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
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>
Horváth, Zsófia, Robert Ptacnik, Csaba F. Vad, and Jonathan M. Chase. "Habitat loss over six decades accelerates regional and local biodiversity loss via changing landscape connectance." ''Ecology letters'' 22, no. 6 (2019): 1019-1027.
Keck, François, Tianna Peller, Roman Alther, Cécilia Barouillet, Rosetta Blackman, Eric Capo, Teofana Chonova et al. "The global human impact on biodiversity." ''Nature'' 641, no. 8062 (2025): 395-400. +
Think about a podcast you could create based on your own research or interests.
Consider:
* What would the main topic be?
* Who would the audience be?
* What format would you choose (e.g. interview, solo, conversation)?
* What should listeners take away from the episode? +
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. +
The European Network for Academic Integrity is an association gathering educational institutions and individuals interested in maintaining and promoting academic integrity. Their mission is to support higher education institutions to work together in the field of academic integrity.
Your task is to get familiar with the website of the European Network for Academic Integrity.
Search the database of educational materials, check the guidelines on research integrity available, and get familiar with the self-evaluation tools.
Click on [https://www.academicintegrity.eu/wp/ Explore: ENAI website] to open the resource. +
Research data refers to the information collected, observed, or created for purposes of analysis to produce and validate original research results. Sharing and re-using data to reproduce research and build upon it, are a cornerstone of Open Science. The sustainability of research data refers to their long-term preservation, accessibility, and interoperability.
Proper management, preservation, and sharing of research data are crucial for ensuring the replicability of research results, advancing further studies, and enhancing collaboration among scholars.
==== Types of research data ====
Research data can come in various formats and types, depending on the field of study and the research methodology employed. Data can be quantitative (numerically based) or qualitative (non-numerical, such as words or images), and it may include, but is not limited to, numerical values, text, transcripts, images, video and audio recordings, software, algorithms, equations, and test responses.
Research data can be raw or primary data (collected directly from experiments, surveys, or observations), processed or secondary data (which has been analyzed or manipulated in some way), or metadata (data about data, which provides information necessary to understand other data).
==== ALLEA recommendations on good data management practices ====
The revised [https://allea.org/code-of-conduct/ European Code of Conduct on Research Integrity] outlines a number of recommendations on "Data Practices and Management":
* Researchers, research institutions, and organisations ensure appropriate stewardship, curation, and preservation of all data, metadata, protocols, code, software, and other research materials for a reasonable and clearly stated period.
* Researchers, research institutions, and organisations ensure that access to data is as open as possible, as closed as necessary, and where appropriate in line with the FAIR Principles (Findable, Accessible, Interoperable and Reusable) for data management.
* Researchers, research institutions, and organisations are transparent about how to access and gain permission to use data, metadata, protocols, code, software, and other research materials.
* Researchers inform research participants about how their data will be used, reused, accessed, stored, and deleted, in compliance with GDPR.
* Researchers, research institutions, and organizations acknowledge data, metadata, protocols, code, software, and other research materials as legitimate and citable products of research.
* Researchers, research institutions, and organisations ensure that any contracts or agreements relating to research results include equitable and fair provisions for the management of their use, ownership, and protection under intellectual property rights.
For the curious ones. There is a whole lot more to [https://openscience.cuni.cz/OSCIEN-48.html Data Management]. Go ahead and check it out.
[1] ALLEA. (2023). The European Code of Conduct for Research Integrity. https://allea.org/code-of-conduct/
Metrics, sometimes known as research indicators, are intended to be a quantitative measure of the quality and/or importance of a research output (e.g. journal article, monograph). There is a range of metrics that measure different things.
==== Citation metrics ====
* They measure different things and it is important to understand what they measure, the limits of what they interpret, and when [https://www.metrics-toolkit.org/ best to use them].
* They are sometimes used to measure the citation impact of journals rather than the citation impact of individual research outputs.
* They measure the amount of academic attention a research output has received.
* The simplest citation metric is the number of times a research output has been cited.
* Citation practices differ across academic disciplines so there are a variety of weightings and calculations to address that and ensure that citation metrics are comparable.
The Journal Impact Factor (JIF) is a widely used example of a citation metric. It calculates the average number of citations that articles published by a journal have received over the preceding two-year period. The JIF and other metrics are problematic for a number of reasons. One cannot judge the academic or research value of a work merely on the number of times it has been downloaded, or the number of times it has been cited.
Journal-level metrics are often used by researchers to make decisions about where to publish their work. They can be useful for identifying journals that have a track record for generating attention for the research outputs that they publish.
Alternative metrics or altmetrics measure the amount of online attention a research output has received beyond typical citation metrics. This can include things like mentions on Twitter, coverage on news platforms and blogs, Wikipedia citations and lots more besides. Measuring this kind of attention can be used to demonstrate reach beyond academia, and can help to evidence research impact.
==== Responsible Metrics ====
There has been a movement towards advocating for responsible metrics which provides guidance on how to use metrics responsibly, both for measuring research quality and as part of conversations about career progression. The [https://sfdora.org/read/ San Francisco Declaration on Research Assessment (DORA)] is a set of principles that institutions have signed up to, which includes a requirement to eliminate the use of journal-level metrics (like the Journal Impact Factor) in funding, appointment and promotion considerations. In response, some universities have created statements of responsible metrics. [https://thebibliomagician.wordpress.com/ The Bibliomagician] has collated a number of examples from a variety of institutions.
[1] Think. Check. Submit. (2024). Metrics. https://thinkchecksubmit.org/resources/metrics/
Emilio states that ethics is the ultimate coherence between your goals and your methods. Read the following lab scenario, rate its "Coherence Level" from 1 to 5 stars, and write a 1-sentence fix. Exercise the following activity +
'''Questions to consider:'''
• What kinds of benefits, opportunities, or advantages may arise from this research (scientific, societal, economic, environmental)?
• Who is likely to benefit from the knowledge, technologies, or outcomes produced by this research?
• Who may bear costs, limitations, or unintended consequences associated with the research or its outcomes?
• Who owns, controls, and can access the data and the outputs of the research? Does the project respect community or Indigenous data governance where relevant (including conditions for sharing and reuse)? (e.g., CARE principles for Indigenous data governance )
'''Example :''' A research project uses environmental or socio economic data collected in low- and middle-income countries. However, most of the research benefits, such as high-impact publications, follow-on funding, or agenda-setting influence, accrue to institutions based in the Global North. Reflecting on this distribution highlights potential imbalances between those who contribute data or local knowledge and those who primarily benefit from the research outputs. +
Learning Pathway for Ethics Educators/Teachers +
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. +
