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
8
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. +
<div>
<span lang="EN-US">The [https://publishers.fairassist.org/ <u>Editorial Reference Handbook</u>] informs and assists journals to operationalise a set of checks necessary to make the data underlying published research findings more findable, accessible, interoperable and reusable (FAIR) to underpin reproducibility. The Handbook targets in-house staff managing the manuscripts primarily, but it will also benefit reviewers, authors and even those providing services to publishers by making the fundamental checks and requirements transparent and understandable.</span>
</div><div>
<span lang="EN-US">The Handbook includes three interlinked components: a checklist of 12 elements, a flowchart that outlines the ideal internal manuscript submission workflow (who should perform the checks and when), and a guidance to help users to implement the checks effectively, with definitions and tips.</span>
</div><div>
<span lang="EN-US">The Handbook fills a gap, because no common guidance existed on the practical implementation of these checks across a complex publishing workflow and the variety of individuals and teams involved. This pilot saw the participation of more than 30 individuals, from more than 20 journals of major publishers: CUP, Cell Press, EMBO Press, Taylor & Francis, GigaScience Press, OUP, PLOS, Springer Nature.</span>
</div> +
In this lecture, Emmi Jennina Kaaya discusses informed consent in the context of Open Science. She first introduces the concept of informed consent, and then explains how Open Science challenges it. She also examines strategies for informing potential research participants and concludes with a summary of the key points.
'''Watch the lecture and then answer the questions.'''
'''Further reading:'''
The Embassy of Good Science: “[[Theme:0d054575-ca21-4209-b7c5-6120fc0ed647|Informed Consent]]”
Dove, E. S., & Chen, J. (2020). Should consent for data processing be privileged in health research? A comparative legal analysis. International Data Privacy Law, 10(2), 117–131. https://doi.org/10.1093/idpl/ipz023
Dyke, S. O. M., Connor, K., Nembaware, V., Munung, N. S., Reinold, K., Kerry, G., Mbiyavanga, M., Zass, L., Moldes, M., Das, S., Davis, J. M., De Argila, J. R., Spalding, J. D., Evans, A. C., Mulder, N., & Karamchandani, J. (2023). Consent Codes: Maintaining Consent in an Ever-expanding Open Science Ecosystem. Neuroinformatics, 21(1), 89–100. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12021-022-09577-4
Fischer, C., Hirsbrunner, S. D., & Teckentrup, V. (2022). Producing open data. Research Ideas and Outcomes, 8, e86384. https://doi.org/10.3897/rio.8.e86384
Florea, M. (2023). Withdrawal of consent for processing personal data in biomedical research. International Data Privacy Law, 13(2), 107–123. https://doi.org/10.1093/idpl/ipad008
Hallinan, D., Boehm, F., Külpmann, A., & Elson, M. (2023). Information Provision for Informed Consent Procedures in Psychological Research Under the General Data Protection Regulation: A Practical Guide. Advances in Methods and Practices in Psychological Science, 6(1). https://doi.org/10.1177/25152459231151944 +
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. +
Stop the dialogue after 10 minutes and reflect with the group on the differences between debate and dialogue by referring/asking questions about:
**
*Experiences, feelings during the debate and dialogue,
*The extent of understanding each other,
*The group dynamics (who was talking, did everybody had a say etc.),
*The understanding of the content of the case (motives,interests),
*Other outcomes of a debate and dialogue (e.g. gaining new insights).
Reflect with the group on the differences between debate and dialogue. You may look at additional questions in the practical tips section. Take notes of the reflection on a flip-chart. +
10 dakikanın ardından diyaloğu sonlandırın ve aşağıdaki maddeler üzerine sorular sorarak grupla birlikte münazara ve diyalog yöntemleri arasındaki farklar üzerine fikir yürütün:
a. Münazara ve diyalog esnasında yaşanılan deneyim ve uyanan hisler
b. Katılımcıların birbirlerini ne kadar anlayabildikleri
c. Grup dinamikleri (kimler konuştu, herkes söz alabildi mi vs.)
d. Vaka içeriğinin anlaşılması (gerekçeler, menfaatler)
e. Münazara ve diyaloğa ilişkin çıkarılan diğer sonuçlar (örn., yeni bir şey fark etme, yeni bir anlayış kazanma)
Grupla birlikte münazara ve diyalog yöntemleri arasındaki farklar üzerine fikir yürütün. Konuyla ilgili sorabileceğiniz ek sorulara pratik ipuçları kısmından ulaşabilirsiniz. Grupla birlikte gerçekleştirdiğiniz fikir yürütme ve yorumlama sürecine ilişkin olarak yazı panosuna notlar almayı unutmayın. +
In order for our committee to reach a consensus regarding a specific case:
<br />
*I must share my Informed Judgment and associated reasons with the rest of the committee,
*Listen to and recognise the Informed Judgments and associated reasons of all other members of the committee.
The final step is to deliberate and debate with our fellow committee members.
<br />
*If we all agree, then the decision is made and little needs to be done, although, from time to time, we should critique our views,
*If we fail to obtain a consensus, we can ask for further involvement from interested parties ("Empathy"), outside advice and deliberation ("Expertise") and/or new research ("Evidence"). +
10 dakikanın ardından diyaloğu sonlandırın ve aşağıdaki maddeler üzerine sorular sorarak grupla birlikte münazara ve diyalog yöntemleri arasındaki farklar üzerine fikir yürütün:
a. Münazara ve diyalog esnasında yaşanılan deneyim ve uyanan hisler
b. Katılımcıların birbirlerini ne kadar anlayabildikleri
c. Grup dinamikleri (kimler konuştu, herkes söz alabildi mi vs.)
d. Vaka içeriğinin anlaşılması (gerekçeler, menfaatler)
e. Münazara ve diyaloğa ilişkin çıkarılan diğer sonuçlar (örn., yeni bir şey fark etme, yeni bir anlayış kazanma)
Grupla birlikte münazara ve diyalog yöntemleri arasındaki farklar üzerine fikir yürütün. Konuyla ilgili sorabileceğiniz ek sorulara pratik ipuçları kısmından ulaşabilirsiniz. Grupla birlikte gerçekleştirdiğiniz fikir yürütme ve yorumlama sürecine ilişkin olarak yazı panosuna notlar almayı unutmayın. +
10 dakikanın ardından diyaloğu sonlandırın ve aşağıdaki maddeler üzerine sorular sorarak grupla birlikte münazara ve diyalog yöntemleri arasındaki farklar üzerine fikir yürütün:
a. Münazara ve diyalog esnasında yaşanılan deneyim ve uyanan hisler
b. Katılımcıların birbirlerini ne kadar anlayabildikleri
c. Grup dinamikleri (kimler konuştu, herkes söz alabildi mi vs.)
d. Vaka içeriğinin anlaşılması (gerekçeler,menfaatler)
e. Münazara ve diyaloğa ilişkin çıkarılan diğer sonuçlar (örn., yeni bir şey fark etme, yeni bir anlayış kazanma)
Grupla birlikte münazara ve diyalog yöntemleri arasındaki farklar üzerine fikir yürütün. Konuyla ilgili sorabileceğiniz ek sorulara pratik ipuçları kısmından ulaşabilirsiniz. Grupla birlikte gerçekleştirdiğiniz fikir yürütme ve yorumlama sürecine ilişkin olarak yazı panosuna notlar almayı unutmayın. +
[[File:Zz.png|center|frameless|600x600px]]
Thank you for taking this irecs module!
Your feedback is very valuable to us and will help us to improve future training materials.
We would like to ask for your opinions:
1. To improve the irecs e-learning modules
2. For research purposes to evaluate the outcomes of the irecs project
To this end we have developed a short questionnaire, which will take from 5 to 10 minutes to answer.
Your anonymity is guaranteed;you won’t be asked to share identifying information or any sensitive information. Data will be handled and stored securely and will only be used for the purposes detailed above. You can find the questionnaire by clicking on the link below.
This link will take you to a new page;[https://eur01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fforms.office.com%2Fe%2FcimWP1L4tx&data=05%7C02%7CKChatfield%40uclan.ac.uk%7Cde983f54bcc64d66a02908dcd0b50ccd%7Cebf69982036b4cc4b2027aeb194c5065%7C0%7C0%7C638614723283135084%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C0%7C%7C%7C&sdata=mx6LNK14iRC744b7LLnUg8jxZ%2FKLXd%2Blo6I8kmwz%2Bwg%3D&reserved=0 https://forms.office.com/e/cimWP1L4tx]
Thank you! +
[[File:Glass and iron lattice.png|center|frameless|600x600px]]
'''Video Transcript'''
The concept of scientific paradigms was introduced by Thomas Kuhn in 1962 in the book: The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. By ‘scientific revolution’ Kuhn has in mind a major turning point in the development of science, such as is associated with Copernicus, Newton, or Einstein. Each of these figures initiated a spectacular change of course in the development of science, which is often characterised as a revolutionary change.<div>
According to Kuhn, a scientific revolution is not so much a leap forward as a change of direction. When a scientific revolution occurs, science does not progress more rapidly along a pre-determined path, but rather sets out along a different path altogether.
Researchers who share a paradigm will also share certain basic beliefs;they share a particular understanding of what science is all about, and how it can be pursued. In essence, they share a way of seeing the world. Once there is convergence on a paradigm, there is a framework in which problems can be solved, researchers in the field have a clear idea of where the problems lie, and of what might count as a solution to them. The researchers speak a common language.
</div> +
[[File:Mm8.png|center|frameless|600x600px]]
The last word on benefit sharing goes to Reverend Mario Mahongo, who was Chair of the South African San Council, 2000 – 2018.
What I want to say is, I think there should be a benefit for the people who are being researched. I don’t want researchers to see us as museums that cannot speak for themselves and that don’t expect something in return. We are humans who deserve support. At the end of the day, the researcher is happy because he received what he wanted from us, but we also need to be happy in what we receive from him because we also want to benefit from the research. So, we will allow them to do the research, but it must be based on equality, not one-sided. +
<span lang="EN-US">1. Ask each participant to in 1-2 minutes think of one or two takeaways from the workshop & discussions.</span>
<span lang="EN-US">2. Then ask participants to reflect on empowerment, what it means for them and what they need to feel empowered in their role as a PhD & researcher. Probe them to think about how they can empower themselves in their daily work.</span>
<span lang="EN-US">3. Continue the discussion by drawing to the importance of empowerment and how it connects to academia. It is important to be able to recognize/hear bad or unsafe situations and to speak up in these scenarios. Empowerment in academia is crucial for fostering a positive and productive environment. It enhances the quality of work by allowing individuals to take ownership of their projects, boosting motivation and creativity. With greater control over their academic journey, students and researchers are more engaged and persistent. Empowerment also promotes well-being by helping individuals manage stress and set healthy boundaries, while ensuring they feel safe to speak up about unsafe or unethical situations. It fosters inclusive, collaborative work environments where everyone’s voice is valued, leading to more innovative and effective outcomes. Ultimately, empowerment creates a culture where individuals are motivated, supported, and capable of contributing meaningfully to their academic communities.</span>
<span lang="EN-US">4. Ask participants if there are any questions, or any points they would like to discuss.</span>
<span lang="EN-US">5. Discuss the importance of communication for empowerment. Discuss this from the perspective of communicating with peers as an important resource for empowerment, it can help reflect on situations from a different perspective and provide support. But it is also important to discuss communication with others in dilemma situations, it is important to be clear and transparent and if they think something wrong they should speak to someone (e.g. directly to the person, or confidential counselors). Increasing awareness and learning to recognize unsafe or dilemmas can help other and themselves in handling situations in the future. Conclude that dilemmas will always exist, but it is up to individuals to change the way they approach them and these changes continue through awareness, communication, and recognition.</span>
<span lang="EN-US">6. Finish the session by alleviating the responsibilities from the PhDs, tell them it is not only their responsibility to ‘fix the system’. They have a large network of support networks if they feel they need help. Share the contact information & responsibilities of graduate schools and confidential counselors. End the workshop by highlighting that each dilemma and each individual may require a different approach and their empowerment is what the individual needs in that situation and therefore can be different for everyone. It is important to evaluate what the individual wants to achieve in the situation and act accordingly.</span>
9
Optional step: do the students recognise the characteristics of a debate and a dialogue in the movie fragment? +
Varieties of goodness in research - a rotary style exercise (variation to original VIRT2UE exercise)) +
This round is especially important when there are more subgroups than rounds, because in that case not all participants have reflected on the different Varieties of Goodness that are discussed. The task of the subgroup is to summarize what is on the sheet and to select the main take home messages of the sheet. The trainer might also ask the groups to select what they found striking or surprising. +
Ask participants to reflect on the value of dialogue and how to use it for fostering group reflection. Focus on the overall lessons learned related to the objectives of the exercise. You might ask questions like:
**
*Taking in account the objectives, what did you learn from this exercise? More specifically: i) Did you become more aware of the strengths of dialogue and debate? ii) Do you think the exercise was useful to learn how to use and to encourage dialogue as a tool for reflection processes? iii) Did you learn anything else?
*How will the lessons learned influence your future actions?
*What do you need to foster a dialogue?
The order of the exercise might give the participants the impression that debate is ‘wrong’ and dialogue is ‘right’. Try to emphasize in this last step that dialogue is useful and helpful in reflection processes but that a debate can be good and useful in other situations with other purposes. +
You will be asked to reflect on the process, and to evaluate if the learning objectives were met. You will be invited to have a brief dialogue on what you might have just learned as a group. You may be asked to seek answers to questions such as the following:
<br />
*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, such as those in 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?
*How come people disagreed (e.g. differences in experience, training, background, values, norms…)?
*Was any alternative option proposed?
*Did anybody change her/his mind as a result of the discussion?
*What is needed in order to do the moral good 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 to best address such future dilemmas in your daily work? +
The link to the instruction "Reflecting on experiences and practicing exercises" can be found [https://public.3.basecamp.com/p/am3nj24vLEAHNWQ9Tyg3hp3K here]. +
Epidemiology is the branch of medicine which deals with the incidence, distribution, and control of diseases and other factors relating to health. The word ‘epidemiology’ is derived from Greek and literally means ‘the study of what is upon the people’. Epidemiology is widely applied to cover the description and causation of epidemic and infectious diseases such as COVID-19, but also of diseases in general including their related conditions. Thus, epidemiologists are interested in examining other areas of healthcare such as high blood pressure, mental illness, diabetes and obesity. +
Katılımcılardan diyaloğun değeri ve grup halinde gerçekleştirilecek fikir yürütme/yorumlama süreçlerini teşvik etmede nasıl kullanılabileceği üzerine düşünmelerini isteyin. Araştırmanın hedefleri ile ilgili olarak çıkarılan genel dersler üzerine odaklanın. Bunun için aşağıda örnek olarak verilmiş olan soruları sorabilirsiniz:
* Alıştırmanın hedeflerini göz önünde bulundurarak: bu alıştırmadan neler öğrendiniz? Daha spesifik olarak:
i. Diyalog ve münazara kavramlarının güçlü yanlarına ilişkin farkındalığınız arttı mı?
ii. Diyalog yönteminin fikir yürütme süreçlerinde bir araç olarak nasıl kullanılacağını ve bu şekilde kullanılmasının nasıl teşvik edileceğini öğrenmeniz açısından bu alıştırmanın faydalı olduğunu düşünüyor musunuz?
iii. Alıştırmadan çıkardığınız başka dersler var mı?
* Bu alıştırmadan çıkardığınız dersler gelecekteki eylemlerinizi nasıl etkileyecek?
* Diyaloğu teşvik etmek için nelere ihtiyaç duyarsınız? +
