Modified Dilemma Game
InstructionsModified Dilemma Game
You need to have read the instructions before experiencing the exercise.
Moreover, you need to be familiar with:
a) The concept of virtue and its importance for RI;
b) The concept of norm;
c) The concept of moral dilemma;
d) Section 1 of the European Code of Conduct for Research Integrity.
In order to fruitfully take part in this exercise you need to have a background in research (i.e. be employed as researchers) or be a trainer/educator/teacher who has had experience in research in the past.
What is this about?
The Rotterdam Dilemma Game (RDG) is a card game composed of dilemmas concerning a variety of research integrity issues. As the dilemmas are based on real cases, they are recognizable and relevant to those who take part in research activities. The game was developed by the Erasmus University Rotterdam for the use of researchers, coordinators, supervisors, administrators, reviewers, and all of those who are involved in research at different levels. The game covers 75 cases, each involving a short description of a dilemma, which are grouped in three main categories: researcher position, research strategy and research phase. Players can pick a case which corresponds to the issue they would like to discuss.
The game may be used as an exercise for exchanging experiences, opinions, perspectives and justifications. It could also be used to develop a shared understanding of formally defined principles and the moral content of our actions, as well as of roles of values and norms in decision-making. The original game kit developed by the Erasmus University Rotterdam was adapted in the context of VIRT2UE project. The aim of this modification is to raise awareness about virtues and values in research processes and to bring attention to the principles adopted by the European Code of Conduct for Research Integrity (ECoC). Concordantly, the modified RDG has several alterations, such as focusing on a dialogical approach while exchanging justifications for a moral choice and associating them with the virtues and values presented in the ECoC.Why is this important?
Introduction and confidentiality
Forming groups
Playing the game
Filling in the tables
Short presentation of the group discussions
Plenary debriefs
Conclusions
Remarks
List of contributors:
Volkan Kavas, Joana Araújo, Ana Sofia Carvalho, Giulia Inguaggiato and Margreet Stolper
This training has been developed by the VIRT2UE project, which has received funding form the European Union’s H2020 research programme under grant agreement N 741782.What is this about?
Rotterdam Dilemma Game (RDG) is a card game kit developed by the Erasmus University Rotterdam which includes 75 shortly described dilemmas touching upon various research integrity related issues. The game targets a diverse population of researchers and is designed to foster conversations about moral dilemmas that researchers might face during their career. RDG can be used for various purposes. For example, it can be used as education tool in a course setting with a group of young researches to increase awareness of research integrity (RI) issues or it can be played by team members working at the same lab or institution to gain insight in each other’s perspectives on RI dilemmas.
The modified RDG has been developed within the scope of the VIRT2UE project to provide a focus on the virtues and values which are important for researchers in day-to-day activities and to bring attention to the principles and content of the European Code of Conduct for Research Integrity (ECoC).Why is this important?
Practical Tips
Selection of the format: playing the game in small groups or plenary
The exercise is suitable to be used both in bigger groups or with several small groups. Bear in mind that it is usually fun to play a game in bigger groups. If you would like to use the game to build connections among participants that might be of a preference. Moreover, please consider whether to form homogeneous or heterogeneous groups before the actual training. The former would rule out communication problems arising from different cultural backgrounds, whereas the latter might create room for diverse viewpoints.
If you prefer to work with one big group and are experiencing the exercise face to face, consider using the corners of the room where you play the game representing the four choices of action (A, B, C and D). Then you can ask everybody to stand up and position themselves at the corner representing the option they have selected. In that case, as a trainer you need to be active in facilitating the group dialogue. Using corners allows people to use their own bodies which might open up space for expressing emotions.
On the contrary, if you prefer to work with smaller groups please make sure to assign the same dilemmas to all the groups. This will allow to discuss the results of each group plenary.
Table 1: Principles (Virtues) and research misconduct and other unacceptable practices from the ECoC that could be identified in each dilemma
| PRINCIPLES/DILEMMA | DILEMMA Nº _____ | |
| Reliability in ensuring the quality of research, reflected in the design, the methodology, the analysis and the use of resources. | ||
| Honesty in developing, undertaking, reviewing, reporting and communicating research in a transparent, fair, full and unbiased way. | ||
| Respect for colleagues, research participants, society, ecosystems, cultural heritage and the environment. | ||
| Accountability for the research from idea to publication, for its management and organisation, for training, supervision and mentoring, and for its wider impacts |
Table 2. What are the main research misconducts that you can identify in this dilemma?
| RESEARCH MISCONDUCT …/DILEMMA | DILEMMA Nº _____ | |
| Fabrication is making up results and recording them as if they were real. | ||
| Falsification is manipulating research materials, equipment or processes or changing, omitting or suppressing data or results without justification. | ||
| Plagiarism is using other people’s work and ideas without giving proper credit to the original source, thus violating the rights of the original author(s) to their intellectual outputs. | ||
| Manipulating authorship or denigrating the role of other researchers in publications. | ||
| Accusing a researcher of misconduct or other violations in a malicious way. | ||
| Misrepresenting research achievements. | ||
| Exaggerating the importance and practical applicability of findings. | ||
| Re-publishing substantive parts of one’s own earlier publications, including translations, without duly acknowledging or citing the original (‘self-plagiarism’). | ||
| Citing selectively to enhance own findings or to please editors, reviewers or colleagues. | ||
| Withholding research results. | ||
| Allowing funders/sponsors to jeopardise independence in the research process or reporting of results so as to introduce or promulgate bias. | ||
| Expanding unnecessarily the bibliography of a study. | ||
| Delaying or inappropriately hampering the work of other researchers. | ||
| Misusing seniority to encourage violations of research integrity. | ||
| Ignoring putative violations of research integrity by others or covering up inappropriate responses to misconduct or other violations by institutions. | ||
| Establishing or supporting journals that undermine the quality control of research (‘predatory journals’). |
Table 3. What are the relevant virtues that the researcher must have in order to take the decision chosen by the group?
| VIRTUES | DILEMMA Nº _____ |
| Resoluteness | |
| Accountability | |
| Availability | |
| Competency | |
| Patience | |
| Perseverance | |
| Reliability | |
| Sincerity | |
| Creativity | |
| Honesty | |
| Objectivity | |
| Humility | |
| Punctuality | |
| Trustworthiness/truthfulness | |
| Selflessness | |
| Reflexivity | |
| Clarity of purpose | |
| Collaborative spirit | |
| Fairness | |
| Loyalty | |
| Moderation | |
| Positivity | |
| Respectfulness |
