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.

Module

Instructions for:ParticipantTrainer

Perspective Participant

What are the steps?

Interactive Content

Add another

Instruction Remarks Participant

Perspective Trainer

<br />
{{{!}} class="wikitable" border="0" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="0"
{{!}} width="611" valign="top"{{!}}'''Case example '''which you can use:

You are applying for a grant to fund your research. One of your colleagues is  known for being very good at writing convincing applications. You ask him for help, as you really need the grant. He is very willing to give you a hand and rewrites your application. When reading his changes, you get the feeling that it is very ambitious and it promises a lot which you might not be able to deliver. However, you have to admit that the application is really impressive and convincing. The deadline for handing in  the application is tomorrow. What do you do?

A)    Tell the colleague you are very happy and submit it as it is.

B)     Submit the original version.

'''Overview of differences between Debate and  Dialogue''' 
{{{!}} class="wikitable" border="1" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="0"
{{!}} width="168" valign="top"{{!}}
{{!}} width="359" valign="top"{{!}}'''Debate'''
{{!}} width="392" valign="top"{{!}}'''Dialogue'''
{{!}}-
{{!}} width="168" valign="top"{{!}}'''Aim'''
{{!}} width="359" valign="top"{{!}}
*Make others understand you
*Convince others that you have the ‘best’ answer
{{!}} width="392" valign="top"{{!}}
*Understand others
*Develop understanding of an issue from multiple perspectives
{{!}}-
{{!}} width="168" valign="top"{{!}}'''Characteristics'''
{{!}} width="359" valign="top"{{!}}
*Speed
*Criticize others and defend yourself
*Judgments and conclusions
*Repetition of views/standpoint
*Raised voices and interruptions
*Focus on effective and objective knowledge
{{!}} width="392" valign="top"{{!}}
*Try to understand the other (claim of knowledge)
*Slow down
*Listen to each other
*Focus on making presuppositions explicit
*Space for ‘not-knowing’
{{!}}-
{{!}} width="168" valign="top"{{!}}'''Attitude'''
{{!}} width="359" valign="top"{{!}}
*Try to convince the other
*Make yourself understood/visible
{{!}} width="392" valign="top"{{!}}
*Ask (in-depth) questions
*Active listening
*Postpone judgments
*Try to think with ‘one head’
{{!}}}
'''Instructions step 8''':

Questions that might help guide a reflection on a dialogical attitude:

**
*Did you experience a difference between a debate and dialogue
*Who, or which group, was the most talkative and what was the reason for it? (Why did it happen?)
*Were there participants who didn’t  participate in the debate or dialogue? If so, ask those participants what made them stay out of the debate and/or dialogue. Or first ask the group why they think some people did not participate in the debate and/or dialogue.
*Did you understand the arguments, motives, interest of the other group/side during the debate or the dialogue? What influenced the ability to understand the other? (Ask for concrete examples).
*Are there other things you experienced as remarkable/specific for a debate or dialogue?
{{!}}}

What are the steps?

Interactive Content

Divide the group in two sub-groups and instruct each group which side of the dilemma they have to defend. There are two ways to split the group: A) participants choose a side themselves, or B) the trainer divides the group in two subgroups. Both approaches have pros and cons to consideration. With option A, the participants are more likely to believe in and strongly defend their position. With option B, the participants have to learn to defend a position which they might not agree with.

If you are aware of power differences in a group e.g. supervisors and (PhD) students, it might be advisable for the moderator to divide the group. Participants assigned to a group might feel less pressure when defending their position against people more powerful than them.

If there is enough space available in the room, position the two subgroups facing each other,they should literarily stand facing each other.

Before starting the debate, give both groups a few minutes to discuss their arguments and strategy to convince the other group.

Interactive Content

After 10-minutes (depending on the size of the group), stop the debate and let the group reflect on what happened and how they debated/interacted with each other. Help them to reflect mainly on the process and not on the content of the debate. Ask participants to list features of a debate and note them down on a flip-chart. Some examples of questions you might use:

**
*What was remarkable in the way you talked to each other? What did you observe/experience?
*What did you notice about people's postures or tones of voice?
*How would you characterize the interactions between the two groups? What did you observe/experience?
*Do you feel you understand each other?
*Which group was dominant and why did this happen? It might happen that one group is always confronting the other group, while the other group is always defending their position instead of ‘attacking’ the other group. Try to identify with the participants what contributed to this process.
*While listing and reflecting on the characteristics of a debate, try to ask for examples. For example, you can ask, what did you see or experience? What was missing?

Explain that a debate/discussion might be fruitful in certain situations. For example, it helps to quickly make the initial judgments/statements/opinions regarding the moral dilemma clear.

Interactive Content

Let both subgroups talk again with each other for about 10 minutes but now with a dialogical attitude. Preferably, stay with the same case and the same groups as  in step 3. Although it might be difficult, participants are actively challenged to change in their attitude (from debate to dialogue). It is also possible to use a new case and designate again groups defending the difference sides of the dilemma. Presenting a new case might be easier for participants adopt a dialogical attitude.

In general, people tend to start debating with each other again. Therefore, be alert to the attitude of a debate and intervene immediately when participants start debating during the time for dialogue. For example, participants who interrupt others, don't listen, attach others with judgmental sentences/postures/gestures, or defend themselves instead of asking questions for clarification etc.). In case it happens, stop the conversation and help the participants to reflect on what happened by asking one of the following questions:

**
*What is happening right now?
*What do you experience?
*Can somebody explain or describe what happened?
*After describing what happened: what can/should you do instead? (Referring to characteristics of a dialogue).

Refer in this moment of reflection as much as possible to  a specific attitude. For example, trying to convince the other, interruptions, etc. Once the debate-attitude has been described, provide the participants with tips to resume a dialogue by asking for example:

**
*What would help you to better understand the other side?
*What question could you ask?
*What can you do to invite the other side to ask you questions?
*What should we change to promote the dialogue?

Interactive Content

Add another

Instruction Remarks Trainer

Related To

Edit Instruction: Instruction:Ac206152-effd-475b-b8cd-7e5861cb65aa

Edit a module