What is this about? (Is About)
From The Embassy of Good Science
A short summary providing some details about the theme/resource (max. 75 words)
- ⧼SA Foundation Data Type⧽: Text
D
İkinci (yüz yüze) grup oturumunda eğitmenler eğitimin genel bir özetini yapacak, katılımcıların alıştırmaları uygularken edindikleri deneyimler üzerine fikir yürütmelerini sağlayacak ve katılımcılar seçilmiş olan birkaç alıştırmayı tekrar uygularken onları denetleyeceklerdir. Bu oturum, eğitimi alan kişilerin:
1) Araştırma doğruluğuna erdem temelli yaklaşımı anlamalarını,
2) Alıştırmaların bir kısmını kolaylaştırıcı olarak tekrardan uygulamalarını,
3) Eğitimi, alıştırmaları kolaylaştırıcı olarak yönetmek hususunda kendilerine güvenerek tamamlamalarını,
4) Alıştırmaların spesifik hedeflerini ve bunların eğitimin genel hedeflerine yaptığı katkıları öğrenmelerini,
5) Eğitim materyallerini kendi çalışma ortamlarının gerekliliklerine göre uyarlamanın mümkün olduğunu fark etmelerini,
6) Böyle bir eğitimi organize ederken ilgili materyalleri ve desteği nerden ve nasıl bulabileceklerini öğrenmelerini sağlamayı amaçlamaktadır. +
İkinci (yüz yüze) grup oturumunda katılımcılar son kez bir araya gelip eğitimin içeriği ve kolaylaştırıcı olarak alıştırmaları uygularken edindikleri deneyimler üzerine fikir yürüteceklerdir. Bu oturumda katılımcılar özellikle:
1) Araştırma doğruluğuna erdem temelli yaklaşıma ilişkin anlayışları ve insanların araştırmayla ilgili fikir ve eylemlerinde erdem etiği yaklaşımını nasıl etkin hale getirebilecekleri üzerine fikir yürüteceklerdir.
2) Alıştırmaların bir kısmını kolaylaştırıcı olarak tekrardan uygulayacak ve iki yüz yüze oturum arasında kafalarında oluşan şüphe ve sorular üzerinde duracaklardır.
3) Alıştırmaların spesifik hedeflerini ve bunların eğitimin genel hedeflerine yaptığı katkıları gözden geçirecek ve bu konuda fikir yürüteceklerdir.
4) Eğitim materyallerini kendi çalışma ortamlarının gerekliliklerine göre uyarlamanın mümkün olup olmadığı üzerine fikir yürüteceklerdir.
5) Böyle bir eğitimi organize ederken ilgili materyalleri ve desteği nerden ve nasıl bulabileceklerini öğreneceklerdir. +
Diese Übung basiert auf der Annahme, dass es nicht immer klar ist, wie Research Integrity in bestimmten Situationen gewährleitet werden kann, und dass es nicht immer offensichtlich ist, wie tugendhaftes Verhalten aussieht, wenn im Forschungsalltag Research Integrity gefährdet ist. +
Diese Übung ist inspiriert von der aristotelischen Philosophie. Sie hilft den Teilnehmenden, sich kritisch mit den Nuancen der praktischen Bedeutung abstrakter Research Integrity-Werte und Tugenden in ihrem Forschungsalltag auseinanderzusetzen. Die Übung basiert auf der Annahme, dass nicht immer klar ist, was Research Integrity in einer konkreten Situation bedeutet. Durch die Übung fördern Trainer:innen Reflexion über Werte, die mit Research Integrity zusammenhängen (wie z.B. Mut, Verantwortlichkeit, Ehrlichkeit). Die Teilnehmenden reflektieren, welche Werte und Tugenden mit Research Integrity in Verbindung gebracht werden und welche konkreten Verhaltensweisen daraus abgeleitet werden können. Tugendhaftes Verhalten wird oft als zwischen zwei Extremen liegend beschrieben. Diese Extreme gelten im Allgemeinen als Laster. Die Übung verschafft einen kritischen Blick auf die praktische, nuancierte Bedeutung der Werte in Zusammenhang mit Research Integrity im Forschungsalltag und hilft Teilnehmenden, tugendhafte (mithin gute und situativ angemessene) Verhaltensweisen zu identifizieren. +
Der SDA – Selbstauskunfts-Ansatz – ist eine Übung mit dem Ziel, in einem Workshop-Setting Reflexion über Research Integrity anzuregen. Dabei wird die Frage „Was ist das überhaupt, wenn etwas ''gut ''ist und wie könnten verschiedene Formen des Guten kategorisiert werden?“ als Ausgangspunkt benutzt. Mithilfe eines Selbstauskunfts-Arbeitsblattes werden Gedanken und intuitive Reaktionen der Teilnehmenden zum Konzept des Guten gesammelt. Diese Antworten sind für die Übung von besonderer Bedeutung. Auf dem Arbeitsblatt können die Gedanken der Teilnehmenden zum Thema ''des Guten ''sowie ihre Definition davon und ihre persönlichen Erfahrungen mit dem Thema festgehalten werden. +
Diese Übung soll zum Nachdenken über Research Integrity in einem Workshop-Setting anregen. Die Frage „Was ist ''gut ''and wie können verschiedene Arten des Guten kategorisiert werden?“ dient als Ausgangspunkt für die Übung. Das Herzstück der Übung ist die Diskussion darüber, auf welche unterschiedlichen Arten Forschung ''gut'' sein kann und auf der Reflexion des Konzepts des Guten in der Forschung. Die Übung ist inspiriert von einer etwas allgemeineren Methode, dem Selbstauskunfts-Ansatz (self declaration approach, SDA). Dieser Ansatz nutzt die individuellen Antworten der Teilnehmenden auf einem Selbstreflexionsbogen, um die Reflexion über ein spezifisches Research Integrity-Thema zu strukturieren. Das Besondere an diesem Ansatz ist, dass die Gedanken und Intuitionen der Teilnehmenden in die Diskussion integriert werden. Diese Methode ist flexibel anwendbar und auf verschiedene Research Integrity-Themen sowie unterschiedliche Zielgruppen anpassbar. +
The study discusses an engineering ethics course which was included at Shantou University (STU) in 2008, within a Conceive-Design-Implement-Operate (CDIO) curriculum in China. The course included three issues important for China: engineers' social obligations, intellectual property and engineering safety criteria. Although, as authors emphasized, the assessment of the course's impact on students has its limitations, this effort is perceived as a positive step to sustain the CDIO reform of STU. +
This study examined the design of online training modules in molecular biology education that were part of a "boot camp" for high school biology teachers in Hawaii. The aim of this educational program was to prepare science teachers to navigate successfully their students' activities to conduct medical research in laboratory. The participants, a group of 29 teachers, reported that these online materials were useful and valuable for their future work with students. +
Deuxième Plan National pour la science ouverte (2021), Ministry of Higher Education, Research and Innovation +
Deuxième Plan National pour la science ouverte (2021) is a national resource produced by the French Ministry of Higher Education, Research and Innovation, written in French, and aimed at stakeholders in France. It provides clear guidance on open science and open access, translating high-level principles into actionable steps for researchers, institutions, funders, and publishers. The document positions openness as the default, balanced with ethics, privacy, intellectual property, and security, promoting the principle of “as open as possible, as closed as necessary.” It emphasizes the link between openness and research quality, reproducibility, faster knowledge translation, and equitable access, particularly for communities with limited subscription access. Key elements include open access to publications, preferred licensing like Creative Commons, persistent identifiers, deposition in trusted repositories, and adherence to FAIR data principles through comprehensive data management plans. Operational guidance covers author and institutional responsibilities, funding acknowledgment, rights retention, budgeting, and justifiable embargoes or exceptions. The resource highlights enabling infrastructure, assessment mechanisms, and governance for responsible openness. For practitioners, it provides a coherent reference that aligns French open science practice with international norms, reduces ambiguity, and offers practical steps to enhance transparency, reproducibility, and equitable access. Published in 2021, it is a credible reference for policy, training, and grant documentation. +
This article describes an activity that uses informed consent procedure in order to help students understand the responsibilities of participants in research. This activity helps researchers link students' participation to their classroom experiences. +
As thinking and practice has grown around ethical research involving children, so too has the need to train and equip new researchers with relevant knowledge and the associated mindsets. However, developing a comprehensive training program on ethical research involving children can be a complex task. When I (Daniella Bendo) took up an Assistant Professor position at King’s University College (at Western University) Canada last year, I developed a third-year undergraduate unit entitled, ‘Researching Childhood (in Childhood and Social Institutions).’ The ERIC materials were invaluable in providing an established, rights-based framework for the course, as well as a wealth of material and resources to draw upon in the lectures and tutorials. In terms of assessment, I sought a way to draw the students’ learning together and ask them to demonstrate their theoretical and practical understanding of ethical issues in research involving children, in what was, otherwise, a theoretical unit. Based on the many real-life case studies on the ERIC website, I set students the assignment of developing their own hypothetical case study. Here, one of our students, Paige Sheridan, shares the approach she took with this assignment. The depth of her ethical understanding is evident in the reflexive detail of her case study and, while hypothetical, the five-step process she describes would likely be a useful tool to consider in research practice. +
International declarations such as the Hong Kong principles and the San Francisco Declaration of Research Assessment (DORA) aim to foster research integrity among the global research community <sup>1, 2</sup>. At the European level, the European Code of Conduct (ECoC) is a research integrity document that aims to harmonize the research integrity standards across Europe <sup> 3</sup>. In addition, many individual European countries have developed their own national guidance detailing the principles and practices of research integrity and addressing instances of research misconduct. This theme page describes the development and value of these national research integrity codes in Europe. +
This study aimed to describe the development, testing and formative evaluation of nine role-play scenarios for teaching responsible conduct of research (RCR) to graduate students in science and engineering. Students reported that these role-play scenarios provided deeper understanding of the topic than a lecture or a case study. +
This study addresses the need for professional development opportunities for persons with research, clinical or administrative duties and also a shortage of evaluations of ethics programs and curricula. The authors surveyed hygiene, epidemiology and microbiology professionals who attended 7 ethics courses. The study showed that most attendees demonstrated increased knowledge in research and public health ethics, which affirmed the importance of such training activities. +
Dialogue is a vehicle for reaching understanding and learning from each other. Dialogue is to be distinguished from debate. Dialogue focuses on listening to the other and being open to the other’s perspective, whereas debate aims at convincing the other through argumentation. +
Digital Trespass: Ethical and Terms-of-Use Violations by Researchers Accessing Data From an Online Patient Community +
This article presents four cases regarding ethical and terms-of-use violations by researchers who carry out social media studies in an online patient research network. The authors offer potential strategies that can be adopted in order to avoid these violations. +
During the workshop, the guests are asked to reflect on their own experiences and practices, while discussing the cases presented, and to share views on how to promote and foster a culture of best scientific practices. The event is organised under the motto of a “dinner” event, where first there will be an Amuse for guests to know each other. Then, Starters will be served, where guests will be presented with three starters (cases) to choose and discuss one or the three. Four Main Courses (video-scenes) will be individually offered to guests to taste (watch) and share their opinions about them (food for thought discussion). And because “dessert goes to your heart and not to your belly”, this dinner could not have finished without a sweet moment of the day to enjoy (inspiring thoughts to end)!
[[File:Diner pensant video.png|center|frame|Here you can watch the introductory video: [https://youtu.be/Jb1mFJL1m2g Diner Pensant - Tasteful conversations to empower good practices in science]]]
This course was developed by Mariette vd Hoven, Miriam van Loon, Marijn Prakke, Paulo Gomes, Julio Berlido Santos and PJ Wall. +
<span lang="EN-US">This short micromodule introduces learners to the visual and conceptual model of “directionality towards planetary stewardship” developed by Redvers et al. (2023). It prompts critical reflection on how institutions, knowledge systems, and personal attitudes either reproduce or resist dominant paradigms of disconnection. The exercise helps bridge the cognitive, affective, and relational shifts needed to move from disconnection to stewardship. It integrates Indigenous pedagogies, critical theory, and planetary health education frameworks.</span> +
Regarding a case in which a researcher at VU Amsterdam was alleged to have failed to disclose fully his conflicts of interest in publications, scientific advice and a research proposal, there was a disagreement between the institutional research integrity committee and The Netherlands Board on Research Integrity ('LOWI') concerning the application of the assessment framework that relates to conflicts of interests. According to the institutional research integrity committee, although failure to disclose relevant secondary interests is a case of negligence, it does not imply that the primary obligation to ensure reliable academic practice has been violated. This meant that the institutional research integrity committee determined that the behaviour of the researcher could not be reviewed under the Netherlands Code of Conduct for Academic Practice. The LOWI disagreed with this interpretation. This is a factual anonymized case. +
The case describes a scenario where a young researcher, during his interview for a new much-desired career post and whilst in a subsequent post-interview informal chat, is ‘pushed’ towards sharing unpublished findings and/or details of his current research team’s work. +
