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
2
This module aims to explain and demonstrate the underlying dynamics and relevance of cognitive dissonance for the research process. Along with the example of honorary authorship, it is discussed how conflicting imperatives (or underlying conflicting values) inherent in the current research system may be experienced as cognitive dissonance or moral distress. This module further invites reflection on the experience of cognitive dissonance and moral distress in one's research.
[[File:Cognitive Dissonance and Moral Distress.jpg|link=http://courses.embassy.science/cognitive_dissonance_and_moral_distress/story.html]]
If you want to integrate this module into your institution's learning management system, you may download it as a SCORM Package [http://courses.embassy.science/Cognitive%20Dissonance%20&%20Moral%20Distress_SCORM.zip here] +
04 - Moral Case Deliberation: A Method for Analysing Cases in Research Ethics and Research Integrity +
This step focuses on the experience of the case presenter. The presenter is asked to describe a concrete personal situation in which he or she experienced the moral issue at stake. The case presenter is asked to provide a short but thick description of the facts of the situation. Facts can include the ‘feelings’ he or she experienced since feelings can be a useful indicator of the moral discomfort of the presenter and can often implicitly refer to certain values. +
There are usually several morally problematic situations that require attention. This step provides students with an opportunity to improve their sensibility to ethically problematic situations. +
Once an issue has been identified and clarified, the next step is to ask:
<br />
*"What do I think?"
When formulating an Early View, I need to:
<br />
*Know when I can and can’t rely on this Early View;
*Ensure my view does not prejudice against diverging opinions. +
02 - The Seven Steps Method: A Method for Analysing Cases in Research Ethics and Research Integrity +
Many problems disappear upon closer examination of the situation, while others change radically. +
In this video, ethical and unethical research behaviors are explained.
[[File: Ethical decision making4.png|link=https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HRBJxLo6k5s&list=PLabbUwyulArzx9SIqxfDXbtTELS8uWdFD&index=3]]
The video translates three common frameworks for ethical analysis (deontology, consequentialism, virtue ethics) into the context of research. These frameworks are described as complementary, since science may be seen as a communal practice that strives towards a common good (utilitarianism), which can only be done in compliance with certain principles, rules, and codes inherent in the scientific endeavor (deontology). Virtue ethics may foster the best side of deontology and consequentialism, as a virtuous person is both informed by rules or beneficial consequences and knows how to apply rules and how to appreciate consequences by having insight into concrete situations. +
The trainer will facilitate the exercise by following the steps briefly listed here below:
#Introduction to the exercise
#Presentation of an exemplary case with a clear moral dilemma.
#Creation of subgroups (you will be asked to defend one of the two options in the dilemma)
#Participants engage in a debate
#Reflection on the process of debating
#Explanation of the characteristics of a dialogue
#Participants engage in a dialogue
#Reflection on the differences between debate and dialogue
#Reflection on the value of dialogue in group reflections.
For a detailed description of the steps see the trainers instructions. +
Present an example (hypothetical) research integrity case with a clearly formulated moral dilemma (please see practical tips for an example). While choosing a case, be aware of the target group. Pick a case that is recognizable for the target group - it should be part of their practice. It is important to choose a case which is short and has a clearly formulated dilemma (2 clear choices).
Display the case description clearly on a monitor during the debate/dialogue. Participants should be able to re-read the case description at any time. Make sure you give enough information about the case, otherwise participants will start to ask questions about the case itself. +
Get acquainted with the concepts of moral conflict and moral dilemmas.
Open the page on [https://embassy.science/wiki/Theme:17d406f9-0b0f-4325-aa2d-2fe186d5ff34 moral conflict and moral dilemma.] +
Prior to the session you will be asked to sign a confidentiality statement to formalize the expectation that information shared during the exercise will be kept confidential by you and the other participants in the session. +
Through this exercise, you will foster reflection on personal experiences and moral uncertainty. For this reason, it is important to create a safe learning environment where participants feel confident to share their cases and ideas.
While facilitating the exercise, try to protect participants’ vulnerability and encourage participants to respect others’ opinions. Moreover, prior to the session, we recommend asking participants to sign a confidentiality statement, in order to formalize the expectation that the information shared during the exercise will be kept confidential. +
At the beginning of the session you will be informed about the background, the aim and the description of the game. You will also be asked to keep information and concerns discussed in relation to the dilemmas confidential. +
'''Zanda Rubene and Reinis Upenieks''' trained 26 PhD students in Educational Sciences as a team at the University of Latvia. According to Zanda, running the VIRT<sup>2</sup>UE program in teams is good to share responsibilities and support each other. Besides, the two trainers highly recommend collecting feedback and evaluations from the trainees. In their particular case, the Ph.D. students declared to be very satisfied after the training and concluded that the session had answered many questions. Although the trainees’ favourite exercise was the “Dilemma Game”, Rubene found particularly useful the “Self-declaration” and plans to keep using the tool with doctoral students. Finally, Rubene highlights the importance of training Educational Sciences researchers, since “it is an area where research is about people, very often about children. This is very sensitive from an ethical point of view
[[File:LatviaTrainers.png ]]
*Zanda Rubene and Reinis Upenieks, certified VIRT<sup>2</sup>UE trainers at University of Latvia, Latvia. +
What alternatives exist? +
[https://public.3.basecamp.com/p/hyhZZzeYAAUVR69riFiVaoQV What is Research Integrity?]
[https://public.3.basecamp.com/p/JFmNMx9J1bHQ2oRsDyMATEEg Three levels of Research Integrity]
[https://public.3.basecamp.com/p/uQrZDFmEprkVPaUjN59cCpTs Scope of Research Integrity]
[https://public.3.basecamp.com/p/NWToiXjLbj19P5wdPuWS6zZB Research Integrity in your context] +
03 - Four Quadrant Approach: A Method for Analysing Cases in Research Ethics and Research Integrity +
#'''Relevant Facts''': What are the most relevant facts concerning the situation?
#'''Uncertainties''': Which features of the situation are uncertain, lacking in clarity, or controversial?
#'''Courses of Action''': What are the practically available options for providing a solution to the case?
#'''Contextual Features''': What legal, financial and institutional policies and regulations apply to the case?
+
The VIRT2UE Guide begins with a summary of the training. This comes before the instruction pages.
The text can be found [https://public.3.basecamp.com/p/zGrYP11u4fVVyyYao73ynCGe here]. +
Once you will have been registered you will provide further details in your profile about your research integrity and ethics expertise using the categories developed by the ENERI project. +
On this course unit you will focus on the topic of authorship, and how discussions on authorship touch upon integrity issues. The unit is divided in three smaller sections:
<br />
*Video "standing on the shoulders of giants" and video where people share their experiences on topics that are dealt with in the scene you watched.
*Short lecture on authorship
*Apply your knowledge and start working on the final assignment +
In this learning unit, we will look at some questionable publication practices that you may come across in your academic career. First, we will offer a definition of FFP and introduce you to a website where retracted articles, and also corrections and expressions of concern, can be found: [https://retractionwatch.com/ retractionwatch.com]. In the image below you can find the structure of learning unit 2.[[File:Unit 2 structure.png.png|center|frame]] +
