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
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. +
Dr Donnelly wants to publish a paper on the basis of her research conducted for and funded by a private company. The company agrees, but asks not to be mentioned in the paper. The case study asks whether the researcher should agree to this condition. +
Professor O'Meare published a translation of a previously unknown manuscript, but it is later brought to her attention that her claims (presented in the introduction) about the historical circumstances surrounding the manuscript and its potential influence are likely untrue. The case study asks what Professor O'Meara should do in this situation. +
Three researchers put forth an equal amount of effort on a research project resulting in a dispute over who the primary author should be. +
A paper was given the chance for correction, following detection of errors in data coding and therefore in results. Such mistakes often mean that papers are retracted. This is a factual case. +
Yüz yüze ya da konferans görüşmesi şeklinde gerçekleştirilecek olan katılımlı oturumlarda, eğitim alan diğer katılımcılar ve eğitmenlerinizle birlikte olacaksınız. Bu oturumlarda online derslerin içeriği üzerine yorumlamalarda bulunacak ve bu derslerde edindiğiniz bilgileri, eğitmen(ler) tarafından yönlendirilecek olan grup alıştırmaları esnasında uygulamayla birleştireceksiniz.
Alıştırmalar sırasında kendi deneyimleriniz üzerine fikir yürütmeye yönlendirilecek ve, diğer katılımcılarla diyalog halinde, (gerçek) ahlaki ikilemler ile ilgili ahlaki değerlendirmeler yapacak ve bu ikilemlere karşılık olarak erdemli yanıtlar geliştireceksiniz.
Ayrıca, eğitmen olarak rolünüze, her bir alıştırmanın didaktiğine ve bunları kendi çalışma ortamınızda nasıl öğreteceğinize odaklanarak başkalarında aynı yorumlama ve fikir yürütme süreçlerini nasıl geliştireceğinizi öğreneceksiniz. +
İlk oturumlarda temel hedef, karma öğrenme programının yüz yüze/ katılımlı bölümünü oluşturan beş alıştırmaya ilişkin bilgiler vermek ve eğitimi alan kişileri bu alıştırmaları kolaylaştırıcı olarak yönetmeye hazırlamaktır.
Bu oturumlara katılan kişiler:
1- Alıştırmaları kullanarak kendi uygulamaları üzerine fikir yürütmeyi ve yorumlamalarda bulunmayı öğreneceklerdir.
2- Her bir alıştırma için belirlenen öğrenme hedeflerini gerçekleştireceklerdir.
3- Alıştırmaları kolaylaştırıcı olarak yönetmenin nasıl bir şey olduğu konusunda fikir sahibi olacaklardır.
4- Alıştırmaları kolaylaştırıcı olarak yönetebilmek için yapmaları ya da öğrenmeleri gereken şeyler üzerine fikir yürüteceklerdir. +
This textbook is a guide to RCR in the global cotext. It contains guidelines on responsible research, addressing a wide spectrum of issues related to research responsibility while using examples from different disciplines. +
Doing research with communities affected by climate change: Climate-conscious methodologies matrix (for researchers and ethics reviewers) +
This micromodule focuses on the intersection of climate justice, community collaboration, and citizen science in research and innovation. It uses conversation cards inspired by [https://wires.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1002/wcc.933 Valeria Berseth and Angeline Letourneau's (2024)] on responsible research framework for ‘climate change-conscious methodologies. Applying the concepts mentioned in these cards to practical scenarios, the module encourages reflection on research methodologies that prioritize affected communities, foster fairness, and address shifting vulnerabilities in climate-related challenges. +
Doing research with communities affected by climate change: Climate-conscious methodologies matrix (for students and citizen scientists) +
This micromodule focuses on the intersection of climate justice, community collaboration, and citizen science in research and innovation. It uses conversation cards inspired by [https://wires.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1002/wcc.933 Valeria Berseth and Angeline Letourneau's (2024)] on responsible research framework for ‘climate change-conscious methodologies. Applying these concepts to practical scenarios, the module encourages reflection on research methodologies that prioritize affected communities, foster fairness, and address shifting vulnerabilities in climate-related challenges. +
