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
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). +
Online learning environments (e.g. Moodle) can be used as good tools to monitor acquisition of learning outcomes and making conclusions of training effectiveness (Kirkpatrick’s level 2). Indeed, the course (both the online content as well as f2f sessions) needs to be well-planned. Accumulation of authentic learning tasks and activities reflect the materialisation of learning objectives and can be used as indicators of training effectiveness.
Most courses nowadays have an online learning environment support. Tasks included in the environment should be well-planned and have a pedagogical aspect. For instance, one online REI course that usually hosts 400 students per semester includes the following elements:
The course includes a series of online lecture videos and written texts (including links to further online resources) on each topic, followed by Quizzes or Reflective Activities about the topic in question (Assessment 5). Each topic also includes Case Studies, research ethics cases, that students discuss in groups of 5 (Assessment 3). After the first week students submit their first essay (approx. 2 pages) in which they describe the ethical questions and challenges of their own research (Assessment 1). These essays are then distributed among the students so that each gets one essay from a student of their own discipline (or close to it) and one from any other discipline. During the second week students write short peer reviews of these essays (Assessment 2). In the final essay (again approx. 2 p.) in the end of the course students are asked to consider ethics of their own research again by reflecting the comments they have received in peer reviews. They should also show that they are now able to recognize ethical issues at each stage of their research (planning, conducting, publishing, communication) (Assessment 4). In this sense, even though it is an online course, it is a kind of application of flipped learning (DeLozier & Rhodes, 2017;Tucker, 2012). In the course, students familiarize themselves with the course's online materials and lectures on different areas of research ethics and apply this in the Assessments. Evaluation is designed as following:
During the course:
• Self-evaluation through Reflective Activities and Quizzes (figure 17)
• Peer review of the 1st essays (figure 16)
• Peer evaluation in Group Discussions about the Case Studies (figure 18)
At the end of the course:
• Self-evaluation: responding to the peer reviews and reflecting on one’s development needs
• Teacher evaluates the final, 2nd essay that includes topics from all modules.
The analysis instruments may vary depending on the task – quizzes can be statistically analysed (usually the online environment provides options for creating small quizzes), essays and other texts (including written group discussions) can be analysed using the SOLO taxonomy and reflection level, content can be analysed based on content criteria (ethical principles, ethical analysis, ethical approaches), etc. Various measurement points can be chosen and self-, peer- and facilitator evaluation can be combined.
Some example assessment tasks:
[[File:Img21.png|center|frameless|500x500px]]
Figure 3. Peer assessment example.
[[File:Img22.png|center|frameless|556x556px]]
[[File:Img23.png|center|frameless|550x550px]]
Figure 5. Screenshot of a case study forum in Moodle.
This tool is suitable for students and ECRs participating in a longer course.
Ask rapporteurs to very briefly:
<br />
*summarize the virtues discussed in the subgroup discussions, including differences and similarities,
*summarize differences and similarities in how people formulated the <u>middle position (not the differences and similarities themselves but in general)</u>,
''Tip: focus especially on virtues, and middle positions (not on the specific cases themselves)''
To start a plenary conversation after the brief summaries of the rapporteurs ask participants the following questions:
- Was it easy or difficult to find a personal case, and to select a virtue for it?
- Did you learn to look at inherent moral ambiguity of specific virtues in a broader or in a different way when these were identified by others?
- Would the case owner want to describe how he/she experienced the exercise? +
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). +
Verdonk, P. (Ed.) (2024). Coloring Connections. Researching Gender, Intersectionality and Health in the Climate Crisis. Dutch Society Gender & Health in collaboration with Amsterdam UMC, 1 December 2024.https://zenodo.org/records/14047986
Crenshaw, K. (1991). Mapping the Margins: Intersectionality, Identity Politics, and Violence against Women of Color. Stanford Law Review, 43(6), 1241–1299. https://doi.org/10.2307/1229039
Hancock A-M. Intersectionality as a Normative and Empirical Paradigm. Politics & Gender. 2007;3(2):248-254. doi:10.1017/S1743923X07000062 +
<span lang="EN-US">1. Read the introductory text of the first scenario, ask if everything is clear.</span>
<span lang="EN-US">2. Play the introductory video of the scenario which sets up the dilemma. The next screen will show the four possible ways to act in this situation. Read these aloud for the participants.</span>
<span lang="EN-US">3. After the introductory video, ask participants to individually write down on a piece of paper (this should take approximately 5 minutes):</span>
<span lang="EN-US">a. What they observe in this scenario</span>
<span lang="EN-US">b. What they recognize in this situation</span>
<span lang="EN-US">c. Which action choice would they pick (A, B, C, or D) and why</span>
<span lang="EN-US">4. Allocate each corner of the room to one of the action choices (e.g. corner 1 = A), ask participants to stand up and to stand in the corner of the room which corresponds to their choice. Participants may choose to be in between action choices (e.g. between A & D), just ask them where they stand.</span>
<span lang="EN-US">5. Go around each action choice and ask participants why they picked that choice. Do this until every participant has shared their views, or participants feel others have already shared their views. Also ask them reflect on what they saw in the scenario if it is a familiar scenario.</span>
<span lang="EN-US">6. Briefly ask if anyone would change their initial answer after this discussion, if yes ask what would they change it to and why.</span>
<span lang="EN-US">7. Ask participants to sit back down, and watch the outcomes videos of each action choice. Start with the video with the most responses.</span>
<span lang="EN-US">8. After watching all the videos and seeing the different outcomes discuss as a group:</span>
* <span lang="EN-US">a. If they were able to choose again, would they choose differently? If yes, what and why?</span>
* <span lang="EN-US">b. Which action did they find most empowering?</span>
* <span lang="EN-US">c. What did they learn from this scenario?</span>
<span lang="EN-US">9. Ask participants if there is anything they would like to add. Help summarize the discussion and the outcomes which were discussed. Draw attention to that there are many more different ways to act in these situations, and that it is important to evaluate and reflect on what they need in the situation.</span>
Participants are encouraged to watch the following videos to learn more about the efficient management of plastic wastes for sustainable and green labs:
1. How we got started to recycle plastic in our lab” [[https://greenlabsaustria.at/blog/2020/02/05/freezer-experiments/ Blog - Green Labs]]
2. “How much can you recycle in a lab” [[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i_iKwAQMDTc How much can you recycle in a lab?]]
3. First pilot plant for recycling plastic lab waste [[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x4WnlmFnwbw University of Bath is home to UK’s first pilot plant for recycling plastic lab waste]] +
Test your knowledge! +
'''1. Main source'''
Verdonk, P. (Ed.). (2024). Coloring connections: Researching gender, intersectionality and health in the climate crisis. Dutch Society Gender & Health & Amsterdam UMC. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.14047986
'''2. Intersectionality framework (IBPA foundation)'''
Hankivsky, O. (2014). ''Intersectionality 101''. The Institute for Intersectionality Research and Policy, Simon Fraser University. https://womensstudies.colostate.edu/wp-content/uploads/sites/66/2021/06/Intersectionality-101.pdf
'''3. Climate justice (intersectional urban perspective)'''
Amorim-Maia, A. T., Anguelovski, I., Chu, E., & Connolly, J. (2022). Intersectional climate justice: A conceptual pathway for bridging adaptation planning, transformative action, and social equity. ''Urban Climate, 41'', 101053. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.uclim.2021.101053
'''4. Intersectionality in climate change (theoretical grounding)'''
Kaijser, A., & Kronsell, A. (2014). Climate change through the lens of intersectionality. ''Environmental Politics, 23''(3), 417-433. https://doi.org/10.1080/09644016.2013.835203 +
7
Inform your trainees about what to do in preparation for the training by asking them to read "Preparation for Virt2ue training" (for trainees). Set clear deadlines and give clear instructions (including contact details) for the submission of the required preparatory material (i.e. Self-declaration sheet and case reflection form). +
Continue the conversation between the two groups and ask them to try to make it a dialogue instead of debate. The observers get to call for a time out when they feel the dialogue shifts to a debate. +
Varieties of goodness in research - a rotary style exercise (variation to original VIRT2UE exercise)) +
Again the Variety of Goodness are rotated (either by rotating the groups of the sheets to the next table). After reading, where possible augmenting and asking questions on the previous work done on the sheet, the subgroups now reflect on the Variety of Goodness by relating it to their own experiences. They can look back at their preparation sheets and see if they recognize the Variety of Goodness in there. Maybe the work that is presented on the sheet or the examples given by others also trigger new examples. +
04 - Moral Case Deliberation: A Method for Analysing Cases in Research Ethics and Research Integrity +
This step involves the formulation of the personal views, values, norms, arguments and choices in relation to the case. The participants express their own views of what they consider to be right.The facilitator might ask the participants to individually address the following points:
a) It is morally justified that I choose option … (A, B or an alternative).
b) Because of…. (which value or norm?)
c) Despite of…. (which value or norm?)
d) How can you limit the damage of your choice mentioned under (c)? +
After analysing different possible courses of action, students identify those that are morally justified. +
02 - The Seven Steps Method: A Method for Analysing Cases in Research Ethics and Research Integrity +
*Are there any precautions you can take?
*Is there any way to access more support next time?
*Is there any way to change the organisation (for example, suggest policy changes at next departmental meeting)?
+
Let both subgroups talk again with each other for about 10 minutes but now with a dialogical attitude. Preferably, stay with the same case and the same groups as in step 3. Although it might be difficult, participants are actively challenged to change in their attitude (from debate to dialogue). It is also possible to use a new case and designate again groups defending the difference sides of the dilemma. Presenting a new case might be easier for participants adopt a dialogical attitude.
In general, people tend to start debating with each other again. Therefore, be alert to the attitude of a debate and intervene immediately when participants start debating during the time for dialogue. For example, participants who interrupt others, don't listen, attach others with judgmental sentences/postures/gestures, or defend themselves instead of asking questions for clarification etc.). In case it happens, stop the conversation and help the participants to reflect on what happened by asking one of the following questions:
**
*What is happening right now?
*What do you experience?
*Can somebody explain or describe what happened?
*After describing what happened: what can/should you do instead? (Referring to characteristics of a dialogue).
Refer in this moment of reflection as much as possible to a specific attitude. For example, trying to convince the other, interruptions, etc. Once the debate-attitude has been described, provide the participants with tips to resume a dialogue by asking for example:
**
*What would help you to better understand the other side?
*What question could you ask?
*What can you do to invite the other side to ask you questions?
*What should we change to promote the dialogue? +
You, as a group, will be asked to present a brief summary of what has just been discussed in your group. You may assign a member as a spokesman to shortly present the results of your discussion. +
Invite participants to reflect on their individual choices and engage in a conversation with each other using the dialogical attitude. Provide a framework to create awareness of the socially desirable answer. You can support this by introducing the following questions:
a. What would you do? Why?
b. What would you ''ideally'' do? Why? +
What do you think is the best thing for X to do? +
This part consists of five instructions, one for each exercise. The links to each instruction is listed below
[https://public.3.basecamp.com/p/R4yJUVZ4mcprNtQrFpqbJVEi Debate & Dialogue]
[https://public.3.basecamp.com/p/MekBVkdTSuPp3ymjvm722tuZ Virtues & Norms]
[https://public.3.basecamp.com/p/nDoUx1DZC2rqGGS8YgFKCWQ9 The Middle Position]
[https://public.3.basecamp.com/p/Shd751EBvhJCBmVHy3FtsM61 Modified Dilemma Game]
[https://public.3.basecamp.com/p/hP14Zorvd8WANTar3gJegFi4 Self Declaration Approach] +
