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
This session aims to equip students with the knowledge to comprehend the meaning and importance of research integrity. This will be achieved through a practical hands-on approach, where real and fictional cases, outlining research integrity issues in biomedical research using animals, will be presented. We aim for students to identify and relate such examples of research misconduct and questionable research practices, with their own school work practices and environment. This will engage students in a group discussion and critical reflection about the importance of acting responsibly and with honesty in their own school work and within their life. +
Katılımcılardan tabloyu aşağıda gördüğünüz şekilde doldurmalarını isteyin:
{| class="wikitable" border="1" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="0" width="474"
| width="170" valign="top" |'''Erdem'''
| width="304" valign="top" |'''Norm/eylem'''
|-
| width="170" valign="top" |Adalet
| width="304" valign="top" |Katkıda bulunan herkesin adını vermeliyim.
|-
| width="170" valign="top" |Cesaret
| width="304" valign="top" |Düşündüklerimi açıkça söylemeliyim.
|}
Katılımcılara Araştırma Doğruluğuyla ilgili erdemler '''listesiyle''' birlikte '''örnek''' ve '''boş tablo'''ların bulunduğu çalışma kağıtları dağıtabilirsiniz (pratik ipuçları bölümüne bakınız). Boş tabloyla birlikte katılımcılara yapışkanlı kağıtlar da verin.
Bu arada, yazı panosuna (ya da tahtaya) tablonun aynısını üç sütunlu olacak şekilde çizin: perspektif, erdem, norm (aşağıdaki gibi). Bunu oturumdan önce de yapabilirsiniz.
{| class="wikitable" border="1" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="0" width="615"
| width="141" valign="top" |'''İsim'''
| width="170" valign="top" |'''Erdem'''
| width="304" valign="top" |'''Norm/eylem'''
|-
| rowspan="2" width="141" valign="top" |Louise
| width="170" valign="top" |Adalet
| width="304" valign="top" |Katkıda bulunan herkesin adını vermeliyim.
|-
| width="170" valign="top" |Cesaret
| width="304" valign="top" |Düşündüklerimi açıkça söylemeliyim.
|-
| width="141" valign="top" |Ben
| width="170" valign="top" |…
| width="304" valign="top" |…
|}
Katılımcılara değer ve normlarını yapışkanlı kâğıt üzerine (anlaşılabilir şekilde) yazmalarını söyleyin ve sonrasında kendilerinden yazı panosu üzerine çizdiğiniz tabloya isimlerini yazıp ellerindeki yapışkanlı kağıtları da isimlerinin yanına yapıştırmalarını isteyin. Böylelikle panoda perspektif, erdem ve normların genel bir listesi oluşmuş olacaktır. +
Sonuç kısmında sizden genel olarak süreç üzerine fikir yürütmeniz ve bu alıştırma bağlamında öğrenme hedeflerinin karşılanıp karşılanmadığına ilişkin bir değerlendirme yapmanız istenecektir. Bunun için, bu alıştırma ile neler öğrendiğiniz üzerine grup olarak kısa bir diyalog yürütmeniz talep edilecektir. Bu noktada sizden aşağıdakilere benzer sorulara yanıt aramanız istenebilir:
- Seçilen ikilem için ilgili prensip ve erdemleri belirlemek kolay oldu mu?
- Bu alıştırma sizin resmi olarak tanımlanmış prensipleri (ECoC) tespit edip bunlarla vakalar arasında bağlantı kurmanıza yardımcı oldu mu?
- Oyunu oynayan katılımcıların büyük çoğunluğu varılan nihai karara muvafakat etti mi?
- Anlaşmazlığa yol açan başlıca noktalar nelerdi?
- Katılımcıların bazı noktalarda hemfikir olmamasına sebep olan şeyler nelerdi (örn., kişilerin deneyimlerindeki, eğitimlerindeki, arka planlarındaki, değerlerindeki, normlarındaki vb. farklılıklar)
- Herhangi bir alternatif seçenek önerildi mi?
- Tartışma sonucunda herhangi bir katılımcı fikrini değiştirdi mi?
- Sizin iş ortamınızda ahlaki olarak iyi olana ulaşmak için neler gerekli?
- Tartışmada kullanılan en ikna edici argümanlar hangileriydi?
- Hangi noktalarda yeterince fikir birliğine varılmadığını düşünüyorsunuz?
- Gelecekte iş yaşamınızda bu gibi ikilemlerle en iyi hangi şekilde başa çıkabilirsiniz? +
Katılımcılardan grup halinde çalışarak tabloları doldurmalarını isteyin. Gruplara bir sonraki aşamada yürüttükleri tartışmanın sonuçlarını sunmak üzere grup üyelerinden birini sözcü olarak seçmelerini önerebilirsiniz. +
Beende den Dialog nach etwa 10 min und reflektiere mit der Gruppe über die Unterschiede zwischen einer Debatte und einem Dialog, indem du bspw. folgendes ansprichst / erfragst:
* Wahrnehmungen und Gefühle während der Debatte und während des Dialogs
* Wie sehr die Teilnehmer:innen sich gegenseitig verstanden haben
* Die Gruppendynamik (Welche Personen haben gesprochen? Hatte jede:r Gelegenheit, sich am Gespräch zu beteiligen?, usw.)
* Das Verständnis der Inhalte des Fallbeispiels (Motive und Interessen)
* Andere Erkenntnisse aus einer Debatte oder einem Dialog (z.B. neue Einblicke gewinnen)
Reflektiere mit der Gruppe die Unterschiede zwischen einer Debatte und einem Dialog. Hilfreiche Fragen findest du auch unter „Praktische Tipps“. Halte die Erkenntnisse der Reflektion auf einer Flip-Chart fest. +
Bitte die Teilnehmenden, jede:r für sich selbst eine Tabelle auszufüllen, die aussehen kann wie diese hier:
{| class="wikitable" border="1" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="0"
| width="123" valign="top" |'''Wert / Tugend'''
| width="472" valign="top" |'''Norm / Handlung'''
|-
| width="123" valign="top" |Ehrlichkeit
| width="472" valign="top" |Ich sollte alle Beteiligten in meinem Manuskript nennen.
|-
| width="123" valign="top" |Mut
| width="472" valign="top" |Ich sollte mit meinem/meiner Betreuer:in sprechen.
|}
Zur Unterstützung kannst du für diese Übung folgende Dokumente austeilen, die im Handout 2 enthalten sind (siehe „Praktische Tipps“):
- Liste von Werten / Tugenden, die relevant für Research Integrity sind
- Tabelle mit Beispielen (wie oben)
- Leere Tabelle
- Haftnotizzettel
Zeichne in der Zwischenzeit dieselbe Tabelle auf ein Flipchart oder Whiteboard mit den folgenden drei Spalten: Perspektive, Wert / Tugend, Norm / Handlungsvorschrift (siehe unten). Diese Tabelle kann auch schon gut vor der Sitzung vorbereitet werden.
Beispieltabelle:
{| class="wikitable" border="1" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="0"
| width="113" valign="top" |'''Perspektive'''
| width="123" valign="top" |'''Wert / Tugend'''
| width="368" valign="top" |'''Norm / Handlung'''
|-
| rowspan="2" width="113" valign="top" |Louise
| width="123" valign="top" |Ehrlichkeit
| width="368" valign="top" |Ich sollte alle Beteiligten in meinem Manuskript nennen.
|-
| width="123" valign="top" |Mut
| width="368" valign="top" |Ich sollte mit meinem/meiner Betreuer:in sprechen.
|-
| width="113" valign="top" |Ben
| width="123" valign="top" |Verlässlichkeit
| width="368" valign="top" |Ich sollte genau das tun, was ich meinen Kolleg:innen versprochen hatte.
|}
Bitte nun alle Teilnehmenden, ihre Werte / Tugenden und Normen deutlich lesbar auf einen Haftnotizzettel zu schreiben. Fordere sie dann auf, zur Flipchart zu gehen, um dort ihren Namen in das Feld „Perspektive“ zu schreiben und in der zugehörigen Zeile ihre Haftnotizzettel im Feld Wert / Tugend und Norm / Handlung zu kleben. Auf diese Weise entsteht ein schöner Überblick über die verschiedenen Perspektiven, Werte / Tugenden und Normen der Gruppe.
Ask participants to fill in a table with the same elements (see below), for example:
{| class="wikitable" border="1" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="0"
| width="171" valign="top"|'''Virtue'''
| width="345" valign="top"|'''Norm/action'''
|-
| width="171" valign="top"|Justice
| width="345" valign="top"|I should credit all contributors
|-
| width="171" valign="top"|Courage
| width="345" valign="top"|I should speak up
|}
A hand-out with '''a list''' of research integrity related virtues, '''a table''' of examples and '''an empty table''' can be distributed (see practical tips). Together with the empty table, you should distribute some post-it notes.
In the meantime, draw the same table on a flip-chart (or white board) with three columns: perspective, virtue, norm (see below). You can also consider doing this in advance, before the session.
{| class="wikitable" border="1" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="0"
| width="154" valign="top"|'''Name'''
| width="137" valign="top"|'''Virtue'''
| width="226" valign="top"|'''Norm/action'''
|-
| rowspan="2" width="154" valign="top"|Louise
| width="137" valign="top"|Justice
| width="226" valign="top"|I should credit all the contributors
|-
| width="137" valign="top"|Courage
| width="226" valign="top"|I should speak up
|-
| width="154" valign="top"|Ben
| width="137" valign="top"|…
| width="226" valign="top"|…..
|}
Ask all the participants to write their virtues and norms on a post-it (in clear writing) and then invite them to stand up and go to the table on the flip-chart to write down their name and place their post-its with their virtue(s) and norms next to their name. In this way an overview of perspectives, virtues and norms is created. +
Participants are supported in formulating a take-home message from the session. The teacher asks the participants to reflect on how their take home message will influence their practice. +
Facilitate a discussion about the topic's relevance to participants' professional lives/studies (splitting into smaller groups if needed) and guide them in formulating key take-home message. +
The Bridging Integrity in Higher Education, Business, and Society ([https://www.academicintegrity.eu/wp/bridge/ BRIDGE]) project aimed at connecting integrity practices across academia, research, business, and society. BRIDGE targets early-career researchers (master’s and PhD students) and their supervisors, with the first step focused on analysing integrity practices across these fields. The project will develop checklists, open educational resources (including gamified tools), and training to bridge gaps between academic and research integrity. +
The Bridging Integrity in Higher Education, Business, and Society ([https://www.academicintegrity.eu/wp/bridge/ BRIDGE]) project aimed at connecting integrity practices across academia, research, business, and society. BRIDGE targets early-career researchers (master’s and PhD students) and their supervisors, with the first step focused on analysing integrity practices across these fields. The project will develop checklists, open educational resources (including gamified tools), and training to bridge gaps between academic and research integrity. +
Hand out a post-it to each trainee and ask them to write down...
#...the most important thing that they have learned.
#...an action they can implement to pay more attention to ethical issues related to biobanking.
(If you started with check-in question Scenario 2 in Step 1 of this module, then you can ask trainees if they would change their answer.)
Depending on the group size and the time available, invite a few or all trainees to share their insights.
'''Evaluation'''
Invite the trainees to complete the evaluation form by sharing a QR code linking to the evaluation form. +
[[File:Mz.png|center|frameless|600x600px]] +
[[File:M8..png|center|frameless|600x600px]]
Dr Corry’s report helps Professor Smith and Dr Jones identify the primary AI ethics issues that need to be addressed in their study. Flip the cards to find out ways they might address these issues. +
[[File:M8.png|center|frameless|600x600px]]
The word vulnerability can be broadly used to describe a state or condition of being susceptible to harm, exploitation, or other adverse outcomes due to various factors or circumstances. It is difficult to define precisely because multiple and diverse factors can contribute to vulnerability such as systemic inequalities, health status, social dynamics, environmental conditions, or individual characteristics. Additionally, it can affect individuals, groups, or communities and manifest in various ways. Furthermore, the word vulnerability does not have a precise equivalent in many languages. Still, it is important for researchers to have an understanding of the concept of vulnerability because it has significant implications for research ethics. +
[[File:AI img7.png|center|frameless|600x600px]]
As AI continues to reshape the healthcare landscape, it brings about a myriad of societal and ethical considerations. This sorting exercise aims to explore the broader issues surrounding the intersection of AI and healthcare.
Please categorise each scenario into the appropriate societal or ethical dimension: +
[[File:GovProc img5.png|center|frameless|600x600px]]
Not all research studies need research ethics approval. For example, a study that is solely based on a review of research literature is unlikely to need ethics approval. You can work through the following decision tree to assess whether ethics approval is necessary for a project (real or imagined). +
[[File:AI Image6.png|center|frameless|600x600px]]
What are some of the key benefits of the use of AI applications in healthcare?
As AI continues to evolve, its applications in healthcare hold immense promise for improving the quality of care, optimising resource utilization, and potentially shaping a more patient-centered and efficient healthcare ecosystem. However, careful implementation and ongoing scrutiny is vital to ensure the responsible and beneficial use of AI in healthcare.
If you would like to explore the topic of AI implementation in more depth, you can access the Coalition for Health’s Blueprint for Trustworthy AI Implementation Guidance and Assurance for Healthcare in the further resources section. +
[[File:Re4Image.png|center|frameless|600x600px]]
<div><div>
Now we ask you to drop the stance of the REC member for a moment and try to step into the shoes of a potential participant.
Please answer the following question, your responses will be recorded anonymously.
</div></div>'''Feedback'''<div>
People join studies for all different reasons and they each bring with them their different experiences, expectations etc. Read on to see some possible initial reactions. <div></div></div> +
Participants are supported in formulating a take-home message from the session. The teacher asks the participants to reflect on how their take home message will influence their practice. +
