View source for Instruction:Acbe0102-8c73-43fb-9d99-269d1ec173f8

{{Instruction
|Title=BEYOND research ethics and integrity: cases for training young and/or early career researchers
|Has Related Initiative=Initiative:667449ef-1c0a-4e06-8374-830c8ad68cb8
|Instruction Goal=The purpose of this training activity is to engage participants in a game to encourage discussion on fictional research ethics and research integrity cases in order to promote better self-understanding and mutual understanding, while also enhancing listening and argumentation skills.
|Has Duration=1
|Important For=Bachelor students; Early career researchers; Prospective Research Integrity Trainers; Research ethics 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
|Is About=This collection of cases for teaching and training was developed within the EU-funded BEYOND (Beyond Bad Apples: Towards a Behavioral and Evidence-based Approach to Promote Research Ethics and Integrity in Europe) project.

Ethics and ethics education have traditionally emphasized individual responsibility in decision-making and actions. While this perspective remains vital, it does not encompass the full complexity of ethical decision-making processes. Human beings are inherently social creatures and their decisions are influenced not only by personal choices but also by their broader environment and situational contexts. This underscores the need to integrate an understanding of social and contextual factors into ethical frameworks and teaching methodologies.
|Important Because=Case-based methodologies in teaching have a long history with the disciplines of law, business and medicine being first to employ real-life cases in university-level teaching. In ethics teaching these methods were first developed in the 1980s within the context of business ethics. Today, as case-based methodologies (descriptions of cases sometimes complemented by a set of solutions) have proven to be more effective compared to other approaches for teaching ethics<sup>1</sup>, they have widely been used in different settings<sup>2</sup>. In the context of research ethics and integrity, well-known examples of the training materials employing this method are the Rotterdam dilemma game[[Theme:B96ef996-e262-4c0c-a62c-1ea1ef034f36|<sup>3</sup>]] and Virtue training materials[[Instruction:A0dd2e82-52e7-4030-a396-54525630e75c|<sup>4</sup>]].

# <span lang="NO-BOK">Todd, E. M. et al.</span> <span lang="EN-US">(2017, July 4). Effective Practices in the Delivery of Research Ethics Education: A Qualitative Review of Instructional Methods. ''Accountability in Research,'' ''24''(5), 297–321. <span lang="ET">https://doi.org/10.1080/08989621.2017.1301210</span></span>
# <span lang="EN-US">Baldor, R. A., Field, T. S., and Gurwitz, J. H. (2001). Using the 'Question of Scruples' Game to Teach Managed Care Ethics to Students. ''Academic Medicine, 76(''5), 510–511. <span lang="ET">https://doi.org/10.1097/00001888-200105000-00040</span>; Bekir, N. et al. (2001). Teaching Engineering Ethics: A New Approach. In ''31st Annual Frontiers in Education Conference. Impact on Engineering and Science Education. Conference Proceedings,'' 1. <span lang="ET">https://doi.org/10.1109/FIE.2001.963895</span>; Cohen, H. (1993). The Citicorp Interactive Work Ethic Game: Sociological Practice Use in the Classroom. ''Clinical Sociology Review,'' ''11''(1). <nowiki>https://digitalcommons.wayne.edu/csr/vol11/iss1/14</nowiki>; Dahlin, J.-E. (n.d.). ''A Board Game for Teaching Sustainable Development.'' <span lang="ET">https://www.jonerikdahlin.com/dilemma/</span>; Nelson, J. (1992). The Market Ethic: Moral Dilemmas and Microeconomics. ''Journal of Business Ethics,'' ''11''(4), 317–320. <span lang="ET">https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00872174</span></span>
# <span lang="ET">Erasmus University Rotterdam. (n.d.). ''Dilemma game: Professionalism and integrity in research''. https://www.eur.nl/en/about-eur/policy-and-regulations/integrity/research-integrity/dilemma-game</span>
# <span lang="ET">The Embassy of Good Science. (n.d.). ''Modified Dilemma Game (Instruction: A0dd2e82-52e7-4030-a396-54525630e75c)''. [[Instruction:A0dd2e82-52e7-4030-a396-54525630e75c|https://embassy.science/wiki/Instruction:A0dd2e82-52e7-4030-a396-54525630e75c]]</span>
}}
{{Instruction Step Trainer
|Instruction Step Title=Familiarize yourself with the methodology used for this training activity
|Instruction Step Text=<span lang="EN-US">The methodology of BEYOND cases is rooted in the values clarification method. It simultaneously develops discussions on ethics and values-related issues while enhancing competencies necessary for dialogic communication, including: '''1) skills for listening and responding, 2) openness, 3) empathy, and 4) mutuality orientation'''<sup>5</sup>.</span> 

<span lang="EN-US">This particular methodology has been developed through various educational games created by the Centre for Ethics at the University of Tartu, with the first game released in 2010 for teachers. Subsequent games have been designed for medical workers, students, researchers and the general public. The training material is intended for use as active learning methods with high interactivity, such as group work and group discussions. The method combines individual activities (taking first personal responsibility via choosing one’s own solution) with group activities (discussing the case, solutions and their underlying motivations and values, and potentially reaching a consensus).</span> 

<span lang="EN-US">The material consists of ethical dilemmas which are developed in accordance with the methodology described by Parder et al. (2024)<sup>6</sup>.</span>

<span lang="EN-US">·       The narrative is described from the perspective of the protagonist – the protagonist must be someone that the trainees find it easy to identify with.</span> 

<span lang="EN-US">·       The characters and the basic relationships between them are described without too much detail, leaving thus room for trainees to fill the missing information with their own life experiences.</span> 

<span lang="EN-US">·       The information about the motives of the actors has been kept to a minimum to give the trainees an opportunity to draw from their experiences.</span> 

<span lang="EN-US">·       The temporal dimension of the narrative is also kept limited – in some cases background information is given, but the pre-given choices were kept within one temporal moment.</span> 

<span lang="EN-US">·       The dilemma and the pre-given solutions were balanced – the narrative was written from the neutral perspective and the pre-given solutions were morally acceptable from the perspective of at least one ethical theory.</span>

<span lang="EN-US">The drafting of solutions was inspired by four ethical theories: deontology, utilitarianism, care ethics and virtue ethics. It has to be noted that the solutions are not in perfect accordance with the theories as the aim of this training methodology is not to teach ethical theories to trainees, but rather to provide realistic alternative solutions to choose from.</span>

<span lang="EN-US">Finally, the aim of the methodology is not to teach a “right” answer to the dilemma as dilemmas often involve conflicts between two or more valuable ethical principles, but to focus on the reflection of the cases and solutions and to guide participants to carry out moral reasoning with emphasis on the skills of listening and discussing.</span><div>
----<div>
'''<span lang="EN-US">'''<span lang="EN-US">[5]</span>'''</span>''' <span lang="ET">Kent , M. L., and Taylor, M. (2002).</span> <span lang="EN-US">Toward a Dialogic Theory of Public Relations. ''Public Relations Review,'' ''28''(1), 21–37. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0363-8111(02)00108-X; Taylor, M., and Kent, M. L. (2014). Dialogic Engagement: Clarifying Foundational Concepts. ''Journal of Public Relations Research,'' ''26''(5), 384–398. https://doi.org/10.1080/1062726X.2014.956106; Yang, S.-U., Kang, M., and Cha, H. (2015). A Study on Dialogic Communication, Trust, and Distrust: Testing a Scale for Measuring Organization–Public Dialogic Communication (OPDC). ''Journal of Public Relations Research,'' ''27''(2), 175–192. <span lang="ET">https://doi.org/10.1080/1062726X.2015.1007998</span></span>
</div><div>
<span lang="ET"><span lang="ET">[6]</span></span> <span lang="EN-US">Parder, M. L., Tammeleht, A., Juurik, M., Paaver, T., Velbaum, K., and Harro-Loit, H. (2024). Digital Discussion Game on Values: Development, Use and Possibilities for Measuring Its Functionality. In Y. P. Cheng, M. Pedaste, E. Bardone, Y. M. Huang (eds). (2024). Innovative Technologies and Learning. ICITL 2024. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, 14785. Springer, Cham.</span>  

</div></div>
}}
{{Instruction Step Trainer
|Instruction Step Title=Familiarize yourself with the goals of the activity
|Instruction Step Text=<span lang="EN-US">The purpose of this training activity is to engage participants in a game to encourage discussion and promote better self-understanding and mutual understanding, while also enhancing listening and argumentation skills. The game is played in groups of 3–6 players. There can be as many groups as needed, although facilitation might require more effort with more groups. The cases focus on issues that are especially relevant for young and/or early career researchers and attempt has been made to cover topics that have emerged more recently in research ethics and integrity field (AI, researcher rehabilitation etc.).</span>
}}
{{Instruction Step Trainer
|Instruction Step Title=Prepare
|Instruction Step Text=<span lang="EN-US">·       Choose the cases you would like to play. The groups can play either the same cases (cases can then be projected on slides) or different ones (cases can be projected by expanding the window below or printed handouts).</span> 

<span lang="EN-US">The cases for handouts can also be found  [https://zenodo.org/records/17733497]</span>

<span lang="EN-US">·       Prepare the cases to be shared with the players (print them, put them on slides or other visuals to be used in the activity).</span>

<span lang="EN-US">·       Decide whether to hold joint discussions about particular cases across groups or have each group discuss separately.</span><div><div><div><span name="_msocom_1"></span></div></div></div>
}}
{{Instruction Step Trainer
|Instruction Step Title=Introduce the game
|Instruction Step Text=<span lang="EN-US">·       Group the players into groups of 3–6 players</span>

<span lang="EN-US">·       Share the cases with the players (different solutions possible: 1) handout with all cases; 2) cases printed separately; 3) cases shown on slides.)</span>

<span lang="EN-US">·       Note: case descriptions are brief by necessity thus often the issue of “more information is needed" comes up in discussions. It is important to keep in mind that the communication and open reflection is the objective of the game, more so than the actual solutions. Thus discussions around “filling the gaps” and debating what information is needed or how it would affect one’s decisions is very much the aim.</span>

<span lang="EN-US">·       Note: solutions are designed so that they are all problematic in some sense. In that way they reflect the common reality where decisions need to be made in non-ideal contexts, compromises are sometimes necessary or certain important values are upheld and others are not. Experiencing some emotional distress when having to decide individually after reading the case, is an important aspect of the methodology.</span> 

<span lang="EN-US">·       Refer to the Research ecosystem’s logo</span>
[[File:Beyond1.png|center|frameless|500x500px]]


<span lang="EN-US">This logo is meant to facilitate discussion on the contextual – organisational, cultural and other environmental factors – that influence research ethics and integrity practices. It can be projected or included on handouts, either during group discussions or later joint discussions.</span>
}}
{{Instruction Step Trainer
|Instruction Step Title=Facilitate playing the game
|Instruction Step Text=<span lang="EN-US">Guide participants by going through the following steps:</span> 

'''<span lang="EN-US">1.    </span>'''<span lang="EN-US">Players read the case and the solutions.</span>

'''<span lang="EN-US">2.    </span>'''<span lang="EN-US">Then everyone individually picks the solution that they are most likely to support (this is an individual decision and discussion at that stage should be discouraged).</span>

'''<span lang="EN-US">3.    </span>'''<span lang="EN-US">When all players have made their choice, all individuals within a group should simultaneously reveal their choices to each other (easiest to do with simply raising the number of fingers corresponding to the solution). Often different solutions are chosen and realization of this peer disagreement is an important aspect of the methodology.</span>

'''<span lang="EN-US">4.    </span>'''<span lang="EN-US">Each player then takes turns explaining their reasons behind their choice. Others listen without intervening, commenting or criticising.</span>

'''<span lang="EN-US">5.    </span>'''<span lang="EN-US">After everyone has provided their reasons, discussion begins with the aim of finding consensus in the group. Consider whether reaching a common decision is possible. Provide reasons for your choice and explain why other solutions may not seem as good. After listening to other players’ explanations, you can choose to either stick with your initial choice, change it or provide a new solution.</span>

'''<span lang="EN-US">6.    </span>'''<span lang="EN-US">When you have reached a consensus (or decided not to achieve it), move on to the next case.</span>
}}
{{Instruction Step Trainer
|Instruction Step Title=End of the game (harvest)
|Instruction Step Text=<span lang="EN-US">·       The game ends when either the time planned for the activity is over or when the group has finished the case prepared for them.</span>

<span lang="EN-US">·       BEYOND project draws attention to the contextual factors of research ethics and integrity, therefore the research ecosystem’s logo can be shown/projected to facilitate discussion of those issues.</span>

<span lang="EN-US">·       Each case description + solution also has “points to consider” that lists some of the research ethics and integrity issues relevant for the case. It is recommended that the players <u>do not see</u> those points before their discussion but they can be brought up by the instructor once the group has tried to identify issues on their own.</span>
}}
{{Instruction Remarks Trainer
|Has Remarks=<span lang="NO-BOK">Authors: Kadri Simm, Mari-Liisa Parder, Heldi Marleen Lang, Emmi Kaaya</span>

<span lang="EN-US">Project title: BEYOND BAD APPLES: Towards a Behavioral and Evidence-Based Approach to Promote Research Ethics and Research Integrity in Europe</span>

<span lang="EN-US">Grant agreement no: 101094714</span>
}}
{{Custom TabContent Close Trainer}}
{{Related To}}
{{Tags}}