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
Across disciplines, case-based learning (CBL) is a well-established method that encourages higher levels of cognition by having students apply their knowledge to real-world or fictional situations (see Bloom's Taxonomy or Relational/extended abstract levels of learning in SOLO taxonomy).
Learners usually '''work in groups''' on case studies, which are narratives with one or more characters and/or scenarios. The cases pose a disciplinary issue or issues, to which learners come up with remedies while working with an instructor.'"`UNIQ--ref-00000084-QINU`"''"`UNIQ--ref-00000085-QINU`"''"`UNIQ--ref-00000086-QINU`"' Case studies are an effective teaching tool that engages learners, stimulates critical thinking, and enables a deeper understanding of real-life situations. The use of case studies is a deliberate process designed to promote active engagement, critical thinking, and deeper understanding among students. Prior research (e.g., Löfström & Tammeleht, 2023 citing: Bagdasarov et al., 2012;Johnson et al., 2012;McWilliams & Nahavandi, 2006;Nonis & Swift, 2001;O'Leary & Cotter, 2000) has identified the use of cases to be beneficial in RE/RI teaching/learning.'"`UNIQ--ref-00000087-QINU`"' Understanding why and how learning occurs is essential for improving teaching, and as a result, understanding how learners learn can be accessed through an awareness of learning within the framework of research ethics and integrity.'"`UNIQ--ref-00000088-QINU`"'
'''It begins with the careful selection''' of relevant case studies that align with the learning objectives of the course. These cases should not only be current and authentic but should also reflect the students' interests and experiences and provide them with a tangible connection to the course material. RE/RI case-studies can be easily found on [https://embassy.science/wiki-wiki/index.php/Main_Page the Embassy of Good Science].
'''Once a suitable case study has been selected''', the teaching process usually begins with an introduction to the case (e.g., providing context and background information. This first step is crucial to ensuring that students understand the importance of the case study and its relevance to the wider course material. This practice will help students to get acquainted with the topic. In addition to case-studies, also vignettes have been used in RE/RI education to reflect on real-life situations including an explicit or implicit conflict. Trainers may identify a specific ethical/integrity issue on which learners are asked to reflect on.'"`UNIQ--ref-00000089-QINU`"'
'''As learners delve into the case study''', they are asked to actively engage with the material. This means more than just passive reading;learners are encouraged to take notes, ask questions, and identify important themes or patterns contained in the case study. By promoting active reading practises, instructors aim to encourage the development of deeper understanding of the complexity of real-world problems and the various factors at play.
'''The initial reading''' is often followed by common discussion and analysis. With the guidance of the trainer, learners are encouraged to share their interpretations of the case study and explore different perspectives. Discussions can be structured around questions, which encourage critical thinking, consider alternative viewpoints and evaluate the implications of different approaches in order to move from uni- and multistructural levels to relational and extended abstract levels.
Central to the case study approach is the opportunity for learners to '''apply theoretical concepts and principles to real-life situations'''. Instructors help learners make connections between the case study and the course material by encouraging them to analyse the case through the lens of relevant theories, models or frameworks. This process not only deepens students' understanding of theoretical concepts, but also enhances their ability to apply these concepts in practical contexts.
In addition, case studies provide a platform to foster problem-solving skills. Learners are tasked with finding creative solutions to the challenges presented in the case, evaluating the feasibility of various options, and developing a reasoned plan of action. Through this process, learners learn to deal with complex problems, weigh competing interests, and make informed decisions based on facts and analyses.
'''Finally''', case studies can serve as a valuable assessment tool, allowing instructors to evaluate learners' mastery of the content of the course and their ability to apply theoretical concepts to real-world scenarios. Assignments may include written reflections, group presentations, or class discussions based on the case study so that students can demonstrate their learning and receive constructive feedback from fellow students and instructors.
Case-based approaches are utilised in [[Initiative:639c9790-bf80-4f21-9fc0-8027b4c0cfe0|ENERI]], [[Initiative:Fa186292-623f-4b6f-a21e-44250c057f15|RID-SSISS]], [[Initiative:0582c7af-35eb-4def-b74e-c884f29965da|Path2Integrity]], [[Initiative:F9656f91-a514-44ff-9264-d6b3414fdddc|INTEGRITY]] and [[Initiative:8eed30fd-c2ed-44d1-9752-753092bd350e|VIRT<sup>2</sup>UE]].
'"`UNIQ--references-0000008A-QINU`"'
Podcasting is a way of communicating ideas through audio, where listeners engage with spoken content on demand.
Unlike written, visual or other auditory formats , podcasts rely entirely on voice, tone, pacing, and structure to communicate ideas.
This means that how something is said becomes just as important as what is said.
Podcasts are often consumed while listeners are doing other activities (e.g. commuting, exercising, or working).
Because of this, podcast communication must be clear, structured, and easy to follow without visual support.
At the same time, podcasting creates a sense of direct and personal connection. Hearing someone’s voice can make information feel more immediate, engaging, and relatable.
'''Watch'''
Watch the following introduction to podcasting. From this video, we can see that podcasts are audio-first, meaning listeners rely entirely on what they hear. They can take different formats such as interviews, solo episodes, or conversations, and are flexible in how and when they are consumed. At the same time, they require clear structure to keep listeners engaged and able to follow the content. +
Audio Activity
Listen to the podcast episode featuring Joeri Tijdink.
While listening, consider:
* How did skepticism influence Joeri’s career?
* What transformed skepticism into action?
* What values drive his work today? +
Audio Activity
Listen to the podcast episode featuring Rose Bernabe.
While listening, consider:
* What experiences shaped Rose’s approach to research?
* What helped her find her voice?
* How did support from others influence her journey? +
Incorporating gender, health, and climate justice in your research: A reflexive question card exercise +
Please go through the summary PowerPoint presentation about the rationale for incorporating gender, health, and climate dimensions together.
These themes (gender and social positioning, health equity, climate justice, reflexivity, and intersectionality) help uncover hidden power dynamics in research.
The goal is not to memorise definitions, but to reflect on how these issues relate to their own research.
<span lang="EL"><span lang="EN-US">(Please click on the bottom right of the slides to expand it to full screen and improve your experience).</span></span> +
Read the sustainability and eco-justice in everyday research competency profile. +
'''Life Cycle Assessment (LCA)''' is a systematic method used to evaluate the environmental impacts of a product, process, or service throughout its entire life cycle from raw material extraction, production, and distribution to use and final disposal. It helps identify where the greatest environmental impacts occur and supports more sustainable and informed decision-making.
Why Conduct LCAs (Purpose)
*Identify areas of high environmental impact within production processes
*Quantify key impacts like greenhouse gas emissions, water use, and energy consumption
*Identify opportunities for waste reduction, energy savings, and the use of more sustainable materials
Benefits of LCA (output)
*Provides data-driven insights for informed decision-making
*Guides process and product design improvements
*Enables hotspot analysis to focus sustainability efforts
*Helps set concrete sustainability goals and measure progress
Please see the following interactive videos for a real-life explanation of how LCA is applied in practice across different supply chains. +
Doing research with communities affected by climate change: Climate-conscious methodologies matrix (for researchers and ethics reviewers) +
Please go through the PowerPoint presentation. <span lang="EL"><span lang="EN-US">(Please click on the bottom right of the slides to expand it to full screen and improve your experience).</span></span> +
<div><div>
<span lang="EN-GB">Before delivering your training session(s), take time to familiarize yourself with the RE4GREEN course materials.</span>
</div><div>
*<span lang="EN-GB">Begin with the '''introductory micromodule''' to understand the course scope and approach.</span>
</div><div>
*<span lang="EN-GB">Explore the available materials and resources.</span>
</div><div>
<span lang="EN-GB">The RE4GREEN course is designed as a '''flexible toolbox'''. Trainers are encouraged to:</span>
</div><div>
*Explore the '''learning needs''' and perspectives of learners.
*<span lang="EN-GB">Select content based on the intended '''learning goals'''</span>
*<span lang="EN-GB">Select content based on their '''target audience''' </span>
</div><div>
'''<span lang="EN-GB">About the course</span>'''
</div><div>
<span lang="EN-GB">The course follows a progressive learning logic that moves from foundational values to systemic analysis and critical engagement, then to future‑oriented reflection, and finally to practical action.</span>
</div><div>
<span lang="EN-GB">The course is structured as follows:</span>
</div><div>
'''<span lang="EN-GB">Section 1: Embodying Sustainability Values</span>'''
</div><div>
*<span lang="EN-GB">Introduces ethical and conceptual foundations</span>
</div></div><div><div>
*<span lang="EN-GB">Covers key principles such as environmental justice, planetary health, and care-based approaches</span>
</div><div>
'''<span lang="EN-GB">Section 2: Embracing Complexity</span>'''
</div><div>
*<span lang="EN-GB">Focuses on systems thinking and interconnected sustainability challenges</span>
</div><div>
*<span lang="EN-GB">Includes analytical exercises and reflection tools</span>
</div><div>
'''<span lang="EN-GB">Section 3: Envisioning Sustainable Futures</span>'''
</div><div>
*<span lang="EN-GB">Explores transformative thinking and future perspectives</span>
</div><div>
*<span lang="EN-GB">Encourages reflection on alternative research pathways</span>
</div><div>
'''<span lang="EN-GB">Section 4: Acting for Sustainability</span>'''
</div><div>
*<span lang="EN-GB">Focuses on practical implementation</span>
</div><div>
*<span lang="EN-GB">Translates concepts into actionable changes in research practices</span>
</div><div></div><div>
<span lang="EN-GB">Although designed as a sequence, each micromodule is '''self-contained.''' Trainers and learners can:</span>
</div><div>
*<span lang="EN-GB">Follow structured learning paths based on target audience, or</span>
</div><div>
*<span lang="EN-GB">Select modules based on specific needs and interest</span>
</div></div>
Close the exercise with underlining the importance of good communication in dealing with research integrity issues and dilemma’s. Continue with the next fragment or next part of the workshop. +
04 - Moral Case Deliberation: A Method for Analysing Cases in Research Ethics and Research Integrity +
Lastly, learning experiences and the outcome are evaluated. +
Ask the group to reflect on the process, and to evaluate if the learning objectives were met. Foster a brief dialogue on what might have been learned as a group.
In this step the facilitator may ask participants questions such as:
- 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 (e.g. from 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?
- Why did people disagree (e.g. differences in experience, training, background, values, norms…)?
- What were the other options?
- Was any alternative option proposed?
- Did anybody change her/his mind as a result of the discussion?
- Why would you NOT follow the morally ideal course of action?
- What is needed to act morally 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 can you best address future dilemmas in your daily work?
- How can shared values and principles be fostered? +
This final part of the manual consists of two instructions, with the links listed below:
[https://public.3.basecamp.com/p/R5e8zxXRHwd27Mz5PPfooByh Certification]
[https://public.3.basecamp.com/p/vmLSq94iGyaNsbrWKFgFbCiN Recognition and networking] +
Katılımcıları sürecin geneli üzerine düşünmeye davet edin: bu oturumdan çıkardıkları dersler neler? Katılımcılara aşağıdaki soruları sorarak belirli sonuçlar çıkarmaya çalışın:
o Erdemler ve normlar arasında ilişki kurmak kolay mıydı yoksa zor muydu? Neden?
o Kendinizi vakayı sunan kişinin yerine koymanız erdemlere ve dolayısıyla norm ve davranışlara olan bakış açınızı genişletti mi?
Diğer katılımcıların belirlediği erdem ve normlar/ davranışlar sizin erdemlere daha farklı ya da geniş bir açıdan bakmanıza yardımcı oldu mu? Bunun uygulamada karşılaşacağınız AED ikilemleri karşısında düşünme şeklinizi etkileyeceğini düşünüyor musunuz? +
Gruptan genel olarak süreç üzerine fikir yürütmelerini ve bu alıştırma bağlamında öğrenme hedeflerinin karşılanıp karşılanmadığına ilişkin bir değerlendirme yapmalarını isteyin. Katılımcıları bu alıştırma ile neler öğrendikleri üzerine kısa bir diyalog yürütmeye yönlendirin.
Bu aşamada eğitmen katılımcılara aşağıdakilere benzer sorular sorabilir:
- 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)
- Diğer seçenekler neydi?
- Herhangi bir alternatif seçenek önerildi mi?
- Tartışma sonucunda herhangi bir katılımcı fikrini değiştirdi mi?
- Ahlaki açıdan ideal olan şeyi YAPMAMANIZIN sebebi ne olurdu?
- 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?
- Üzerinde daha yaygın bir şekilde anlaşmaya varılan değer ve ilkelere nasıl ulaşılır? +
Lade die Teilnehmenden abschließend ein, über den gesamten Prozess während der vergangenen Übung nachzudenken: Was ist für sie die Take-Home-Message, die sie aus dieser Übung mitnehmen? Versuche, einige Schlussfolgerungen oder Erkenntnisse festzuhalten, indem du die Teilnehmenden fragst:
- War es einfach, die Werte/Tugenden zu den Normen in Beziehung zu setzen? War es schwierig? Warum?
- Hat der Versuch, sich in die Lage der Person zu versetzen, die die Beispielsituation erlebt hat, deine Sichtweise auf Werte/Tugenden und damit auch auf Normen oder Verhaltensweisen erweitert?
- Haben die von anderen genannten Werte / Tugenden, Normen oder Verhaltensweisen dabei geholfen, anders über das Thema nachzudenken und zum Beispiel Werte / Tugenden anders oder umfassender zu betrachten? Wie wird diese Erfahrung aus der Übung heute dein Denken über Dilemmata im Forschungsalltag verändern? +
Invite participants to think about the entire process: what is the take home message of this session for them? Try to draw conclusions by asking participants:
o Was it easy or difficult to relate the virtues and norms to each other? Why?
o Did putting yourself in the case presenter’s shoes broaden the way you looked at virtues and, consequently norms and behaviors?
o Did the virtues and norms/behaviors identified by others help you to look at virtues differently or more broadly? Do you think that will influence your thinking on research integrity dilemmas in practice? +
[[File:Man overlooking view.png|center|frameless|600x600px]]
Kuhn suggested that all scientific knowledge is ‘situated’ knowledge and cannot represent a ‘view from nowhere’. We all view the world from within a particular set of social and epistemic practices. According to Kuhn, scientists working within different paradigms are effectively working in different worlds. But how do we know which paradigm we are working in? +
[[File:M10..png|center|frameless|600x600px]]
In terms of ethics dumping, the previously mentioned TRUST global code of conduct for equitable research partnerships offers a simple, jargon-free [https://www.globalcodeofconduct.org/the-code/ ethics code] comprised of 23 articles based around the moral values of Fairness, Respect, Care and Honesty, to help researchers ensure that international research is equitable and carried out without ‘ethics dumping’ or ‘helicopter research’.
In terms of AI ethics, we recommend consulting the Ethics of AI in Healthcare: A checklist for Research Ethics Committees which was developed by irecs colleagues, Alexei Grinbaum and Etienne Aucouturier at CEA (French Alternative Energies and Atomic Energy Commission), as well as the materials in the [https://classroom.eneri.eu/node/238 irecs AI and ethics module].
Chapter 5 of the [https://www.who.int/publications/i/item/9789240029200 World Health Organization’s Ethics and Governance of Artificial Intelligence for Health] outlines six key ethical principles for AI research in healthcare. These include protecting patient autonomy, promoting human wellbeing, ensuring transparency and explainability, fostering accountability, promoting inclusiveness and equity, and supporting AI that is both responsive and sustainable. These principles serve as essential reminders for researchers and policymakers to prioritise ethical considerations in the development and deployment of AI technologies in healthcare settings.
Another significant issue in the development of AI technologies across all fields is the potential for bias and inaccuracies in algorithms, which in the healthcare domain can result in incorrect diagnoses and treatment recommendations. These risks disproportionately affect vulnerable populations, raising concerns about inclusivity and equity. The [https://op.europa.eu/en/publication-detail/-/publication/d3988569-0434-11ea-8c1f-01aa75ed71a1 EU’s Ethics Guidelines for Trustworthy AI] emphasise that AI systems must be lawful, ethical, and robust throughout their Life cycle. This includes compliance with applicable laws, adherence to ethical principles, and ensuring technical and social robustness. Importantly, these guidelines call for mechanisms to prevent algorithmic bias and protect privacy. Unethical applications involving AI are defined as those that risk violating physical or mental integrity, create addiction, risk damaging social processes and public institutions (e.g. by social scoring or contributing to misinformation).
Projects must adhere to essential requirements, which encompass (but are not restricted to):
* People must be made aware that they are interacting with an AI system, its abilities and Limitations, risks and benefits.
* Mechanisms for human oversight, transparency and auditability must be built into the AI system.
* AI-systems must be designed to avoid bias in input data and algorithmic design.
* Compliance with data protection and privacy principles must be demonstrated.
Our hypothetical proposal is not seeking funding from Horizon Europe, however, the [https://www.bbmri-eric.eu/wp-content/uploads/The-Ethics-Appraisal-Scheme-_BBMRI-webinar-september-2021_version-for-dessimination.pdf EU ethics appraisal scheme (pp74-80)], provides relevant guidance for several concerns in this case study. It highlights the importance of transparency, requiring that individuals interacting with AI systems be fully informed about the system’s capabilities, Limitations, risks, and benefits. It also underscores the necessity of building human oversight, transparency, and auditability into AI systems, ensuring that AI development remains accountable and aligned with societal values.
Regulatory oversight has often lagged behind technological advancements, creating additional legal and ethical challenges. The WHO and EU guidelines, among others, stress the need for AI systems to comply with data protection and privacy principles, such as data minimisation, ensuring that only the necessary data is collected and used. This is crucial in building trust and safeguarding against the misuse of sensitive healthcare information.
It is important to remember that different guidelines and regulations will apply to research projects in order to comply with the requirements of different institutions, organisations and geographical locations. Listed in the further resources section are sources to explore on ethics dumping, some of the ethics committees in Africa and the current most relevant EU or international guidelines or standards related to AI in health and healthcare, but you may need to explore further afield to locate those that apply to different situations.
[[File:AI img8.png|center|frameless|600x600px]] +
