Difference between revisions of "Instruction:Ffff98bc-b81b-43ee-8fef-a264c1e25741"
| (4 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{Instruction | {{Instruction | ||
|Title=06 - Teaching Research Ethics Tool : A Method for Analysing Cases in Research Ethics | |Title=06 - Teaching Research Ethics Tool : A Method for Analysing Cases in Research Ethics | ||
| + | |Instruction Goal=Members of The Embassy of Good Science have developed a set of six user-friendly, accessible methods for analysing research ethics and research integrity cases. | ||
| + | |||
| + | These methods have been identified, adapted and presented so that they can be appropriated by all users, without prior philosophical knowledge, in local contexts. | ||
| + | |Has Requirements=The key aim for the case analysis method described here is that it can be appropriated by all users, without prior philosophical knowledge, in local contexts. | ||
| + | |||
| + | In order to apply this method in the analysis of specific cases, it is advised that RECs, RIOs and IRBs engage with the regulatory frameworks and normative standards that apply to their respective organizations in the form of codes of ethics, codes of conduct, funding body standards and, if applicable, broader national and international research ethics and research integrity regulatory documents. | ||
|Has Duration=2 | |Has Duration=2 | ||
|Important For=Researchers; Ethics committee members; Research Integrity Officers | |Important For=Researchers; Ethics committee members; Research Integrity Officers | ||
| + | |Has Method=Case analysis method; Individual learning | ||
}} | }} | ||
{{Custom TabContent Trainee Open}} | {{Custom TabContent Trainee Open}} | ||
{{Instruction Steps Foldout Trainee}} | {{Instruction Steps Foldout Trainee}} | ||
| − | {{Instruction Perspective Trainee}} | + | {{Instruction Perspective Trainee |
| + | |Is About=This method was developed by Ferrer[[#%20ftn1|<sup><sup>[1]</sup></sup>]] and applied by a group of investigators from Graduate Education in Research Ethics for Scientists and Engineers (GERESE) at the University of Puerto Rico, Mayaguez campus (UPRM). The aim of the project was to integrate research ethics into the graduate curriculum in science and engineering[[#%20ftn2|<sup><sup>[2]</sup></sup>]]. | ||
| + | ----[[#%20ftnref1|<sup>[1]</sup>]] Ferrer, J.J. (2007), “Deber y Deliberación una Invitación a la Bioética” Cep, Mayagüez, Puerto Rico. | ||
| + | |||
| + | [[#%20ftnref2|<sup>[2]</sup>]] Valdes, D., & Jaramillo Giraldo, E., & Ferrer, J., & Frey, W. (2009, June), Case Analysis: A Tool for Teaching Research Ethics In Science And Engineering For Graduate Students Paper presented at 2009 Annual Conference & Exposition, Austin, Texas. <nowiki>https://peer.asee.org/5729</nowiki> | ||
| + | |Important Because=This method is used as a conceptual tool to guide students though the moral deliberation process in a systematic way. | ||
| + | |Has Practical Tips=A case analysed by this method is openly available on the Zenodo repository and can be accessed using the following link: https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.5035531 | ||
| + | }} | ||
{{Instruction Step Trainee | {{Instruction Step Trainee | ||
|Instruction Step Title=Determination of facts | |Instruction Step Title=Determination of facts | ||
| + | |Instruction Step Text=Identify the situations, people and environment through which the case unfolds. A good understanding of facts is essential for this deliberation procedure. | ||
}} | }} | ||
{{Instruction Step Trainee | {{Instruction Step Trainee | ||
|Instruction Step Title=Identification of morally problematic situations | |Instruction Step Title=Identification of morally problematic situations | ||
| + | |Instruction Step Text=There are usually several morally problematic situations that require attention. This step provides students with an opportunity to improve their sensibility to ethically problematic situations. | ||
}} | }} | ||
{{Instruction Step Trainee | {{Instruction Step Trainee | ||
|Instruction Step Title=Identification of possible courses of action | |Instruction Step Title=Identification of possible courses of action | ||
| + | |Instruction Step Text=Usually, there are several possible courses of action. Some result in misconduct while others effectively and ethically solve the problem(s). | ||
}} | }} | ||
{{Instruction Step Trainee | {{Instruction Step Trainee | ||
|Instruction Step Title=Distinguishing “moral questions”, “moral disagreements”, and “moral conflicts” | |Instruction Step Title=Distinguishing “moral questions”, “moral disagreements”, and “moral conflicts” | ||
| + | |Instruction Step Text=A moral question is a situation in which moral duties are clear to the subject, although they may be in conflict with other issues of interest to the agent such as financial and political interests. These situations do not require moral deliberation so much as moral courage. Moral disagreements arise when the agent feels subjectively certain but holds a point of view in conflict with another persons’ moral judgments. These situations call for moral dialogue and argumentation. Finally, moral conflicts (or moral problems) arise when agents face conflicting moral duties. These instances call for moral deliberation. | ||
}} | }} | ||
{{Instruction Step Trainee | {{Instruction Step Trainee | ||
|Instruction Step Title=Establish a hierarchy of values related to morally problematic situations | |Instruction Step Title=Establish a hierarchy of values related to morally problematic situations | ||
| + | |Instruction Step Text=If there are moral conflicts, examination of the relative hierarchy of values is required in order to determine the overriding duty or duties in the situation. | ||
}} | }} | ||
{{Instruction Step Trainee | {{Instruction Step Trainee | ||
|Instruction Step Title=Consequence analysis (if necessary) | |Instruction Step Title=Consequence analysis (if necessary) | ||
| + | |Instruction Step Text=If the previous step is not sufficient to identify the preferred course of action, a further step is required consisting of the analysis of foreseeable consequences of each course of action. The analysis of consequences depends on a good determination of the facts. It should include foreseeable consequences related to the persons involved, the working environment, the external environment, and society at large. | ||
}} | }} | ||
{{Instruction Step Trainee | {{Instruction Step Trainee | ||
|Instruction Step Title=Justification of the moral choice | |Instruction Step Title=Justification of the moral choice | ||
| + | |Instruction Step Text=After analysing different possible courses of action, students identify those that are morally justified. | ||
}} | }} | ||
{{Instruction Remarks Trainee}} | {{Instruction Remarks Trainee}} | ||
| Line 37: | Line 58: | ||
{{Related To | {{Related To | ||
|Related To Theme=Theme:17d406f9-0b0f-4325-aa2d-2fe186d5ff34;Theme:Cda80c83-0101-4e27-bdc0-87a45846e5ed | |Related To Theme=Theme:17d406f9-0b0f-4325-aa2d-2fe186d5ff34;Theme:Cda80c83-0101-4e27-bdc0-87a45846e5ed | ||
| − | |Related To Instruction=Instruction: | + | |Related To Instruction=Instruction:A440eed0-f9f4-4415-a2c4-2d6ff9f44b80;Instruction:6b129846-c455-4849-9eaf-0d25f3c5600e;Instruction:41bc2a1d-26f7-49f9-8bf7-9fc6b4ecf10c;Instruction:C0cf8cfb-6090-49e3-94f5-20f530f83ffd;Instruction:6cc77174-4f7b-48a6-95f3-eeb4dadcb0a3 |
}} | }} | ||
{{Tags | {{Tags | ||
|Has Virtue And Value=Fairness; Respect; Accountability; Transparency; Responsibility | |Has Virtue And Value=Fairness; Respect; Accountability; Transparency; Responsibility | ||
}} | }} | ||
Latest revision as of 12:21, 8 August 2021
Instructions06 - Teaching Research Ethics Tool : A Method for Analysing Cases in Research Ethics
Members of The Embassy of Good Science have developed a set of six user-friendly, accessible methods for analysing research ethics and research integrity cases.
These methods have been identified, adapted and presented so that they can be appropriated by all users, without prior philosophical knowledge, in local contexts.The key aim for the case analysis method described here is that it can be appropriated by all users, without prior philosophical knowledge, in local contexts.
In order to apply this method in the analysis of specific cases, it is advised that RECs, RIOs and IRBs engage with the regulatory frameworks and normative standards that apply to their respective organizations in the form of codes of ethics, codes of conduct, funding body standards and, if applicable, broader national and international research ethics and research integrity regulatory documents.What is this about?
This method was developed by Ferrer[1] and applied by a group of investigators from Graduate Education in Research Ethics for Scientists and Engineers (GERESE) at the University of Puerto Rico, Mayaguez campus (UPRM). The aim of the project was to integrate research ethics into the graduate curriculum in science and engineering[2].
[1] Ferrer, J.J. (2007), “Deber y Deliberación una Invitación a la Bioética” Cep, Mayagüez, Puerto Rico. [2] Valdes, D., & Jaramillo Giraldo, E., & Ferrer, J., & Frey, W. (2009, June), Case Analysis: A Tool for Teaching Research Ethics In Science And Engineering For Graduate Students Paper presented at 2009 Annual Conference & Exposition, Austin, Texas. https://peer.asee.org/5729
Why is this important?
Practical Tips
Determination of facts
Identify the situations, people and environment through which the case unfolds. A good understanding of facts is essential for this deliberation procedure.
Identification of morally problematic situations
There are usually several morally problematic situations that require attention. This step provides students with an opportunity to improve their sensibility to ethically problematic situations.
Identification of possible courses of action
Usually, there are several possible courses of action. Some result in misconduct while others effectively and ethically solve the problem(s).
Distinguishing “moral questions”, “moral disagreements”, and “moral conflicts”
A moral question is a situation in which moral duties are clear to the subject, although they may be in conflict with other issues of interest to the agent such as financial and political interests. These situations do not require moral deliberation so much as moral courage. Moral disagreements arise when the agent feels subjectively certain but holds a point of view in conflict with another persons’ moral judgments. These situations call for moral dialogue and argumentation. Finally, moral conflicts (or moral problems) arise when agents face conflicting moral duties. These instances call for moral deliberation.
If there are moral conflicts, examination of the relative hierarchy of values is required in order to determine the overriding duty or duties in the situation.
Consequence analysis (if necessary)
If the previous step is not sufficient to identify the preferred course of action, a further step is required consisting of the analysis of foreseeable consequences of each course of action. The analysis of consequences depends on a good determination of the facts. It should include foreseeable consequences related to the persons involved, the working environment, the external environment, and society at large.
Justification of the moral choice
After analysing different possible courses of action, students identify those that are morally justified.
