Text (Instruction Step Text)
From The Embassy of Good Science
(MWBot) |
(MWBot) |
||
| (2 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| − | <!--------------------------------- | + | <!--------------------------------- MANAGED PROPERTY ----------------------------------><!-- |
| − | <!-- DESCRIPTION --><div class="description-box">{{int:EGS | + | <!-- DESCRIPTION --><div class="description-box">{{int:EGS Instruction Step Text Desc}}</div><!-- /DESCRIPTION --> |
| Line 7: | Line 7: | ||
<!-- | <!-- | ||
| − | <!-- DISPLAYTITLE -->{{DISPLAYTITLE:Text}}<!-- /DISPLAYTITLE | + | <!-- DISPLAYTITLE -->{{DISPLAYTITLE:Text}}<!-- /DISPLAYTITLE --> |
| − | |||
| − | |||
Latest revision as of 16:09, 28 November 2023
Describe the actions the user should take to experience the material (including preparation and follow up if any). Write in an active way.
- ⧼SA Foundation Data Type⧽: Text
1
The training is composed of three elements:
1) online materials and
2) face-to-face meetings (divided into two sessions)
3) practice in one’s own context.
Trainees should invest about 60 hours in total (see below for an overview).
<br />
{| class="wikitable"
!
!Content
!Time
|-
|Online course
|Introduction to research integrity and virtue ethics, the ECoC and the main concepts used during the training + Reflection on personal experiences
|4 h
|-
|Preparatory assignments
|Completing the assignments in preparation for the face-to-face training
|5 h
|-
|First (face to face) group sessions
|Experiencing the exercises and reflecting on how to facilitate exercises
|16 h
|-
|Interim practice work
|Practicing the exercises in own institution/ context + preparing for follow up session
|27 h
|-
|Second (face to face) group session
|Reflecting on and discussing experiences + Practicing selected exercises + Discussion of didactical implementation in own context
|8 h
|}
Tot. 60 h
As a trainer you will need to make sure that your trainees get the preparation material in due time and reserve time for the first participatory sessions.
<br /> +
Discuss issues you (might) have encountered during the exercises with other participants and reflect on your role and experience in facilitating the exercises.
Make sure the specific goals of the exercises and their contribution to the overall goals of the training are clear to you. In particular reflect on the virtue-based approach to research integrity which is put forward in this training and on how to enable a virtue ethics approach in people’s ways to think about and do research. You might consider asking clarifying questions to make sure you have a good understanding of the approach and are able to use the same approach in training others. +
This exercise is best to be combined with other (similar or related) exercises. Embed this in a workshop, e.g. with multiple movie fragments. Introduce the workshop rst, e.g. as described elsewhere. +
Remind your trainees to send you the filled in '''[https://www.dropbox.com/s/1fmppqv189jxlqj/Self%20reflection%20form.pdf?dl=0 self reflection forms]''' in due time. After you have collected them, you analyse them to learn about how the trainees experienced the exercises.
In addition to this, you can consider directly asking the trainees what they would like to practice or discuss during the follow up session. This will be helpful in allocating practice time during the session. +
To prepare for facilitating the exercises in your context you:
a. Go through the instruction manuals and other related materials such as videos and readings;
b. Prepare the necessary material for the exercises (e.g. PowerPoint presentations and/or the forms to send to the participants of the exercise). Please, be aware that it may be necessary to adapt the exercises. For example, if you are an ombudsperson at your institution, it may prompt reservations among your training participants if you ask them to share research integrity cases from their experience. You may therefore consider using only fictional cases (e.g. from the [https://www.eur.nl/en/about-eur/policy-and-regulations/integrity/research-integrity/dilemma-game Rotterdam Dilemma Game], or from [https://embassy.science/wiki-wiki/index.php/Special:BrowseData/Resource?_search_Resource_Type%5B0%5D=Cases The Embassy of Good Science] case section) instead. +
Varieties of goodness in research - a rotary style exercise (variation to original VIRT2UE exercise)) +
Ask the participants to ll out the preparation sheet and to submit it prior to the training. Read the submitted material and select some examples to use
during the (plenary phase of the) exercise. +
Throughout this module, the ECoC is introduced and quoted as an important source of reference. A definition of research integrity is elaborated, as well as the four principles of research integrity, as outlined in the ECoC. A drag-and-drop exercise aims to familiarize with the document’s structure, and also introduces some norms outlined in the document.
[http://courses.embassy.science/what_is_research_integrity/story.html Open the course] +
This module is comprised of an introductory video on virtue ethics, and a subsequent multiple-choice quiz that aims to summarize the most relevant characteristics of virtue ethics. The quiz provides instant feedback on whether the responses are correct or not.
[http://courses.embassy.science/what_is_virtue_ethics/story.html Open course] +
This module starts with the assumption that many researchers may perceive the notion of virtue ethics in conflict with performative pressures in research. Drawing upon the work of Bruce Macfarlane[[#%20ftn1|[1]]], a culture of performativity is explored, as well as the question of whether current research conditions may involve incentives to be boastful. A reflection exercise asks learners to reflect on the effect of a performative culture in research, and whether these may tempt them to act more boastfully.
[http://courses.embassy.science/performative_culture_in_research/story.html Open course]
----[[#%20ftnref1|[1]]] Macfarlane, B. (2010). ''Researching with integrity: The ethics of academic enquiry''. Routledge. +
Throughout this module, the ECoC is referenced as importance guidance. A definition of research integrity is provided, as well as the four principles of research integrity outlined in the ECoC. A drag-and-drop exercise aims to familiarize with the document’s structure and introduces some norms outlined in the document.
[http://courses.embassy.science/what_is_research_integrity/story.html Open the course]
[[File:What is research integrity.png|link=http://courses.embassy.science/what_is_research_integrity/story.html]]
If you want to integrate this module into your institution's learning management system, you may download it as a SCORM Package [http://courses.embassy.science/What%20is%20research%20integrity_SCORM.zip here] +
This module is comprised of an introductory video on virtue ethics, and a subsequent multiple-choice quiz that aims to summarize the most relevant characteristics of virtue ethics. The quiz provides instant feedback on whether the responses are correct or not.
[[File:What is Virtue Ethics.jpg|link=http://courses.embassy.science/what_is_virtue_ethics/story.html]]
If you want to integrate this module into your institution's learning management system, you may download it as a SCORM Package [http://courses.embassy.science/What%20is%20Virtue%20Ethics_SCORM.zip here] +
This exercise supports users in identifying the features of and differences between debate and dialogue and in becoming aware of the strengths and usefulness of dialogue as a tool for reflection processes.
[[File:D&D2.png |link=https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=249umsbOIG0&list=PLabbUwyulAry4tzZ12eHl5JOJhJGiaE6k&index=4]] +
Read about virtue ethics and its relevance for research integrity.
Open the page about [https://embassy.science/wiki/Theme:520b3bc7-a6ab-4617-95f2-89c9dee31c53 virtues in research integrity]. +
During the 2019 World Conference on Research Integrity in Hong Kong, we asked experts to explain the concept of Research Integrity. <br />
[[File: What is research integrity3.png|link=https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CIIjtAgkfr4]] +
This module highlights the importance of good and responsible supervision, mentoring and role-modeling in research environments. Such practices, create open and safe environments where problems like poor mental health, anxiety, discrimination and harassment and fraudulent practices might be reduced.
[[File:Episode1.png|link=http://courses.embassy.science/Responsible_supervision_mentoring_role-modeling/story.html]] +
This module highlights the importance of good and responsible supervision, mentoring and role-modeling in research environments. Such practices create open and safe environments where problems like poor mental health, anxiety, discrimination and harassment and fraudulent practices might be reduced.
[[File:Episode1.png|link=http://courses.embassy.science/Responsible_supervision_mentoring_role-modeling/story.html]] +
This module starts with the assumption that many researchers may perceive a tension between virtue ethics and performative pressures in research. Drawing upon the work of Bruce Macfarlane[[#%20ftn1|[1]]], a culture of performativity is explored, as well as the question of whether current research conditions create incentives to be boastful. A reflection exercise asks learners to reflect on the effect of a performative culture in research, and whether these may tempt to act more boastfully.
[[File:Performative Culture in Research.jpg|link=http://courses.embassy.science/performative_culture_in_research/story.html]]
If you want to integrate this module into your institution's learning management system, you may download it as a SCORM Package [http://courses.embassy.science/Performative%20Culture%20in%20Research_SCORM.zip here]
----[[#%20ftnref1|[1]]] Macfarlane, B. (2010). ''Researching with integrity: The ethics of academic enquiry''. Routledge. +
04 - Moral Case Deliberation: A Method for Analysing Cases in Research Ethics and Research Integrity +
During the first step, the aim and procedure of MCD is explained by the facilitator. The facilitator addresses issues such as the nature of MCD, the context surrounding the MCD, the aim of the meeting, mutual expectations (e.g. open and honest communication) and the steps in the method. +
Identify the situations, people and environment through which the case unfolds. A good understanding of facts is essential for this deliberation procedure. +
03 - Four Quadrant Approach: A Method for Analysing Cases in Research Ethics and Research Integrity +
The user should attend to some general questions in order to identify relevant aspects and major characteristics of the situation:
*What are the morally relevant facts?
*What are the ethical or moral issues at stake in this case?
*Who are the stakeholders?
*What particular normative standards in pertinent regulatory documents apply to the case?
*What possible courses of action are available?
*What are the predictable effects of each action?
*Which set of possible outcomes seem to be better? +
