View source for Resource:42b376ba-ed0c-4814-81d5-2d76cb89ec5a

{{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
}}