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
<div>
<span lang="EN-GB">Improving reproducibility is a multifaceted challenge requiring both behavioural and cultural change.</span> <span lang="EN-US">The adoption of reproducibility practices has been sparked and embraced by the Open Science movement. However, a lot of researchers are not fully aware of the implications of reproducibility and how Open Science and reproducibility are connected and intertwined (Haven et al., 2022). To increase awareness and change research practices several steps should be taken (Nosek, 2019). First, the infrastructure for the desired behaviour should be provided to make it possible. Second, the user interface and experience of the infrastructure should be improved to make the behaviour easy. Third, communities of practice should be fostered to make the behaviour visible and so increasingly normative. Fourth, incentives to enact the behaviour should be provided to make it rewarding. Last, policies should be enacted to make the behaviour required (Nosek, 2019). To further this work, we sought to explore the future of reproducibility for different stakeholders and question what should be the next steps for reproducibility and how diverse epistemic contexts can adopt reproducibility in different forms. In this deliverable, we aim to add nuance to the reproducibility debate through flexible investigation of diverse epistemic contexts (researchers from the field of machine learning and researchers working with qualitative methods), exploring the future of reproducibility through the lens of diverse research stakeholders – researchers, funders, and publishers.</span>
</div><div>
<span lang="EN-US">In this context, we look to the future of reproducibility by exploring the preferred scenarios for multiple stakeholders, including how these scenarios can be realized. We reflect on the steps that are necessary for adherence to reproducibility-enabling practices and what different epistemic contexts need to make reproducibility a priority. Lastly, we reflect on what are the new problems that we may face when aiming to improve reproducibility. We believe exploring the possible futures for reproducibility is essential to discover the next steps for different members of the scientific community to take to realize the preferred future and the actions to avoid steering away from the dystopian futures.</span>
</div><div>
<span lang="EN-US">We aim to highlight the essential role of institutions, funders and publishers in this endeavor to make reproducibility a priority by recognizing, rewarding, evaluating and monitoring reproducibility. Ultimately, we hope to steer and move forward the debate on reproducibility in the research community by</span> <span lang="EN-GB">addressing a set of core research questions related to how key stakeholders in the academic community envision the way in which matters of reproducibility should be addressed in the future. More specifically, it asks representatives from research funders, scholarly publishers, and researchers from diverse disciplinary backgrounds:</span>
</div><div>
<span lang="EN-GB">1. What are the preferred futures of reproducibility?</span>
</div><div>
<span lang="EN-GB">2. What are the enablers and barriers on the way to the preferred future or reproducibility more generally?</span>
</div><div>
Below we present the results of our study below.
</div>
'''''Target audience:''' Doctoral students and early career researchers, Senior researchers and RERI experts''
The EnTIRE project created eight scenarios on The [https://embassy.science/wiki/Special:BrowseData/Resource?_search_Resource_Type%5B0%5D=Scenarios Embassy of Science], each of which presented a fictitious story along with eight distinct themes. The purpose of each of the eight scenarios is to provide RECs, research administrators, researchers, and researchers with the opportunity to concentrate their attention on the fundamental ideas and research settings that support both local regulations and practices and effective research practices. The scenarios developed are the following: [https://embassy.science/wiki-wiki/index.php/Resource:F6100097-fddb-4c77-9098-1bc767c34a6a Research Procedures and Research Integrity]; [https://embassy.science/wiki-wiki/index.php/Resource:1d26fd13-1ced-44bc-8d19-e094b37f8f70 Collaborative Working Between Academia and Industry]; [https://embassy.science/wiki-wiki/index.php/Resource:45a04c31-5a75-4816-8484-2dd9b71d1674 Data Practices, Data Management and FAIR Principles]; [https://embassy.science/wiki-wiki/index.php/Resource:Aef6b98d-9cc5-4db0-bffd-4a3daa99a3f3 Publication, Dissemination and Research Integrity]; [https://embassy.science/wiki-wiki/index.php/Resource:C99f17ec-3d1e-4f7a-bfc7-3e3607934ead Research Environments and Research Integrity]; [https://embassy.science/wiki-wiki/index.php/Resource:7f7810d8-74a2-42ac-906c-7f6a73fcd183 Reviewing, Evaluating, Editing and Research Integrity]; [https://embassy.science/wiki-wiki/index.php/Resource:67caae86-68db-49ea-8305-2010fe701aa6 Training, Supervision and Mentoring with Integrity]; [https://embassy.science/wiki-wiki/index.php/Resource:E99e20d0-8116-4d77-84ec-7df396703bf4 Safeguards, Data-sharing and the Disclosure of Sensitive Results]. +
In this step, you can learn to edit any theme page on the Embassy. Click the video to learn how.
<div class="video-button" data-href="https://www.youtube.com/embed/-DX1TfHjXc4">
<span class="video-button-label">Editing Theme Pages</span>
<span class="video-button-duration">1:01 min</span>
</div> +
'''''Target audience:''''' ''Bachelor and master students, doctoral students and early career researchers''
The [https://www.path2integrity.eu/ Path2Integrity] project introduces educators to innovative teaching methods that will take topics in Research Integrity and Ethics. The project provides introductory videos and information on the teaching methodology used, discussing research integrity and its significance. The easy to use and innovative materials can be found in the [https://www.path2integrity.eu/ri-materials Path2Integrity Training Programme] section. +
Participants are divided into groups of 6 or fewer, with each participant in each group assigned one of the following roles: <div>
*'''<span lang="EN-US">Healthcare professional (physician)</span>'''
*'''<span lang="EN-US">Representative of “HealthAI”</span>'''
*'''Patient rights advocacy'''
*'''Medical ethicist'''
*'''Representative of human resources of the hospital'''
*'''Representative of a health insurance company'''
</div> +
'''''Target audience:''' Bachelor and master students, doctoral students and early career researchers.''
The [https://www.academicintegrity.eu/wp/bridge/ BRIDGE project] provides [https://www.academicintegrity.eu/wp/bridge-modules-2/ training modules] and [https://www.academicintegrity.eu/wp/vignettes_interactive/ vignettes] that can be inserted into research ethics and integrity courses. +
The ethical conduct of research is crucial for maintaining the integrity of science. [https://oir.nih.gov/sourcebook/ethical-conduct/responsible-conduct-research-training Responsible Conduct of Research] (RCR) advances scientific goals, fosters a collaborative research environment, and builds public trust in scientific advances that benefit society. Conversely, unethical research practices such as data fabrication and falsification lead to the dissemination of false hypotheses and unreliable data, which harms the search for valid knowledge. Similarly, plagiarism and harassment undermine respect and trust among researchers, while fraudulent or socially irresponsible research weakens public trust and support for science. [https://oir.nih.gov/sourcebook/ethical-conduct/responsible-conduct-research-training The goals of RCR training] include developing a culture of integrity in science and improving knowledge and awareness about the conduct of research.
RCR training and education should be continuous and extend beyond the academic programme throughout a scientist's career. This education can take place in a variety of contexts, such as seminars, workshops, conferences on research ethics and informal mentoring sessions, training courses and laboratory meetings where ethical behaviour and practises are discussed.
As described by van den Hoven and colleagues, multiple factors influence research integrity (RI) training (learning objectives), RI learning (learning outcomes), and changes in RI behaviour (learning outcomes).'"`UNIQ--ref-000000CD-QINU`"' Through these, it is possible to promote trustworthy science, responsible research practices, and high integrity/ethical standards. "Training effects" Can be conceptualised through the (intended) impacts of RI training on various performance levels, including individual, institutional, and societal levels.'"`UNIQ--ref-000000CE-QINU`"' Furthermore, the authors distinguish among intended training effects (for example changes in behaviour); training input and output (that is training focus/content and learners orientating themselves towards this content); outcomes (that is, learners change their behaviour); and training impact (manifestation of the outcome, such as decreases in misconduct).
[https://nap.nationalacademies.org/read/21896/chapter/15 Effective education in research ethics and integrity aims to achieve several crucial goals.]Defining goals for teaching research integrity and research ethics is crucial to promote and foster responsible research practices and a trustworthy research ecosystem. The main goals to achieve in training RE/RI are related to promoting knowledge (in relation to responsible research practices, norms, and guidelines), skills (in relation to ethical decision-making, problem solving and critical thinking), ‘theoretical’ attitude (in relation to what should be done to foster responsible research) and ‘practical’ behaviour (in relation to how researchers behave in their daily practice).'"`UNIQ--ref-000000CF-QINU`"'
'"`UNIQ--references-000000D0-QINU`"'
1) Introduce yourself and share the plan for the session.
2) Introduce the learning Objectives.
3) Use warm up question to introduce the topic: use this as an interactive exercise before starting with the session. Ask participants one of these questions, encouraging participants to share their answers with the group:
o What’s one word that comes to mind when you think of [the topic of the session]?
<span lang="EN-US">o What's one aspect of [this topic] that makes you feel excited or uneasy?</span>
<span lang="EN-US">4) Briefly introduce the topic (use the irecs module for inspiration)</span> +
[https://www.structural-learning.com/post/scaffolding-in-education-a-teachers-guide Scaffolding] is a teaching technique, which involves providing tailored support to learners based on their current expertise and gradually withdrawing support as they become more proficient. This approach, researched in the context of research ethics and integrity, is used in both face-to-face and online learning environments, including problem-based and inquiry learning.'"`UNIQ--ref-00000085-QINU`"''"`UNIQ--ref-00000086-QINU`"''"`UNIQ--ref-00000087-QINU`"' Conceptual scaffolding is crucial in problem-based and inquiry learning, helping learners navigate complex concepts and considering various learning styles. Teachers can adjust academic content to suit learners' abilities. Online courses benefit from personalised learning paths that can be adjusted in real-time. Scaffolding aligns with the idea of Vygotsky's zone of proximal development, that is instruction and facilitation should target the domain where the learner can function with assistance. It is unnecessary to provide scaffolding in domains which the learner already masters, or which are still beyond the learners reach.
When teaching research ethics and integrity, scaffolding entails dissecting difficult ideas into smaller, more digestible chunks and supporting students as they gain knowledge. Scaffolding can be planned into the design of the course teaching/learning activities and the instructions of these, but often opportunities to incorporate scaffolding techniques present themselves ad hoc. In this case, it is important that the trainer is aware of a variety of techniques and recognises situations in which they can be beneficially used to support learning. The steps for incorporating scaffolding include:
#Identifying what the learner already knows, that is, what is their current level and where is the zone of proximal development;
#Setting goals, which reflect the learning objectives, for the learner in line with what was determined to be within reach in the prior step;
#Planning a suitable breakdown of goals and activities in support of the goals;
#Carrying out the training with scaffolding, monitoring of learning and provision of feedback during the learning;
#Adjusting the support and gradually decreasing it as the learner progresses towards the goal;
#New goals and planning activities as the prior goals are reached.
For example the website [https://www.buffalo.edu/catt.html Scaffolding Over Time] prepared by the Office of Curriculum and Teaching Transformation, University of Buffalo provides more information on Scaffolding for the trainer interested in using this technique.
Table 3 presents a scaffolding framework utilised in research ethics training.'"`UNIQ--ref-00000088-QINU`"'
{| class="wikitable"
|+
!'''Scaffolding process'''
!'''Scaffolding mechanism'''
!'''Scaffolding technique'''
!'''Scaffolding purpose'''
!'''Illustrative example'''
|-
| rowspan="6"|SENSE-MAKING
|Problematising
|Hinting
|Give an indirect suggestion or piece of evidence that leads toward a problem solution (Merriam-Webster)
|‘So, the documents pertaining to research ethics and integrity to consult would be…’ (implying that some documents should be consulted)
|-
|Problematising
|Describing the problem to direct focus
|Orient to the important features (Tambaum, 2017)
|‘Indeed, when you have to get an informed consent you should consider various aspects, for example …’
|-
|Structural/ Problematising
|Making fill-in-the-blank kinds of requests
|A statement or a question with a missing component (but some info is given)
|‘A good way to highlight the importance of research integrity would be to ….?’
|-
|Structural/ Problematising
|Asking a leading question (P – why?)
|A question that prompts or encourages the answer wanted
|‘Where can you find the information pertaining to the codes of conduct?’
|-
|Structural
|Providing an example
|Giving an example to illustrate a point
|‘For example, in Europe it is a common practice to consult a research integrity advisor.’
|-
|Structural
|Providing physical props
|Helping to understand by mimicking or showing a visual aid
|‘What do you think are the ethical aspects of designing this item?’ (show e.g. a fork)
|-
| rowspan="6"|PROCESS
MANAGEMENT
|Structural
|Pumping
|Simulating to go further without specific instructions (Tambaum, 2017)
|‘OK, what else?’
|-
|Structural
|Redirecting the learner
|Showing which direction to go, which aspect should be tackled next (especially when seeing that the direction is lost/off)
|‘All right, let’s get back to the track and discuss the next steps of the ethics review process’
|-
|Structural
|Decomposing the task
|Making the bigger task into smaller components
|‘First, think what you know about the ethics review process, then, read the paragraph and finally…’ (give instructions one task after another)
|-
|Structural
|Initiating the reasoning step
|Use the faculty of reason so as to arrive at conclusions
|‘First, think what you know about the ethics review process, then, read the paragraph and finally…’ (give instructions one task after another)
|-
|Structural
|Completing the learners’ reasoning
|‘Splicing in’ the correct answer (Tambaum, 2017)
|(the learner cannot end the thought) ‘... you mean a code of conduct should be consulted?’
|-
|Structural
|Executing parts of the skill
|Do parts of the task for the learner to give an example
|‘OK, so first you consult the ALLEA code of conduct and then …’
|-
| rowspan="3"|ARTICULATION
&
REFLECTION
|Structural
|Maintaining goal orientation
|Reminding the learner of some aspect of the task
|‘Have you also had time to think about …?’
|-
|Structural/ Problematising
|Highlighting critical features
|Drawing attention to the most important aspects of the problem; highlighting ‘discrepancies’ (Reiser, 2004)
|‘Do you remember you mentioned the ethics review, what other purposes might it have?’
|-
|Problematising
|Comparing the current problem with a previously solved one
|Showing similarities between solutions
|‘Do you recall the situation that happened to Dr Smith when he invited participants into his survey? This situation may actually have similar implications.’
|}
Offering feedback and facilitating reflection are critical components when using scaffolding in research ethics and integrity training.
Feedback is more effective:
*when given as soon as possible after the session,
*when it is focused,
*when considered as a process, not a one-time shot,
*when receivers participate in the feedback process freely or when doing so is required by regular professional standards,
*when it has a restricted and chosen number of negative comments mixed in with a decent number of positive and encouraging remarks.'"`UNIQ--ref-00000089-QINU`"'
*when negative information is "sandwiched" between positive information,
*when it allows the receiver to respond and interact,
*when given frequently, but not excessively,
*when it creates cognitive [https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/basics/cognitive-dissonance dissonance].'"`UNIQ--ref-0000008A-QINU`"'
Feedback can be provided by the trainer as well as by peers. Peer feedback is effective:
*when information is gathered from different people,
*when it is believed that the information's source is reliable, informed, and has a good intention,
*when the status or career level of the feedback provider and its’ recipient are the same.'"`UNIQ--ref-0000008B-QINU`"'
Scaffolding techniques are utilised in [[Initiative:Fa186292-623f-4b6f-a21e-44250c057f15|RID-SSISS]], [[Initiative:76ef100a-e459-4942-bd1f-701f747e8906|ROSiE]], [[Initiative:8eed30fd-c2ed-44d1-9752-753092bd350e|VIRT2UE]], [[Initiative:F9656f91-a514-44ff-9264-d6b3414fdddc|INTEGRITY]], [[Initiative:0582c7af-35eb-4def-b74e-c884f29965da|Path2Integrity]], and in the Case studies section of [https://classroom.eneri.eu/ ENERI Classroom].
'"`UNIQ--references-0000008C-QINU`"'
The goal of [https://h2020integrity.eu/ INTEGRITY] is to empower students and early career researchers. Rather than focusing on compliance, the project's approach is to develop the capacity of participants to identify, consider, and address integrity concerns in research procedures. +
4
Provide contact information in case of questions or if doubts arise during the practice time in between the participatory sessions.
Set a deadline and give instructions for the submission of the self-reflection forms. This should be at least one week prior to the follow up participatory session. +
The overall goal of the first session is to introduce the five exercises which represent the face-to-face/participatory part of the blended learning training and to prepare trainees to practice facilitating the exercises themselves. When planning the first session you:
a. Plan enough time per exercise (minimum 2 h).
As a trainer, you will first facilitate the exercises and let the trainees experience them. Then you will describe and explain the knowledge and competencies needed to facilitate the exercise as a trainer. Make time for pauses between the exercises for trainees to relax and reflect. Depending on the time schedule, it may also be necessary to provide food and drinks (or directions to restaurants or stores nearby).
b. Provide time to explain what trainees are expected to do in between the first and the follow up participatory sessions . You might consider providing opportunities to collectively reflect on how to plan their training practice and whether it would be necessary to adapt the exercises based on the characteristics of the group of participants they will train in their own work setting +
Get in touch with your trainer and submit your self-reflection forms. Share questions or issues you might want to address during the second face-to-face session with your trainer. For example: what facilitated your participants’ learning or what impeded it? What might be done differently in any subsequent moment of facilitation and what to keep unchanged? +
Remind participants of the overall goals of the training and ask them to reflect on the specific goals of the exercises and their contribution to the overall goals. +
Now, start a debate between both groups. Ask them to convince the other team to support their movie character (Dr. Jim Curran or Dr. Don Francis).
Stop the discussion after a couple of minutes for some reflection:
1. How did the participants feel about the conversation? What was the atmosphere like?
2. If some participants were assigned to be observers, they rst describe what they saw happening.
3. Make notes on a black- or whiteboard or flip-over about the characteristics of the discussion (e.g. competitive, interruptions, raising voices). +
Varieties of goodness in research - a rotary style exercise (variation to original VIRT2UE exercise)) +
The group is divide in subgroups of 3-5 participants. The groups each pick a different Variety of Goodness that they will start working on. In case there are more Varieties of Goodness than subgroups, the trainer decides together with the participants which Varieties of Goodness will be used. The difficulty of grasping the concept or the similarities between varieties may be taken into account. +
This module suggests a contextualized reading of the European Code of Conduct for Research Integrity (ECoC) using five selected recommendations for Good Research Practices mentioned in the document. The exercise is to identify breaches for each of the norms in the learner’s respective field(s) of research. This way, you are not only invited to reflect on the relevance of the ECoC for your research, you may also detect any breaches of research integrity better in the future.
<br />[http://courses.embassy.science/research_integrity_in_your_context/story.html Open the course] +
This module explores how virtues are taught or learned, and introduces the concept of a moral exemplar. It therefore discusses the responsibilities of a supervisor, or what a good role model/a good mentor entails. [http://courses.embassy.science/how_virtues_are_taught/story.html Open course] +
This module explores, whether the experience of cognitive dissonance or moral distress may pose a possible necessity to translate the distress into eustress, that is, into a positive incentive to cultivate virtues. The relevance of five virtues is further explained with a hypothetical situation, in which a researcher is confronted with clear evidence that undermines the theory he/she has been working on (and building his/her academic self-concept around).
[http://courses.embassy.science/to_make_a_virtue_of_necessity/story.html Open course] +
This module suggests a contextualized reading of the European Code of Conduct for Research Integrity (ECoC) using five selected recommendations for Good Research Practices mentioned in the document. The exercise is to identify breaches for each of the norms in the learner’s respective field(s) of research. This way, you are not only invited to reflect on the relevance of the ECoC for your research, you may also detect any breaches of research integrity better in the future.
[[File:Research Integrity in your context.png|link=http://courses.embassy.science/research_integrity_in_your_context/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/Research%20Integrity%20in%20your%20context_SCORM.zip here] +
