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
2
Encourage trainees to express doubts and questions that might have arisen during the time in between the two face-to-face sessions. Address both theoretical and practical issues and invite them to reflect on how to enable a virtue ethics approach in people’s ways to think about and do research. +
Show the movie fragment. +
Based on the content of the forms you can prepare a list of topics to be discussed during the second face-to-face session. Questions 3, 4, and 5 of the [https://www.dropbox.com/s/1fmppqv189jxlqj/Self%20reflection%20form.pdf?dl=0 self-reflection form] are particularly helpful to look at for this purpose, as they provide information on what worked well, what did not go well, and what requires attention.
You can consider preparing a short PowerPoint listing the input you have collected. This may provide guidance and structure for the discussion. +
Make arrangements for the time and venue for experiencing each exercise and send out invitations to prospective participants (6-12 max.). You do not need to do the 5 exercises in one go or with the same group. You may combine exercises and integrate them in one session (e.g. [https://embassy.science/wiki/Instruction:Ac206152-effd-475b-b8cd-7e5861cb65aa Debate-dialogue] and [https://embassy.science/wiki/Instruction:A0dd2e82-52e7-4030-a396-54525630e75c Dilemma game]).
Make sure to distribute and plan the collection of the required forms (i.e. [https://www.dropbox.com/s/078geogqap548ne/SDA%20sheet%20ver%203%20%281%29.docx?dl=0 Self-declaration] and case reflection form - included in the tips of the [https://embassy.science/wiki/Instruction:747f4d61-3c97-4c4b-acd9-4d69c95f134b Virtues and norms] instructions). +
Varieties of goodness in research - a rotary style exercise (variation to original VIRT2UE exercise)) +
Introduce the exercise, it's objectives and the 'varieties of goodness'. +
In order to gain the VIRT2UE certificate, you need to train 10 researchers in the VIRT2UE approach. The VIRT2UE program consists of three online modules and five participatory exercises. We consider it sufficient if you train 10 researchers in 3 out of the 5 participatory exercises - this would provide the researchers a firm grounding in a virtue ethics approach to research integrity.
The training of 10 researchers can be completed as part of the 'practice' of the participatory exercises during the program, or after the program has finished.
It is possible to provide participating researchers with further information so that they can go on to become trainers themselves. This is optional, and you do not need to do this to obtain the VIRT2UE certificate. If you would indeed like to train people to become trainers, then you must ensure that your trainees read the VIRT2UE guide for trainers on The Embassy of Good Science (in addition to the one for trainees) and attend an additional session to exchange experiences of facilitating the exercises. If necessary, this exchange of experiences can be replaced by a written exercise, peer coaching and/or a video conference if an in-person meeting is not possible (for example, during the pandemic). +
This module draws upon the notion of communal practices by Alasdair MacIntyre [[#%20ftn1|[1]]] and introduces relevant concepts, such as difference between the concepts of values and norms, as well as moral conflicts and moral dilemmas. In an exercise, the application of these differentiations and the transfer of knowledge into distinguishing two cases from the Rotterdam Dilemma Game[[# ftn2|[2]]], one of which portrays a moral conflict, the other one a moral dilemma.
[http://courses.embassy.science/virtue_ethics_and_research_integrity/story.html Open course]
----[[#%20ftnref1|[1]]] MacIntyre, A. C. (2014). After virtue. London: Bloomsbury.
[[# ftnref2|[2]]] Erasmus University Rotterdam. (n.d.). Retrieved January 30, 2020, from Erasmus University Rotterdam website: https://www.eur.nl/en/about-eur/strategy-and-policy/integrity/research-integrity/dilemma-game
<br /> +
This module aims to explain and demonstrate the underlying dynamics and relevance of cognitive dissonance for the research process. Along with the example of honorary authorship, it is discussed how conflicting imperatives (or underlying conflicting values) inherent in the current research system may be experienced as cognitive dissonance or moral distress. This module further invites to reflect upon the experience of cognitive dissonance and moral distress in one's research.
[http://courses.embassy.science/cognitive_dissonance_and_moral_distress/story.html Open course] +
This module explores research integrity on three levels, the individual researcher, research culture, as well as the research system. Drawing largely upon the report “What researchers think about the culture they work in” by WELLCOME for Shift Learning (2020)[[#%20ftn1|[1]]], different aspects of research integrity are discussed. This discussion is further complemented by the introduction of the Hong Kong Principles for Assessing Researchers[[#%20ftn2|[2]]].
[[File:Three levels of Research Integrity.png|link=http://courses.embassy.science/three_levels_of_research_integrity/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/Three%20levels%20of%20Research%20Integrity_SCORM.zip here]
'''''References'''''
[[#%20ftnref1|[1]]] Moran, H., Karlin, L., Lauchlan, E., Rappaport, S. J., Bleasdale, B., Wild, L., & Dorr, J. (2020). Understanding Research Culture: What researchers think about the culture they work in. ''Wellcome Open Research, 5''(201), 201.
[[#%20ftnref2|[2]]] Moher, D., Bouter, L., Kleinert, S., Glasziou, P., Sham, M. H., Barbour, V., ... & Dirnagl, U. (2020). The Hong Kong Principles for assessing researchers: Fostering research integrity''. PLoS Biology, 18''(7), e3000737. +
This module explores research integrity on three levels, the individual researcher, research culture, as well as the research system. Drawing largely upon the recent report “What researchers think about the culture they work in” by WELLCOME for Shift Learning (2020)[[#%20ftn1|[1]]], different aspects of research integrity are discussed. This discussion is further complemented by the introduction of the Hong Kong Principles for Assessing Researchers[[#%20ftn2|[2]]].
[http://courses.embassy.science/three_levels_of_research_integrity/story.html Open the course]
----[[#%20ftnref1|[1]]] Moran, H., Karlin, L., Lauchlan, E., Rappaport, S. J., Bleasdale, B., Wild, L., & Dorr, J. (2020). Understanding Research Culture: What researchers think about the culture they work in. ''Wellcome Open Research, 5''(201), 201.
[[#%20ftnref2|[2]]] Moher, D., Bouter, L., Kleinert, S., Glasziou, P., Sham, M. H., Barbour, V., ... & Dirnagl, U. (2020). The Hong Kong Principles for assessing researchers: Fostering research integrity''. PLoS Biology, 18''(7), e3000737.
<br /> +
This module draws upon the notion of communal practices by Alasdair MacIntyre[[#%20ftn1|[1]]] and introduces relevant concepts, such as difference between the concepts of values and norms, as well as moral conflicts and moral dilemmas. In an exercise, the application of these differentiations and the transfer of knowledge into distinguishing two cases from the Rotterdam Dilemma Game[[#%20ftn2|[2]]], one of which portrays a moral conflict, the other one a moral dilemma.
[[File:Virtue Ethics and Research Integrity.jpg|link=http://courses.embassy.science/virtue_ethics_and_research_integrity/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/Virtue%20Ethics%20&%20Research%20Integrity_SCORM.zip here]
----[[#%20ftnref1|[1]]] MacIntyre, A. C. (2014). After virtue. London: Bloomsbury.
[[#%20ftnref2|[2]]] Erasmus University Rotterdam. (n.d.). Retrieved January 30, 2020, from Erasmus University Rotterdam website: https://www.eur.nl/en/about-eur/strategy-and-policy/integrity/research-integrity/dilemma-game +
This exercise helps to develop approaches for implementing virtues in real life dilemmas by relating virtues to norms of action while reflecting on a real RI dilemma from different perspectives by means of dialogue.
[[File: V&N.png|link=https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IZMDWGTLXWo&list=PLabbUwyulAry4tzZ12eHl5JOJhJGiaE6k&index=2]] +
How researchers’ moral judgments can be affected by individual and contextual factors, explained by the VIRT2UE project for The Embassy of Good Science.
[[File: The concept of research integrity explained3.png|link=https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bIGuvc8Qbmw]] +
This module explores the different roles and corresponding responsibilities in research environments, allowing the researchers to recognize themselves in such roles and responsabilities. Besides, a virtue ethics approach is applied to supervision, mentoring and role-modeling with some interactive exercises.
[[File:Episode2.png|link=http://courses.embassy.science/Roles_and_responsibilities_in_supervision_and_mentoring/story.html]] +
This module explores the different roles and corresponding responsibilities in research environments, allowing the researchers to recognize themselves in such roles and responsibilities. Furthermore, a virtue ethics approach is applied to supervision, mentoring and role-modeling with some interactive exercises.
[[File:Episode2.png|link=http://courses.embassy.science/Roles_and_responsibilities_in_supervision_and_mentoring/story.html]] +
This module aims to explain and demonstrate the underlying dynamics and relevance of cognitive dissonance for the research process. Along with the example of honorary authorship, it is discussed how conflicting imperatives (or underlying conflicting values) inherent in the current research system may be experienced as cognitive dissonance or moral distress. This module further invites reflection on the experience of cognitive dissonance and moral distress in one's research.
[[File:Cognitive Dissonance and Moral Distress.jpg|link=http://courses.embassy.science/cognitive_dissonance_and_moral_distress/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/Cognitive%20Dissonance%20&%20Moral%20Distress_SCORM.zip here] +
04 - Moral Case Deliberation: A Method for Analysing Cases in Research Ethics and Research Integrity +
This step focuses on the experience of the case presenter. The presenter is asked to describe a concrete personal situation in which he or she experienced the moral issue at stake. The case presenter is asked to provide a short but thick description of the facts of the situation. Facts can include the ‘feelings’ he or she experienced since feelings can be a useful indicator of the moral discomfort of the presenter and can often implicitly refer to certain values. +
There are usually several morally problematic situations that require attention. This step provides students with an opportunity to improve their sensibility to ethically problematic situations. +
02 - The Seven Steps Method: A Method for Analysing Cases in Research Ethics and Research Integrity +
Many problems disappear upon closer examination of the situation, while others change radically. +
In this video, ethical and unethical research behaviors are explained.
[[File: Ethical decision making4.png|link=https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HRBJxLo6k5s&list=PLabbUwyulArzx9SIqxfDXbtTELS8uWdFD&index=3]]
The video translates three common frameworks for ethical analysis (deontology, consequentialism, virtue ethics) into the context of research. These frameworks are described as complementary, since science may be seen as a communal practice that strives towards a common good (utilitarianism), which can only be done in compliance with certain principles, rules, and codes inherent in the scientific endeavor (deontology). Virtue ethics may foster the best side of deontology and consequentialism, as a virtuous person is both informed by rules or beneficial consequences and knows how to apply rules and how to appreciate consequences by having insight into concrete situations. +
