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
7
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] +
The goal of this module is to explore and question ethical issues in research using the themes of space science and space exploration. The end goal is not to become a topic expert, but to use space exploration as a vehicle to speculate and question issues around research integrity and research ethics. The themes will be explored using various teaching approaches including a walking debate and a design task which involves building a space habitat. These are designed to challenge students to create, collaborate and question what research integrity looks like in an applied group challenge. +
Katılımcıların eğitime hazırlık olarak neler yapmaları gerektiği konusunda bilgi sahibi olmaları için kendilerinden “Virt2ue eğitimine hazırlık” kısmını (eğitimi alanlar için hazırlanmış olan) okumalarını isteyin. Son teslim tarihlerini net bir biçimde belirleyin ve istenilen hazırlık materyallerinin (öz beyan formu ve vaka yorum formu) teslimi konusunda vereceğiniz talimatların açık olduğundan emin olun. +
Bir sonraki adıma geçmeden önce katılımcılara erdem ve norm kavramlarının tanımlarını verin (<u>[https://embassy.science/wiki/Theme:B4f7b2e3-af61-4466-94dc-2504affab5a8 Değerler ve normlar]</u> ve <u>[https://embassy.science/wiki/Theme:520b3bc7-a6ab-4617-95f2-89c9dee31c53 Araştırma doğruluğu ile ilgili erdemler]</u> sayfalarına bakınız). Katılımcıların kafasında soru işareti ya da şüphe doğuran herhangi bir nokta varsa bu aşamada bunları ele alabilirsiniz. +
Sunumunuzun ardından sizden diğer katılımcıların söylediklerini aktif bir biçimde dinlemeniz istenebilir. Oyunun küçük gruplar halinde oynanması durumunda, birbirinize sorular sormanız ve ikilemleri, yapılan seçimlerin ardında yatan sebepleri ve hatta daha genel temaları belirleyebilmeniz için toplu bir bilgilendirme oturumu yapılması faydalı olabilir. +
Katılımcıları oturuma toplu olarak devam etmeye davet edin. Kendilerini bireysel tercihleri üzerine fikir yürütmeye ve diyalog yaklaşımını kullanarak birbirleriyle sohbet etmeye teşvik edin. Toplumsal açıdan makbul olan yanıtların ne olduğuna ilişkin bir farkındalık oluşmasına yardımcı olun. Bunu katılımcılara aşağıdaki soruları yönelterek yapabilirsiniz:
- Bu durumda yapacağın şey ne olurdu? Neden?
- Bu durumda ''ideal olarak'' yapacağın şey ne olurdu? Neden? +
Lass nun die beiden Subgruppen wieder in kommunikative Interaktion miteinander treten, nun jedoch mit einer „dialogischen Haltung“.
Gleiches oder anderes Fallbeispiel?
* Es ist von Vorteil, wenn ihr das gleiche Fallbeispiel und dieselben Gruppen wie in Schritt 3) verwendet. An diesem Punkt der Übung kann es für die Teilnehmer:innen herausfordernd sein, ihre eigene Grundhaltung aktiv zu verändern (von Debatte zu Dialog). Zu diesem Zweck könnte es sinnvoll sein, ein neues Fallbeispiel einzuführen und neue Gruppen einzuteilen, die die unterschiedlichen Positionen des Dilemmas vertreten – den Teilnehmer:innen wird es leichter fallen, eine andere Grundhaltung einzunehmen.
Cave:
* Die Erfahrung mit dieser Übung hat gezeigt, dass die Teilnehmer:innen erst einmal wieder zu debattieren beginnen. Sei als Moderator:in des Dialogs aufmerksam, wenn Merkmale einer Debatte zu erkennen sind (z.B. wenn sich die Teilnehmer:innen gegenseitig unterbrechen, sich nicht zuhören, mit vorschnellen Urteilen oder wertenden Gesten kommunizieren, oder in den Selbstverteidigungsmodus verfallen, statt klärende Fragen zu stellen). Falls das passiert, beende das Gespräch und hilf den Teilnehmer:innen dabei, darüber zu reflektieren, was gerade passiert ist. Dabei können folgende Fragen nützlich sein:
o Was passiert gerade?
o Was nimmst du gerade wahr?
o Kann jemand erklären oder beschreiben, was gerade passiert ist?
o (Nach der Beschreibung, was gerade passiert ist:) Was könntet ihr nun stattdessen tun? (Dabei auf die Merkmale eines Dialogs verweisen.)
Versuche in diesem Moment, möglichst konkrete Aussagen herauszuarbeiten, die die Haltung in der eben erlebten Interaktion beschreiben (z.B. wir haben versucht, uns gegenseitig zu überzeugen, wir haben uns unterbrochen, …). Wenn ihr das herausgearbeitet habt, gib den Teilnehmer:innen Tipps, wie sie in der kommenden Interaktion einen Dialog aufgreifen können, z.B.:
o Was würde dir helfen, die andere Position besser zu verstehen?
o Welche Fragen könntest du stellen?
o Was kannst du tun, um die andere Gruppe dazu zu bringen, euch Fragen zu stellen?
o Was können wir verändern, um den Dialog zu stärken?
Bevor ihr in der Übung fortschreitet, erläutere den Teilnehmenden die Konzepte der Werte / Tugenden und der Normen anhand einer kurzen Definition (siehe „Werte und Tugenden“ und „Tugenden in der Research Integrity“). Falls die Teilnehmenden Fragen haben oder Zweifel besteht, ob inhaltlich alles verstanden wurde, dann ist jetzt der Zeitpunkt, um darüber zu sprechen. +
EnTIRE is the project behind [[Main Page|The Embassy of Good Science]], a Wiki based community driven platform on research ethics and integrity which provides resources such as guidelines, cases and training material for and by researchers and research stakeholders who want to support good science. +
EnTIRE is the project behind [[Main Page|The Embassy of Good Science]], a Wiki based community driven platform on research ethics and integrity which provides resources such as guidelines, cases and training material for and by researchers and research stakeholders who want to support good science. +
Split up the group (if more than 10 people attend) in smaller groups. For this session you can pick among the following activities. Each of these activities have been presented in a separate module and applied to a specific topic. You can use these instructions as a guide and adapt the format to your training topic.
· Case study
· Mind mapping
<span lang="EN-US">· [[Instruction:1d832939-90e0-4879-a557-e60627c0555e|Role play]]</span>
<span lang="EN-US">· </span>Think out lound
At the end of the group work facilitate a plenary reflection, reporting back and harvesting results of subgroups’ discussion. +
The final kind of resource that you can add to the Embassy are pieces of interactive content, made with H5P! There are many different types of interactive content that you can make with H5P, whether they are games, quizzes, course presentations or interactive videos, all aimed at exploring concepts relating to research ethics and research integrity, and to aid trainers in teaching and facilitating reflection on these topics.
'''We will cover how to create and save your own interactive content in the next section of this course.''' +
[[File:A spyglass.png|center|frameless|600x600px]]
Sometimes its not just the presence but the viewpoint which changes the interaction with the observed.
The third influencing factor upon what is observed stems from the viewpoint of the observer. Researchers are not neutral processors of information. As human beings, they bring with them a host of assumptions and preconceptions.
Observation is dependent upon and coloured by our individual senses and our background beliefs and assumptions. In research, many of our background beliefs and assumptions are associated with the paradigm in which we operate, as we consider next. +
[[File:M7..png|center|frameless|600x600px]]
Thus far we have mainly focused on concerns with the ethics dumping issues identified in this proposal. However, it is also important to consider the proposed use of AI technologies in the study and examine the ethics issues that arise from this aspect of the research.
Some AI-related risks have already been touched on in Brad and Janet’s podcast (e.g. explainability, informed consent, accountability), and in Dr Langa’s advice on ethics dumping (e.g. data ownership and access, and capacity building), demonstrating that ethics issues may overlap different domains.
Professor Smith and Dr Jones request a report from their colleague Dr Corry to summarise the AI ethics issues and potential impacts relevant to the proposed study. Watch the video to access Dr Corry’s report. +
[[File:M7.png|center|frameless|600x600px]]
We now consider a short example case in which social justice is relevant. In this case, both the exclusion and inclusion of a specific population provoke ethical and methodological questions. We encourage you to reflect on the intersection of social justice and research ethics in this case to consider the pros and cons of inclusion and exclusion. +
[[File:Mm6.png|center|frameless|600x600px]]
Benefit sharing is a legal requirement for all countries that have adopted the CBD. But what constitutes appropriate benefits for those who share their resources in research? Click on the hotspots to see some suggestions.
[[Nagoya Protocol on Access to Genetic Resources and the Fair and Equitable Sharing of Benefits Arising from their Utilization to the Convention on Biological Diversity]]
Appropriate benefit sharing arrangements may include a package of both monetary and non-monetary benefits. Most important is that fair benefits arrangements are discussed and agreed locally before the research begins. +
