You do not have permission to edit this page, for the following reason:

Only users who are logged in using ORCID can make a change or add a contribution. Please login here.

Back

Edit a module

With this form, you create a step-by-step module on research integrity or ethics. This can be used to provide instruction on a particular topic. You might want to use it for a tutorial, teaching material, case analysis tool, or an educational game.

Every single module is intended for just one type of user. That sets it apart. It might be that you write an instruction for a group session with a facilitator and participants. You would then need to write two pages, one with the steps, for facilitators and one with the steps for participants.

Before you submit, please be aware of our community guidelines.

Do you want your training and project to be featured on the Embassy?

Feel free to contact us to discuss the options.

Instructions for:ParticipantTrainer

Module

Perspective Participant

The method is founded on the idea that each member of a research ethics committee (‘REC’), research integrity office (‘RIO’) or institutional review board (‘IRB’) will deliberate based on their initial views and beliefs about a particular case.

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

What are the steps?

Interactive Content

Review my Early View and associated reasons by addressing each of the following themes and  questions:

'''Normative Standards'''

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

In order to answer this question, we need:

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

'''Experience'''

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

In order to answer this question, we need:

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

'''Expertise'''

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

To answer this question, we need to:

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

'''Empathy'''

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

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

To answer this question, we need to:

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

'''Evidence'''

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

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

In order to answer this question, we need:

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

'''Expediency'''

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

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

In order to answer this question, we need to:

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

'''Escape'''

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

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

*Agree to disagree (if it will not affect the final judgment);
*Seek elaboration on any of the answers to the questions listed above;
*Vote on a set of judgments;
*Consider alternatives.

Interactive Content

Add another

Instruction Remarks Participant

Perspective Trainer

What are the steps?

Add another

Instruction Remarks Trainer

Related To

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

Edit a module