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
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] +
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. +
