign="top"{{!}}'''Honesty''' in developing, undertaking, reviewing, reporting and communicating research in a transparent, fair, full and unbiased way.
{{!}} width="105" valign="top"{{!}}
{{!}}-
{{!}} width="410" valign="top"{{!}}'''Respect for colleagues''', research participants, society, ecosystems, cultural heritage and the environment.
{{!}} width="105" valign="top"{{!}}
{{!}}-
{{!}} width="410" valign="top"{{!}}'''Accountability''' for the research from idea to publication, for its management and organisation, for training, supervision and mentoring, and for its wider impacts
{{!}} width="105" valign="top"{{!}}
{{!}}}
'''Table 2. What are the main research misconducts that you can identify in this dilemma?'''
{{{!}} class="wikitable" border="0" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="0" width="668"
{{!}} width="425"{{!}}'''RESEARCH MISCONDUCT'''
{{!}} width="85"{{!}}'''DILEMMA Nº _____'''
{{!}}-
{{!}} width="425" valign="top"{{!}}'''Fabrication''' is making up results and recording them as if they were real.
{{!}} width="85" valign="top"{{!}}
{{!}}-
{{!}} width="425" valign="top"{{!}}'''Falsification''' is manipulating research materials, equipment or processes or changing, omitting or suppressing data or results without justification.
{{!}} width="85" valign="top"{{!}}
{{!}}-
{{!}} width="425" valign="top"{{!}}'''Plagiarism''' is using other people’s work and ideas without giving proper credit to the original source, thus violating the rights of the original author(s) to their intellectual outputs.
{{!}} width="85" valign="top"{{!}}
{{!}}-
{{!}} width="425" valign="top"{{!}}Manipulating authorship or denigrating the role of other researchers in publications.
{{!}} width="85" valign="top"{{!}}
{{!}}-
{{!}} width="425" valign="top"{{!}}Accusing a researcher of misconduct or other violations in a malicious way.
{{!}} width="85" valign="top"{{!}}
{{!}}-
{{!}} width="425" valign="top"{{!}}Misrepresenting research achievements.
{{!}} width="85" valign="top"{{!}}
{{!}}-
{{!}} width="425" valign="top"{{!}}Exaggerating the importance and practical applicability of findings.
{{!}} width="85" valign="top"{{!}}
{{!}}-
{{!}} width="425" valign="top"{{!}}Re-publishing substantive parts of one’s own earlier publications, including translations, without duly acknowledging or citing the original (‘self-plagiarism’).
{{!}} width="85" valign="top"{{!}}
{{!}}-
{{!}} width="425" valign="top"{{!}}Citing selectively to enhance own findings or to please editors, reviewers or colleagues.
{{!}} width="85" valign="top"{{!}}
{{!}}-
{{!}} width="425" valign="top"{{!}}Withholding research results.
{{!}} width="85" valign="top"{{!}}
{{!}}-
{{!}} width="425" valign="top"{{!}}Allowing funders/sponsors to jeopardise independence in the research process or reporting of results so as to introduce or promulgate bias.
{{!}} width="85" valign="top"{{!}}
{{!}}-
{{!}} width="425" valign="top"{{!}}Expanding unnecessarily the bibliography of a study.
{{!}} width="85" valign="top"{{!}}
{{!}}-
{{!}} width="425" valign="top"{{!}}Delaying or inappropriately hampering the work of other researchers.
{{!}} width="85" valign="top"{{!}}
{{!}}-
{{!}} width="425" valign="top"{{!}}Misusing seniority to encourage violations of research integrity.
{{!}} width="85" valign="top"{{!}}
{{!}}-
{{!}} width="425" valign="top"{{!}}Ignoring putative violations of research integrity by others or covering up inappropriate responses to misconduct or other violations by institutions.
{{!}} width="85" valign="top"{{!}}
{{!}}-
{{!}} width="425" valign="top"{{!}}Establishing or supporting journals that undermine the quality control of research (‘predatory journals’).
{{!}} width="85" valign="top"{{!}}
{{!}}}
'''Table 3. What are the relevant virtues that the researcher must have in order to take the decision chosen by the group?'''
{{{!}} class="wikitable" border="1" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="0"
{{!}} width="243"{{!}}'''VIRTUES'''
{{!}} width="142"{{!}}'''DILEMMA Nº _____'''
{{!}}-
{{!}} width="243"{{!}}Resoluteness
{{!}} width="142" valign="top"{{!}}
{{!}}-
{{!}} width="243"{{!}}Accountability
{{!}} width="142" valign="top"{{!}}
{{!}}-
{{!}} width="243"{{!}}Availability
{{!}} width="142" valign="top"{{!}}
{{!}}-
{{!}} width="243"{{!}}Competency
{{!}} width="142" valign="top"{{!}}
{{!}}-
{{!}} width="243"{{!}}Patience
{{!}} width="142" valign="top"{{!}}
{{!}}-
{{!}} width="243"{{!}}Perseverance
{{!}} width="142" valign="top"{{!}}
{{!}}-
{{!}} width="243"{{!}}Reliability
{{!}} width="142" valign="top"{{!}}
{{!}}-
{{!}} width="243"{{!}}Sincerity
{{!}} width="142" valign="top"{{!}}
{{!}}-
{{!}} width="243"{{!}}Creativity
{{!}} width="142" valign="top"{{!}}
{{!}}-
{{!}} width="243"{{!}}Honesty
{{!}} width="142" valign="top"{{!}}
{{!}}-
{{!}} width="243"{{!}}Objectivity
{{!}} width="142" valign="top"{{!}}
{{!}}-
{{!}} width="243"{{!}}Humility
{{!}} width="142" valign="top"{{!}}
{{!}}-
{{!}} width="243"{{!}}Punctuality
{{!}} width="142" valign="top"{{!}}
{{!}}-
{{!}} width="243"{{!}}Trustworthiness/truthfulness
{{!}} width="142" valign="top"{{!}}
{{!}}-
{{!}} width="243"{{!}}Selflessness
{{!}} width="142" valign="top"{{!}}
{{!}}-
{{!}} width="243"{{!}}Reflexivity
{{!}} width="142" valign="top"{{!}}
{{!}}-
{{!}} width="243"{{!}}Clarity of purpose
{{!}} width="142" valign="top"{{!}}
{{!}}-
{{!}} width="243"{{!}}Collaborative spirit
{{!}} width="142" valign="top"{{!}}
{{!}}-
{{!}} width="243"{{!}}Fairness
{{!}} width="142" valign="top"{{!}}
{{!}}-
{{!}} width="243"{{!}}Loyalty
{{!}} width="142" valign="top"{{!}}
{{!}}-
{{!}} width="243"{{!}}Moderation
{{!}} width="142" valign="top"{{!}}
{{!}}-
{{!}} width="243"{{!}}Positivity
{{!}} width="142" valign="top"{{!}}
{{!}}-
{{!}} width="243" valign="top"{{!}}Respectfulness
{{!}} width="142" valign="top"{{!}}
{{!}}}
}}
{{Instruction Step Trainee
|Instruction Step Title=Introduction and confidentiality
|Instruction Step Text=At the beginning of the session you will be informed about the background, the aim and the description of the game. Moreover, you will be asked to keep the information shared during the game confidential.
}}
{{Instruction Step Trainee
|Instruction Step Title=Forming groups
|Instruction Step Text=You will be assigned to a group by the trainer who will divide participants into groups of four. The game can also be played plenary. If your trainer prefers to do so he/she will instruct you on how to proceed.
}}
{{Instruction Step Trainee
|Instruction Step Title=Playing the game
|Instruction Step Text=The trainer will explain you how the game is played and will ask you to download the [https://www.eur.nl/en/about-eur/policy-and-regulations/integrity/research-integrity/dilemma-game dilemma game app].

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

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

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

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

- What were the main points of contention?

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

- Was any alternative option proposed?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

'''Paying the game'''

1. The first participant reads the dilemma out loud.

2. Each participant chooses one of the four alternative courses of action, which best reflects his/her preference.

3. Each participant picks an option and places the relevant option card face down on the table. (Putting the option cards face down ensures participants make an independent choice first.)

4. Depending on the size of the group, in a round each participant moves to the corner of the room that represents her/his each choice or turns the option card over and explains her/his preferred course of action.

5. The participants have a dialogue on individual choices and avoid socially desirable answer.

6. Before the final decision the group seeks consensus. At this stage participants are allowed to propose alternative courses of action.

7. The participants fill in the tables (see below) in order to reflect on the principles and virtues articulated in ECoC in the context of the selected dilemma.

'''Table 1: Which virtues from ECoC can you identify in each dilemma?''' 
{{{!}} class="wikitable" border="0" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="0" width="669"
{{!}} width="423"{{!}}'''VIRTUES'''
{{!}} width="87"{{!}}'''DILEMMA Nº _____'''
{{!}}-
{{!}} width="423" valign="top"{{!}}'''Reliability''' in ensuring the quality of research, reflected in the design, the methodology, the analysis and the use of resources.
{{!}} width="87" valign="top"{{!}}
{{!}}-
{{!}} width="423" valign="top"{{!}}'''Honesty''' in developing, undertaking, reviewing, reporting and communicating research in a transparent, fair, full and unbiased way.
{{!}} width="87" valign="top"{{!}}
{{!}}-
{{!}} width="423" valign="top"{{!}}'''Respect for colleagues''', research participants, society, ecosystems, cultural heritage and the environment.
{{!}} width="87" valign="top"{{!}}
{{!}}-
{{!}} width="423" valign="top"{{!}}'''Accountability''' for the research from idea to publication, for its management and organisation, for training, supervision and mentoring, and for its wider impacts
{{!}} width="87" valign="top"{{!}}
{{!}}}
'''Table 2. What are the main research misconducts that you can identify in this dilemma?'''
{{{!}} class="wikitable" border="0" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="0" width="668"
{{!}} width="425"{{!}}'''RESEARCH MISCONDUCT'''
{{!}} width="85"{{!}}'''DILEMMA Nº _____'''
{{!}}-
{{!}} width="425" valign="top"{{!}}'''Fabrication''' is making up results and recording them as if they were real.
{{!}} width="85" valign="top"{{!}}
{{!}}-
{{!}} width="425" valign="top"{{!}}'''Falsification''' is manipulating research materials, equipment or processes or changing, omitting or suppressing data or results without justification.
{{!}} width="85" valign="top"{{!}}
{{!}}-
{{!}} width="425" valign="top"{{!}}'''Plagiarism''' is using other people’s work and ideas without giving proper credit to the original source, thus violating the rights of the original author(s) to their intellectual outputs.
{{!}} width="85" valign="top"{{!}}
{{!}}-
{{!}} width="425" valign="top"{{!}}Manipulating authorship or denigrating the role of other researchers in publications.
{{!}} width="85" valign="top"{{!}}
{{!}}-
{{!}} width="425" valign="top"{{!}}Accusing a researcher of misconduct or other violations in a malicious way.
{{!}} width="85" valign="top"{{!}}
{{!}}-
{{!}} width="425" valign="top"{{!}}Misrepresenting research achievements.
{{!}} width="85" valign="top"{{!}}
{{!}}-
{{!}} width="425" valign="top"{{!}}Exaggerating the importance and practical applicability of findings.
{{!}} width="85" valign="top"{{!}}
{{!}}-
{{!}} width="425" valign="top"{{!}}Re-publishing substantive parts of one’s own earlier publications, including translations, without duly acknowledging or citing the original (‘self-plagiarism’).
{{!}} width="85" valign="top"{{!}}
{{!}}-
{{!}} width="425" valign="top"{{!}}Citing selectively to enhance own findings or to please editors, reviewers or colleagues.
{{!}} width="85" valign="top"{{!}}
{{!}}-
{{!}} width="425" valign="top"{{!}}Withholding research results.
{{!}} width="85" valign="top"{{!}}
{{!}}-
{{!}} width="425" valign="top"{{!}}Allowing funders/sponsors to jeopardise independence in the research process or reporting of results so as to introduce or promulgate bias.
{{!}} width="85" valign="top"{{!}}
{{!}}-
{{!}} width="425" valign="top"{{!}}Expanding unnecessarily the bibliography of a study.
{{!}} width="85" valign="top"{{!}}
{{!}}-
{{!}} width="425" valign="top"{{!}}Delaying or inappropriately hampering the work of other researchers.
{{!}} width="85" valign="top"{{!}}
{{!}}-
{{!}} width="425" valign="top"{{!}}Misusing seniority to encourage violations of research integrity.
{{!}} width="85" valign="top"{{!}}
{{!}}-
{{!}} width="425" valign="top"{{!}}Ignoring putative violations of research integrity by others or covering up inappropriate responses to misconduct or other violations by institutions.
{{!}} width="85" valign="top"{{!}}
{{!}}-
{{!}} width="425" valign="top"{{!}}Establishing or supporting journals that undermine the quality control of research (‘predatory journals’).
{{!}} width="85" valign="top"{{!}}
{{!}}}
'''Table 3. What are the relevant virtues that the researcher must have in order to take the decision chosen by the group?'''
}}
{{Instruction Step Trainer
|Instruction Step Title=Preparation
|Instruction Step Text=Read the instructions. Please note that there are some differences between the original game kit and the modified RDG in terms of aims and applications. In the following steps the procedures for the use of the modified version are explained. This version requires participants not merely to play the game, but at the same time to reflect on their justifications, analyze their and others’ discussion processes, and work together to relate the case at hand with the elements of the ECoC and RI virtues. Thus, this version takes longer, and is more demanding.

Before the session:

- Print the option cards.

- Print of prepare a PPT presentation of the dilemma that will be used.

- Print the tables
}}
{{Instruction Step Trainer
|Instruction Step Title=Select the cases
|Instruction Step Text=Examine the cases in the original game kit and familiarize yourself with the classification criteria.<ref>https://www.eur.nl/en/about-eur/policy-and-regulations/integrity/research-integrity/dilemma-game</ref> Select the dilemmas you want to discuss. Please note that cases are grouped per topic. If the training is specifically aimed to reflect on issues such as research processes, roles of different parties or publication ethics, the trainer might pick cases which correspond to those topics. Besides, while selecting the cases, take the attributes of the trainee group into account as well. For example, if you are going to play the game with a group of PhD students, then you should pick the cases suitable for them.

Feel free to modify or adapt a case to make it more familiar to the audience.
<references />
}}
{{Instruction Step Trainer
|Instruction Step Title=Select a format for the case
|Instruction Step Text=The exercises is suitable to be used both in bigger groups or with several small groups. If you aim for ''more reflection ''in your training, go for small groups. If you would like to ''create awareness'' in participants first, then facilitate the exercise with bigger groups. Please make sure to decide on this beforehand (see '''Practical Tips''' for more instructions).
}}
{{Instruction Step Trainer
|Instruction Step Title=Introduction – 5 min
|Instruction Step Text=Introduce yourself. Briefly inform participants about the background, the aim, and the description of the game. Emphasize that the information shared during the exercise will be kept confidential. You can consider asking participants to sign a confidentiality agreement.
}}
{{Instruction Step Trainer
|Instruction Step Title=Forming groups – 5 min
|Instruction Step Text=Divide participants into groups of four. Keep in mind that the game can also be played plenary if this fits the groups’ aims (please see '''Practical Tips''').
}}
{{Instruction Step Trainer
|Instruction Step Title=Explaining the rules and letting participants play the game – 15 min
|Instruction Step Text=Explain how the game is played by mentioning the rules, the materials to be used, and steps to be followed (See '''Practical Tips''').

Deliver the options cards and tables. Each individual player receives four option cards (A, B, C and D). Deliver the printed dilemma sheet or project the PPT page that has it on the screen/wall. (Alternatively, you may ask participants to download the [https://www.eur.nl/en/about-eur/policy-and-regulations/integrity/research-integrity/dilemma-game Dilemma Game app] beforehand. In that case, you should study app's user instructions.) The participants of each group decide who will go first.

Emphasize that participants can ask technical questions to you any time, and let participants know how much time they will have to discuss the dilemma(s).
}}
{{Instruction Step Trainer
|Instruction Step Title=Dialogue about the individual choices - 10 min
|Instruction Step Text=Invite participants to the plenary and encourage them to reflect on their individual choices and engage in a conversation with each other using the dialogical attitude. Provide a framework to create awareness of the socially desirable answer. You can support this by introducing the following questions:

a. What would you do? Why?

b. What would you ''ideally'' do? Why?
}}
{{Instruction Step Trainer
|Instruction Step Title=Filling out the tables – 15 min
|Instruction Step Text=Ask participants to work in groups to fill out the tables. You may suggest groups to assign a member as a spokesman to shortly present their discussions in the next step.
}}
{{Instruction Step Trainer
|Instruction Step Title=Plenary debriefs – 15 min
|Instruction Step Text=Ask a brief summary of what has just been discussed in the group(s). A plenary debrief may be useful to allow room for questions justifications or more general themes. Invite participants to actively listen to what others have to say and share their views openly.
}}
{{Instruction Step Trainer
|Instruction Step Title=Conclusion - 15 min
|Instruction Step Text=Ask the group to reflect on the process, and to evaluate if the learning objectives were met. Foster a brief dialogue on what might have just been learned as a group.

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

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

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

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

- What were the main points of contention?

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

- What were the other options?

- Was any alternative option proposed?

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

- Why would you NOT do the moral ideal?

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

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

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

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

- Were the instructions clear enough?

- Do you think that the case was appropriate?

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

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

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

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

This training has been developed by the VIRT2UE project, which has received funding form the European Union’s H2020 research programme under grant agreement N 741782.
}}
{{Custom TabContent Close Trainer}}
{{Related To
|Related To Resource=Resource:313feb13-82bc-4489-be7a-387d3415c427
}}
{{Tags}}

Theme:2040cd9d-877c-48de-b430-3d9761aa1e25

2021-04-22T15:06:49Z

0000-0003-4446-327X:

{{Theme
|Theme Type=Good Practices
|Has Parent Theme=Theme:B2331451-5a6a-4aa2-a3d5-c68d2c96c8e1
|Title=Reasonable standards for career advancement
|Is About=The Singapore statement specifies that “Research institutions should create and sustain environments that encourage integrity through education, clear policies, and reasonable standards for advancement, while fostering work environments that support research integrity.”<ref>Resnik, David B., and Adil E. Shamoo. "The singapore statement on research integrity." ''Accountability in research'' 18.2 (2011): 71-75.</ref>
<references />
|Important Because=If the standards for career advancement are not reasonable, this can lead to considerable friction between individual researchers and the research institution. This is not fair to the individual researcher, and by creating resentment, can hamper potential collaboration within a research institution, and can constitute a structural cause for research misconduct.
|Important For=Researchers; Research performing organisations; Policy makers; Research institutions
|Has Best Practice=The Qualification portfolio, implemented by Utrecht UMC. To be described in further detail elsewhere on The Embassy.
}}
{{Related To
|Related To Resource=Resource:10e386f6-6881-4d88-bc72-e6391597029e;Resource:216fd809-8eca-4f5e-8cc7-c118b9bfb0cd;Resource:3cf12442-8943-4684-9e9c-8e5128674a79;Resource:90c5a9cf-16c5-441c-b69e-4de6162ae0e2;Resource:Ca0ed587-ac8e-4259-9cc7-74de01941cd1
}}
{{Tags
|Has Timepoint=2011
|Has Location=Singapore
|Has Virtue And Value=Respect; Fairness
|Has Good Practice And Misconduct=Academic Reputation; Academic Responsibility of University
}}

Theme:6b33725e-f7fa-4796-a4ac-acf19ca43ae6

2021-01-05T15:37:33Z

0000-0003-4446-327X:

{{Theme
|Theme Type=Good Practices
|Has Parent Theme=Theme:2268825c-a874-4dd7-b302-4af6b0e55b36
|Title=The learning curve - theatre play #MeTooAcademia
|Is About=Developed from scenarios originally performed as #MeTooAcademia for the Dutch Network of Women Professors (LNVH), ‘The learning curve’ is a theatre play about sexual intimidation and abuse of power in the university context. It’s both humorous and bleak, and is written to be followed by a discussion led by a moderator. Different academic stakeholders and the audience can discuss what you can do if you find yourself, your colleagues or members of your team in such situations.
|Important Because=Many of us think academia will provide a safe, sensible and intellectual environment in which #MeToo behaviour is absent. Unfortunately, it sometimes isn’t. Although the play is fictitious, it is based on interviews, some of which were confidential. The purpose of the play is to create awareness of harassment in academia – which tends to impact young researchers or support staff in particular – while also exploring individual and institutional ways to address these issues and create a safe working environment.
|Important For=Research institutions; Research performing organisations
|Is Flagged=No
}}
{{Related To
|Related To Theme=Theme:Ff9344f4-a4ca-4139-9bd7-076612f70e21;Theme:B2331451-5a6a-4aa2-a3d5-c68d2c96c8e1
}}
{{Tags
|Involves=Het Acteursgenootschap; De Jonge Akademie; INSPIRE
|Has Location=The Netherlands
|Has Virtue And Value=Respect
|Has Good Practice And Misconduct=Bullying; Mentor/trainee relationship; Power abuse; Sexual harassment
}}

Theme:520b3bc7-a6ab-4617-95f2-89c9dee31c53

2020-12-29T15:03:18Z

0000-0003-4446-327X:

{{Theme
|Theme Type=Principles & Aspirations
|Title=Virtues in research integrity
|Is About=‘Virtue’ derives from ancient Greek - ἀρετή - and means ‘excellence of any kind’. To be virtuous means to strive towards living in compliance with one’s full potential, intellectually as well as morally. The reference to full potential shows that the ability to develop a virtue is innate;yet, in order to become virtuous, one needs to practice. A distinction can be made between intellectual or epistemological virtues and moral virtues. Both types of virtues are character traits, relevant for research integrity, as doing good research requires intellectual and moral excellence.
|Important Because=Research integrity is not only about following rules. It also requires personal engagement and competence. These requirements show that research integrity requires virtues. A person who is virtuous, not merely follows methodological or moral rules, but embodies goodness or excellence . <ref>[http://artsfaculty.auckland.ac.nz/staff/?UPI=rhur007 Hursthouse], R. and Pettigrove, G (2016). “Virtue Ethics”. Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Accessible at: https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/ethics-virtue/.</ref> Goodness or excellence in research depends on what we do, as well as on who we are, intellectually and morally. The possession of a virtue says something about this person as a person. So, to tell of a person that she is imaginative or honest, is to say something about this person’s character. Aristotle described virtue as ‘the state of character which makes a man good and which makes him do his work well.’ <ref>Aristotle (1925). Nicomachean ethics (translation D.W. Ross). Oxford: Clarendon Press</ref> MacIntyre defined virtue as ‘an acquired human quality the possession and the exercise of which tends to enable us to achieve those goods which are internal to practices and the lack of which effectively prevents us from achieving any such goods’. <ref>MacIntyre, A. C. (2014). After virtue. London: Bloomsbury.</ref> MacIntyre, therefore, emphasized the importance of practice for the expression and development of virtues.

Aristotle distinguishes between two kinds of virtues, intellectual and moral virtues. Examples of the first kind of virtues are critical thinking, curiosity, imaginativeness, perseverance and open-mindedness. Examples of moral virtues are courage, honesty, generosity, fair-mindedness, and justice. Although intellectual and moral virtues are distinct, they have in common that they are both character traits.

A number of attempts have been made to identify which virtues are essential for good scientific practice . <ref>Pennock, R. in Abstract nr PM-064. (2017) Available at: <nowiki>http://www.wcri2017.org/organization/conference-proceedings</nowiki>. (Accessed: 24th August 2017).</ref> <ref>Marusic, A. (confidential) Report on the results from the stakeholder focus groups.</ref> These include: honesty;curiosity;attentiveness or observance;perseverance or patience; objectivity; humility to evidence; skepticism; meticulousness; courage; collaboration; resoluteness; accountability; availability; competency; reliability; sincerity; creativity; accountability; punctuality; truthfulness; selflessness; reflexivity; clarity of purpose; collaborative spirit; fairness; loyalty; moderation; positivity/open-mindedness; respectfulness.

According to Aristotle, a virtuous person has the disposition to act in accordance with the right middle. A virtuous person is able to see and do what is right in the specific situation, and knows how to avoid the extremes of showing too little or too much. An example of a virtue is courage. Someone who is brave knows how to find the right middle between the extremes of cowardice on the one hand and recklessness on the other. That applies not only to war, to the Greeks an important example of human action. It also applies to interacting with people with whom one collaborates. For example, if the person makes a mistake, it may be important to tell her ' the truth '. That requires courage, as the right middle between making an allusion in the hope that the other understands the message, and confronting the other in public with the fact that she does something wrong. What is the right middle depends on the situation, that is, the seriousness of the error, the openness of the other for the message, and the ability of the person who performs the act. In some cases the right middle is closer to being cautious;in other cases more emphasis is needed.

Being virtuous means living in accordance with one’s natural potential. Thus, virtues refer to human nature. Yet, developing virtues requires training and exercise in practice. In practice, one learns to see what is the importance of, for example, honesty as openness to criticism, and how it can be adequately shaped. How much attention should you devote to literature before you do a study? When does that literature help sharpen the mind, and when does it lead to confusion? Of course it is important to study existing investigations before one starts to research, for example by doing a systematic review. But how to ensure that this really gives an insight into what was previously found, and provides a connecting factor for further research? The same applies to the discussion of possible explanations for results of own research. What literature do you refer to, and how do you use it to sharpen the findings? Do the quoted articles really help them to better understand the outcomes of the study, draw conclusions and formulate new questions? The answer to such questions does not come from textbooks, but requires insights and skills that are already acquired in practice.
<references />
|Important For=PhD Students; Junior researchers; Senior researchers; Postdocs; All stakeholders in research; Research integrity trainers
|Has Best Practice=Values and norms are core concepts in moral reflection about research integrity. For instance in Moral Case Deliberation (MCD), a method used to reflect on morally troublesome situations investigation of values and norms is used to deepen the understanding of the situation at stake. <ref>MacIntyre, A. C. (2014). After virtue. London: Bloomsbury.</ref> A core element in this investigation, guided by a facilitator, is analysing the case by looking at the values and norms of all relevant perspectives (persons involved in the case and/or participants in the MCD meeting). Which values motivate each of the persons? How can these values be specified into norms for the person? For example, a moral issue might concern supervision. Should one, as a supervisor of a PhD student, in preparing a response to a reviewer, give guidance and correct mistakes, or at some point take over the writing? A relevant value for the supervisor in the case might be: autonomy. The corresponding norm in the case could be: I should give the opportunity to the PhD student to try this herself. Another value might be: effectiveness. The norm related to this value in the concrete situation could be: the article should be accepted and published. In analysing the case from the perspective of the supervisor, the group becomes aware of these conflicting values. This may then give rise to a dialogue on what value is most important in this situation. This can lead to a conclusion on the most desirable norm and related course of action. Also, the dialogue might provide insights in how to deal with the conflicting value which turns out less important. How can one do justice to the value which will not be realized? In the example, efficiency might turn out to be most important for the supervisor, meaning that at a certain point she will take over the writing. In order to do justice to the value of autonomy, the supervisor might, for instance, propose that the PhD student will get more responsibilty for writing the response after submission of the next article. MCD can thus foster decision making, not by prescribing a rule, but by fostering reflection and dialogue, enabling participants to achieve an new and richer view on the situation.

It is useful to differentiate between three different types of scientific values and norms: ''internal'' values and norms, ''external'' values and norms, and ''linkage'' values and norms . <ref>Pennock, R. in Abstract nr PM-064. (2017) Available at: <nowiki>http://www.wcri2017.org/organization/conference-proceedings</nowiki>. (Accessed: 24th August 2017).</ref>''Internal'' values and norms of science justify and guide the practice of science itself. Examples of scientific values of the internal kind are: ''truth, honesty, simplicity, consistency, coherence, economy, exactitude and completeness, openness, open-mindedness, confidence, originality and ‘interestingness’.'' External values and norms comprise general ideals and rules for action which are relevant for science, but are not constitutive of the practice of science itself. Examples of external values are human (and animal) welfare notions which are related to the wider social and cultural context in which scientists operate. Finally, we have a different set of values and norms guiding scientific research which represent normative points of contact - linkage - between the research community and the community at large, between internal and external values and norms. Examples are requirements of fruitfulness and relevance.
<references />
|Has Detail=This list might help when using virtues in e.g. teaching about responsible conduct of research.
{{{!}} class="wikitable"
{{!}}+
!Virtue
!Meanings in research integrity & ethics
{{!}}-
{{!}}Accountability
{{!}}Responsibility, answerability
{{!}}-
{{!}}Availability
{{!}}Efficaciousness, readiness to come to effect
{{!}}-
{{!}}Clarity of purpose
{{!}}Visionary, targeted, zeal
{{!}}-
{{!}}Collaborative spirit
{{!}}Cooperative, synergistic, sharing
{{!}}-
{{!}}Competency
{{!}}Expertise, proficiency, capability
{{!}}-
{{!}}Compliance
{{!}}Willingness to conform/follow
{{!}}-
{{!}}Courage
{{!}}Braveness, heroic resoluteness
{{!}}-
{{!}}Creativity
{{!}}Inventiveness, imagination, originality
{{!}}-
{{!}}Critical awareness
{{!}}Analytic, insightful, rationality
{{!}}-
{{!}}Curiosity
{{!}}Eagerness to know or to explore, inquisitiveness
{{!}}-
{{!}}Diligence
{{!}}Earnestness, perseverance in carrying out action
{{!}}-
{{!}}Empathy
{{!}}Understanding, compassion, recognition
{{!}}-
{{!}}Fairness
{{!}}Justice, equity
{{!}}-
{{!}}Honesty
{{!}}Truthfulness, candidness, sincerity
{{!}}-
{{!}}Humility
{{!}}Humbleness, modesty
{{!}}-
{{!}}Loyalty
{{!}}Faithfulness, allegiance, fidelity
{{!}}-
{{!}}Moderation
{{!}}Temperance, patience
{{!}}-
{{!}}Morality
{{!}}Ethicalness, righteousness, decency
{{!}}-
{{!}}Objectivity
{{!}}Neutrality, unbiased, impartiality, open-minded
{{!}}-
{{!}}Open-mindedness
{{!}}Willing to reconsider views, receptiveness, tolerance
{{!}}-
{{!}}Patience
{{!}}Perseverance, willingness to endure
{{!}}-
{{!}}Perseverance
{{!}}Dedication, determination, persistence
{{!}}-
{{!}}Positivity
{{!}}Alacrity, willingness
{{!}}-
{{!}}Punctuality
{{!}}Readiness, promptness, steadiness
{{!}}-
{{!}}Reflexivity
{{!}}Thoughtfulness, contemplativeness, deliberation
{{!}}-
{{!}}Reliability
{{!}}Trustworthiness, accuracy, dependability
{{!}}-
{{!}}Resoluteness
{{!}}Determination, persistence, purposefulness
{{!}}-
{{!}}Respectfulness
{{!}}Politeness, having good manners, courtesy
{{!}}-
{{!}}Responsibility
{{!}}Accountability, liable, trustworthiness, truthfulness
{{!}}-
{{!}}Selflessness
{{!}}Altruism, benevolence
{{!}}-
{{!}}Sincerity
{{!}}Earnestness, truthfulness, veracity, honesty
{{!}}-
{{!}}Thoroughness
{{!}}Care, scrupulousness
{{!}}-
{{!}}Transparency
{{!}}Clarity, not hiding, honesty, openness
{{!}}-
{{!}}Trustworthiness/truthfulness
{{!}}Honesty, accuracy, sincerity
{{!}}}
|Has Reference=a
}}
{{Related To
|Related To Theme=Theme:17d406f9-0b0f-4325-aa2d-2fe186d5ff34;Theme:Cda80c83-0101-4e27-bdc0-87a45846e5ed
}}
{{Tags
|Has Good Practice And Misconduct=Responsible research
}}

Theme:520b3bc7-a6ab-4617-95f2-89c9dee31c53

2020-12-29T15:01:50Z

0000-0003-4446-327X:

{{Theme
|Theme Type=Principles & Aspirations
|Title=Virtues in research integrity
|Is About=‘Virtue’ derives from ancient Greek - ἀρετή - and means ‘excellence of any kind’. To be virtuous means to strive towards living in compliance with one’s full potential, intellectually as well as morally. The reference to full potential shows that the ability to develop a virtue is innate;yet, in order to become virtuous, one needs to practice. A distinction can be made between intellectual or epistemological virtues and moral virtues. Both types of virtues are character traits, relevant for research integrity, as doing good research requires intellectual and moral excellence.
|Important Because=Research integrity is not only about following rules. It also requires personal engagement and competence. These requirements show that research integrity requires virtues. A person who is virtuous, not merely follows methodological or moral rules, but embodies goodness or excellence . <ref>[http://artsfaculty.auckland.ac.nz/staff/?UPI=rhur007 Hursthouse], R. and Pettigrove, G (2016). “Virtue Ethics”. Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Accessible at: https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/ethics-virtue/.</ref> Goodness or excellence in research depends on what we do, as well as on who we are, intellectually and morally. The possession of a virtue says something about this person as a person. So, to tell of a person that she is imaginative or honest, is to say something about this person’s character. Aristotle described virtue as ‘the state of character which makes a man good and which makes him do his work well.’ <ref>Aristotle (1925). Nicomachean ethics (translation D.W. Ross). Oxford: Clarendon Press</ref> MacIntyre defined virtue as ‘an acquired human quality the possession and the exercise of which tends to enable us to achieve those goods which are internal to practices and the lack of which effectively prevents us from achieving any such goods’. <ref>MacIntyre, A. C. (2014). After virtue. London: Bloomsbury.</ref> MacIntyre, therefore, emphasized the importance of practice for the expression and development of virtues.

Aristotle distinguishes between two kinds of virtues, intellectual and moral virtues. Examples of the first kind of virtues are critical thinking, curiosity, imaginativeness, perseverance and open-mindedness. Examples of moral virtues are courage, honesty, generosity, fair-mindedness, and justice. Although intellectual and moral virtues are distinct, they have in common that they are both character traits.

A number of attempts have been made to identify which virtues are essential for good scientific practice . <ref>Pennock, R. in Abstract nr PM-064. (2017) Available at: <nowiki>http://www.wcri2017.org/organization/conference-proceedings</nowiki>. (Accessed: 24th August 2017).</ref> <ref>Marusic, A. (confidential) Report on the results from the stakeholder focus groups.</ref> These include: honesty;curiosity;attentiveness or observance;perseverance or patience; objectivity; humility to evidence; skepticism; meticulousness; courage; collaboration; resoluteness; accountability; availability; competency; reliability; sincerity; creativity; accountability; punctuality; truthfulness; selflessness; reflexivity; clarity of purpose; collaborative spirit; fairness; loyalty; moderation; positivity/open-mindedness; respectfulness.

According to Aristotle, a virtuous person has the disposition to act in accordance with the right middle. A virtuous person is able to see and do what is right in the specific situation, and knows how to avoid the extremes of showing too little or too much. An example of a virtue is courage. Someone who is brave knows how to find the right middle between the extremes of cowardice on the one hand and recklessness on the other. That applies not only to war, to the Greeks an important example of human action. It also applies to interacting with people with whom one collaborates. For example, if the person makes a mistake, it may be important to tell her ' the truth '. That requires courage, as the right middle between making an allusion in the hope that the other understands the message, and confronting the other in public with the fact that she does something wrong. What is the right middle depends on the situation, that is, the seriousness of the error, the openness of the other for the message, and the ability of the person who performs the act. In some cases the right middle is closer to being cautious;in other cases more emphasis is needed.

Being virtuous means living in accordance with one’s natural potential. Thus, virtues refer to human nature. Yet, developing virtues requires training and exercise in practice. In practice, one learns to see what is the importance of, for example, honesty as openness to criticism, and how it can be adequately shaped. How much attention should you devote to literature before you do a study? When does that literature help sharpen the mind, and when does it lead to confusion? Of course it is important to study existing investigations before one starts to research, for example by doing a systematic review. But how to ensure that this really gives an insight into what was previously found, and provides a connecting factor for further research? The same applies to the discussion of possible explanations for results of own research. What literature do you refer to, and how do you use it to sharpen the findings? Do the quoted articles really help them to better understand the outcomes of the study, draw conclusions and formulate new questions? The answer to such questions does not come from textbooks, but requires insights and skills that are already acquired in practice.
<references />
|Important For=PhD Students; Junior researchers; Senior researchers; Postdocs; All stakeholders in research
|Has Best Practice=Values and norms are core concepts in moral reflection about research integrity. For instance in Moral Case Deliberation (MCD), a method used to reflect on morally troublesome situations investigation of values and norms is used to deepen the understanding of the situation at stake. <ref>MacIntyre, A. C. (2014). After virtue. London: Bloomsbury.</ref> A core element in this investigation, guided by a facilitator, is analysing the case by looking at the values and norms of all relevant perspectives (persons involved in the case and/or participants in the MCD meeting). Which values motivate each of the persons? How can these values be specified into norms for the person? For example, a moral issue might concern supervision. Should one, as a supervisor of a PhD student, in preparing a response to a reviewer, give guidance and correct mistakes, or at some point take over the writing? A relevant value for the supervisor in the case might be: autonomy. The corresponding norm in the case could be: I should give the opportunity to the PhD student to try this herself. Another value might be: effectiveness. The norm related to this value in the concrete situation could be: the article should be accepted and published. In analysing the case from the perspective of the supervisor, the group becomes aware of these conflicting values. This may then give rise to a dialogue on what value is most important in this situation. This can lead to a conclusion on the most desirable norm and related course of action. Also, the dialogue might provide insights in how to deal with the conflicting value which turns out less important. How can one do justice to the value which will not be realized? In the example, efficiency might turn out to be most important for the supervisor, meaning that at a certain point she will take over the writing. In order to do justice to the value of autonomy, the supervisor might, for instance, propose that the PhD student will get more responsibilty for writing the response after submission of the next article. MCD can thus foster decision making, not by prescribing a rule, but by fostering reflection and dialogue, enabling participants to achieve an new and richer view on the situation.

It is useful to differentiate between three different types of scientific values and norms: ''internal'' values and norms, ''external'' values and norms, and ''linkage'' values and norms . <ref>Pennock, R. in Abstract nr PM-064. (2017) Available at: <nowiki>http://www.wcri2017.org/organization/conference-proceedings</nowiki>. (Accessed: 24th August 2017).</ref>''Internal'' values and norms of science justify and guide the practice of science itself. Examples of scientific values of the internal kind are: ''truth, honesty, simplicity, consistency, coherence, economy, exactitude and completeness, openness, open-mindedness, confidence, originality and ‘interestingness’.'' External values and norms comprise general ideals and rules for action which are relevant for science, but are not constitutive of the practice of science itself. Examples of external values are human (and animal) welfare notions which are related to the wider social and cultural context in which scientists operate. Finally, we have a different set of values and norms guiding scientific research which represent normative points of contact - linkage - between the research community and the community at large, between internal and external values and norms. Examples are requirements of fruitfulness and relevance.
<references />
|Has Detail=This list might help when using virtues in e.g. teaching about responsible conduct of research.
{{{!}} class="wikitable"
{{!}}+
!Virtue
!Meanings in research integrity & ethics
{{!}}-
{{!}}Accountability
{{!}}Responsibility, answerability
{{!}}-
{{!}}Availability
{{!}}Efficaciousness, readiness to come to effect
{{!}}-
{{!}}Clarity of purpose
{{!}}Visionary, targeted, zeal
{{!}}-
{{!}}Collaborative spirit
{{!}}Cooperative, synergistic, sharing
{{!}}-
{{!}}Competency
{{!}}Expertise, proficiency, capability
{{!}}-
{{!}}Compliance
{{!}}Willingness to conform/follow
{{!}}-
{{!}}Courage
{{!}}Braveness, heroic resoluteness
{{!}}-
{{!}}Creativity
{{!}}Inventiveness, imagination, originality
{{!}}-
{{!}}Critical awareness
{{!}}Analytic, insightful, rationality
{{!}}-
{{!}}Curiosity
{{!}}Eagerness to know or to explore, inquisitiveness
{{!}}-
{{!}}Diligence
{{!}}Earnestness, perseverance in carrying out action
{{!}}-
{{!}}Empathy
{{!}}Understanding, compassion, recognition
{{!}}-
{{!}}Fairness
{{!}}Justice, equity
{{!}}-
{{!}}Honesty
{{!}}Truthfulness, candidness, sincerity
{{!}}-
{{!}}Humility
{{!}}Humbleness, modesty
{{!}}-
{{!}}Loyalty
{{!}}Faithfulness, allegiance, fidelity
{{!}}-
{{!}}Moderation
{{!}}Temperance, patience
{{!}}-
{{!}}Morality
{{!}}Ethicalness, righteousness, decency
{{!}}-
{{!}}Objectivity
{{!}}Neutrality, unbiased, impartiality, open-minded
{{!}}-
{{!}}Open-mindedness
{{!}}Willing to reconsider views, receptiveness, tolerance
{{!}}-
{{!}}Patience
{{!}}Perseverance, willingness to endure
{{!}}-
{{!}}Perseverance
{{!}}Dedication, determination, persistence
{{!}}-
{{!}}Positivity
{{!}}Alacrity, willingness
{{!}}-
{{!}}Punctuality
{{!}}Readiness, promptness, steadiness
{{!}}-
{{!}}Reflexivity
{{!}}Thoughtfulness, contemplativeness, deliberation
{{!}}-
{{!}}Reliability
{{!}}Trustworthiness, accuracy, dependability
{{!}}-
{{!}}Resoluteness
{{!}}Determination, persistence, purposefulness
{{!}}-
{{!}}Respectfulness
{{!}}Politeness, having good manners, courtesy
{{!}}-
{{!}}Responsibility
{{!}}Accountability, liable, trustworthiness, truthfulness
{{!}}-
{{!}}Selflessness
{{!}}Altruism, benevolence
{{!}}-
{{!}}Sincerity
{{!}}Earnestness, truthfulness, veracity, honesty
{{!}}-
{{!}}Thoroughness
{{!}}Care, scrupulousness
{{!}}-
{{!}}Transparency
{{!}}Clarity, not hiding, honesty, openness
{{!}}-
{{!}}Trustworthiness/truthfulness
{{!}}Honesty, accuracy, sincerity
{{!}}}
|Has Reference=a
}}
{{Related To
|Related To Theme=Theme:17d406f9-0b0f-4325-aa2d-2fe186d5ff34;Theme:Cda80c83-0101-4e27-bdc0-87a45846e5ed
}}
{{Tags
|Has Good Practice And Misconduct=Responsible research
}}

Theme:520b3bc7-a6ab-4617-95f2-89c9dee31c53

2020-12-29T14:59:37Z

0000-0003-4446-327X:

{{Theme
|Theme Type=Principles & Aspirations
|Title=Virtues in research integrity
|Is About=‘Virtue’ derives from ancient Greek - ἀρετή - and means ‘excellence of any kind’. To be virtuous means to strive towards living in compliance with one’s full potential, intellectually as well as morally. The reference to full potential shows that the ability to develop a virtue is innate;yet, in order to become virtuous, one needs to practice. A distinction can be made between intellectual or epistemological virtues and moral virtues. Both types of virtues are character traits, relevant for research integrity, as doing good research requires intellectual and moral excellence.
|Important Because=Research integrity is not only about following rules. It also requires personal engagement and competence. These requirements show that research integrity requires virtues. A person who is virtuous, not merely follows methodological or moral rules, but embodies goodness or excellence . <ref>[http://artsfaculty.auckland.ac.nz/staff/?UPI=rhur007 Hursthouse], R. and Pettigrove, G (2016). “Virtue Ethics”. Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Accessible at: https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/ethics-virtue/.</ref> Goodness or excellence in research depends on what we do, as well as on who we are, intellectually and morally. The possession of a virtue says something about this person as a person. So, to tell of a person that she is imaginative or honest, is to say something about this person’s character. Aristotle described virtue as ‘the state of character which makes a man good and which makes him do his work well.’ <ref>Aristotle (1925). Nicomachean ethics (translation D.W. Ross). Oxford: Clarendon Press</ref> MacIntyre defined virtue as ‘an acquired human quality the possession and the exercise of which tends to enable us to achieve those goods which are internal to practices and the lack of which effectively prevents us from achieving any such goods’. <ref>MacIntyre, A. C. (2014). After virtue. London: Bloomsbury.</ref> MacIntyre, therefore, emphasized the importance of practice for the expression and development of virtues.

Aristotle distinguishes between two kinds of virtues, intellectual and moral virtues. Examples of the first kind of virtues are critical thinking, curiosity, imaginativeness, perseverance and open-mindedness. Examples of moral virtues are courage, honesty, generosity, fair-mindedness, and justice. Although intellectual and moral virtues are distinct, they have in common that they are both character traits.

A number of attempts have been made to identify which virtues are essential for good scientific practice . <ref>Pennock, R. in Abstract nr PM-064. (2017) Available at: <nowiki>http://www.wcri2017.org/organization/conference-proceedings</nowiki>. (Accessed: 24th August 2017).</ref> <ref>Marusic, A. (confidential) Report on the results from the stakeholder focus groups.</ref> These include: honesty;curiosity;attentiveness or observance;perseverance or patience; objectivity; humility to evidence; skepticism; meticulousness; courage; collaboration; resoluteness; accountability; availability; competency; reliability; sincerity; creativity; accountability; punctuality; truthfulness; selflessness; reflexivity; clarity of purpose; collaborative spirit; fairness; loyalty; moderation; positivity/open-mindedness; respectfulness.

According to Aristotle, a virtuous person has the disposition to act in accordance with the right middle. A virtuous person is able to see and do what is right in the specific situation, and knows how to avoid the extremes of showing too little or too much. An example of a virtue is courage. Someone who is brave knows how to find the right middle between the extremes of cowardice on the one hand and recklessness on the other. That applies not only to war, to the Greeks an important example of human action. It also applies to interacting with people with whom one collaborates. For example, if the person makes a mistake, it may be important to tell her ' the truth '. That requires courage, as the right middle between making an allusion in the hope that the other understands the message, and confronting the other in public with the fact that she does something wrong. What is the right middle depends on the situation, that is, the seriousness of the error, the openness of the other for the message, and the ability of the person who performs the act. In some cases the right middle is closer to being cautious;in other cases more emphasis is needed.

Being virtuous means living in accordance with one’s natural potential. Thus, virtues refer to human nature. Yet, developing virtues requires training and exercise in practice. In practice, one learns to see what is the importance of, for example, honesty as openness to criticism, and how it can be adequately shaped. How much attention should you devote to literature before you do a study? When does that literature help sharpen the mind, and when does it lead to confusion? Of course it is important to study existing investigations before one starts to research, for example by doing a systematic review. But how to ensure that this really gives an insight into what was previously found, and provides a connecting factor for further research? The same applies to the discussion of possible explanations for results of own research. What literature do you refer to, and how do you use it to sharpen the findings? Do the quoted articles really help them to better understand the outcomes of the study, draw conclusions and formulate new questions? The answer to such questions does not come from textbooks, but requires insights and skills that are already acquired in practice.
<references />
|Important For=PhD Students; Junior researchers; Senior researchers; Postdocs; All stakeholders in research
|Has Best Practice=Values and norms are core concepts in moral reflection about research integrity. For instance in Moral Case Deliberation (MCD), a method used to reflect on morally troublesome situations investigation of values and norms is used to deepen the understanding of the situation at stake. <ref>MacIntyre, A. C. (2014). After virtue. London: Bloomsbury.</ref> A core element in this investigation, guided by a facilitator, is analysing the case by looking at the values and norms of all relevant perspectives (persons involved in the case and/or participants in the MCD meeting). Which values motivate each of the persons? How can these values be specified into norms for the person? For example, a moral issue might concern supervision. Should one, as a supervisor of a PhD student, in preparing a response to a reviewer, give guidance and correct mistakes, or at some point take over the writing? A relevant value for the supervisor in the case might be: autonomy. The corresponding norm in the case could be: I should give the opportunity to the PhD student to try this herself. Another value might be: effectiveness. The norm related to this value in the concrete situation could be: the article should be accepted and published. In analysing the case from the perspective of the supervisor, the group becomes aware of these conflicting values. This may then give rise to a dialogue on what value is most important in this situation. This can lead to a conclusion on the most desirable norm and related course of action. Also, the dialogue might provide insights in how to deal with the conflicting value which turns out less important. How can one do justice to the value which will not be realized? In the example, efficiency might turn out to be most important for the supervisor, meaning that at a certain point she will take over the writing. In order to do justice to the value of autonomy, the supervisor might, for instance, propose that the PhD student will get more responsibilty for writing the response after submission of the next article. MCD can thus foster decision making, not by prescribing a rule, but by fostering reflection and dialogue, enabling participants to achieve an new and richer view on the situation.

It is useful to differentiate between three different types of scientific values and norms: ''internal'' values and norms, ''external'' values and norms, and ''linkage'' values and norms . <ref>Pennock, R. in Abstract nr PM-064. (2017) Available at: <nowiki>http://www.wcri2017.org/organization/conference-proceedings</nowiki>. (Accessed: 24th August 2017).</ref>''Internal'' values and norms of science justify and guide the practice of science itself. Examples of scientific values of the internal kind are: ''truth, honesty, simplicity, consistency, coherence, economy, exactitude and completeness, openness, open-mindedness, confidence, originality and ‘interestingness’.'' External values and norms comprise general ideals and rules for action which are relevant for science, but are not constitutive of the practice of science itself. Examples of external values are human (and animal) welfare notions which are related to the wider social and cultural context in which scientists operate. Finally, we have a different set of values and norms guiding scientific research which represent normative points of contact - linkage - between the research community and the community at large, between internal and external values and norms. Examples are requirements of fruitfulness and relevance.
<references />
|Has Detail= 
{{{!}} class="wikitable"
{{!}}+
!Virtue
!Meanings in research integrity
{{!}}-
{{!}}Accountability
{{!}}Responsibility, answerability
{{!}}-
{{!}}Availability
{{!}}Efficaciousness, readiness to come to effect
{{!}}-
{{!}}Clarity of purpose
{{!}}Visionary, targeted, zeal
{{!}}-
{{!}}Collaborative spirit
{{!}}Cooperative, synergistic, sharing
{{!}}-
{{!}}Competency
{{!}}Expertise, proficiency, capability
{{!}}-
{{!}}Compliance
{{!}}Willingness to conform/follow
{{!}}-
{{!}}Courage
{{!}}Braveness, heroic resoluteness
{{!}}-
{{!}}Creativity
{{!}}Inventiveness, imagination, originality
{{!}}-
{{!}}Critical awareness
{{!}}Analytic, insightful, rationality
{{!}}-
{{!}}Curiosity
{{!}}Eagerness to know or to explore, inquisitiveness
{{!}}-
{{!}}Diligence
{{!}}Earnestness, perseverance in carrying out action
{{!}}-
{{!}}Empathy
{{!}}Understanding, compassion, recognition
{{!}}-
{{!}}Fairness
{{!}}Justice, equity
{{!}}-
{{!}}Honesty
{{!}}Truthfulness, candidness, sincerity
{{!}}-
{{!}}Humility
{{!}}Humbleness, modesty
{{!}}-
{{!}}Loyalty
{{!}}Faithfulness, allegiance, fidelity
{{!}}-
{{!}}Moderation
{{!}}Temperance, patience
{{!}}-
{{!}}Morality
{{!}}Ethicalness, righteousness, decency
{{!}}-
{{!}}Objectivity
{{!}}Neutrality, unbiased, impartiality, open-minded
{{!}}-
{{!}}Open-mindedness
{{!}}Willing to reconsider views, receptiveness, tolerance
{{!}}-
{{!}}Patience
{{!}}Perseverance, willingness to endure
{{!}}-
{{!}}Perseverance
{{!}}Dedication, determination, persistence
{{!}}-
{{!}}Positivity
{{!}}Alacrity, willingness
{{!}}-
{{!}}Punctuality
{{!}}Readiness, promptness, steadiness
{{!}}-
{{!}}Reflexivity
{{!}}Thoughtfulness, contemplativeness, deliberation
{{!}}-
{{!}}Reliability
{{!}}Trustworthiness, accuracy, dependability
{{!}}-
{{!}}Resoluteness
{{!}}Determination, persistence, purposefulness
{{!}}-
{{!}}Respectfulness
{{!}}Politeness, having good manners, courtesy
{{!}}-
{{!}}Responsibility
{{!}}Accountability, liable, trustworthiness, truthfulness
{{!}}-
{{!}}Selflessness
{{!}}Altruism, benevolence
{{!}}-
{{!}}Sincerity
{{!}}Earnestness, truthfulness, veracity, honesty
{{!}}-
{{!}}Thoroughness
{{!}}Care, scrupulousness
{{!}}-
{{!}}Transparency
{{!}}Clarity, not hiding, honesty, openness
{{!}}-
{{!}}Trustworthiness/truthfulness
{{!}}Honesty, accuracy, sincerity
{{!}}}
|Has Reference=a
}}
{{Related To
|Related To Theme=Theme:17d406f9-0b0f-4325-aa2d-2fe186d5ff34;Theme:Cda80c83-0101-4e27-bdc0-87a45846e5ed
}}
{{Tags
|Has Good Practice And Misconduct=Responsible research
}}

Instruction:64cb2917-6ee4-44ca-ad3b-b998bc6786ea

2020-11-05T14:01:52Z

0000-0003-4446-327X:

{{Instruction
|Title=Self declaration approach, a reflection on the varieties of goodness in research
|Instruction Goal=This exercise fosters reflection on the concept of goodness and how it applies in the context of research.
|Has Requirements=You need to have read the exercise's instructions before experiencing the exercise.

Moreover, you need to be acquainted with:

1) The concept of [[Theme:520b3bc7-a6ab-4617-95f2-89c9dee31c53|virtue]] and its importance for RI;

2) The content of the [https://ec.europa.eu/research/participants/data/ref/h2020/other/hi/h2020-ethics_code-of-conduct_en.pdf European Code of Conduct for Research Integrity.]

You need to have a background in research (i.e. be employed as researchers) or be a trainer/educator/teacher who has had experience in research in the past.
|Has Duration=1
|Has Participants=20
|Important For=Researchers; Trainers in training; Research integrity trainers
|Has Method=Face to Face; Participatory sessions
}}
{{Custom TabContent Trainee Open}}
{{Instruction Steps Foldout Trainee}}
{{Instruction Perspective Trainee
|Is About=The Self-Declaration Approach (SDA) is an exercise designed to stimulate reflection on research integrity in a classroom setting which uses the question of “what is goodness and how may it be categorized” as a springboard. It makes use of participants’ responses specifically by gathering the participants’ thoughts and intuitions on goodness. For this purpose, a tool is used, the self-declaration sheet. This sheet gathers the trainees’ thoughts on the definition of goodness in research and on personal experiences on the topic.
|Important Because=The study of research integrity can quickly become a rote process without knowing what goodness in research consists in. Knowing what goodness is and what a good research is are good foundations for the study of research integrity. This reflection brings focus on the very reason why we uphold integrity in research.
|Has Practical Tips=You can use the following questions to stimulate reflection in subgroups:

1. Share with the group your inputs in the self-declaration sheets on the types of goodness. Explain why you think your example exemplifies a certain type of goodness. Allow your group mates to ask questions.

2. For each typology of goodness, discuss with your group what can happen if a type of goodness is not present.

3. Are there varieties of goodness that are less relevant for research integrity?

4. Are virtues necessary to achieve each typology of goodness?
}}
{{Instruction Step Trainee
|Instruction Step Title=Preparation
|Instruction Step Text=A few weeks before the session, you will be asked by your trainer to prepare for the session. For this you will need to fill out the [https://www.dropbox.com/s/078geogqap548ne/SDA%20sheet%20ver%203%20%281%29.docx?dl=0 self-declaration sheet] (which will be sent to you by your trainer) and send it to the trainer at least a week before the training session. The self-declaration sheet allows you to reflect on your intuitions on goodness and will be used by the trainer to include your intuitions in the discussion during the session.
}}
{{Instruction Step Trainee
|Instruction Step Title=Experiencing the exercise
|Instruction Step Text=During the session, you are guided by a trainer who facilitates a group reflection about the concept of goodness. For this purpose, you will:

#Learn about the varieties of goodness in research;
#Reflect on your self declaration sheet in small groups (please look at practical tips for a list of questions you can use to structure your reflection);
#Reflect on how the different typologies of goodness may be categorized;
#Reflect on the content of the European Code of Conduct for Research Integrity (ECoC) by identifying how the typologies of goodness are exemplified in the code.

The session will be based on the input you and the other participants gave in the self-reflection sheet you have filled in.

For an overview of the steps in this exercise please look at the instructions for trainers.
}}
{{Instruction Remarks Trainee
|Has Remarks='''List of contributors:'''

Jan Helge Solbakk, Rosemarie Bernabe, Panagiotis Kavouras, Signe Mezinska, Volkan Kavas, Franca Marino.

This training has been developed by the VIRT2UE project, which has received funding form the European Union’s H2020 research programme under grant agreement N 741782.
}}
{{Custom TabContent Close Trainee}}
{{Custom TabContent Trainer Open}}
{{Instruction Steps Foldout Trainer}}
{{Instruction Perspective Trainer
|Is About=The exercise is designed to stimulate reflection on research integrity in a classroom setting by using the question “what is goodness and how may it be categorized” as a springboard. The focus of the exercise is to discuss the typologies of goodness and to reflect on the concept of goodness in research. This exercise is inspired by a broader and flexible approach, The Self-Declaration Approach (SDA)<ref>Solbakk, JH. (2015). What is it to do good medical ethics? One the concepts of “good” and “goodness” in medical ethics. J Med Ethics (41): 12-16</ref>, which makes use of participants’ responses to a self-declaration sheets to structure reflection on a specific research integrity (RI) topic. Including the participants’ intuitions in the discussion is the hallmark of this approach. This format is flexible in terms of its applicability and adaptability to different RI topics and different audiences.
<references />
|Important Because=The study of research integrity in research can quickly become a rote process without knowing what goodness in research consists in. This exercise is meant to aid reflection on the basics of what we mean by a “good research” anyway.
}}
{{Instruction Step Trainer
|Instruction Step Title=Distribute assignments
|Instruction Step Text=A few weeks before the session, you get in contact with the participants in the session and ask them to prepare by filling out the [https://www.dropbox.com/s/078geogqap548ne/SDA%20sheet%20ver%203%20%281%29.docx?dl=0 self-declaration sheet].

Set a deadline for the assignment and ask participants to send you their self-declaration sheet at least one week before the session.

The self-declaration sheet allows participants to reflect on the typologies of goodness from their standpoint. This also provides you with content for discussion during the session.

When distributing the assignments be sure to mention that participants should not forget to bring a copy (either print or electronic) of their filled-out self-declaration sheets to the session and to be ready to discuss their responses with the rest of the group.

 
}}
{{Instruction Step Trainer
|Instruction Step Title=Protect confidentiality
|Instruction Step Text=Remind participants that responses provided in the self declaration sheet will be used for, and only for, class purposes, and that they should only share information that they are comfortable sharing with the class and that would not necessitate mandatory reporting.

It is strongly recommended to ask participants to sign a confidentiality agreement.
}}
{{Instruction Step Trainer
|Instruction Step Title=Prepare for the session
|Instruction Step Text=Collect the sheets in due time and familiarize yourself with the responses given by participants. Participant’s input will be useful the content of the session.

Prepare a Powerpoint presentation to facilitate the reflection during the session.
}}
{{Instruction Step Trainer
|Instruction Step Title=Introduce the concept of goodness in research
|Instruction Step Text=Give a short presentation of the varieties of goodness with a specific focus on goodness in research.
}}
{{Instruction Step Trainer
|Instruction Step Title=Foster reflection in subgroups
|Instruction Step Text=Divide participants into groups of 3 to 5 and ask them to discuss their inputs in their self-declaration sheets and to relate their inputs to virtues and research integrity .

Provide trainees with the following lists of questions which they can use to stimulate reflection:

1. Share with the group your inputs in the self-declaration sheets on the types of goodness. Explain why you think your example exemplifies a certain type of goodness. Allow your group mates to ask questions.

2. For each typology of goodness, discuss with your group what can happen if a type of goodness is not present.

3. Are there varieties of goodness that are less relevant for research integrity?

4. Are virtues necessary to achieve each typology of goodness?

Give the trainees 20 to 30 minutes to discuss and to decide among themselves who should be the rapporteur.
}}
{{Instruction Step Trainer
|Instruction Step Title=Discuss groups' results and close the session
|Instruction Step Text=After reflecting on the self-declaration sheet in small groups, invite participants to go back to the plenary session and ask them to report on their responses to the questions. Note that during the reporting they don’t have to report on each example. Rather, ask them if there were difficulties in providing examples and if there were disagreements.

Conclude the session by summarizing the group findings and by going through sections of the European Code Of Conduct For Research Integrity ([https://allea.org/code-of-conduct/ ECoC]) that exemplify the typologies of goodness.
}}
{{Instruction Remarks Trainer
|Has Remarks='''List of contributors:'''

Jan Helge Solbakk, Rosemarie Bernabe, Panagiotis Kavouras, Signe Mezinska, Volkan Kavas, Franca Marino.

This training has been developed by the VIRT2UE project, which has received funding form the European Union’s H2020 research programme under grant agreement N 741782.
}}
{{Custom TabContent Close Trainer}}
{{Related To
|Related To Resource=Resource:5bbdd729-8f96-432a-a0ee-56510e343d01
|Related To Theme=Theme:520b3bc7-a6ab-4617-95f2-89c9dee31c53
|Related To Instruction=Instruction:Ba26bb80-b234-463a-b958-e806a5ec4478;Instruction:7ce7ad50-499a-4cca-b09d-b2c1573d94f3;Instruction:A0d97625-d155-4f6f-abd0-2f84413888ad;Instruction:93e9ea5c-0af8-4b3c-9923-487e1d97048f
}}
{{Tags
|Involves=VIRT2UE
|Has Location=Europe
}}

Instruction:64cb2917-6ee4-44ca-ad3b-b998bc6786ea

2020-11-05T13:51:42Z

0000-0003-4446-327X:

{{Instruction
|Title=Self declaration approach, a reflection on the varieties of goodness in research
|Instruction Goal=This exercise fosters reflection on the concept of goodness and how it applies in the context of research.
|Has Requirements=You need to have read the exercise's instructions before experiencing the exercise.

Moreover, you need to be acquainted with:

1) The concept of [[Theme:520b3bc7-a6ab-4617-95f2-89c9dee31c53|virtue]] and its importance for RI;

2) The content of the [https://ec.europa.eu/research/participants/data/ref/h2020/other/hi/h2020-ethics_code-of-conduct_en.pdf European Code of Conduct for Research Integrity.]

You need to have a background in research (i.e. be employed as researchers) or be a trainer/educator/teacher who has had experience in research in the past.
|Has Duration=1
|Has Participants=20
|Important For=Researchers; Trainers in training; Research integrity trainers
|Has Method=Face to Face; Participatory sessions
}}
{{Custom TabContent Trainee Open}}
{{Instruction Steps Foldout Trainee}}
{{Instruction Perspective Trainee
|Is About=The Self-Declaration Approach (SDA) is an exercise designed to stimulate reflection on research integrity in a classroom setting which uses the question of “what is goodness and how may it be categorized” as a springboard. It makes use of participants’ responses specifically by gathering the participants’ thoughts and intuitions on goodness. For this purpose, a tool is used, the self-declaration sheet. This sheet gathers the trainees’ thoughts on the definition of goodness in research and on personal experiences on the topic.
|Important Because=The study of research integrity can quickly become a rote process without knowing what goodness in research consists in. Knowing what goodness is and what a good research is are good foundations for the study of research integrity. This reflection brings focus on the very reason why we uphold integrity in research.
|Has Practical Tips=You can use the following questions to stimulate reflection in subgroups:

1. Share with the group your inputs in the self-declaration sheets on the types of goodness. Explain why you think your example exemplifies a certain type of goodness. Allow your group mates to ask questions.

2. For each typology of goodness, discuss with your group what can happen if a type of goodness is not present.

3. Are there varieties of goodness that are less relevant for research integrity?

4. Are virtues necessary to achieve each typology of goodness?
}}
{{Instruction Step Trainee
|Instruction Step Title=Preparation
|Instruction Step Text=A few weeks before the session, you will be asked by your trainer to prepare for the session. For this you will need to fill out the [https://www.dropbox.com/s/078geogqap548ne/SDA%20sheet%20ver%203%20%281%29.docx?dl=0 self-declaration sheet] (which will be sent to you by your trainer) and send it to the trainer at least a week before the training session. The self-declaration sheet allows you to reflect on your intuitions on goodness and will be used by the trainer to include your intuitions in the discussion during the session.
}}
{{Instruction Step Trainee
|Instruction Step Title=Experiencing the exercise
|Instruction Step Text=During the session, you are guided by a trainer who facilitates a group reflection about the concept of goodness. For this purpose, you will:

#Learn about the varieties of goodness in research;
#Reflect on your self declaration sheet in small groups (please look at practical tips for a list of questions you can use to structure your reflection);
#Reflect on how the different typologies of goodness may be categorized;
#Reflect on the content of the European Code of Conduct for Research Integrity (ECoC) by identifying how the typologies of goodness are exemplified in the code.

The session will be based on the input you and the other participants gave in the self-reflection sheet you have filled in.

For an overview of the steps in this exercise please look at the instructions for trainers.
}}
{{Instruction Remarks Trainee
|Has Remarks='''List of contributors:'''

Jan Helge Solbakk, Rosemarie Bernabe, Panagiotis Kavouras, Signe Mezinska, Volkan Kavas, Franca Marino.

This training has been developed by the VIRT2UE project, which has received funding form the European Union’s H2020 research programme under grant agreement N 741782.
}}
{{Custom TabContent Close Trainee}}
{{Custom TabContent Trainer Open}}
{{Instruction Steps Foldout Trainer}}
{{Instruction Perspective Trainer
|Is About=The exercise is designed to stimulate reflection on research integrity in a classroom setting by using the question “what is goodness and how may it be categorized” as a springboard. The focus of the exercise is to discuss the typologies of goodness and to reflect on the concept of goodness in research. This exercise is inspired by a broader and flexible approach, The Self-Declaration Approach (SDA)<ref>Solbakk, JH. (2015). What is it to do good medical ethics? One the concepts of “good” and “goodness” in medical ethics. J Med Ethics (41): 12-16</ref>, which makes use of participants’ responses to a self-declaration sheets to structure reflection on a specific research integrity (RI) topic. Including the participants’ intuitions in the discussion is the hallmark of this approach. This format is flexible in terms of its applicability and adaptability to different RI topics and different audiences.
<references />
|Important Because=The study of research integrity in research can quickly become a rote process without knowing what goodness in research consists in. This exercise is meant to aid reflection on the basics of what we mean by a “good research” anyway.
}}
{{Instruction Step Trainer
|Instruction Step Title=Distribute assignments
|Instruction Step Text=A few weeks before the session, you get in contact with the participants in the session and ask them to prepare by filling out the [https://www.dropbox.com/s/078geogqap548ne/SDA%20sheet%20ver%203%20%281%29.docx?dl=0 self-declaration sheet].

Set a deadline for the assignment and ask participants to send you their self-declaration sheet at least one week before the session.

The self-declaration sheet allows participants to reflect on the typologies of goodness from their standpoint. This also provides you with content for discussion during the session.

When distributing the assignments be sure to mention that participants should not forget to bring a copy (either print or electronic) of their filled-out self-declaration sheets to the session and to be ready to discuss their responses with the rest of the group.

 
}}
{{Instruction Step Trainer
|Instruction Step Title=Protect confidentiality
|Instruction Step Text=Remind participants that responses provided in the self declaration sheet will be used for, and only for, class purposes, and that they should only share information that they are comfortable sharing with the class and that would not necessitate mandatory reporting.

It is strongly recommended to ask participants to sign a confidentiality agreement.
}}
{{Instruction Step Trainer
|Instruction Step Title=Prepare for the session
|Instruction Step Text=Collect the sheets in due time and familiarize yourself with the responses given by participants. Participant’s input will be useful the content of the session.

Prepare a Powerpoint presentation to facilitate the reflection during the session.
}}
{{Instruction Step Trainer
|Instruction Step Title=Introduce the concept of goodness in research
|Instruction Step Text=Give a short presentation of the varieties of goodness with a specific focus on goodness in research.
}}
{{Instruction Step Trainer
|Instruction Step Title=Foster reflection in subgroups
|Instruction Step Text=Divide participants into groups of 3 to 5 and ask them to discuss their inputs in their self-declaration sheets and to relate their inputs to virtues and research integrity .

Provide trainees with the following lists of questions which they can use to stimulate reflection:

1. Share with the group your inputs in the self-declaration sheets on the types of goodness. Explain why you think your example exemplifies a certain type of goodness. Allow your group mates to ask questions.

2. For each typology of goodness, discuss with your group what can happen if a type of goodness is not present.

3. Are there varieties of goodness that are less relevant for research integrity?

4. Are virtues necessary to achieve each typology of goodness?

Give the trainees 20 to 30 minutes to discuss and to decide among themselves who should be the rapporteur.
}}
{{Instruction Step Trainer
|Instruction Step Title=Discuss groups' results and close the session
|Instruction Step Text=After reflecting on the self-declaration sheet in small groups, invite participants to go back to the plenary session and ask them to report on their responses to the questions. Note that during the reporting they don’t have to report on each example. Rather, ask them if there were difficulties in providing examples and if there were disagreements.

Conclude the session by summarizing the group findings and by going through sections of the European Code Of Conduct For Research Integrity ([https://allea.org/code-of-conduct/ ECoC]) that exemplify the typologies of goodness.
}}
{{Instruction Remarks Trainer
|Has Remarks='''List of contributors:'''

Jan Helge Solbakk, Rosemarie Bernabe, Panagiotis Kavouras, Signe Mezinska, Volkan Kavas, Franca Marino.

This training has been developed by the VIRT2UE project, which has received funding form the European Union’s H2020 research programme under grant agreement N 741782.
}}
{{Custom TabContent Close Trainer}}
{{Related To
|Related To Resource=Resource:5bbdd729-8f96-432a-a0ee-56510e343d01
|Related To Theme=Theme:520b3bc7-a6ab-4617-95f2-89c9dee31c53
|Related To Instruction=Instruction:7ce7ad50-499a-4cca-b09d-b2c1573d94f3;Instruction:A0d97625-d155-4f6f-abd0-2f84413888ad;Instruction:93e9ea5c-0af8-4b3c-9923-487e1d97048f;Instruction:Ba26bb80-b234-463a-b958-e806a5ec4478
}}
{{Tags
|Involves=VIRT2UE
|Has Location=Europe
}}

Instruction:Ba26bb80-b234-463a-b958-e806a5ec4478

2020-11-04T17:23:18Z

0000-0003-4446-327X:

{{Instruction
|Title=Varieties of goodness in research - a rotary style exercise (variation to original VIRT2UE exercise))
|Instruction Goal=See the original version of the exercise.
|Has Duration=1
|Important For=Teachers; Research integrity trainers; Trainers
|Has Method=Participatory sessions
}}
{{Custom TabContent Trainee Open}}
{{Instruction Steps Foldout Trainee}}
{{Instruction Perspective Trainee}}
{{Instruction Remarks Trainee}}
{{Custom TabContent Close Trainee}}
{{Custom TabContent Trainer Open}}
{{Instruction Steps Foldout Trainer}}
{{Instruction Perspective Trainer}}
{{Instruction Step Trainer
|Instruction Step Title=Preparation
|Instruction Step Text=Ask the participants to ll out the preparation sheet and to submit it prior to the training. Read the submitted material and select some examples to use

during the (plenary phase of the) exercise.
}}
{{Instruction Step Trainer
|Instruction Step Title=Introduction
|Instruction Step Text=Introduce the exercise, it's objectives and the 'varieties of goodness'.
}}
{{Instruction Step Trainer
|Instruction Step Title=Example of one Variety of Goodness in research
|Instruction Step Text=Plenary discussion of oneVariety of Goodness in research. The trainer prepared a presentation including:

*Brief explanation of this Variety of Goodness
*Links the Variety of Goodness to research
*Links ECoC to this Variety of Goodness
*Links examples for the preparation sheet by participants to the Variety of Goodness

In each step of the reflection on this Variety of Goodness, the trainer asks the participants to also name examples of research, the code of conduct and own experiences.
}}
{{Instruction Step Trainer
|Instruction Step Title=Create subgroups
|Instruction Step Text=The group is divide in subgroups of 3-5 participants. The groups each pick a different Variety of Goodness that they will start working on. In case there are more Varieties of Goodness than subgroups, the trainer decides together with the participants which Varieties of Goodness will be used. The difficulty of grasping the concept or the similarities between varieties may be taken into account.
}}
{{Instruction Step Trainer
|Instruction Step Title=Round 1 - reflection on research
|Instruction Step Text=Each subgroup receives a flip-over sheet and marker. The name of Variety of Goodness is written on top of the flip-over sheet. The participants think in subgroups of the link between the Variety of Goodness and research and make notes on the flip-over sheet. The trainer encourages them to also use arrows, drawings or other symbols that help to picture their reflection on this Variety of Goodness in research .
}}
{{Instruction Step Trainer
|Instruction Step Title=Round 2 - reflection on the Code of Conduct
|Instruction Step Text=The participants move clockwise to the next flip-over sheet*, so each subgroup now works on another Variety of Goodness. First they read what the previous group wrote down (or drew) on the sheet. They can augment on it, or ask questions to the other group in case they don't fully understand what's on the sheet.

Their task now is to link the Code of Conduct to the Variety of Goodness. Looking at the work of the previous group can help them to identify the relevant paragraphs.

<nowiki>*</nowiki>depending on the logistics in the room, you can also chose to let the subgroups stay at their table and move around the flip-over sheets.
}}
{{Instruction Step Trainer
|Instruction Step Title=Round 3 - reflection on own experiences
|Instruction Step Text=Again the Variety of Goodness are rotated (either by rotating the groups of the sheets to the next table). After reading, where possible augmenting and asking questions on the previous work done on the sheet, the subgroups now reflect on the Variety of Goodness by relating it to their own experiences. They can look back at their preparation sheets and see if they recognize the Variety of Goodness in there. Maybe the work that is presented on the sheet or the examples given by others also trigger new examples.
}}
{{Instruction Step Trainer
|Instruction Step Title=Optional round
|Instruction Step Text=The same exercise as in round 3 can be repeated with the next group. The number of rounds is dependent of the number of subgroups and the time available.
}}
{{Instruction Step Trainer
|Instruction Step Title=Final round - reflection on the results
|Instruction Step Text=This round is especially important when there are more subgroups than rounds, because in that case not all participants have reflected on the different Varieties of Goodness that are discussed. The task of the subgroup is to summarize what is on the sheet and to select the main take home messages of the sheet. The trainer might also ask the groups to select what they found striking or surprising.
}}
{{Instruction Step Trainer
|Instruction Step Title=Closing
|Instruction Step Text=Each subgroup presents the results of the last round to the other groups.

The trainer thanks the participants for their work and the sharing of personal examples; recaps the lessons learnt and might refer to the objectives of the exercise that were presented at the start.

End with evaluation.

Depending on the agreements made prior to the training, the trainer might take a photo of each sheet and share these photo's with the participants so each can look back at the results.
}}
{{Instruction Remarks Trainer}}
{{Custom TabContent Close Trainer}}
{{Related To
|Related To Instruction=Instruction:64cb2917-6ee4-44ca-ad3b-b998bc6786ea
}}
{{Tags
|Involves=INSPIRE; Fenneke Blom
}}

Resource:Fd640d9a-d37e-4aeb-9260-1215ce2adb97

2020-10-29T19:21:57Z

0000-0003-4446-327X:

{{Resource
|Resource Type=Guidelines
|Title=INSPIRE Checklist
|Is About=Part of the INSPIRE project was to develop a checklist to assess and classify initiatives that foster responsible research practices. Following a Delphi method including two online surveys and a workshop, a checklist was drafted, piloted and revised until consensus among the INSPIRE team was achieved. The result is an extensive yet practical checklist that can be used by many stakeholders and for multiple purposes.
|Important Because=It is used for the taxonomy of the spectrum of initiatives that soon will be made available at The Embassy of Good Science. The checklist can also be used by stakeholders to assess and improve their initiatives themselves, or by others who plan to implement an existing initiative, for example which they found in the spectrum on The Embassy!
|Important For=Policy makers; researchers; research leaders; funders; Administrators; All stakeholders in research; Editors; Other; Publishers; Research funding organisations; Research performing organisations; Universities
}}
{{Link
|Has Link=https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.3660247
}}
{{Related To
|Related To Theme=Theme:3c6a13ad-6861-4a5f-bf5b-491693ee6b6d
}}
{{Tags
|Involves=INSPIRE; Fenneke Blom
|Has Timepoint=2018-2020
|Has Location=The Netherlands
}}

Instruction:Ba26bb80-b234-463a-b958-e806a5ec4478

2020-10-29T17:26:02Z

0000-0003-4446-327X: Created page with "{{Instruction |Title=Varieties of goodness in research - a rotary style exercise (variation to original VIRT2UE exercise)) |Instruction Goal=See the original version of the ex..."

{{Instruction
|Title=Varieties of goodness in research - a rotary style exercise (variation to original VIRT2UE exercise))
|Instruction Goal=See the original version of the exercise.
|Has Duration=1
|Important For=Teachers; Research integrity trainers; Trainers
}}
{{Custom TabContent Trainee Open}}
{{Instruction Steps Foldout Trainee}}
{{Instruction Perspective Trainee}}
{{Instruction Remarks Trainee}}
{{Custom TabContent Close Trainee}}
{{Custom TabContent Trainer Open}}
{{Instruction Steps Foldout Trainer}}
{{Instruction Perspective Trainer}}
{{Instruction Step Trainer
|Instruction Step Title=Preparation
|Instruction Step Text=Ask the participants to ll out the preparation sheet and to submit it prior to the training. Read the submitted material and select some examples to use

during the (plenary phase of the) exercise.
}}
{{Instruction Step Trainer
|Instruction Step Title=Introduction
|Instruction Step Text=Introduce the exercise, it's objectives and the 'varieties of goodness'.
}}
{{Instruction Step Trainer
|Instruction Step Title=Example of one Variety of Goodness in research
|Instruction Step Text=Plenary discussion of oneVariety of Goodness in research. The trainer prepared a presentation including:

* Brief explanation of this Variety of Goodness
* Links the Variety of Goodness to research
* Links ECoC to this Variety of Goodness
* Links examples for the preparation sheet by participants to the Variety of Goodness

In each step of the reflection on this Variety of Goodness, the trainer asks the participants to also name examples of research, the code of conduct and own experiences.
}}
{{Instruction Step Trainer
|Instruction Step Title=Create subgroups
|Instruction Step Text=The group is divide in subgroups of 3-5 participants. The groups each pick a different Variety of Goodness that they will start working on. In case there are more Varieties of Goodness than subgroups, the trainer decides together with the participants which Varieties of Goodness will be used. The difficulty of grasping the concept or the similarities between varieties may be taken into account.
}}
{{Instruction Step Trainer
|Instruction Step Title=Round 1 - reflection on research
|Instruction Step Text=Each subgroup receives a flip-over sheet and marker. The name of Variety of Goodness is written on top of the flip-over sheet. The participants think in subgroups of the link between the Variety of Goodness and research and make notes on the flip-over sheet. The trainer encourages them to also use arrows, drawings or other symbols that help to picture their reflection on this Variety of Goodness in research .
}}
{{Instruction Step Trainer
|Instruction Step Title=Round 2 - reflection on the Code of Conduct
|Instruction Step Text=The participants move clockwise to the next flip-over sheet*, so each subgroup now works on another Variety of Goodness. First they read what the previous group wrote down (or drew) on the sheet. They can augment on it, or ask questions to the other group in case they don't fully understand what's on the sheet.

Their task now is to link the Code of Conduct to the Variety of Goodness. Looking at the work of the previous group can help them to identify the relevant paragraphs.

<nowiki>*</nowiki>depending on the logistics in the room, you can also chose to let the subgroups stay at their table and move around the flip-over sheets.
}}
{{Instruction Step Trainer
|Instruction Step Title=Round 3 - reflection on own experiences
|Instruction Step Text=Again the Variety of Goodness are rotated (either by rotating the groups of the sheets to the next table). After reading, where possible augmenting and asking questions on the previous work done on the sheet, the subgroups now reflect on the Variety of Goodness by relating it to their own experiences. They can look back at their preparation sheets and see if they recognize the Variety of Goodness in there. Maybe the work that is presented on the sheet or the examples given by others also trigger new examples.
}}
{{Instruction Step Trainer
|Instruction Step Title=Optional round
|Instruction Step Text=The same exercise as in round 3 can be repeated with the next group. The number of rounds is dependent of the number of subgroups and the time available.
}}
{{Instruction Step Trainer
|Instruction Step Title=Final round - reflection on the results
|Instruction Step Text=This round is especially important when there are more subgroups than rounds, because in that case not all participants have reflected on the different Varieties of Goodness that are discussed. The task of the subgroup is to summarize what is on the sheet and to select the main take home messages of the sheet. The trainer might also ask the groups to select what they found striking or surprising.
}}
{{Instruction Step Trainer
|Instruction Step Title=Closing
|Instruction Step Text=Each subgroup presents the results of the last round to the other groups.

The trainer thanks the participants for their work and the sharing of personal examples; recaps the lessons learnt and might refer to the objectives of the exercise that were presented at the start.

End with evaluation.

Depending on the agreements made prior to the training, the trainer might take a photo of each sheet and share these photo's with the participants so each can look back at the results.
}}
{{Instruction Remarks Trainer}}
{{Custom TabContent Close Trainer}}
{{Related To
|Related To Instruction=Instruction:64cb2917-6ee4-44ca-ad3b-b998bc6786ea
}}
{{Tags
|Involves=INSPIRE; Fenneke Blom
}}

Instruction:6d9e02e0-5f8a-451c-9214-71243922fa33

2020-10-27T19:28:07Z

0000-0003-4446-327X:

{{Instruction
|Title=‘And the band played on’ movie fragment no. 3
|Instruction Goal=See the related instruction on the full workshop using movie fragments (general approach).
|Has Duration=1
|Has Participants=20
|Important For=Research integrity trainers; Trainers; Teachers
|Has Method=Participatory sessions; Face to Face
}}
{{Custom TabContent Trainee Open}}
{{Instruction Steps Foldout Trainee}}
{{Instruction Perspective Trainee}}
{{Instruction Remarks Trainee}}
{{Custom TabContent Close Trainee}}
{{Custom TabContent Trainer Open}}
{{Instruction Steps Foldout Trainer}}
{{Instruction Perspective Trainer
|Is About=Description of the fragment:

The first evidence is found that the disease is sexually transmitted. However this not enough proof yet to decide to close the gay bath houses. The statements at the press conference are cautiously phrased to prevent a nation-wide panic. Dr. Don Francis is furious, because he fears that the disease will spread further if the public is not aware of the transmission.

Points for discussion:

As a scientist one would want to continue doing research until the evidence is solid proof. However, the social responsibility to society or to patients would urge you to warn them as soon as possible about the possibility of sexually transmitting the disease. A maybe more political view on the responsibility to society might be to prevent a panic.

What is right? There seems to be harm on both sides of this dilemma. Take into account that at that moment in time, when this fragment takes place, the real cause and effect, including the enormous and disastrous spread of the disease, were still unknown.

Knowing what we now know about HIV, AIDS and the world-wide consequences, can we hold Dr. Curran responsible for an unnecessary spread of disease after not disclosing the inconclusive evidence at this point in time? And if so, why? And what does that mean for researchers, in any field of research?
|Has Practical Tips=Read the description of the general approach of this workshop.

The debate and dialogue exercise of VIRT2UE is suitable to this fragment. See the description of the steps.
}}
{{Instruction Step Trainer
|Instruction Step Title=Embedding
|Instruction Step Text=This exercise is best to be combined with other (similar or related) exercises. Embed this in a workshop, e.g. with multiple movie fragments. Introduce the workshop rst, e.g. as described elsewhere.
}}
{{Instruction Step Trainer
|Instruction Step Title=The movie fragment
|Instruction Step Text=Show the movie fragment.
}}
{{Instruction Step Trainer
|Instruction Step Title=Dividing groups
|Instruction Step Text=Ask the group who they vouch for: Dr. Jim Curran or Dr. Don Francis. Show their picture with their names so that all participants remember who is who. Based on their choice, the group is divided in two groups.

1. If one group turns out to be really small, you can ask if a couple of participants feel condent to switch teams.

2. In case there are some participants who don’t feel condent to choose either one, you could decide to include them in the exercise as observers.
}}
{{Instruction Step Trainer
|Instruction Step Title=Debate
|Instruction Step Text=Now, start a debate between both groups. Ask them to convince the other team to support their movie character (Dr. Jim Curran or Dr. Don Francis).

Stop the discussion after a couple of minutes for some reflection:

1. How did the participants feel about the conversation? What was the atmosphere like?

2. If some participants were assigned to be observers, they rst describe what they saw happening.

3. Make notes on a black- or whiteboard or flip-over about the characteristics of the discussion (e.g. competitive, interruptions, raising voices).
}}
{{Instruction Step Trainer
|Instruction Step Title=Reflection (1)
|Instruction Step Text=Ask the group how the conversation could be improved. List their suggestions on the black- or whiteboard or flip-over sheet in a new column.
}}
{{Instruction Step Trainer
|Instruction Step Title=Debate versus dialogue
|Instruction Step Text=Explain the difference between a debate and a dialogue. Do the participants recognise their answers in step 2 as describing a debate and their answers to step 3 as a dialogue?
}}
{{Instruction Step Trainer
|Instruction Step Title=Dialogue
|Instruction Step Text=Continue the conversation between the two groups and ask them to try to make it a dialogue instead of debate. The observers get to call for a time out when they feel the dialogue shifts to a debate.
}}
{{Instruction Step Trainer
|Instruction Step Title=Reflection (2)
|Instruction Step Text=Reflect again. What differences did they experience? What felt better? Do they understand the choice of the other team and feel understood by that team themselves, and how did the style of conversation influence that?
}}
{{Instruction Step Trainer
|Instruction Step Title=Deepening
|Instruction Step Text=Optional step: do the students recognise the characteristics of a debate and a dialogue in the movie fragment?
}}
{{Instruction Step Trainer
|Instruction Step Title=Closing
|Instruction Step Text=Close the exercise with underlining the importance of good communication in dealing with research integrity issues and dilemma’s. Continue with the next fragment or next part of the workshop.
}}
{{Instruction Remarks Trainer}}
{{Custom TabContent Close Trainer}}
{{Related To
|Related To Theme=Theme:6217d06b-c907-4b09-af4e-b4c8a17b9847
|Related To Instruction=Instruction:8aef394a-8ff3-4792-aff1-13c64a97769d
}}
{{Tags
|Involves=Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam; INSPIRE; Fenneke Blom; VIRT2UE
|Has Virtue And Value=Accountability; Responsibility; Respect
}}

Instruction:6d9e02e0-5f8a-451c-9214-71243922fa33

2020-10-26T21:20:12Z

0000-0003-4446-327X: Created page with "{{Instruction |Title=‘And the band played on’ movie fragment no. 3 |Instruction Goal=See the related instruction on the full workshop using movie fragments (general approa..."

{{Instruction
|Title=‘And the band played on’ movie fragment no. 3
|Instruction Goal=See the related instruction on the full workshop using movie fragments (general approach).
|Has Duration=1
|Has Participants=20
|Important For=Research integrity trainers; Trainers; Teachers
|Has Method=Participatory sessions; Face to Face
}}
{{Custom TabContent Trainee Open}}
{{Instruction Steps Foldout Trainee}}
{{Instruction Perspective Trainee}}
{{Instruction Remarks Trainee}}
{{Custom TabContent Close Trainee}}
{{Custom TabContent Trainer Open}}
{{Instruction Steps Foldout Trainer}}
{{Instruction Perspective Trainer
|Is About=Description of the fragment:

The first evidence is found that the disease is sexually transmitted. However this not enough proof yet to decide to close the gay bath houses. The statements at the press conference are cautiously phrased to prevent a nation-wide panic. Dr. Don Francis is furious, because he fears that the disease will spread further if the public is not aware of the transmission.

Points for discussion:

As a scientist one would want to continue doing research until the evidence is solid proof. However, the social responsibility to society or to patients would urge you to warn them as soon as possible about the possibility of sexually transmitting the disease. A maybe more political view on the responsibility to society might be to prevent a panic.

What is right? There seems to be harm on both sides of this dilemma. Take into account that at that moment in time, when this fragment takes place, the real cause and effect, including the enormous and disastrous spread of the disease, were still unknown.

Knowing what we now know about HIV, AIDS and the world-wide consequences, can we hold Dr. Curran responsible for an unnecessary spread of disease after not disclosing the inconclusive evidence at this point in time? And if so, why? And what does that mean for researchers, in any field of research?
|Has Practical Tips=Read the description of the general approach of this workshop.

The debate and dialogue exercise of VIRT2UE is suitable to this fragment. See the description of the steps.
}}
{{Instruction Step Trainer
|Instruction Step Title=Embedding
|Instruction Step Text=This exercise is best to be combined with other (similar or related) exercises. Embed this in a workshop, e.g. with multiple movie fragments. Introduce the workshop rst, e.g. as described elsewhere.
}}
{{Instruction Step Trainer
|Instruction Step Title=The movie fragment
|Instruction Step Text=Show the movie fragment.
}}
{{Instruction Step Trainer
|Instruction Step Title=Dividing groups
|Instruction Step Text=Ask the group who they vouch for: Dr. Jim Curran or Dr. Don Francis. Show their picture with their names so that all participants remember who is who. Based on their choice, the group is divided in two groups.

1. If one group turns out to be really small, you can ask if a couple of participants feel condent to switch teams.

2. In case there are some participants who don’t feel condent to choose either one, you could decide to include them in the exercise as observers.
}}
{{Instruction Step Trainer
|Instruction Step Title=Debate
|Instruction Step Text=Now, start a debate between both groups. Ask them to convince the other team to support their movie character (Dr. Jim Curran or Dr. Don Francis).

Stop the discussion after a couple of minutes for some reflection:

1. How did the participants feel about the conversation? What was the atmosphere like?

2. If some participants were assigned to be observers, they rst describe what they saw happening.

3. Make notes on a black- or whiteboard or flip-over about the characteristics of the discussion (e.g. competitive, interruptions, raising voices).
}}
{{Instruction Step Trainer
|Instruction Step Title=Reflection (1)
|Instruction Step Text=Ask the group how the conversation could be improved. List their suggestions on the black- or whiteboard or flip-over sheet in a new column.
}}
{{Instruction Step Trainer
|Instruction Step Title=Debate versus dialogue
|Instruction Step Text=Explain the difference between a debate and a dialogue. Do the participants recognise their answers in step 2 as describing a debate and their answers to step 3 as a dialogue?
}}
{{Instruction Step Trainer
|Instruction Step Title=Dialogue
|Instruction Step Text=Continue the conversation between the two groups and ask them to try to make it a dialogue instead of debate. The observers get to call for a time out when they feel the dialogue shifts to a debate.
}}
{{Instruction Step Trainer
|Instruction Step Title=Reflection (2)
|Instruction Step Text=Reflect again. What differences did they experience? What felt better? Do they understand the choice of the other team and feel understood by that team themselves, and how did the style of conversation influence that?
}}
{{Instruction Step Trainer
|Instruction Step Title=Deepening
|Instruction Step Text=Optional step: do the students recognise the characteristics of a debate and a dialogue in the movie fragment?
}}
{{Instruction Step Trainer
|Instruction Step Title=Closing
|Instruction Step Text=Close the exercise with underlining the importance of good communication in dealing with research integrity issues and dilemma’s. Continue with the next fragment or next part of the workshop.
}}
{{Instruction Remarks Trainer}}
{{Custom TabContent Close Trainer}}
{{Related To
|Related To Theme=Theme:6217d06b-c907-4b09-af4e-b4c8a17b9847
}}
{{Tags
|Involves=Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam; INSPIRE; Fenneke Blom; VIRT2UE
|Has Virtue And Value=Accountability; Responsibility; Respect
}}

Resource:Bf7c9d54-cd9f-477c-8190-5c08bc4cf113

2020-09-01T12:49:45Z

0000-0003-4446-327X: Created page with "{{Resource |Resource Type=Guidelines |Title=Supervisor tips (poster campaign), KU Leuven |Is About=The poster presents an infographic originally designed by ORI, and accentuat..."

{{Resource
|Resource Type=Guidelines
|Title=Supervisor tips (poster campaign), KU Leuven
|Is About=The poster presents an infographic originally designed by ORI, and accentuates five things supervisors can do to promote integrity in their labs or research groups.
|Important Because=This poster is an example of an uncomplicated, low-cost, and easy to disseminate initiative to stress the importance of research integrity and emphasize the importance of good supervision as a cornerstone of research practice. Moreover, the poster reminds all types of supervisors (principal investigator, research coordinator, academic advisor, mentor) to their responsibilities as such.
|Important For=Supervisors; Mentors
}}
{{Link
|Has Link=https://www.kuleuven.be/english/research/integrity/practices/SupervisorTips
}}
{{Related To
|Related To Resource=Resource:4bdb3879-4eb1-49b5-bcb9-e3e7ddf1a83e;Resource:8bc7c681-66af-4ab9-b2f2-c21fe2744817;Resource:0d7e30ee-699a-43ac-a653-7352844bb9b1
|Related To Theme=Theme:Ab4200ca-c14d-413d-a9f6-aa5a93e1800e;Theme:Bd54dd3d-50ed-4f42-b5fb-473f2391714a;Theme:177ca35b-14f3-4f62-8bb2-f9cf9db28a70;Theme:73bfb9ec-b7f5-4a0a-a0b0-e460990b59cb
}}
{{Tags
|Involves=KU Leuven; ORI; INSPIRE
|Has Location=Belgium
|Has Good Practice And Misconduct=Supervision
}}

Resource:6ee4f37d-aa55-45c9-93ae-86831a37ca17

2020-09-01T11:38:53Z

0000-0003-4446-327X:

{{Resource
|Resource Type=Education
|Title=The Lab: Avoiding Research Misconduct
|Is About=In "The Lab: Avoiding Research Misconduct," you become the lead characters* in an interactive movie and make decisions about integrity in research that can have long-term consequences. The simulation addresses Responsible Conduct of Research topics such as avoiding research misconduct, mentorship responsibilities, handling of data, responsible authorship, and questionable research practices.

<nowiki>*</nowiki>The four available perspectives are: graduate student, postdoctoral researcher, principal investigator, research administrator
|Important Because=You learn to see and understand different topics of responsible research through the eyes of different stakeholders in research.
|Important For=All stakeholders in research
}}
{{Link
|Has Link=https://ori.hhs.gov/content/thelab
}}
{{Related To
|Related To Resource=Resource:E8743444-88e1-46a7-a1c0-25ca501c0886;Resource:F68f2226-005e-4321-b2a4-fc541fdf6c8d;Resource:366d47ee-4b9d-4287-8c57-88ba847480bb;Resource:8354ff67-9da4-4325-8395-d16e30059fb2;Resource:A0df9be7-401a-43ba-af41-245019119182;Resource:D40f736b-e2b6-4fe9-9ddf-26a3bf947cc2;Resource:695b5c9b-f3ac-4fc8-8e20-1dfd5f7347ff
|Related To Theme=Theme:13ae94da-15d6-426f-8f6e-9134fb57e267;Theme:Cbe88760-7f0e-4d6d-952b-b724bb0f375e;Theme:540f8241-c354-4249-8b63-6bdc2e74bdf8;Theme:83f33f33-e9ba-4589-b450-92e3992a22db;Theme:0bd48e3b-3590-44ae-a21b-7cf2b425d6cb
}}
{{Tags
|Involves=ORI
|Has Location=United States
|Has Virtue And Value=Honesty; Respect
|Has Good Practice And Misconduct=Allegations of misconduct; Research misconduct; Whistleblowing; Mentor/trainee relationship; Allegations of misconduct; Data management; Authorship; Questionable research practice; Questionable Authorship Practices
|Related To Research Area=LS - Life Sciences
}}

Theme:73bfb9ec-b7f5-4a0a-a0b0-e460990b59cb

2020-09-01T11:31:57Z

0000-0003-4446-327X: Created page with "{{Theme |Theme Type=Good Practices |Has Parent Theme=Theme:639528ea-d2c2-4565-8b44-15bb9646f74b |Title=Superb Supervision: integrity training for supervisors |Is About='''Supe..."

{{Theme
|Theme Type=Good Practices
|Has Parent Theme=Theme:639528ea-d2c2-4565-8b44-15bb9646f74b
|Title=Superb Supervision: integrity training for supervisors
|Is About='''Superb Supervision''' is an initiative that stimulates research integrity (RI) in the form of a course. The course covers a three- day long training from 9 to 5 in which researchers are taught skills to become better supervisors and to supervise responsible research. Therefore, the course is meant to be for either junior-researchers or senior-researchers that (will) have a role as supervisor. The main objectives of this course are raising awareness, training skills to enable responsible practice and guidance to practice with integrity. The exact program and registration can be found [https://www.vumc.nl/educatie/onze-opleidingen/opleidingsdetail/superb-supervision-junior-mentoring-your-phd-candidate-towards-responsible-conduct-of-research.htm here] (junior) and [https://www.vumc.nl/educatie/onze-opleidingen/opleidingsdetail/superb-supervision-senior-a-course-for-senior-phd-supervisors.htm here] (senior).
|Important For=Supervisors; Mentors; Junior researchers; PhD Students
|Has Detail='''The start of Superb Supervision'''

“Some people, when you let them swim, come out really well. It is a bit a matter of luck and not everyone has it. A little thing can cause unfortunate struggles where a supervisor could have given you the support that you deserve.” (Tamarinde Haven, translated from Dutch)

The motivation to start a course for supervisors goes way long back, according to PhD-candidate and one of the initiators Tamarinde Haven. During her PhD project on academic research climate, a survey among the AmsterdamUMC research institutes plus focus groups - exposed that there is an overall agreement that a good research culture is very important. The next important question for the respondents was how they would envision a good and responsible research climate in practice. Apparently, supervision related to research position appeared to be a strong theme. Asking further it appeared that -overall- many respondents dealt with cases of insufficient supervision.

Whereas the questionnaire showed insight in the academic research, the issues of supervision were already expressed by other universities.

The competency of being a good supervisor is something that has been neglected and it is clearly something that the focus group participants expressed. In order to improve this situation, a good course to train people that are going to supervise PhD candidates would really help. Whereas there exist supervision courses in general, it became clear that it was important to look into both good supervision and good supervision for responsible research. After finding these results, a RI professional and trainer for academic researchers, Louise Mennen, was contacted. In that year a lot of work was put into how to combine good supervision and responsible research. Meanwhile, Louise Mennen was asked to help out to create a Superb Supervision course for senior supervisors. This course is very similar to the course for junior-researchers. Despite the idea that much can be learned from mixing junior- and senior researchers, it was intentionally decided to separate the courses, thereby making it more attractive for senior-researchers to spend dedicated time on their needs.

'''Resources'''

Superb Supervision first started with a pilot version, which was very positively evaluated and in that way the AmsterdamUMC allowed for an up and running program, which kicked off in January 2020. Since the involved members (Joeri Tijdink, Lex Bouter, Louise Mennen and Marlies Stouthard) are part of different universities in Amsterdam, advertisement for the pilot was quite feasible. The course is currently promoted through the webpage of AmsterdamUMC and soon via the project’s website (…) . Superb Supervision hopes to be sustainable by functioning independently of any kind of funding. Instead, costs are covered by registration payment. Whereas this might demotivate researchers to register for the course, a positive side-effect is that people usually not quit. Besides, there is possibly accreditation for some researchers, such as doctors and usually such courses can be paid for by the university.

'''Evaluation and bottlenecks'''

After each day of the course evaluation took place, in which things such as the relevance, topics and duration were discussed. Whereas the empirical evaluation is still awaiting, so far, the reactions were very positive.

'''What’s next?'''

What remains difficult is that the researchers who are not aware of supervision are usually not the ones that register for the course. There haven’t been noteworthy issues during the implementation phase of the initiative. Is it only now that the initiators start discussing how the initiative remains sustainable in the long term, since it is not sure whether all initiators can provide long term support. In order to solve this problem, they are trying to connect more people to the initiative who can potentially replace them one day.
}}
{{Related To
|Related To Theme=Theme:Ab4200ca-c14d-413d-a9f6-aa5a93e1800e;Theme:Bd54dd3d-50ed-4f42-b5fb-473f2391714a
}}
{{Tags
|Involves=VU Amsterdam; Tamarinde Haven; ARCA; Amsterdam UMC; INSPIRE
|Has Location=The Netherlands
|Has Good Practice And Misconduct=Supervision
}}

Resource:42b376ba-ed0c-4814-81d5-2d76cb89ec5a

2020-09-01T10:56:18Z

0000-0003-4446-327X: Created page with "{{Resource |Resource Type=Education |Title=Casuistry – is this RM, QRP or RCR? Three cases with dilemmas |Is About=Three cases are presented. Are these cases Research Miscon..."

{{Resource
|Resource Type=Education
|Title=Casuistry – is this RM, QRP or RCR? Three cases with dilemmas
|Is About=Three cases are presented. Are these cases Research Misconduct, Questionable Research Practices or Responsible Conduct of Research? Participants are asked for their normative judgement, after which a discussion takes place. At the end of the case, it is explained what was decided in the real case.

The moderator asks the participants not only to make their normative judgement, but also to think about why. Which norms and values are at stake? On which norms and values did you base your judgement? Which values are in conflict and which are more important to you?
|Important For=Research integrity trainers; Training developers; Trainers in training
|Has Best Practice=This teaching material was developed by the NRIN. In the first session in which this material was used, case 1 was not entirely clear to the participants. Some information was therefore added to this material. A session with discussions on all dilemma’s would take about 60-90 minutes.

Cases 2 and 3 were slightly simplified for a meet-the-keynote-speaker session with Prof. Lex Bouter. He used one only case 2 (Case A in the ppt) in this session, because it already yielded a lively discussion with the participants who also discussed related dilemma’s they encountered in their work.

The material then was further developed for the course on research integrity for PhD-candidates at VUmc. New materials to be uploaded.
}}
{{Link
|Has Link=https://www.nrin.nl/ri-collection/education/teachers-tools/slides/is-this-rm-qrp-or-rcr
}}
{{Related To
|Related To Theme=Theme:34a864d0-43b3-48bc-aaa3-438dcc124c02;Theme:07488132-7ad0-4ef3-82fd-15824b30bd1c
|Related To Instruction=Instruction:1dcc08f4-54f6-4841-bf90-c43311924292
}}
{{Tags
|Involves=NRIN; INSPIRE; Fenneke Blom
|Has Location=The Netherlands
|Has Good Practice And Misconduct=Authorship; Conflict of Interest; Data Management; Plagiarism; Questionable research practice
}}

Resource:Ca0ed587-ac8e-4259-9cc7-74de01941cd1

2020-09-01T10:49:20Z

0000-0003-4446-327X: Created page with "{{Resource |Resource Type=Other |Title=The qualification portfolio (UMC Utrecht): from output to impact |Is About="All candidate professors have to submit a portfolio encompas..."

{{Resource
|Resource Type=Other
|Title=The qualification portfolio (UMC Utrecht): from output to impact
|Is About="All candidate professors have to submit a portfolio encompassing five domains. We ask for a narrative about current scientific activities and a description of the most important ten publications (not an extensive list). The applicants provide proof of teaching skills and describe educational products, for example study guides or study books. If relevant, applicants describe their clinical tasks, including efforts resulting in improved clinical care. The portfolio also covers leadership and management responsibilities and asks for valorisation activities."
|Important Because="The portfolio provides the selection committee with a broad view and arguments to promote or hire someone that may not have the perfect ‘excellent’ scientific profile in bibliometric terms, but someone who is excellent because of qualities� that may be harder to quantify, but can very well be talked about, evaluated and judged."
|Important For=Research institutions; research leaders; Policy makers; Professors
|Has Best Practice=See also: http://www.nature.com/news/fewer-numbers-better-science-1.20858
}}
{{Link
|Has Link=http://www.nrin.nl/ri-collection/rcr-practice/policy/output-impact
}}
{{Related To
|Related To Resource=Resource:216fd809-8eca-4f5e-8cc7-c118b9bfb0cd;Resource:3cf12442-8943-4684-9e9c-8e5128674a79
|Related To Theme=Theme:2040cd9d-877c-48de-b430-3d9761aa1e25;Theme:A612e3c5-4f31-470f-b5bf-3751923848e8
}}
{{Tags
|Involves=University Medical Center Utrecht; INSPIRE
|Has Location=The Netherlands
}}

Resource:D7f0c95a-700a-481b-a245-a2d437b8c07d

2020-09-01T10:36:21Z

0000-0003-4446-327X:

{{Resource
|Resource Type=Education
|Title=Fiction movies for RCR education
|Is About=In this project, the usefulness and applicability of a selection of fiction movies for RCR education were investigated.

A format for structured description of (fragments of) movies was developed and after pilot testing consensus on the format was achieved. This format was applied to 31 movies. Not all movies in our initial selection were deemed useful for RCR education; 20 movies remained in the final selection.

Legal and practical aspects of using (fragments of) movies for educational purposes and of sharing the teaching materials online (creative commons) were explored.
|Important Because=Teaching students and researchers about rules and norms in research is one thing, but empowering them to deal with moral dilemmas in research practice is a challenge. Fictional narratives can be very useful in exploring the tough choices scientists have to make.
|Important For=PhD Students; Undergraduate students; Graduate students; Research integrity trainers; Training developers; Trainers in training
|Has Best Practice=The movies included in the final selection are:

* And the band played on (1993)
* Awakenings (1990)
* Creation (2009)
* Dallas Buyers Club (2013)
* Extreme measures (1996)
* Kinsey (2004)
* Lorenzo's oil (1992)
* On being a scientist (2016)
* Silkwood (1983)
* Star Trek 'Nothing human' (1998)
* The boys from Brazil (1978)
* The China syndrome (1979)
* The Fly (1986)
* The Insider (1999)
* The Island (2005)
* The Lawnmower man (1992)
* Wit (2001)
}}
{{Link
|Has Link=https://www.nrin.nl/fiction-movies-for-rcr-education/
}}
{{Related To
|Related To Instruction=Instruction:638066a2-6031-4f3f-861c-d7856bb5cb59;Instruction:Abaaf575-fb53-4aa2-9760-cbfae4feda92
}}
{{Tags
|Involves=NRIN; INSPIRE; Fenneke Blom
|Has Location=The Netherlands
|Has Good Practice And Misconduct=Conflict of interest; Intellectual property; Mentor/trainee relationship; Reproducability; Publication ethics; Plagiarism
}}

Resource:D7f0c95a-700a-481b-a245-a2d437b8c07d

2020-09-01T09:53:20Z

0000-0003-4446-327X:

{{Resource
|Resource Type=Education
|Title=Fiction movies for RCR education
|Is About=movie
|Important For=PhD Students; Undergraduate students; Graduate students; Research integrity trainers; Training developers; Trainers in training
}}
{{Link
|Has Link=https://www.nrin.nl/fiction-movies-for-rcr-education/
}}
{{Related To
|Related To Instruction=Instruction:638066a2-6031-4f3f-861c-d7856bb5cb59;Instruction:Abaaf575-fb53-4aa2-9760-cbfae4feda92
}}
{{Tags
|Involves=NRIN; INSPIRE; Fenneke Blom
|Has Location=The Netherlands
|Has Good Practice And Misconduct=Conflict of interest; Intellectual property; Mentor/trainee relationship; Reproducability; Publication ethics; Plagiarism
}}

Theme:A12b4bab-b331-46d1-93e0-dc9e9c5453cd

2020-08-31T18:56:02Z

0000-0003-4446-327X: Created page with "{{Theme |Theme Type=Good Practices |Has Parent Theme=Theme:639528ea-d2c2-4565-8b44-15bb9646f74b |Title="Met de billen bloot" (face the music) |Is About=“''Even senior-resear..."

{{Theme
|Theme Type=Good Practices
|Has Parent Theme=Theme:639528ea-d2c2-4565-8b44-15bb9646f74b
|Title="Met de billen bloot" (face the music)
|Is About=“''Even senior-researchers make mistakes. Even after twenty years of experience… that makes you realize that we all make mistakes.”''[1]

This initiative concerns an activity that stimulates an open research culture in which research integrity issues can be discussed. The way in which this initiative tries to foster research integrity is through having face to face sessions about research integrity in which senior-researchers first share a personal case of ‘sloppy science’ or a research integrity dilemma. By starting with senior-researchers, the session stimulates junior- or other researchers to talk more openly about their obstacles during research projects. Whereas the session mainly aims to foster research integrity, it also stimulates trust in researchers and research so that an open environment and good communication among the researchers is fostered.

[1] ''This text is solely based on an interview with Mark Dubbelman, PhD in the Alzheimer center and currently member of the quality committee. ''
|Important For=Researchers; department leaders; Research performing organisations; Research institutions
|Has Best Practice='''Evaluation'''

Whereas there has not yet been an empirical evaluation of the initiative, so far, the responses from researchers are very positive. The experience is that there are always researchers – voluntarily - following up the senior-researchers in the session. People quickly feel safe to share their problems or something that might be questionable in terms of research integrity. According to one of the current members of the quality committee, Mark Dubbelman, this could partly be explained because there is already a very open environment in the Alzheimer center. From the committee evaluation it became clear that even though some researchers don’t speak directly in the meeting, they sometimes come to one of the committee members to talk things through.

'''What’s next?'''

The ‘Met de billen bloot’ sessions were always intended to happen within the scope of the Alzheimer center. There is no aim to extend it beyond the center but to keep it going as long as it keeps working. One might question whether there is enough variation if the session only takes place on institutional level. So far, this has not caused any problems, mainly because the center is quite large, new people are coming in every year and there always happens something during the year. Whereas this research center did not come across urgent obstacles, it is believed that if this will be implemented in a less open work environment, it is harder to make it a success. A refreshment could brighten up the sessions in similar meetings, however one has to keep in mind the goal of the session.

On behalf of the committee, Dubbelman expressed that it would be great if other (research) centers or groups take up this session in one of their regular meetings, so that the quality of research can be improved. Since the meetings are part of the weekly sessions, costless, take place in the center itself and are mandatory to attend, the feasibility of the ‘Met de billen bloot’ sessions is very high. According to him, the feasibility allows for a smooth implementation and therefore, it makes it a very attractive initiative.
|Has Detail=The ‘Met de billen bloot’ sessions are organized by researchers and for researchers from within the Alzheimer Center Amsterdam. There it was initiated in around 2015/2016 by Dr. Hooghiemstra (senior-scientist) and Prof. Dr. Van der Flier (head of research). The Alzheimer center is a research center that contains about 60-70 researchers that work in the field of life- and medical sciences. The sessions take place once a year and are part of the regular weekly sessions held at the center. The regular sessions take place each Friday for two hours. In these sessions, subjects such as a new research project, presentations and other research related topics are being discussed. Everyone within the Alzheimer center is obliged to attend these sessions, including the session about research integrity.

Both dr. Hooghiemstra and prof. dr van der Flier are involved in the quality committee that is -among other things- responsible for organizing the sessions. The committee consists of three steady members, under whom Van der Flier and two others in the field of research quality and a few members that shift every year. Among these temporary members are a PhD- researcher, research assistant, neurologist and senior- researcher each year. In this way, all parties within the center are represented. However, it is worth clarifying that the sessions receive no support from external parties.

The quality committee meets once in two months to schedule the sessions and otherwise send out the newsletter with information concerning the session. For this particular session, some preparation from the senior-researchers is expected. The session starts with a short introduction and story from Prof. Dr. Van der Flier, in which senior-researchers follow up.
}}
{{Related To}}
{{Tags
|Involves=Alzheimer Center Amsterdam; Astrid Hooghiemstra; Mark Dubbelman; INSPIRE; Wiesje van der Flier
|Has Location=Amsterdam; The Netherlands
|Has Virtue And Value=Accountability
}}

Resource:1b6d0c93-a487-4372-9f8a-c0b4242f5541

2020-08-31T18:36:23Z

0000-0003-4446-327X: Created page with "{{Resource |Resource Type=Other |Title=Transpose |Is About=Transpose (TRANsparency in Scholarly Publishing for Open Scholarship Evolution) is an initiative to build a database..."

{{Resource
|Resource Type=Other
|Title=Transpose
|Is About=Transpose (TRANsparency in Scholarly Publishing for Open Scholarship Evolution) is an initiative to build a database of journal policies, focussing on open peer review, co-reviewing and detailed preprinting policies. The goal of this initiative is to foster new practices while increasing awareness among authors, editors, and other stakeholders, while providing resources to assist journals in setting, sharing, and clarifying their policies.
|Important Because=This initiative contributes to the fostering of open science from a perspective of journals, from a relatively new viewpoint. The initiative contributes to more transparency of editorial policies and support editors with suggestions on potential editorial improvements.
|Important For=Journal editors; Journals
}}
{{Link
|Has Link=https://transpose-publishing.github.io/#/
}}
{{Related To}}
{{Tags
|Involves=INSPIRE
|Has Good Practice And Misconduct=Science Publishing
}}

Resource:Ae18a10a-3aeb-467f-8eb0-bbd463f32655

2020-08-31T18:31:01Z

0000-0003-4446-327X: Created page with "{{Resource |Resource Type=Other |Title=Think. Check. Submit. |Is About=Think. Check. Submit is an initiative that helps researchers identify trusted journals and publishers fo..."

{{Resource
|Resource Type=Other
|Title=Think. Check. Submit.
|Is About=Think. Check. Submit is an initiative that helps researchers identify trusted journals and publishers for their research. Through a range of tools and practical resources, this international, cross-sector initiative aims to educate researchers, promote integrity, and build trust in credible research and publications.
|Important Because=Sharing research results with the world is key to the progress of your discipline and career but with so many publications. However, not all researchers receive the same level of training and support in how to choose a trustworthy journal or publisher to submit their work to. How can you be sure you can trust a particular journal? ''Think. Check. Submit.'' provides an easy-to-use checklist that researchers can refer to when they are investigating whether a journal or publisher can be trusted.
|Important For=Researchers
}}
{{Link
|Has Link=https://thinkchecksubmit.org/
}}
{{Related To
|Related To Theme=Theme:49d71148-0df2-4a78-93d4-c802b48bbdb7
}}
{{Tags
|Involves=INSPIRE
|Has Good Practice And Misconduct=Science Publishing
}}

Resource:4bdb3879-4eb1-49b5-bcb9-e3e7ddf1a83e

2020-08-31T17:12:48Z

0000-0003-4446-327X: Created page with "{{Resource |Resource Type=Guidelines |Title=PhD and Supervisor charter (KU Leuven) |Is About=This charter functions as a declaration between PhD researcher and supervisor and..."

{{Resource
|Resource Type=Guidelines
|Title=PhD and Supervisor charter (KU Leuven)
|Is About=This charter functions as a declaration between PhD researcher and supervisor and sketches the role of both in the doctoral process. At the start of the collaboration the supervisor and PhD researcher use the charter as a basis to make necessary arrangements concerning the supervision, thereby contributing to an effective and fruitful scientific collaboration. In order to not to overlook certain topics or aspects, a [https://www.kuleuven.be/english/research/integrity/Checklist checklist] is available.
|Important Because=In order to prevent miscommunications such as different expectations, a thorough document with clear agreements on the collaboration and responsibility of the PhD researcher and the supervisor is important. For example it prevents early fall out, and contributes to an uncomplicated doctoral process and qualitative scientific output.
|Important For=PhD Students; Supervisors; Mentors; Junior researchers
}}
{{Link
|Has Link=https://www.kuleuven.be/english/research/integrity/practices/goodpromotor
}}
{{Related To
|Related To Resource=Resource:0d7e30ee-699a-43ac-a653-7352844bb9b1;Resource:8bc7c681-66af-4ab9-b2f2-c21fe2744817
|Related To Theme=Theme:Ab4200ca-c14d-413d-a9f6-aa5a93e1800e;Theme:177ca35b-14f3-4f62-8bb2-f9cf9db28a70;Theme:Bd54dd3d-50ed-4f42-b5fb-473f2391714a
}}
{{Tags
|Involves=KU Leuven; INSPIRE
|Has Location=Belgium
|Has Good Practice And Misconduct=Supervision
}}

Resource:C14f06a5-043e-495e-a244-e79fd1df0664

2020-08-31T17:06:54Z

0000-0003-4446-327X: Created page with "{{Resource |Resource Type=Other |Title=Cochrane library |Is About=Cochrane is an independent, non-profit organisation aiming to promote evidence-informed decision-making in he..."

{{Resource
|Resource Type=Other
|Title=Cochrane library
|Is About=Cochrane is an independent, non-profit organisation aiming to promote evidence-informed decision-making in healthcare, by gathering and summarizing the best and most relevant research in this field. The Cochrane-Library is a collection of high-quality, relevant, accessible systematic reviews and other synthesized research evidence, that provides information for professionals and patients in order to enhance healthcare knowledge and decision making. The articles are translated into 14 languages and reviewed by consumers and patients, to ensure the content is easily understandable. The library is freely available and up do date contains over 7.500 articles.
|Important Because=The library provides accessible, credible information to support informed decision-making for professionals and patients. In the Internet age, people have much greater access to health information, but little way of knowing whether that information is accurate and unbiased. The initiative provides a tool to make evidence based decisions in order to improve health and healthcare from multiple perspectives.
|Important For=Researchers; Policy makers
}}
{{Link
|Has Link=https://www.cochrane.org/
}}
{{Related To}}
{{Tags
|Involves=Cochrane
}}

Theme:5894afe3-923e-4eef-9ad2-12f9ae990a4a

2020-08-31T10:49:52Z

0000-0003-4446-327X: Created page with "{{Theme |Theme Type=Principles & Aspirations |Has Parent Theme=Theme:639528ea-d2c2-4565-8b44-15bb9646f74b |Title=Research Integrity champions |Is About=The role of the Researc..."

{{Theme
|Theme Type=Principles & Aspirations
|Has Parent Theme=Theme:639528ea-d2c2-4565-8b44-15bb9646f74b
|Title=Research Integrity champions
|Is About=The role of the Research integrity champion is to offer an informal opportunity to discuss concerns staff and students have about research integrity, in order to reduce the barriers and doubts often associated with reporting and discussing integrity concerns. The champion is responsible for ''a diverse range of integrity related aspects, such as: the promotion of ''good research practice within the context of the relevant disciplines. But also the responsibility of ensuring that the principles and relevant standards are embedded in cross-University and local guidance, in training and procedures, and integrated into mentorship programmes. Moreover, the champions need to ensure that local advice is available to researchers (staff and students) who are unsure about a research conduct issue and may be considering whether to make an allegation of misconduct.
|Important Because=It is important that staff and students have the opportunity to discuss integrity related concerns in an accessible way. By making it easier to find and consult an advisor, institutions make an effort to decrease the inconvenience for people to discuss their worries or questions. This will benefit the research culture.
|Important For=Research performing organisations; Research institutions; Mentors
}}
{{Related To}}
{{Tags
|Involves=INSPIRE
}}

Theme:6b33725e-f7fa-4796-a4ac-acf19ca43ae6

2020-08-31T10:45:50Z

0000-0003-4446-327X: Created page with "{{Theme |Theme Type=Principles & Aspirations |Has Parent Theme=Theme:639528ea-d2c2-4565-8b44-15bb9646f74b |Title=The learning curve - theatre play #MeTooAcademia |Is About=Dev..."

{{Theme
|Theme Type=Principles & Aspirations
|Has Parent Theme=Theme:639528ea-d2c2-4565-8b44-15bb9646f74b
|Title=The learning curve - theatre play #MeTooAcademia
|Is About=Developed from scenarios originally performed as #MeTooAcademia for the Dutch Network of Women Professors (LNVH), ‘The learning curve’ is a theatre play about sexual intimidation and abuse of power in the university context. It’s both humorous and bleak, and is written to be followed by a discussion led by a moderator. Different academic stakeholders and the audience can discuss what you can do if you find yourself, your colleagues or members of your team in such situations.
|Important Because=Many of us think academia will provide a safe, sensible and intellectual environment in which #MeToo behaviour is absent. Fortunately, it often is but evidently it sometimes isn’t. Moreover, although the play is fictitious, it is based on interviews as well as confidential interviews. The purpose of the play, is to create awareness of harassment in academia – which tends to impact young researchers or support staff in particular – while also exploring individual and institutional ways to address these issues and create a safe working environment.
|Important For=Research institutions; Research performing organisations
}}
{{Related To
|Related To Theme=Theme:Ff9344f4-a4ca-4139-9bd7-076612f70e21;Theme:B2331451-5a6a-4aa2-a3d5-c68d2c96c8e1
}}
{{Tags
|Involves=Het Acteursgenootschap; De Jonge Akademie; INSPIRE
|Has Location=The Netherlands
|Has Virtue And Value=Respect
|Has Good Practice And Misconduct=Bullying; Mentor/trainee relationship; Power abuse; Sexual harassment
}}

Theme:Ff9344f4-a4ca-4139-9bd7-076612f70e21

2020-08-31T10:38:59Z

0000-0003-4446-327X: Created page with "{{Theme |Theme Type=Principles & Aspirations |Has Parent Theme=Theme:639528ea-d2c2-4565-8b44-15bb9646f74b |Title=The ConScience App - theatre play |Is About=‘The ConScience..."

{{Theme
|Theme Type=Principles & Aspirations
|Has Parent Theme=Theme:639528ea-d2c2-4565-8b44-15bb9646f74b
|Title=The ConScience App - theatre play
|Is About=‘The ConScience App’ is a theatre piece by Het Acteursgenootschap, designed to move the debate on scientific knowledge from the headlines to the daily work of academic researchers. The play sheds light on challenging scenarios in a lighthearted manner, aiming to start discussions amongst colleagues around common research integrity and culture dilemmas and experiences.

The ConScience App was developed based on ideas from members of [https://www.dejongeakademie.nl/en?set_language=en The Young Academy] of the Royal Netherlands Academy of Arts and Sciences and supported in part by a grant from the Dutch government. It has been performed at the opening session to the 5th World Conference on Research Integrity in Amsterdam in 2017 and at various venues, including universities, research institutes, and conferences in the Netherlands, France, and Norway.
|Important Because=This play handles different themes related to research culture and research integrity. For instance, what is the policy on mentioning co-authors? Or on assessing the work of your competitors? How do individuals balance mentoring others and maintaining the quality of research? What is the influence of the duty to publish on the quality of your research? Therefore, the performance is typically followed by 30-60 minutes of discussion around themes raised in the script, with an instruction manual to facilitate discussions.
|Important For=Research performing organisations; Research institutions
}}
{{Related To}}
{{Tags
|Involves=Het Acteursgenootschap; De Jonge Akademie; INSPIRE
|Has Location=The Netherlands
}}

Resource:84999209-9fb3-435b-98ad-203f24593f60

2020-08-24T09:09:12Z

0000-0003-4446-327X: Created page with "{{Resource |Resource Type=Education |Title=Psychology of misbehavior (in Dutch) |Is About=These are the slides of a lecture in Dutch, on the psychology of misbehavior and rese..."

{{Resource
|Resource Type=Education
|Title=Psychology of misbehavior (in Dutch)
|Is About=These are the slides of a lecture in Dutch, on the psychology of misbehavior and research misbehavior in particular.
|Important For=Research integrity trainers
}}
{{Link
|Has Link=https://docplayer.nl/3421505-Wangedrag-algemeen-en-in-de-wetenschap-wat-psychologie-waarnemen-geheugen-en-conformeren.html
}}
{{Related To
|Related To Theme=Theme:883697c8-d319-4224-991e-ce063d648efd
}}
{{Tags
|Involves=Leen Lambrechts; INSPIRE
}}

Resource:0bae8e4a-a4be-4f3f-89f2-65a3b8cc3395

2020-08-23T22:08:49Z

0000-0003-4446-327X:

{{Resource
|Resource Type=Education
|Title=Fostering Integrity in Research
|Is About=The 1992 report ''Responsible Science: Ensuring the Integrity of the Research Process'' evaluates issues related to scientific responsibility and the conduct of research. It provides a valuable service in describing and analyzing a very complicated set of issues, and has served as a crucial basis for thinking about research integrity for more than two decades.
|Important Because=The integrity of knowledge that emerges from research is based on individual and collective adherence to core values of objectivity, honesty, openness, fairness, accountability, and stewardship. Integrity in science means that the organizations in which research is conducted encourage those involved to exemplify these values in every step of the research process. Understanding the dynamics that support – or distort – practices that uphold the integrity of research by all participants ensures that the research enterprise advances knowledge.
|Important For=All stakeholders in research
|Has Best Practice=Part Three (pages 161-224): Fostering Integrity in Research

Chapter 9 (page 163): [https://www.nap.edu/read/21896/chapter/1#content-toc_pz15-2 Identifying and Promoting Best Practices for Research Integrity]

Chapter 10 (page 195): [https://www.nap.edu/read/21896/chapter/1#content-toc_pz15-3 Education for the Responsible Conduct of Research]
}}
{{Link
|Has Link=https://www.nap.edu/catalog/21896/fostering-integrity-in-research
}}
{{Related To
|Related To Resource=Resource:F47b9bc7-c5a5-4b92-918b-438101bd9434;Resource:0bae8e4a-a4be-4f3f-89f2-65a3b8cc3395;Resource:Cfc3db56-7a32-4f2d-8485-2f14a12c7109;Resource:Db4c2416-1ce5-44ca-8306-20de0d1d890e;Resource:1e1d90cf-ca7e-45d6-b9ba-c5e4791f6e8a
|Related To Theme=Theme:520b3bc7-a6ab-4617-95f2-89c9dee31c53
}}
{{Tags
|Involves=The National acadamies of sciences, engineering and medicine; INSPIRE
|Has Timepoint=2017
|Has Location=United States
|Has Virtue And Value=Honesty; Accountability
|Has Good Practice And Misconduct=Research misconduct; Questionable research practice; Data management; Mentor/trainee relationship; Authorship; Peer review; Research with Humans; Research with Animals; Safety; Conflict of interest
|Related To Research Area=LS - Life Sciences; PE - Physical Sciences and Engineering
}}

Theme:3344d7a4-7a86-4276-83a7-d5313971a8a9

2020-08-23T21:29:49Z

0000-0003-4446-327X: Created page with "{{Theme |Theme Type=Good Practices |Has Parent Theme=Theme:639528ea-d2c2-4565-8b44-15bb9646f74b |Title=Research Integrity lunch meetings |Is About=The Research Integrity lunch..."

{{Theme
|Theme Type=Good Practices
|Has Parent Theme=Theme:639528ea-d2c2-4565-8b44-15bb9646f74b
|Title=Research Integrity lunch meetings
|Is About=The Research Integrity lunchmeeting is a monthly meeting taking place at the Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, connecting researchers into/about research integrity from different projects. The format is a 1-hour interactive get-together, where work in progress, new ideas and the like are presented. Everyone involved in an RI related (research)project, can sign up as a speaker.

These meetings are organized with the objective to get to know each other’s projects, unique expertise, and to see where interesting cross-fertilization can come about. Therefore, the lunches are primarily not intended to present already finished papers. In order to utilize the meetings to the fullest, one person with a relating background acts as a respondent and prepares a brief reflection on the work presented. After which the other participants are invited to ask questions, give feedback, or come up with suggestions too. Meanwhile lunch is served.
|Important Because=It connects people from within the field of RI, since the backgrounds of researchers in this field is diverse and they will not meet each other in discipline specific conferences. Additionally, the field of RI is still young, and it’s important to connect and share. Moreover, it gives the possibility to learn from each other and help one another.
|Important For=research integrity researchers
}}
{{Related To
|Related To Theme=Theme:3c6a13ad-6861-4a5f-bf5b-491693ee6b6d
}}
{{Tags
|Involves=Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam; INSPIRE
|Has Location=The Netherlands; Amsterdam
}}

Resource:7ecf5fb2-8f1d-4e45-b72c-ba2682c8a64f

2020-08-23T15:00:24Z

0000-0003-4446-327X:

{{Resource
|Resource Type=Other
|Title=The Irreproducibility Crisis of Modern Science
|Is About=A plea to reform modern science, with 40 proposed reforms.
|Important Because=Interesting read to start a discussion, e.g. as preparation to an exercise or training session or a discussion meeting.
|Important For=All stakeholders in research
|Has Best Practice=For department leaders: ask your coworkers to read the executive summary, and organize a meeting to talk about it and what role the department and the individuals in that department could play to address the issue.
}}
{{Link
|Has Link=https://www.nas.org/reports/the-irreproducibility-crisis-of-modern-science/full-report
}}
{{Related To
|Related To Resource=Resource:5aefe751-0a20-4597-98a5-a59bf06a987a
}}
{{Tags
|Involves=David Randall; Christopher Welser; INSPIRE
|Has Timepoint=2018
}}

Resource:7ecf5fb2-8f1d-4e45-b72c-ba2682c8a64f

2020-08-23T14:59:15Z

0000-0003-4446-327X: Created page with "{{Resource |Resource Type=Other |Title=The Irreproducibility Crisis of Modern Science |Is About=A plea to reform modern science, with 40 proposed reforms. |Important Because=I..."

{{Resource
|Resource Type=Other
|Title=The Irreproducibility Crisis of Modern Science
|Is About=A plea to reform modern science, with 40 proposed reforms.
|Important Because=Interesting read to start a discussion, e.g. as preparation to an exercise or training session or a discussion meeting.
|Important For=All stakeholders in research
|Has Best Practice=For department leaders: ask your coworkers to read the executive summary, and organize a meeting to talk about it and what role the department and the individuals in that department could play to address the issue.
}}
{{Link
|Has Link=https://www.nas.org/reports/the-irreproducibility-crisis-of-modern-science/full-report
}}
{{Related To}}
{{Tags
|Involves=David Randall; Christopher Welser; INSPIRE
|Has Timepoint=2018
}}