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
6
<span lang="EN-GB">Reverting from the main outputs identified, the actionable steps should be listed that are positively necessary for the successful implementation of the selected recommendation. The training envisages working with the most feasible scenario, but additional steps can be considered for the best-case scenario or even detrimental actions for the worst-case scenario. All action steps should consider the identified stakeholders to be involved, as well as the key intervention points towards which certain actions might lead. The action should include steps that mitigate expected and unforeseen risks, as well as capitalise on arising opportunities.</span>
<span lang="EN-GB">· What are the main actionable steps needed from you and each stakeholder to achieve the objectives defined for our scenario? </span>
<span lang="EN-GB">· How do you ensure that your implementation actions can adapt to unforeseen results or changes in the underlying conditions? (e.g. societal, economic, political)</span>
<span lang="EN-GB">· How do you ensure to capitalise on arising opportunities through your actions?</span> +
Research teams should share the additional responsibilities associated with a pandemic fairly among their members to avoid exacerbating existing inequalities +
Doing research with communities affected by climate change: Climate-conscious methodologies matrix (for students and citizen scientists) +
Use you own research to '''reflect on the cards''' questions
OR use the scenario described above to:
*'''Reflect''' on how the question applies in this setting.
*'''Identify''' possible tensions or risks (e.g., exclusion, harm, extractivism).
*'''Propose''' a climate-just, community-informed course of action. +
Doing research with communities affected by climate change: Climate-conscious methodologies matrix (for researchers and ethics reviewers) +
Use you own research to '''reflect on the cards''' questions
OR use the scenario described above to:
*'''Reflect''' on how the question applies in this setting.
*'''Identify''' possible tensions or risks (e.g., exclusion, harm, extractivism).
*'''Propose''' a climate-just, community-informed course of action. +
In this lecture, Olivier Le Gall discusses the responsible preparation of open datasets. The lecture covers several key topics: initially, he examines what responsible data preparation entails and its significance. Subsequently, he addresses the issue of dual use, and finally, he explores the risks posed to third parties.
'''Watch the lecture and then answer the questions.'''
'''Further reading:'''
ROSiE General Guidelines on Responsible Open Science. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.10046520
Open Research Europe, “Open Data, Software and Code Guidelines” https://open-research-europe.ec.europa.eu/for-authors/data-guidelines/
Klein, O., Hardwicke, T. E., Aust, F., Breuer, J., Danielsson, H., Mohr, A. H., IJzerman, H., Nilsonne, G., Vanpaemel, W., & Frank, M. C. (2018). A Practical Guide for Transparency in Psychological Science. Collabra: Psychology, 4(1), 20. https://doi.org/10.1525/collabra.158
Berkowitz, H., & Delacour, H. (2022). Opening Research Data: What Does It Mean for Social Sciences?. M@n@gement, 25(4), 1-15. https://doi.org/10.37725/mgmt.v25.9123
Pernet, C., Svarer, C., Blair, R., Van Horn, J. D., & Poldrack, R. A. (2023). On the long-term archiving of research data. Neuroinformatics, 21(2), 243-246. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12021-023-09621-x
Gomes, D. G., Pottier, P., Crystal-Ornelas, R., Hudgins, E. J., Foroughirad, V., Sánchez-Reyes, L. L., ... & Gaynor, K. M. (2022). Why don't we share data and code? Perceived barriers and benefits to public archiving practices. Proceedings of the Royal Society B, 289(1987), 20221113. https://doi.org/10.1098/rspb.2022.1113 +
<span lang="EN-US">The Reproducibility Monitoring Dashboard hosts tools that enable funding agencies to track and monitor the reusability of research artifacts across various projects, programs, topics, and disciplines. This auto-generated dashboard assesses the impacts of policies related to data and code sharing.</span> <div>
# <u><span lang="EN-US">OSF link for development materials: https://osf.io/wnvtx/</span></u>
# <u><span lang="EN-US">Dashboard prototype for EU-funded Machine Learning projects: https://app.powerbi.com/view?r=eyJrIjoiZTc0MmU1ZTktNzAyMy00ZTk1LWFkZmYtNDVmYjU2YzdhMzZhIiwidCI6IjZhZTA3NzAyLWM1ZjctNGYzOC05Yjg3LWFjYWQ2MmE3NWQ5MyIsImMiOjl9</span></u>
</div> +
'''Research ethics/integrity workshop e-portfolio'''
'''Group members:''' ………………………………………………………………………
'''Assignment 1'''
There are specific ethical issues associated with each phase of research. Please add the case that your team chose for your phase into the textbox below and answer the following questions:
[[File:Img27.png|center|frameless|600x600px]]
*Identify any ethical issues or potential problems that you noticed. You may colour, underline, or otherwise mark the appropriate keywords or phrases.
*Discuss [amongst yourselves] and briefly comment why these issues or problems are important. In addition, think of potential risks or detriments that may ensue and how to mitigate them.
*Also reflect on how these problems may be interrelated or interdependent or how one can originate from another.
'''Assignment 2'''
Now that you have gotten acquainted with the case and thought about the ethical issues that may arise (assignment 1), please review the complimentary questions in Assignment 2. Copy the questions into the text-box below (“Questions”) and write your answers into the next text-box (“Answers”). Try to initially answer the questions based on your current knowledge of the subject and afterwards supplement or correct your answers using the support material in Assignment 3.
{| class="wikitable"
|+
!'''Questions'''
|-
|'''Copy the questions into this box'''
|-
|'''Answers'''
|-
|'''Write your answers into this box using two different colours for the initial and supplementary answers'''
#(initial answer) (supplementary answer after reviewing the support material)
#…
#…
#…
#…
#...
|}
'''Assignment 3'''
Once you have reviewed and discussed all of the questions among yourselves and formed an understanding of the scope of your current knowledge and where it falls short, open the support material on the next page of the website and supplement the answers in the previous textbox (Assignment 2) – please use a different colour for this (i.e. blue).
'''Assignment 4'''
At this point you have addressed potential ethical issues, focused your thoughts on the details of these problems and supplemented your knowledge on the subject. The last step is to think back on the initial case that you reviewed in assignment 1 and form an overview of aspects that you may have initially missed, think of the wider implications of these ethical issues and reflect on how they may affect your own work now or in the future.
To guide your discussion, you may use the guideline questions below:
*Which ethical issues or themes do you notice in your chosen case that you missed initially?
*Could any of these aspects be relevant in other situations? How?
*What could be the ramifications of disregarding any of these aspects?
*Are there any aspects that you have personal experience with? Is there any change in how you see them now?
*Which ethical issues could you encounter in the future? How would you handle them?
Discuss and give examples
{| class="wikitable"
|+
|'''Discussion'''
|-
|
|}
'''Self-reflection'''
Finally, individually fill out the web-based [https://docs.google.com/forms/d/e/1FAIpQLScL8RNWKLWBJriOmYp0Ix5Bob1KVv04W_4lagFaRKRpXxLKpA/viewform?usp=sf_link self-reflection] and copy your results below:
{| class="wikitable"
|+
|'''Participant 1:'''
'''<br />
Participant 2:'''
'''<br />
Participant 3:'''
'''<br />
Participant 4:'''
'''<br />
Participant 5:'''
|}
In this third and final exercise we summarise the key content that emerged from the previous two activities, while also helping you gain a deeper understanding of the 9R framework and its practical implications. The 9R strategy is a practical framework in the circular economy that guides how we can minimize waste and maximize the value of materials throughout their lifecycle. It emphasizes preventing unnecessary use, extending product life, and responsibly reusing, repairing, or recycling materials. By applying the 9R principles, we can design more sustainable systems that reduce environmental impact and support social and economic wellbeing. +
The game ends when either the time planned for the activity is over or when the group has finished the case prepared for them.
BEYOND project draws attention to the contextual factors of research ethics and integrity, therefore the research ecosystem’s logo can be shown/projected to facilitate discussion of those issues.
Each case description + solution also has “points to consider” that lists some of the research ethics and integrity issues relevant for the case. It is recommended that the players <u>do not see</u> those points before their discussion but they can be brought up by the instructor once the group has tried to identify issues on their own. +
Using the knowledge acquired in the previous video, gauge your understanding of key ethical issues related to wildlife ecology research by answering the questions below. +
The podcast in step 3 touches on themes relevant to environmental ethics of care in research practice. Revise them using the slides and then answer the questions below. +
The professionalization of research integrity and ethics trainers is crucial for ensuring high-quality, consistent, and impactful education that fosters a culture of ethical research practices and responsible scientific conduct. The [[Guide:Bbe860a3-56a9-45f7-b787-031689729e52|VIRT2UE]] project designed a Train-the-Trainer training programme with a virtue ethics approach to Ethics and Research Integrity. The VIRT2UE training programme takes a blended learning approach and consists of four components: 1) online course (consisting of 4 modules, addressing [[Instruction:6ceba4e4-fb32-4953-9138-5436807fcde6|introduction to research integrity]], [[Instruction:86f47366-a189-4395-9301-36ddb6d1fc68|introduction of virtue ethics to research integrity]], [[Instruction:43c900ea-a317-4528-8ece-1f3fb3564867|virtue ethics under current research conditions]] and [[Instruction:D3ee617b-5d9b-4c47-a015-030b0354c9d2|supervision and mentorship practices]], [[Instruction:7ce7ad50-499a-4cca-b09d-b2c1573d94f3|preparatory readings]] and [[Instruction:17705907-d9b2-4f33-bc4f-088d84b4d971|preparatory watching]];2) two consecutive participatory session (during which participants experience five participatory exercises) : [[Instruction:Ac206152-effd-475b-b8cd-7e5861cb65aa|Debate and Dialogue]], [[Instruction:747f4d61-3c97-4c4b-acd9-4d69c95f134b|Virtues and Norms]], [[Instruction:522ba3d0-9f26-41d5-9ecf-b4c88214887c|The Middle Position]], the [[Instruction:A0dd2e82-52e7-4030-a396-54525630e75c|Modified Dilemma Game]], and the [[Instruction:64cb2917-6ee4-44ca-ad3b-b998bc6786ea|Self-Declaration Approach]];3) [[Instruction:A0d97625-d155-4f6f-abd0-2f84413888ad|interim practice]] work (during which trainers in training go back to their institution practice with the exercises and reflect on their own teaching practices by means of guided self-reflection) and 4) follow up participatory [[Instruction:59a94bad-0356-4141-aecc-0dae37f1a40b|group/reflection section]], in which future trainers can reflect on the experience, learn about teaching strategies and reflect on their own teaching style and audience. The train-the-trainer program developed precise instructions for trainers on how to prepare, organize and facilitate the section. These instructions can be found by clicking on the [[Guide:Bbe860a3-56a9-45f7-b787-031689729e52|trainer tab]] on the training webpage.
The professionalization of research integrity and ethics trainers is crucial for ensuring high-quality, consistent, and impactful education that fosters a culture of ethical research practices and responsible scientific conduct. The [[Guide:Bbe860a3-56a9-45f7-b787-031689729e52|VIRT2UE]] project designed a Train-the-Trainer training programme with a virtue ethics approach to Ethics and Research Integrity. The VIRT2UE training programme takes a blended learning approach and consists of four components: 1) online course (consisting of 4 modules, addressing [[Instruction:6ceba4e4-fb32-4953-9138-5436807fcde6|introduction to research integrity]], [[Instruction:86f47366-a189-4395-9301-36ddb6d1fc68|introduction of virtue ethics to research integrity]], [[Instruction:43c900ea-a317-4528-8ece-1f3fb3564867|virtue ethics under current research conditions]] and [[Instruction:D3ee617b-5d9b-4c47-a015-030b0354c9d2|supervision and mentorship practices]], [[Instruction:7ce7ad50-499a-4cca-b09d-b2c1573d94f3|preparatory readings]] and [[Instruction:17705907-d9b2-4f33-bc4f-088d84b4d971|preparatory watching]];2) two consecutive participatory session (during which participants experience five participatory exercises) : [[Instruction:Ac206152-effd-475b-b8cd-7e5861cb65aa|Debate and Dialogue]], [[Instruction:747f4d61-3c97-4c4b-acd9-4d69c95f134b|Virtues and Norms]], [[Instruction:522ba3d0-9f26-41d5-9ecf-b4c88214887c|The Middle Position]], the [[Instruction:A0dd2e82-52e7-4030-a396-54525630e75c|Modified Dilemma Game]], and the [[Instruction:64cb2917-6ee4-44ca-ad3b-b998bc6786ea|Self-Declaration Approach]];3) [[Instruction:A0d97625-d155-4f6f-abd0-2f84413888ad|interim practice]] work (during which trainers in training go back to their institution practice with the exercises and reflect on their own teaching practices by means of guided self-reflection) and 4) follow up participatory [[Instruction:59a94bad-0356-4141-aecc-0dae37f1a40b|group/reflection section]], in which future trainers can reflect on the experience, learn about teaching strategies and reflect on their own teaching style and audience. The train-the-trainer program developed precise instructions for trainers on how to prepare, organize and facilitate the section. These instructions can be found by clicking on the [[Guide:Bbe860a3-56a9-45f7-b787-031689729e52|trainer tab]] on the training webpage.
Once the case is clear, you ask participants to put themselves in the case presenter’s shoes and think about which virtue(s) (two are enough but more are also welcome) would play a role in the specific dilemma, if they were in the case presenter’s situation. You can ask them:
“If you were in the case presenter’s situation and had to decide what to do, which virtue would be important for you in making this decision?”
Please note that virtues should not necessarily be linked to one of the options. In this step, participants should reflect on which moral character (virtue) they should embody in order to act with integrity in the situation at stake. Contextually, you ask them to reflect on which rule of action (norm) or behaviour follows from the virtue they selected themselves. They can ask themselves:
“What should I do in this situation in order to act in accordance with this virtue?” “What rule of action should I follow in order to embody this virtue in this situation?”
Please note that different norms can be related to the same virtue and ''vice versa''. +
Introduction to the evaluation of the effectiveness of Research Ethics and Integrity (REI) training +
We realise that this is not a conclusive list, just a toolbox collected for trainers. Still, we have tried to collect measurement tools to evaluate effectiveness on different levels – from self-reactions, to learning content and process, to common practices/behaviour, and to see the wider impact on the research community. All the included tools and analysis instruments have been tested in the REI training context.
At best, tools for measuring and assessing REI learning also serve a pedagogical function, that is, its use is part of the teaching activity and the learning process. The choice of the measure of effectiveness depends on the training format, learning objectives, pedagogical approach, learning activities, time available for its use, facilitators’ competencies and others. Depending on these criteria a measurement tool can be chosen, different tools scan be combined. It should also be remembered that no one size fits all – facilitators should familiarise themselves with different tools and analysis instruments and combine the ones they consider feasible. In addition, large-scale tools can be used also in case of small groups, but vice versa may not be possible.
Figure 2 outlines a map of tools based on feasibility and scale of use. Table 1 (see step 5) provides general information about the data collection and analysis tools.
[[File:Fg2.png|center|frameless|500x500px]]
Figure 2. Map of tools to measure REI training effectiveness.
To measure short-term training effects (meaning what is just happening and what the learners’ reactions are, during and right after the learning process) you can use: MMLA tools collecting learner reactions (e.g. ProLearning, ForgetNot), and Self-Reflection Form/Compass.
For mid-term training effects (information about the content and learning process) one can use: Eye-tracking, Pre and post texts, Domain-specific, domain-transcending measure, Learning diaries/journals, Group reports/portfolios, Group discussions, Monitoring the online learning environment, group-dynamics with CoTrack.
Long-term effects can be measured with (effects after the intervention, behaviour and practices): National REI barometers /surveys (consequently the national guidelines can be improved), Retention check - learner’s activities after the training (e.g. monitoring the ethics sections of articles or asking learners to do another task several months after the training to measure retention);implement vignettes in surveys/non-training contexts to measure ethical sensitivity of learners.
We also outline recommendations for the implementation of the tools and analysis instruments:
*Effectiveness of the training starts from careful planning – the alignment of learning outcomes, training content and evaluation is crucial. Analysis instruments could be considered when outlining the learning outcomes and content.
*The measurement tools could be used as pedagogical instruments – e.g. learning diaries can be used as a tool to support the development of learner’s reflection skills as well as measuring if those skills advance.
*Using similar analysis instruments provide an opportunity to compare the results of different training formats (e.g. the SOLO taxonomy).
*Combining various measurement tools (triangulation) provides a holistic picture of the entire learning process as well as outcomes (i.e. effect). Using different measurement tools at various measurement points provides an alternative angle to triangulation.
*Measurement on level 4 should be implemented on a national (perhaps also institutional) level.
*An implementation example: to measure participants’ reactions during or right after the training, Self-Reflection Form can be used. In addition, if learners worked in groups their group discussions can be monitored, and if they provided a group-report or pre- and post-texts, the learning process can be evaluated based on the SOLO taxonomy to measure the levels of understanding. Moreover, if possible, a couple of months after the training an additional case study could be given to the same learners, and the content of their analysis could again be evaluated with the SOLO taxonomy. This kind of effectiveness measure would give a possibility to triangulate the measurement in different time points. Analysing vignettes and participating in national REI surveys would provide insights on the wider research community.
Varieties of goodness in research - a rotary style exercise (variation to original VIRT2UE exercise)) +
The participants move clockwise to the next flip-over sheet*, so each subgroup now works on another Variety of Goodness. First they read what the previous group wrote down (or drew) on the sheet. They can augment on it, or ask questions to the other group in case they don't fully understand what's on the sheet.
Their task now is to link the Code of Conduct to the Variety of Goodness. Looking at the work of the previous group can help them to identify the relevant paragraphs.
'"`UNIQ--nowiki-00000001-QINU`"'depending on the logistics in the room, you can also chose to let the subgroups stay at their table and move around the flip-over sheets. +
Grup sözcülerinden kısaca:
* alt gruplar içerisinde tartışılan erdemleri, farklılık ve benzerlikler üzerinde de durarak özetlemelerini
* katılımcıların orta yolu formüle ediş yöntemlerindeki benzerlik ve farklılıkları <u>(benzerlik ve farklılıkların kendisinden ziyade genel olarak yöntemler üzerinden)</u> özetlemelerini isteyin.
İpucu: özellikle erdemler ve orta yollar üzerine odaklanın (spesifik olarak vakalar üzerine değil)
Grup sözcülerinin sunduğu kısa özetlerin ardından genel sohbeti başlatmak için katılımcılara şu soruları sorun:
- Kişisel bir vaka bulmak ve bu vaka için bir erdem belirlemek kolay oldu mu?
- Erdemlere ilişkin olarak başkaları tarafından geliştirilen tanımlamaları/ açıklamaları duyduktan sonra, bu erdemlerin doğasında var olan ahlaki muğlaklığa farklı ya da daha geniş bir açıdan bakmaya başladınız mı?
- Vaka sahibi bu alıştırmayı nasıl deneyimlediğini açıklamak ister mi? +
Bitte nun die Berichterstatter:innen, in aller Kürze …
* die in den Untergruppendiskussionen diskutierten Werte und tugendhaften Verhaltensweisen zusammenfassend darzustellen, einschließlich der Unterschiede und Gemeinsamkeiten,
* die Unterschiede und Gemeinsamkeiten in der Art und Weise zusammenzufassen, wie die Teilnehmenden die mittlere Position / den Balanceakt formuliert haben (nicht die Unterschiede und Gemeinsamkeiten selbst, sondern im Allgemeinen),
Tipp: Richte den Fokus auf die Werte und mittlere Positionen (d.h. tugendhafte Verhaltensweisen) und nicht auf die spezifischen Situationen.
Um nach den kurzen Zusammenfassungen der Berichterstatter:innen ein Gespräch im Plenum zu beginnen, stelle den Teilnehmer:innen die folgenden Fragen:
- War es einfach oder schwierig, eine persönliche Situation zu finden und einen Wert dafür zu benennen und tugendhafte Verhaltensweisen zu identifizieren?
- Habt ihr gelernt, die inhärente moralische Ambiguität von manchen Werten und Tugenden wahrzunehmen? Zum Beispiel dadurch, wie andere die Situation einschätzten oder welche Werte und Verhaltensweisen sie auswählten?
- Möchte die Person, die die Situation ursprünglich präsentiert hat, beschreiben, wie sie die Übung erlebt hat? +
Diyalog yönteminin ayırt edici özelliklerini ve bu yönteme uygun tutumları açıklayın (ağırdan alma, konuşmaktansa dinlemeyi tercih etme, hemen hüküm vermeme, sorular sorma, pratik ipuçları bölümüne bakınız). Odağınızı diyalog yöntemi üzerine çevirip bu yöntemin özelliklerini anlatın veya katılımcılara münazara ve diyalog arasındaki farklılıklara ilişkin tabloyu dağıtın (pratik ipuçları bölümüne bakınız). +
Review my Early View and associated reasons by addressing each of the following themes and questions:
'''Normative Standards'''
''"How do normative frameworks help us?"''
In order to answer this question, we need:
<br />
*A basic knowledge of the appropriate regulations that apply to the issue,
*To be able to use these regulations to analyse our Early View,
*To revise our Early View and to provide reasons for any revisions.
'''Experience'''
''"How have we approached this issue before?"''
In order to answer this question, we need:
<br />
*To access past decisions,
*To compare past cases and the current case and determine whether previous decisions are relevant,
*To use disagreement to develop new standards for guiding future considerations,
*To be able to explain why, if relevant, we haven’t followed such precedent.
'''Expertise'''
''"What expertise has been applied to this before?"''
To answer this question, we need to:
<br />
*Access independent expert review,
*Access an up-to-date library of authoritative guidance,
*Balance guidance documents and judge the relative authority of guidance documents,
*Provide reasons if our decisions run contrary to guidance.
'''Empathy'''
''"What views and opinions do other parties have?"''
We turn to the views of those with a legitimate interest in the case (for example, the accused, the complainant, individuals involved with the case, and the public).
To answer this question, we need to:
<br />
*Identify all those with an interest in the case and see it ‘through their eyes’,
*Recognize limitations to our empathy,
*Confirm or refute any ‘empathy-based decisions’ using answers to the other questions listed above,
'''Evidence'''
''"What evidence is there on this issue?"''
We turn to any published research concerning similar cases. However, we need to be careful when forming prescriptive conclusions based on factual premises. After all, the quality of the evidence may be questionable and there may be significant normative and factual differences between the case in question and situations discussed in published research.
In order to answer this question, we need:
<br />
*To locate, assess, and apply published evidence,
*To recognize the proper place of facts when making judgments,
*To encourage published research on research integrity and research ethics.
'''Expediency'''
''"What is possible or realistic in the circumstances?"''
We need to ensure that we have not interpreted the case against sets of unrealistic standards. Expediency is built on a realistic evaluation of research constraints and consequences and imposes proportionate and realistic conditions.
In order to answer this question, we need to:
<br />
*Understand and accommodate realistic standards when assessing the case,
*Judge when expediency is adequate justification,
*Balance expediency and fair standards when forming a judgment about a case.
'''Escape'''
''"How can we manage this problem of our disagreement?"''
In order to answer this question, we might be required to:
<br />
*Agree to disagree (if it will not affect the final judgment),
*Seek elaboration on any of the answers to the questions listed above,
*Vote on a set of judgments
*Consider alternatives.
