Text (Instruction Step Text)
From The Embassy of Good Science
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 BEYOND approach - ‘it’s not the apple, but the orchard’ - reflects the idea that integrity is upheld as a collaborative effort. This is why it is important that training also models the collaborative way. Cases have the capacity to open up discussion space for the complexities of integrity and ethics in research, again, guiding learners to think of the full complexity, not just individuals, but also other systemic levels, including meso and macro levels, that is organisation, research community, and national, international and global context. Scaffolding provides a technique acknowledging where the individual or even a team or research community is at and designing the next steps to facilitate learning and development eventually leading to better alignment with the highest ethical and integrity standards. The point of departure is that there is always room for improvement, even in the strongest of research communities and the work starts with acknowledging status quo and identifying the next goals, which are within reach, irrespective of whether we envision the learning of individuals or communities. With these approaches; case-based and collaborative learning and scaffolding we believe training is well geared towards nurturing the orchard.
The BEYOND Trainer Guide goes beyond simply listing training materials; it adds value by explaining various pedagogical approaches that can be applied to enhance the use of different materials. It shows how learning taxonomies can be applied to create learning-focused training (as opposed to mere information transmission) irrespective of which materials produced in EU-funded projects that are implemented. We have structured the material according to target group, so that trainers can easily identify materials that are suitable for the target group they are training.
Additionally, the content is also structured according to the type of learning activities to support those trainers who wish to work using specific activities but may hesitate whether they are suitable for a particular target group, or simply would like to know more about the activity itself.
To summarise, the BEYOND approach is manifested in the Trainer Guide as:
- A proposal for a research-based approach to an ‘orchard pedagogy’
- Suggestions for measuring training effect to gain an indication of the preparedness of the research community to develop a culture of integrity
Facilitation for using existing research ethics and integrity training resources by providing two alternative structures for trainers, including one, which addresses various actors in ‘the orchard’ through a career-level approach. We wish trainers and other readers, as well as learners taking part in trainings and learning activities utilising the resources referred to in the BEYOND Trainer Guide, a joyful journey through the orchard!
The ethical conduct of research is crucial for maintaining the integrity of science. [https://oir.nih.gov/sourcebook/ethical-conduct/responsible-conduct-research-training Responsible Conduct of Research] (RCR) advances scientific goals, fosters a collaborative research environment, and builds public trust in scientific advances that benefit society. Conversely, unethical research practices such as data fabrication and falsification lead to the dissemination of false hypotheses and unreliable data, which harms the search for valid knowledge. Similarly, plagiarism and harassment undermine respect and trust among researchers, while fraudulent or socially irresponsible research weakens public trust and support for science. [https://oir.nih.gov/sourcebook/ethical-conduct/responsible-conduct-research-training The goals of RCR training] include developing a culture of integrity in science and improving knowledge and awareness about the conduct of research.
RCR training and education should be continuous and extend beyond the academic programme throughout a scientist's career. This education can take place in a variety of contexts, such as seminars, workshops, conferences on research ethics and informal mentoring sessions, training courses and laboratory meetings where ethical behaviour and practises are discussed.
As described by van den Hoven and colleagues, multiple factors influence research integrity (RI) training (learning objectives), RI learning (learning outcomes), and changes in RI behaviour (learning outcomes).'"`UNIQ--ref-000000C8-QINU`"' Through these, it is possible to promote trustworthy science, responsible research practices, and high integrity/ethical standards. "Training effects" Can be conceptualised through the (intended) impacts of RI training on various performance levels, including individual, institutional, and societal levels.'"`UNIQ--ref-000000C9-QINU`"' Furthermore, the authors distinguish among intended training effects (for example changes in behaviour); training input and output (that is training focus/content and learners orientating themselves towards this content); outcomes (that is, learners change their behaviour); and training impact (manifestation of the outcome, such as decreases in misconduct).
[https://nap.nationalacademies.org/read/21896/chapter/15 Effective education in research ethics and integrity aims to achieve several crucial goals.]Defining goals for teaching research integrity and research ethics is crucial to promote and foster responsible research practices and a trustworthy research ecosystem. The main goals to achieve in training RE/RI are related to promoting knowledge (in relation to responsible research practices, norms, and guidelines), skills (in relation to ethical decision-making, problem solving and critical thinking), ‘theoretical’ attitude (in relation to what should be done to foster responsible research) and ‘practical’ behaviour (in relation to how researchers behave in their daily practice).'"`UNIQ--ref-000000CA-QINU`"'
'"`UNIQ--references-000000CB-QINU`"'
<span lang="EN-US">I</span>t is strongly recommended to circulate the relevant [https://classroom.eneri.eu/node/377 "technology basics" e-modules] among participants prior to the training. Trainers should select the most pertinent modules from those developed by the project, aligning their choices with the session's specific topic. +
Across disciplines, case-based learning (CBL) is a well-established method that encourages higher levels of cognition by having students apply their knowledge to real-world or fictional situations (see Bloom's Taxonomy or Relational/extended abstract levels of learning in SOLO taxonomy).
Learners usually '''work in groups''' on case studies, which are narratives with one or more characters and/or scenarios. The cases pose a disciplinary issue or issues, to which learners come up with remedies while working with an instructor.'"`UNIQ--ref-00000067-QINU`"''"`UNIQ--ref-00000068-QINU`"''"`UNIQ--ref-00000069-QINU`"' Case studies are an effective teaching tool that engages learners, stimulates critical thinking, and enables a deeper understanding of real-life situations. The use of case studies is a deliberate process designed to promote active engagement, critical thinking, and deeper understanding among students. Prior research (e.g., Löfström & Tammeleht, 2023 citing: Bagdasarov et al., 2012; Johnson et al., 2012; McWilliams & Nahavandi, 2006; Nonis & Swift, 2001; O'Leary & Cotter, 2000) has identified the use of cases to be beneficial in RE/RI teaching/learning.'"`UNIQ--ref-0000006A-QINU`"' Understanding why and how learning occurs is essential for improving teaching, and as a result, understanding how learners learn can be accessed through an awareness of learning within the framework of research ethics and integrity.'"`UNIQ--ref-0000006B-QINU`"'
'''It begins with the careful selection''' of relevant case studies that align with the learning objectives of the course. These cases should not only be current and authentic but should also reflect the students' interests and experiences and provide them with a tangible connection to the course material. RE/RI case-studies can be easily found on [https://embassy.science/wiki-wiki/index.php/Main_Page the Embassy of Good Science].
'''Once a suitable case study has been selected''', the teaching process usually begins with an introduction to the case (e.g., providing context and background information. This first step is crucial to ensuring that students understand the importance of the case study and its relevance to the wider course material. This practice will help students to get acquainted with the topic. In addition to case-studies, also vignettes have been used in RE/RI education to reflect on real-life situations including an explicit or implicit conflict. Trainers may identify a specific ethical/integrity issue on which learners are asked to reflect on.'"`UNIQ--ref-0000006C-QINU`"'
'''As learners delve into the case study''', they are asked to actively engage with the material. This means more than just passive reading; learners are encouraged to take notes, ask questions, and identify important themes or patterns contained in the case study. By promoting active reading practises, instructors aim to encourage the development of deeper understanding of the complexity of real-world problems and the various factors at play.
'''The initial reading''' is often followed by common discussion and analysis. With the guidance of the trainer, learners are encouraged to share their interpretations of the case study and explore different perspectives. Discussions can be structured around questions, which encourage critical thinking, consider alternative viewpoints and evaluate the implications of different approaches in order to move from uni- and multistructural levels to relational and extended abstract levels.
Central to the case study approach is the opportunity for learners to '''apply theoretical concepts and principles to real-life situations'''. Instructors help learners make connections between the case study and the course material by encouraging them to analyse the case through the lens of relevant theories, models or frameworks. This process not only deepens students' understanding of theoretical concepts, but also enhances their ability to apply these concepts in practical contexts.
In addition, case studies provide a platform to foster problem-solving skills. Learners are tasked with finding creative solutions to the challenges presented in the case, evaluating the feasibility of various options, and developing a reasoned plan of action. Through this process, learners learn to deal with complex problems, weigh competing interests, and make informed decisions based on facts and analyses.
'''Finally''', case studies can serve as a valuable assessment tool, allowing instructors to evaluate learners' mastery of the content of the course and their ability to apply theoretical concepts to real-world scenarios. Assignments may include written reflections, group presentations, or class discussions based on the case study so that students can demonstrate their learning and receive constructive feedback from fellow students and instructors.
Case-based approaches are utilised in [[Initiative:639c9790-bf80-4f21-9fc0-8027b4c0cfe0|ENERI]], [[Initiative:Fa186292-623f-4b6f-a21e-44250c057f15|RID-SSISS]], [[Initiative:0582c7af-35eb-4def-b74e-c884f29965da|Path2Integrity]], [[Initiative:F9656f91-a514-44ff-9264-d6b3414fdddc|INTEGRITY]] and [[Initiative:8eed30fd-c2ed-44d1-9752-753092bd350e|VIRT<sup>2</sup>UE]].
'"`UNIQ--references-0000006D-QINU`"'
Bloom's Taxonomy is a well-known educational framework that offers a methodical way to classify learning objectives according to cognitive difficulty. (e.g., Adams, 2015).'"`UNIQ--ref-000000E0-QINU`"' It is a hierarchical framework that uses cognitive complexity to classify learning objectives. Benjamin Bloom created it in the 1950s, and it is now a vital instrument in educational theory and practice. The taxonomy is divided into six stages: remembering, understanding, applying, analysing, evaluating, and creating. The levels are arranged from lower to higher order cognitive skills. Fundamentally, remembering entails recollecting words, information, and fundamental ideas. Understanding is more than just remembering concepts; it also involves understanding meanings. Applying necessitates applying knowledge to novel contexts or problem-solving. Analysing means dissecting data into its constituent elements and identifying connections between them. Making decisions based on standards and criteria is the process of evaluating. Creating, in the end, involves coming up with original concepts and/or interpretations. The goal of applying Bloom's Taxonomy to training aims and results is to enhance comprehension by considering the knowledge, skills, and competencies that the specific training programmes were created to impart. The Remembering, Understanding, Applying, Analysing, Evaluating, and Creating domains of Bloom's Taxonomy each reflect a different cognitive process and the depth and complexity of learning.
[[File:BloomsTaxonomy.jpg|alt=|center|frame|Fig 21. Bloom’s Taxonomy (taken from the Centre for teaching, Vanderbilt University. '"`UNIQ--nowiki-000000E1-QINU`"') ]]
All taxonomic levels are relevant irrespective of the study or career level. However, the taxonomic levels may mean different things for different individuals. For example, application of knowledge may mean engaging with research designs, but senior researchers often use more complex designs than students still learning how to do research. Nevertheless, it is essential that the learning extends beyond remembering and understanding, and that the complexity of activities at all levels gradually grow as the individual gains experience, knowledge and confidence.
''Remembering and understanding:''
Here, the focus is on memorising key facts, concepts and theories relevant to the field of research and innovation. Understanding these foundational elements is critical to moving forward. For example, undergraduate students need to master the basic principles and terminology related to ethics and integrity to effectively navigate through more complex topics later. Similarly, individuals pursuing a PhD or who are new to academia need a solid understanding of basic concepts before they can conduct more in-depth analyses and applications, such as mastering the ethics of their own PhD research. Moreover, senior researchers may need to understand the basic concept of supervision and mentoring practices when it comes to supervising a team and PhD candidates.
''Apply and analyse:''
Learning should always be an active endeavour irrespective of career or studies applying and analysing knowledge. This is where the emphasis shifts to practical application and critical thinking. Early career researchers, junior professors and academics need competencies for applying the ethics and integrity concepts they have learnt to real-life scenarios in connection to conducting experiments, collecting data and critically analysing the results to gain meaningful insights. Through these activities, participants develop the skills necessary to contribute to the advancement of their field and address research questions with greater depth and sophistication. In terms of research ethics and integrity, this involves applying such knowledge and values to every step of the research.
''Evaluate and create:''
The highest level in Bloom’s Taxonomy involves evaluating existing knowledge and creating new knowledge. All researchers play a critical role in shaping the direction of research and innovation. They are responsible for assessing the validity and significance of research findings and identifying areas for further investigation and innovation. By synthesising existing knowledge and developing new ideas, theories or methods, researchers develop their field forward and inspire the next generation of researchers and innovators. All RE/RI training should include components, which encourage learners to extend their thinking to evaluation and creation. In practice, this involves having such a robust knowledge base and values so that even when encountering new ethical dilemmas or being posed with a novel potentially integrity-threatening situation, they can rely on having the ‘tools’ to handle the situation.
'"`UNIQ--references-000000E2-QINU`"'
Close the exercise with underlining the importance of good communication in dealing with research integrity issues and dilemma’s. Continue with the next fragment or next part of the workshop. +
Varieties of goodness in research - a rotary style exercise (variation to original VIRT2UE exercise)) +
Each subgroup presents the results of the last round to the other groups.
The trainer thanks the participants for their work and the sharing of personal examples; recaps the lessons learnt and might refer to the objectives of the exercise that were presented at the start.
End with evaluation.
Depending on the agreements made prior to the training, the trainer might take a photo of each sheet and share these photo's with the participants so each can look back at the results. +
04 - Moral Case Deliberation: A Method for Analysing Cases in Research Ethics and Research Integrity +
Lastly, learning experiences and the outcome are evaluated. +
Ask the group to reflect on the process, and to evaluate if the learning objectives were met. Foster a brief dialogue on what might have been learned as a group.
In this step the facilitator may ask participants questions such as:
- Was it easy or difficult to identify the relevant principles and virtues in the chosen dilemma?
- Did this exercise help you with identifying and connecting to formally defined principles (e.g. from the European Code of Conduct for Research Integrity)?
- Did most of the players agree or disagree with the final choice?
- What were the main points of contention?
- Why did people disagree (e.g. differences in experience, training, background, values, norms…)?
- What were the other options?
- Was any alternative option proposed?
- Did anybody change her/his mind as a result of the discussion?
- Why would you NOT follow the morally ideal course of action?
- What is needed to act morally in your work setting? What were the most convincing arguments used in the discussion?
- On which areas do you feel there is insufficient consensus?
- How can you best address future dilemmas in your daily work?
- How can shared values and principles be fostered? +
This final part of the manual consists of two instructions, with the links listed below:
[https://public.3.basecamp.com/p/R5e8zxXRHwd27Mz5PPfooByh Certification]
[https://public.3.basecamp.com/p/vmLSq94iGyaNsbrWKFgFbCiN Recognition and networking] +
Katılımcıları sürecin geneli üzerine düşünmeye davet edin: bu oturumdan çıkardıkları dersler neler? Katılımcılara aşağıdaki soruları sorarak belirli sonuçlar çıkarmaya çalışın:
o Erdemler ve normlar arasında ilişki kurmak kolay mıydı yoksa zor muydu? Neden?
o Kendinizi vakayı sunan kişinin yerine koymanız erdemlere ve dolayısıyla norm ve davranışlara olan bakış açınızı genişletti mi?
Diğer katılımcıların belirlediği erdem ve normlar/ davranışlar sizin erdemlere daha farklı ya da geniş bir açıdan bakmanıza yardımcı oldu mu? Bunun uygulamada karşılaşacağınız AED ikilemleri karşısında düşünme şeklinizi etkileyeceğini düşünüyor musunuz? +
Gruptan genel olarak süreç üzerine fikir yürütmelerini ve bu alıştırma bağlamında öğrenme hedeflerinin karşılanıp karşılanmadığına ilişkin bir değerlendirme yapmalarını isteyin. Katılımcıları bu alıştırma ile neler öğrendikleri üzerine kısa bir diyalog yürütmeye yönlendirin.
Bu aşamada eğitmen katılımcılara aşağıdakilere benzer sorular sorabilir:
- Seçilen ikilem için ilgili prensip ve erdemleri belirlemek kolay oldu mu?
- Bu alıştırma sizin resmi olarak tanımlanmış prensipleri (ECoC) tespit edip bunlarla vakalar arasında bağlantı kurmanıza yardımcı oldu mu?
- Oyunu oynayan katılımcıların büyük çoğunluğu varılan nihai karara muvafakat etti mi?
- Anlaşmazlığa yol açan başlıca noktalar nelerdi?
- Katılımcıların bazı noktalarda hemfikir olmamasına sebep olan şeyler nelerdi (örn., kişilerin deneyimlerindeki, eğitimlerindeki, arka planlarındaki, değerlerindeki, normlarındaki vb. farklılıklar)
- Diğer seçenekler neydi?
- Herhangi bir alternatif seçenek önerildi mi?
- Tartışma sonucunda herhangi bir katılımcı fikrini değiştirdi mi?
- Ahlaki açıdan ideal olan şeyi YAPMAMANIZIN sebebi ne olurdu?
- Sizin iş ortamınızda ahlaki olarak iyi olana ulaşmak için neler gerekli?
- Tartışmada kullanılan en ikna edici argümanlar hangileriydi?
- Hangi noktalarda yeterince fikir birliğine varılmadığını düşünüyorsunuz?
- Gelecekte iş yaşamınızda bu gibi ikilemlerle en iyi hangi şekilde başa çıkabilirsiniz?
- Üzerinde daha yaygın bir şekilde anlaşmaya varılan değer ve ilkelere nasıl ulaşılır? +
Lade die Teilnehmenden abschließend ein, über den gesamten Prozess während der vergangenen Übung nachzudenken: Was ist für sie die Take-Home-Message, die sie aus dieser Übung mitnehmen? Versuche, einige Schlussfolgerungen oder Erkenntnisse festzuhalten, indem du die Teilnehmenden fragst:
- War es einfach, die Werte/Tugenden zu den Normen in Beziehung zu setzen? War es schwierig? Warum?
- Hat der Versuch, sich in die Lage der Person zu versetzen, die die Beispielsituation erlebt hat, deine Sichtweise auf Werte/Tugenden und damit auch auf Normen oder Verhaltensweisen erweitert?
- Haben die von anderen genannten Werte / Tugenden, Normen oder Verhaltensweisen dabei geholfen, anders über das Thema nachzudenken und zum Beispiel Werte / Tugenden anders oder umfassender zu betrachten? Wie wird diese Erfahrung aus der Übung heute dein Denken über Dilemmata im Forschungsalltag verändern? +
Invite participants to think about the entire process: what is the take home message of this session for them? Try to draw conclusions by asking participants:
o Was it easy or difficult to relate the virtues and norms to each other? Why?
o Did putting yourself in the case presenter’s shoes broaden the way you looked at virtues and, consequently norms and behaviors?
o Did the virtues and norms/behaviors identified by others help you to look at virtues differently or more broadly? Do you think that will influence your thinking on research integrity dilemmas in practice? +
Watch the video below to learn about what funders can do to ensure equitable research partnerships. +
Ask participants to shortly evaluate the session and your facilitation. In this step you may ask participants questions such as:
- Were the instructions clear enough?
- Do you think that the case was appropriate?
- Would you have any suggestions to do the session differently?
- What do you think the strong aspects of this session are?
- Are there any points to improve? +
Katılımcılardan oturumu ve sizin kolaylaştırıcı olarak performansınızı kısaca değerlendirmelerini isteyin. Bu noktada katılımcılara aşağıdakilere benzer sorular sorabilirsiniz:
- Verilen talimatlar yeterince açık mıydı?
- Ele alınan vakanın uygun olduğunu düşünüyor musunuz?
- Oturumun farklı bir şekilde gerçekleştirilmesine yönelik önerileriniz var mı?
- Bu oturumun güçlü yanları nelerdi?
- Geliştirilmesi gereken noktalar var mı? +
Click the arrow below to learn more about what publishers and editors can do to ensure equitable research partnerships. +
Click the arrow below to learn more about how communities can work to ensure equitable research partnerships from the bottom-up. +
Watch the videos below to learn more about the development and implementation of the San Code of Research Ethics by members of the San community. +
