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
3
04 - Moral Case Deliberation: A Method for Analysing Cases in Research Ethics and Research Integrity +
In this step, the case presenter’s underlying moral question is made explicit. By formulating his/her moral question, the other participants can better understand what is at stake and what (morally) matters for the case presenter. Furthermore, to make the moral question more concrete, the case presenter is asked to formulate the situation in terms of a dilemma: what are the concrete choices available in this situation? +
Usually, there are several possible courses of action. Some result in misconduct while others effectively and ethically solve the problem(s). +
03 - Four Quadrant Approach: A Method for Analysing Cases in Research Ethics and Research Integrity +
Once the details of a case have been outlined according to the four quadrants, there are a series of questions that should be considered:
<br />
*What is at issue? Try to list what is the major ethical issue at the case, e.g researchers’ dishonesty, negligent conduct, informed consent, rules of data collection etc.)
*Where is the conflict? Is there a conflict between principles of research or principles of research integrity? (e.g. autonomy, justice, beneficence or between honesty, reliability and respect for colleagues)
*What is this a case of? Does it sound like other cases you may have encountered? (e.g. Is it a case of "self-plagiarism", “fabrication of data in a grant application” or “low risk research involving humans without a valid informed consent”?)
*What do we know about other cases like this one? Is there clear precedent? If so, we call this a paradigm case. A paradigm case is one in which the facts of the case are very clear cut and there has been much professional and/or public agreement about resolution of the case.
*How is the present case similar to the paradigm case? How is it different? Is it similar (or different) in significant ways? +
Once I have formed my Early View, the next step is to ask:
<br />
*"What are my reasons for thinking this?"
When formulating these reasons, I need to:
<br />
*Assess the strengths and weaknesses of the reasons for my view. +
02 - The Seven Steps Method: A Method for Analysing Cases in Research Ethics and Research Integrity +
For example, persons involved, laws, professional codes, and other practical constraints. +
Share your experiences of participating and facilitating the exercise with the other participants. +
Divide the group in two sub-groups and instruct each group which side of the dilemma they have to defend. There are two ways to split the group: A) participants choose a side themselves, or B) the trainer divides the group in two subgroups. Both approaches have pros and cons to consideration. With option A, the participants are more likely to believe in and strongly defend their position. With option B, the participants have to learn to defend a position which they might not agree with.
If you are aware of power differences in a group e.g. supervisors and (PhD) students, it might be advisable for the moderator to divide the group. Participants assigned to a group might feel less pressure when defending their position against people more powerful than them.
If there is enough space available in the room, position the two subgroups facing each other; they should literarily stand facing each other.
Before starting the debate, give both groups a few minutes to discuss their arguments and strategy to convince the other group. +
Get acquainted with the concepts of values and norms.
[https://embassy.science/wiki/Theme:B4f7b2e3-af61-4466-94dc-2504affab5a8 Open the page about values and norms]. +
The trainer will facilitate the exercise by following the three parts.
PART I:
INDIVIDUAL REFLECTION
#Recall a situation in which you had concerns about research integrity, and in which you had doubts about the right thing to do.
#Select one virtue, which was at stake in that situation.
#Reflect on which behavior fits well with this specific virtue.
PART II:
REFLECTIONS IN SUBGROUP
#Select a spokesperson who can report on your group process to the larger group.
#Share your case with the group and listen carefully to other’s cases.
#Select a case to reflect on collectively.
#Fill in handout 2 individually (see practical tips).
#Share your notes with your subgroup by engaging in a group reflection/dialogue about differences/similarities related to the virtues and behaviors which were chosen.
Part III:
PLENARY: SUMMARY OF THE SUBGROUP WORK AND OVERALL LESSONS LEARNED
#Report back on the discussion in subgroups.
#Formulate lesson(s) learned.
#Evaluate the session.
(For a detailed description of the steps see the trainers instructions). +
a. Welcome participants and start the session by engaging participants in an open reflection (ice breaker). Ask participants:
<br />
*Are you always honest (as researcher)?
*Can you be too honest (as researcher)?
b. After collecting a couple of answers, move to the explanation of the aims/learning objectives of the exercise. Emphasize that in this exercise participants are invited to reflect on their own moral challenges related to research integrity (i.e. one should not morally judge or condemn the other participants if they present their own personal case).
c. Give a brief introduction to the meaning of virtues, virtue ethics, and the middle position. You should keep in mind and convey to the trainees the fact that the process of finding the middle position as described by Aristotle is something which requires practice and education. In that sense becoming accustomed to the virtuous life is something you develop through day-to-day experience. Remind participants that the middle position does not have to be exactly in the middle (see the You Tube video on virtue ethics). The golden mean varies according to the situation. At this point it might be helpful to refer participants to the page “Virtues in research integrity” where a list of virtues can be found (see practical tips).
TIP:
During the exercise, it is recommended to refrain from having a theoretical discussion on (Aristotelian) virtue ethics and the respective meta-theoretical issues since this can put participants in an abstract mode of academic discussion which is not the aim of the exercise. +
The game can be played plenary or you might be assigned to a group by the trainer. If your trainer prefers to assign you to groups, she/he will instruct you on how to proceed. +
The exercise is suitable to be used both in bigger groups or with several small groups. If you aim for ''more reflection ''in your training, go for small groups. If you would like to ''create awareness'' in participants first, then facilitate the exercise with bigger groups. Please make sure to decide on this beforehand (see '''Practical Tips''' for more instructions). +
The VIRT<sup>2</sup>UE trainer from Munster Technological University (Ireland), '''Seán Lacey,''' presents the initiative of Cross-Institutional Research Integrity Training (CIRIT), ran together with 7 other VIRT<sup>2</sup>UE trainers from other high education institutions (HEIs) in Ireland. The 8 VIRT<sup>2</sup>UE trainers led training seminars across Ireland as a platform to promote good research across their respective institutions. The seminars were very successful and as Lacey mentioned: “When advertised, the seminars were sold out in less than 24 hours”. Lacey, together with colleagues, trained to date 93 researchers in numerous seminars nationally. The feedback received from the training seminars is excellent but he acknowledges that although preparation for the seminars takes time, it is essential and the rewards are reaped and evident. In his particular training seminars, researchers at different stages of their careers were trained, something very much valued by the participants that promoted a shared learning community.
Lacey is planning to deliver more Research Integrity trainings soon. In his own words, “continuous promotion of good research practices is important if we wish to have a positive impact on the research culture. This will not be done overnight, but bit by bit like a potential flywheel effect”.
[[File:SL2.jpg]]
*Seán Lacey, certified VIRT<sup>2</sup>UE trainer at Munster Technological University, Ireland +
What might be the consequences of the various alternatives? +
[https://public.3.basecamp.com/p/bcDPzpbyUYrZPT9Mui9rB3iV What is Virtue Ethics?]
[https://public.3.basecamp.com/p/hwyk6eZdaNV6M21izxvsPPzQ Virtue Ethics & Research Integrity]
[https://public.3.basecamp.com/p/KFAsTdEwhXDyy7Nf5FHp1GuS Virtues in Research]
[https://public.3.basecamp.com/p/ChGW2XoPH4cRXw6TKP4eMSb1 How virtues are taught] +
This instruction provides trainers with an overview of all the necessary steps that they need to take to organize a VIRT2UE training.
The text can be found [https://public.3.basecamp.com/p/JGSJM8QefHLF2uMhs9uiNxhB here]. +
On this course unit you will focus on the topic of social safety, and how discussions on social safety touch upon integrity issues. The week is divided in three smaller sections:
<br />
*Video "never waste a good talent"
*Short lecture on social safety
*Apply your knowledge and start working on the final assignment +
In this learning unit we focus on peer review, which is another important aspect of academic publishing. You may have experience with being reviewed as a researcher, or you may even have been asked to be a reviewer of a manuscript in your research domain. If not, you still will have some experiences with peer review from high school or your undergraduate studies. In the image below you can find the structure of learning unit 3.[[File:Unit 3 structure.png.png|center|frame]] +
In this learning unit, we will focus on the social context in which you perform your research, specifically on culture, colleagues and communication. The aim is to help you reflect on the extent to which the social context in which you perform your research helps and can help to empower you for RCR.
It is well recognized that conduct of individual researchers is influenced by their social and institutional surroundings, like peer pressure to work hard, to strive for high impact journal publications and to be competitive. This impacts RCR as well: the context in which we perform our research, influences the likeliness to act in accordance with RCR values, principles, and norms. This is one of the reasons why, in this course, we consider it important to connect RCR training to your actual research practice.
Below you will find an overview of the content of this learning unit.
[[File:Unit 2.png|center|frame]] +
This module aims to equip students with the knowledge to understand the meaning and importance of research integrity through the lens of a subject that is highly relatable in our society and through which students can easily engage and discuss research integrity issues.
The primary focus of this module is on research integrity. We have chosen to pair it with the subject of music to allow for a wider ethical discussion through a subject that is relevant to the target audience. The music industry has changed significantly in the last decade, along with the listening habits of those under 25. +
