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
1
<span lang="EN-US">The methodology of BEYOND cases is rooted in the values clarification method. It simultaneously develops discussions on ethics and values-related issues while enhancing competencies necessary for dialogic communication, including: '''1) skills for listening and responding, 2) openness, 3) empathy, and 4) mutuality orientation'''<sup>5</sup>.</span>
<span lang="EN-US">This particular methodology has been developed through various educational games created by the Centre for Ethics at the University of Tartu, with the first game released in 2010 for teachers. Subsequent games have been designed for medical workers, students, researchers and the general public. The training material is intended for use as active learning methods with high interactivity, such as group work and group discussions. The method combines individual activities (taking first personal responsibility via choosing one’s own solution) with group activities (discussing the case, solutions and their underlying motivations and values, and potentially reaching a consensus).</span>
<span lang="EN-US">The material consists of ethical dilemmas which are developed in accordance with the methodology described by Parder et al. (2024)<sup>6</sup>.</span>
*The narrative is described from the perspective of the protagonist – the protagonist must be someone that the trainees find it easy to identify with.
*<span lang="EN-US">The characters and the basic relationships between them are described without too much detail, leaving thus room for trainees to fill the missing information with their own life experiences.</span>
*<span lang="EN-US">The information about the motives of the actors has been kept to a minimum to give the trainees an opportunity to draw from their experiences.</span>
*<span lang="EN-US">The temporal dimension of the narrative is also kept limited – in some cases background information is given, but the pre-given choices were kept within one temporal moment.</span>
*<span lang="EN-US">The dilemma and the pre-given solutions were balanced – the narrative was written from the neutral perspective and the pre-given solutions were morally acceptable from the perspective of at least one ethical theory.</span>
<span lang="EN-US">The drafting of solutions was inspired by four ethical theories: deontology, utilitarianism, care ethics and virtue ethics. It has to be noted that the solutions are not in perfect accordance with the theories as the aim of this training methodology is not to teach ethical theories to trainees, but rather to provide realistic alternative solutions to choose from.</span>
<span lang="EN-US">Finally, the aim of the methodology is not to teach a “right” answer to the dilemma as dilemmas often involve conflicts between two or more valuable ethical principles, but to focus on the reflection of the cases and solutions and to guide participants to carry out moral reasoning with emphasis on the skills of listening and discussing.</span><div>
----<div>
'''<span lang="EN-US">'''<span lang="EN-US">[5]</span> <span lang="ET">Kent , M. L., and Taylor, M. (2002).</span> <span lang="EN-US">Toward a Dialogic Theory of Public Relations. ''Public Relations Review,'' ''28''(1), 21–37. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0363-8111(02)00108-X;Taylor, M., and Kent, M. L. (2014). Dialogic Engagement: Clarifying Foundational Concepts. ''Journal of Public Relations Research,'' ''26''(5), 384–398. https://doi.org/10.1080/1062726X.2014.956106;Yang, S.-U., Kang, M., and Cha, H. (2015). A Study on Dialogic Communication, Trust, and Distrust: Testing a Scale for Measuring Organization–Public Dialogic Communication (OPDC). ''Journal of Public Relations Research,'' ''27''(2), 175–192. <span lang="ET">https://doi.org/10.1080/1062726X.2015.1007998</span></span>
</div><div>
<span lang="ET"><span lang="ET">[6]</span></span> <span lang="EN-US">Parder, M. L., Tammeleht, A., Juurik, M., Paaver, T., Velbaum, K., and Harro-Loit, H. (2024). Digital Discussion Game on Values: Development, Use and Possibilities for Measuring Its Functionality. In Y. P. Cheng, M. Pedaste, E. Bardone, Y. M. Huang (eds). (2024). Innovative Technologies and Learning. ICITL 2024. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, 14785. Springer, Cham.</span>
</div></div>
The first step in creating your own interactive content on the Embassy is to navigate to the H5P section of the Embassy.
There are two ways you can do this:
* By selecting "Add Interactive Content" from the Resources page using the Add button;or
* Alternatively, [https://h5p.embassy.science/ click here] to go there directly. +
Ask trainees to send you their learning portfolios, including:
1) evidence that they have trained 10 researchers (screenshot of video conference tool/attendance sheet/attendance declaration), 2) an overview of tasks completed, 3) reflection forms detailing their experiences facilitating the 5 participatory exercises.
You may distribute [https://community.embassy.science/uploads/short-url/kDU9xWHeyxdC4ER1toih5KJGE8H.docx this table] which can be used to create an overview of tasks completed.
The certificate confirms that they are didactically skilled research integrity experts. +
To prepare for facilitating the exercises in your context you:
a. Go through the instruction manuals and other related materials such as videos and readings
b. Prepare the necessary material for the exercises (e.g. PowerPoint presentations and/or the forms to send to the participants of the exercise). Please, be aware that it may be necessary to adapt the exercises. For example, if you are an ombudsperson at your institution, it may prompt reservations among your training participants if you ask them to share research integrity cases from their experience. You may therefore consider using only fictional cases (e.g. from the [https://www.eur.nl/en/about-eur/policy-and-regulations/integrity/research-integrity/dilemma-game Rotterdam Dilemma Game], or from [https://embassy.science/wiki-wiki/index.php/Special:BrowseData/Resource?_search_Resource_Type%5B0%5D=Cases The Embassy of Good Science] case section) instead. +
03 - Four Quadrant Approach: A Method for Analysing Cases in Research Ethics and Research Integrity +
The user should attend to some general questions in order to identify relevant aspects and major characteristics of the situation:
*What are the morally relevant facts?
*What are the ethical or moral issues at stake in this case?
*Who are the stakeholders?
*What particular normative standards in pertinent regulatory documents apply to the case?
*What possible courses of action are available?
*What are the predictable effects of each action?
*Which set of possible outcomes seem to be better? +
Alıştırma yapılmadan bir hafta önce sizden kişisel bir AD vakası sunmanız istenecektir (sunduğunuz vakanın kusurlu bir araştırma davranışı içermesi zorunluluğu bulunmamaktadır,yalnızca araştırmacı olarak yapılacak doğru şeyin ne olduğu konusunda emin olamadığınız bir vaka olması gerekmektedir) (pratik ipuçları kısmındaki Çalışma sayfası 1 başlığına bakınız). Sunulan tüm vakalar alıştırma esnasında tartışılamayabilir. Eğer sizin vakanız alıştırma esnasında tartışılmak üzere seçilirse, eğitmen size ulaşacak ve sizden diğer katılımcılara sunulmak üzere vakayı anlattığınız bir açıklama metni hazırlamanızı isteyecektir. +
Alıştırma yapılmadan bir hafta önce katılımcılardan:
1) Kişisel bir AD vakası sunmalarını (bunu vaka yorum formunu kullanarak yapacaklardır, lütfen pratik ipuçları bölümüne bakınız)
2) Elçilik web sitesinden aşağıdaki konularla ilgili sayfaları okumalarını isteyiniz:
a) <u>[https://embassy.science/wiki/Theme:520b3bc7-a6ab-4617-95f2-89c9dee31c53 Araştırma doğruluğu ile ilgili erdemler]</u>
b) <u>[https://embassy.science/wiki/Theme:17d406f9-0b0f-4325-aa2d-2fe186d5ff34 Ahlaki çatışma ve ahlaki ikilem]</u>
c) <u>[https://embassy.science/wiki/Theme:B4f7b2e3-af61-4466-94dc-2504affab5a8 Değerler ve normlar]</u>
d) <u>[https://embassy.science/wiki/Theme:6217d06b-c907-4b09-af4e-b4c8a17b9847 Diyalog ve münazara]</u>
Sunulan vakanın kusurlu bir araştırma davranışı içermesi zorunluluğu bulunmamaktadır,yalnızca katılımcıların bir araştırmacı olarak yapılacak doğru şeyin ne olduğu konusunda emin olamadıkları bir vaka olması gerekmektedir.
Vakaları isterken katılımcıların beklentilerini yönetmeniz iyi olacaktır. Bu nedenle lütfen katılımcılara sundukları tüm vakaların alıştırma esnasında tartışılamayabileceğini hatırlatın.
Kişisel vakalar üzerine fikir yürütmek önemli bir pratiktir çünkü burada katılımcıların araştırmacı olarak kendi yaptıkları uygulamalar üzerine odaklanılır ve ahlaki belirsizlik içinde kalmanın utanılacak bir şey olmadığı,böyle durumların herkesin hayatının bir parçası olduğu vurgulanır.
Katılımcılar için ilginç olacağını düşündüğünüz bir vaka seçin ve vakayı ileten kişiye oturumda bu vakayı sunmayı isteyip istemeyeceğini sorun. Vakanın gerçek ve kişisel bir vaka olduğundan ve ileten kişinin vakayı detaylarıyla anlatabileceğinden emin olun. Birlikte diğer katılımcılara sunulmak üzere vakayı anlatan kısa bir açıklama metni hazırlayın (bu zorunlu değildir). Katılımcıların vaka üzerinde fikir yürütmelerine yardımcı olmak için vaka yorum formunu kullanabilirsiniz (pratik ipuçları bölümüne bakınız). +
'''''Target audience''': secondary school students, doctoral students and early career researchers, senior academic and RE/RI experts.''
Empowering researchers to behave responsibly in research is at the heart of the [https://h2020integrity.eu/ INTEGRITY] course and each individual module. For this purpose several modules each addressing a different research integrity research ethics topic have been developed.
These are specifically designed for 4 different target audiences:
#[https://h2020integrity.eu/toolkit/tools-high-school-students/teachers-guide-for-secondary-school/ high school students]
#[https://h2020integrity.eu/toolkit/tools-undergraduate-students/integrity-games/ undergraduate students]
#[https://h2020integrity.eu/toolkit/tools-phd-students/ PhD students and]
#[https://h2020integrity.eu/toolkit/tools-researchers-supervisors/ researchers and supervisors].
The training materials are presented alongside a [https://h2020integrity.eu/toolkit/tools-high-school-students/teachers-guide-for-secondary-school/ Teacher Guide] +
Humans have been hooked on learning for millennia. From Darwin’s curiosity about evolution to our desire for self-improvement, knowledge fuels our world. But it’s not just about personal growth;it's also about solving global problems and making the world a better place. Researchers use everything from ancient wisdom to cutting-edge technology to uncover new insights. But unless their findings are actually used to solve problems, the vast majority of benefits from research lie only with researchers themselves. +
<div>
==='''<span lang="EN-GB">What is a Reproducibility Network?</span>''' ===
</div><div><div>
<span lang="EN-GB">A national Reproducibility Network <u>(RN)</u> is a countrywide peer-led consortium that aims to improve research practices by promoting, supporting, and investigating factors contributing to robust research including, but not limited to, reproducibility, replicability, and Open Science. Activities may include promoting training activities, disseminating best practices, supporting research on reproducible research practices, and advocacy for reproducible and open research. </span>
</div><div>
<span lang="EN-GB">An RN typically serves as a hub to connect researchers to exchange ideas and good practices, promoting collaboration among researchers from a range of scientific disciplines. These networks provide infrastructure, facilitate opportunities for researchers and initiatives to support and amplify each other’s efforts, and foster community building as well as shared problem solving. </span>
</div><div>
<span lang="EN-GB">RNs can serve as connectors to other stakeholder groups such as universities, funders, or academic publishers.</span>
</div></div>
===Benefits for setting up an Reproducibility Network?===
<span lang="EN-GB">By providing seed funding for the establishment of a new RN, you actively contribute to the strengthening of reproducibility and Open Science in your local ecosystem. The widespread presence of RNs is crucial, as they function as points of contact for scientific communities who, across e.g., disciplinary, demographic, and geographic contexts, face different challenges and barriers. RNs can provide local and tailored support and keep in mind the different stages of readiness of their local communities for implementing reproducible research practices.</span>
==="Lessons learned" from the TIER2 award===
1. '''<span lang="EN-GB">Build strong community links.</span>''' <span lang="EN-GB">Involve already existing and successful RNs in the establishment of new RNs. This ensures that new RNs receive valuable guidance, input and support early in the establishment process.</span>
2. '''<span lang="EN-GB">Expand connections and broaden the reach.</span>''' <span lang="EN-GB">Reach out to researchers and other relevant stakeholders, such as universities, as this is important for local support and the sustainability of the RN. However, identifying and connecting with researchers in Horizon Europe Widening Participation countries (WIDERA countries) who are active in reproducible research and Open Science practices can be challenging.</span>
3. '''<span lang="EN-GB">Facilitate international support.</span>''' <span lang="EN-GB">Several RNs across the globe exist and more are being established. Build strong international connections amongst them to facilitate the sharing of resources and best practices, this will help to coordinate and amplify efforts.</span>
4. '''<span lang="EN-GB">Focus on the local ecosystem.</span>''' <span lang="EN-GB">RNs are national networks that promote transparent and trustworthy practices in their local research ecosystems. Recognize local needs, geopolitical conditions as well as barriers and available resources.</span>
===How has TIER2 supported the awarded networks?===
1. TIER2 members and award organizers have facilitated connections between awardees and existing international Reproducibility and Open Science networks. via email contacts as well as through virtual and in-person meetings.
2. <span lang="EN-GB">TIER2 award organizers, have added awardees, with their consent, to various mailing lists and newsletters from different international RNs.</span>
3.<span lang="EN-GB">Further, TIER2 award organizers have invited awardees to attend and speak at several Open Science and reproducibility events to meet (steering group) members from other RNs and (inter-)national initiatives.</span>
<span lang="EN-GB">4. TIER2 project members as well as award organizers have provided the awardees with resources and information on relevant topics, including different RN structures, website layout and structure, as well as language.</span>
===Awardess of the TIER2 Reproducibility Network Award===
TIER2 is proud to announce the two awarded consortia based in Ukraine and Georgia who will receive the monetary awards from the Reproducibility Network open call this summer. Multiple scientific consortia from Horizon Europe “[https://www.era-learn.eu/support-for-partnerships/additional-activities/openness-inclusivness-transparency/widening-and-inclusiveness Widening Participation]” countries submitted applications describing their plans and motivations for establishing a Reproducibility Network in their home country which TIER2 would support with a €5000 prize.
[[File:Ukraine and Georgia RN.png|center|thumb]]
====Ukrainian Consortium====
The Ukrainian consortium, from the Institute for Open Science and Innovation ([https://www.facebook.com/inosi.org/ INOSI]), [https://twitter.com/optima_open OPTIMA] Project Consortium & [https://lpnu.ua/en Lviv Polytechnic National University], comprises researchers with a broad scientific background, ranging from informatics to chemistry and ecology. The core of the consortium has already experience working together in promoting Open Science in Ukraine, particularly within the OPTIMA project and within the Working Group on the [https://www.kmu.gov.ua/en/news/ukraina-pryiednalas-do-krain-ies-shcho-maiut-zatverdzhenyi-plan-realizatsii-pryntsypiv-vidkrytoi-nauky National Plan for Open Science development] in Ukraine. In response to what motivated them in participating in the open call, they state that: ''“Ukraine needs good science to make good decisions in all spheres. This is particularly relevant during the war and will be needed for the post-war recovery. Reproducibility (as a part of the Open Science concept) can boost the value of academic research in Ukraine making science a real game-changer for progress''”. Regarding their future plans for the Ukrainian Reproducibility Network, they share: “''In the short term, the ambition is to kickstart the network of experts, able to lead the discussion on reproducibility and become a role model on the national level. In the long term, the ambition is, of course, to make reproducibility in research a standard by default. This has to be supported by co-creation and sharing best practices, research on research, and making an impact on national policy. We hope that the network will be viable and ambitious enough to compete for international grant funding to achieve this''”. With regard to the global state of reproducibility & scientific integrity, they say: “''The progress on the global level is visible, but it's only the beginning of a long way forward. The key to achieving the goal is a strong research culture that is often missing in many academic communities. Openness and transparency in performing and communicating research are the basic things to be established''.”
====Georgian Consortium====
The consortium from Georgia, comprises three researchers from different institutions: the Department of Human Anatomy at Tbilisi State Medical University ([https://tsmu.edu/ts/home TSMU]), the Faculty of Medicine at Tbilisi State University ([https://www.tsu.ge/en TSU]), the Institute of Morphology, and the Scientific Department at Caucasus International University ([https://ciu.edu.ge/?lang=en CIU]). Brought together as team members of a research group, they were drafting a proposal for a Horizon Europe (HE) project when their HE grant coordinator alerted them about the TIER2 open call announcement. The team was immediately drawn to it, sharing that:
“''During our individual and collective research endeavors, we frequently encountered challenges in reproducing experiment results, a phenomenon that was not isolated to our work but across the global research landscape. [...] a consolidated effort was needed to elevate the state of research in our nation. [...] Moreover, the opportunity to foster a Reproducibility Network (RN) in Georgia provided a platform to unite our nation's fragmented research endeavors, drive standards in research methodologies, and integrate with the global scientific community''”.
Regarding their short-term plans after receiving the award, they list the following: “''Organize the foundational meeting, bringing together stakeholders from various Georgian research institutions, to lay down the operational blueprint for the RN;Launch training sessions that cover core skills in reproducibility, data management, and research design;Conduct sessions in universities and community centers to educate and foster trust in scientific research: Set up an official RN website and leverage social media for real-time updates and engagements”.''
''In the long term, the team envisions to “Establish partnerships with International Reproducibility Networks, facilitating knowledge exchange and joint research projects and collaborate with Georgian institutions to advocate for policies emphasizing reproducibility and transparency''”. Their global vision for the state of reproducibility and scientific integrity “''is one where every piece of research, irrespective of its domain or geography, stands the test of time and validation. We envision a scientific landscape where collaboration, transparency, and inclusivity aren't just ideals but are deeply integrated into research methodologies''.”
They share that the way forward is to prioritize
“''1)Education & Training: Equip researchers, especially the younger generation, with the necessary tools and knowledge to ensure reproducibility.''
''2)Open Science: Promote Open Access publications, making research universally accessible and subject to broader scrutiny.''
''3)Interdisciplinary Collaborations: Foster collaborations across disciplines, pooling expertise and resources to tackle complex research challenges.''
''4)Technological Integration: Leverage technology, especially AI and data analytics, to aid in ensuring research consistency and integrity.''
''If we could change one thing, it would be the isolated nature of scientific endeavors prevalent in many regions, like Georgia. We would foster a globally interconnected research network where findings, methodologies, and tools are shared seamlessly, accelerating scientific progress and ensuring its robustness''”.
Lastly, the Georgian consortium highlights what they would change in the global reproducibility landscape if they could:
“''1)Revise Academic Incentives: The current "publish or perish" culture sometimes prioritizes quantity over quality. We'd advocate for a system where researchers are rewarded for the reproducibility and integrity of their work, not just the volume. 2)Enhanced Training: Incorporate reproducibility and Open Science training at early academic stages, ensuring that upcoming researchers are well-equipped with the necessary skills and ethos. 3)Global Collaboration Platforms: Creation of digital platforms that facilitate global collaboration, data sharing, and mutual validation of research findings, breaking down silos and fostering a truly global scientific community''.”
====Serbian Consortium====
[[File:Serbian RN.png|center|thumb]]
<span lang="EN-US">[https://tier2-project.eu/ TIER2] is excited to announce the winner of the 2024 Open Call aimed at fostering the establishment of a third Reproducibility Network (RN) in “Widening Participation” countries - Serbia. The goal of Reproducibility Networks is to promote rigorous research practices, facilitate interdisciplinary collaborations and discussions, and enhance the trustworthiness of scientific work. The Serbian consortium will thus receive a €5,000 grant to organise an initial meeting, laying the groundwork for establishing an RN in their country.</span>
<span lang="EN-US">The Serbian consortium, consisting of nine organisations – six institutes and three faculties –, brings together diverse academic backgrounds with a shared commitment to improving research culture in Serbia. They focus on integrating Open Science, reproducibility, and inclusive policies into institutions and education. The consortium has previously collaborated on initiatives like the [https://nitra.gov.rs/en/ Team for Open Science in Serbia] and [https://nitra.gov.rs/en/inovacije/projekat-saige the Saige project], organising workshops and training to promote open science practices.</span>
<span lang="EN-US">Motivated by challenges such as low research investment and a scientific system that prioritises quantity over quality, they believe establishing a Reproducibility Network will enhance collaboration and help to address these issues. In the short term, they plan to promote the network through conferences, a kick-off event, and online platforms. Long-term, they aim to integrate Open Science into curricula, incentivise reproducibility, support initiatives beyond major centers, advocate for policy changes, and build international collaborations.</span>
<span lang="EN-US">Their vision for global reproducibility is one where research is transparent, ethical, and rigorous:</span>
<span lang="EN-US">''“In this ideal state, researchers across all disciplines adhere to principles of Open Science, ensuring that their methods, data, and results are accessible and reproducible.”''</span>
<span lang="EN-US">– Matija Zlatar on behalf of the Serbian consortium</span>
<span lang="EN-US">They advocate for integrating these principles into education, establishing incentive systems, and fostering collaboration:</span>
<span lang="EN-US">''“We should integrate reproducibility and Open Science practices into university curricula and professional development programs to equip researchers with the necessary skills and knowledge to conduct reproducible research.”''</span>
<span lang="EN-US">– Matija Zlatar on behalf of the Serbian consortium</span>
===Resources to set up a Reproducibility Network===
*[https://osf.io/ndwsj Application template]
*[https://osf.io/tsmxh Reviewer guidelines]
==='''<span lang="EN-GB">Call to action – what could you do?</span>'''===
<div>
*'''<span lang="EN-GB">Are you a researcher?</span>''' <span lang="EN-GB">Join an existing RN in your country or, if none exist, identify supporters and form your own network.</span>
</div><div>
*'''<span lang="EN-GB">Are you a funder?</span>''' <span lang="EN-GB">Offer your support by providing (additional) funding for personnel costs, events on reproducibility practices and Open Science, or training opportunities. Further, establish your own award calls to support the establishment of more RNs.</span>
</div><div>
*'''<span lang="EN-GB">Are you a publisher?</span>''' <span lang="EN-GB">Support the wide range of outputs generated by RNs, for example via special issues or journals, to help them increase their reach.</span>
</div>
===Not sure, if your country has an established Reproducibility Network?===
<span lang="EN-GB">Visit the Global Networks page hosted by the UKRN to find out if a Reproducibility Network already exists in your country: https://www.ukrn.org/global-networks/.</span> <div></div>
[[File:Mm1.png|center|frameless|600x600px]]
'''What Is Social Justice? Quiz'''
There is no unified definition of social justice. For this reason, in this module we take a working and broad definition of the concept. We interpret social justice as a guiding principle for achieving a just society, including full and equal participation of individuals in all social institutions;fair, equitable distribution of material and nonmaterial goods;and recognition and support for the needs and rights of individuals. To do that, historical processes of oppression and domination of certain populations need to be taken into account to understand current inequalities and injustices.
Even if you are not already familiar with the terms ‘social justice’ and ‘social injustice’, you are likely already familiar with the concepts. Take a look at the following eight questions and select the correct answer from the options provided. Be sure to click the small left and right arrows to navigate between questions. +
'''Video Transcript'''
According to Burbules and Berk (1999): Where our beliefs remain unexamined, we are not free;we act without thinking about why we act, and thus do not exercise control over our own destinies (p46).
An understanding of where our knowledge, beliefs and assumptions come from, and how we are positioned in relation to our research is vital for an ethical approach to research and analysis. Cultivating a habit of critical reflection is an important step towards gaining this understanding.
In this module you will be asked to think about how knowledge is created, to reflect upon your own beliefs, assumptions and biases, and how these might impact upon research and ethics. +
Listen to the first episode of Earth to Research and learn about what it means to do transformative research in times of ecological and social crisis. +
Watch this short video introducing ethics of care (or care ethics).
You can expand the window by clicking on the botton on the bottom-right corner. +
In this activity, first you will watch the video “5 Ethical Principles”, which introduces core principles of climate and environmental ethics, relevant for research and innovation. Afterwards, you can note down which principles are most relevant in your research. +
Produce a synopsis of the case
*Only include the facts of the case
*If the issue is ambiguous, then attempt to clarify what issue or set of issues are at stake +
<span lang="EN-US">A PhD candidate is new to a laboratory, and they face some conflict with a peer when it comes to booking the laboratory space and equipment. This scenario is focused on how to work together collaboratively and how to handle misunderstandings.</span> +
Define empowerment, we use the broadest definition of empowerment to provide an overview and help spark ideas for the participants what it may mean to them in academia. <span lang="EN-US">Within the workshop we use the definition from the Cambridge Dictionary: “The process of gaining freedom and power to do what you want or to control what happens to you.”</span>
<span lang="EN-US">Discuss what can affect empowerment in academia, discuss that this is not always the case but it can occur:</span>
<span lang="EN-US"> i. Hierarchical structures</span>
Academia, particularly in traditional institutions, often operates with a rigid hierarchical structure. The power dynamics can limit the autonomy of lower-ranking faculty (e.g., adjunct professors or junior faculty) and staff. Senior leaders, such as department heads, deans, and administrators, often make the major decisions regarding curriculum, policies, or resources, which can lead to a sense of disempowerment among those lower in the hierarchy. Faculty might feel their ideas are overlooked, or that they have little influence over institutional priorities.
<span lang="EN-US"> ii. Lack of transparency</span>
Transparency in decision-making, particularly regarding policies, budget allocations, promotions, and institutional priorities, is vital for empowerment. When decisions are made behind closed doors, or when information is not shared equitably across the institution, it can create an environment where individuals feel excluded and powerless. A lack of clarity about how decisions are made or what criteria are used for promotions can make people feel that their efforts are futile or that they have no control over their professional trajectory.
<span lang="EN-US"> iii. Lack of ability to affect meaningful change in your working environment</span>
<span lang="EN-US">Empowerment in academia is often linked to the ability to influence and shape one's environment. This could include having a voice in curriculum development, research priorities, institutional policy, or even the physical and social environment of the workplace. When individuals feel that they have no real impact on decisions affecting their work or workplace culture, they may feel disillusioned or disengaged.</span>
<span lang="EN-US">Discuss that these variables are usually a result of research culture within institutions, departments, or research teams. Continue by defining what research culture is. Research culture encompasses the behaviors, values, expectations, attitudes and norms of research communities. It influences researches’ career paths and determines the way that research is conducted and communicated (Royal Society, 2025). When discussing the definition, mention that this is a broad definition. Research culture is often more complex, and is composed and affected by many different variables. You may touch on the existing negative associations researchers have with research culture, that it can lead to exploitation, discrimination, and even bullying when research culture is abused. You should also discuss how negative research culture can affect social and psychological safety, responsible conduct of research, mental health, and research misbehaviors/quality of work. It is important to highlight that these variables do not work in isolation but they are a result of the integration and mixture between individual, systematic, and cultural factors. Discussing that individuals are affected by the system, causing behavioral and attitudinal issues, which in turn may fuel bad cultural norms. It is important to highlight this explicitly, so that participants do not feel isolated in their experiences or that they understand that differences in outcomes are not just dependent on them, and that they do not bare all responsibilities.</span>
Continue by telling participants they will as a group have to choose out of the four scenarios two to work through in the workshop. Describe the four scenarios:
* <span lang="EN-US">Collaborative Working</span>
* Taking Initative
* Supervision
* Conflict of Interest
Our phones and devices seem small and portable — but their environmental footprint is massive. This short article explores how technology products affect the environment throughout their lifecycle: from extraction of rare minerals to their disposal as e-waste.
You can expand the image by clicking on the button on the bottom right-hand corner. +
Our health is deeply interlinked with the environment we live in, from the quality of our air, water, and soil, to our social networks, living conditions, and biodiversity. This video introduces the concept of '''Planetary Health''', which explores how the well-being of humans, animals, and ecosystems are inseparably linked. It highlights the environmental and social drivers of health risks, including climate change, deforestation, pollution, and global inequities. Developed by the Nuffic-funded Capacity Strengthening in Epidemiology and Public Health project (CATAPULT) consortium (Asian University for Women, Elevate Health, and UMC Utrecht), the video provides an introduction to why safeguarding planetary systems is essential for promoting health and justice worldwide.
'''Watch the video, and click on the blue pen icon in the left hand corner to make notes while watching. Remember the summary! (click on cc - bottom right in video - to activate subtitles)''' +
