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
5
Introduce a case (please select one among the ones presented in the IRECs module on the topic of the session). Ask participants to identify the main ethical issues in the case (the aim to increase awareness of the issues related with the topic introduced in the session). You can use the following question to encourage conversation among participants:
<span lang="EN-US">§ What are the main ethical issues in this case?</span>
'''<u><span lang="EN-US">Trainer Tip</span></u>''' <span lang="EN-US">Allow for a brief open discussion but keep it focused to ensure you stay within the allocated time.</span> +
[[Guide:Bbe860a3-56a9-45f7-b787-031689729e52|The VIRT2UE Train the Trainer program]] is designed for researchers and educators across various disciplines who wish to become Research Integrity trainers. It adopts a virtue-based approach, encouraging participants to reflect on their own perspectives and understanding of research integrity. The program emphasises personal case reflection and practical experiences, aiming to create a strong link between theoretical knowledge and real-world application. +
6
Once you have designed the program and the time schedule you advertise the training and invite participants. In order to decide who to invite please consider that the VIRT2UE training primarily targets researchers or trainers/educators/teachers who have a background in research (i.e. are or have been working as researchers) and who want to become research integrity trainers. Trainees of your training should have a basic understanding of research integrity. To invite people to join your training you can use the template invitation letter. +
Remind participants about the fact that in order to become certified VIRT2UE trainers, they have to train 10 others, preferably trainers. If it is not feasible to train 10 trainers they may also train researchers who have the potential to be come trainers. +
Explain the difference between a debate and a dialogue. Do the participants recognise their answers in step 2 as describing a debate and their answers to step 3 as a dialogue? +
An impression of the 'Virtues & Norms Exercise' of the VIRT2UE Train-the-Trainer program.
[[File:Train-the-trainer program2.png|link=https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IZMDWGTLXWo|caption]] +
04 - Moral Case Deliberation: A Method for Analysing Cases in Research Ethics and Research Integrity +
The aim of this step is to brainstorm in order to get a view on possible courses or actions which lie beyond the dilemma. +
If the previous step is not sufficient to identify the preferred course of action, a further step is required consisting of the analysis of foreseeable consequences of each course of action. The analysis of consequences depends on a good determination of the facts. It should include foreseeable consequences related to the persons involved, the working environment, the external environment, and society at large. +
Review my Early View and associated reasons by addressing each of the following themes and questions:
'''Normative Standards'''
''"How do normative frameworks help us?"''
In order to answer this question, we need:
<br />
*A basic knowledge of the appropriate regulations that apply to the issue;
*To be able to use these regulations to analyse our Early View;
*To revise our Early View and to provide reasons for any revisions.
'''Experience'''
''"How have we approached this issue before?"''
In order to answer this question, we need:
<br />
*To access past decisions;
*To compare past cases and the current case and determine whether previous decisions are relevant;
*To use disagreement to develop new standards for guiding future considerations;
*To be able to explain why, if relevant, we haven’t followed such precedent.
'''Expertise'''
''"What expertise has been applied to this before?"''
To answer this question, we need to:
<br />
*Access independent expert review;
*Access an up-to-date library of authoritative guidance;
*Balance guidance documents and judge the relative authority of guidance documents;
*Provide reasons if our decisions run contrary to guidance.
'''Empathy'''
''"What views and opinions do other parties have?"''
We turn to the views of those with a legitimate interest in the case (for example, the accused, the complainant, individuals involved with the case, and the public).
To answer this question, we need to:
<br />
*Identify all those with an interest in the case and see it ‘through their eyes’;
*Recognize limitations to our empathy;
*Confirm or refute any ‘empathy-based decisions’ using answers to the other questions listed above;
'''Evidence'''
''"What evidence is there on this issue?"''
We turn to any published research concerning similar cases. However, we need to be careful when forming prescriptive conclusions based on factual premises. After all, the quality of the evidence may be questionable and there may be significant normative and factual differences between the case in question and situations discussed in published research.
In order to answer this question, we need:
<br />
*To locate, assess, and apply published evidence;
*To recognize the proper place of facts when making judgments;
*To encourage published research on research integrity and research ethics.
'''Expediency'''
''"What is possible or realistic in the circumstances?"''
We need to ensure that we have not interpreted the case against sets of unrealistic standards. Expediency is built on a realistic evaluation of research constraints and consequences and imposes proportionate and realistic conditions.
In order to answer this question, we need to:
<br />
*Understand and accommodate realistic standards when assessing the case;
*Judge when expediency is adequate justification;
*Balance expediency and fair standards when forming a judgment about a case.
'''Escape'''
''"How can we manage this problem of our disagreement?"''
In order to answer this question, we might be required to:
<br />
*Agree to disagree (if it will not affect the final judgment);
*Seek elaboration on any of the answers to the questions listed above;
*Vote on a set of judgments;
*Consider alternatives.
02 - The Seven Steps Method: A Method for Analysing Cases in Research Ethics and Research Integrity +
All things considered, make a choice. +
Turn the focus to a dialogue and present the characteristics of a dialogue: slowing down, listening instead of telling, postponing judgment, asking questions (see practical tips). You can distribute an overview of the differences between a debate and a dialogue among the participants (see practical tips). +
Ask rapporteurs to very briefly:
<br />
*summarize the virtues discussed in the subgroup discussions, including differences and similarities;
*summarize differences and similarities in how people formulated the <u>middle position (not the differences and similarities themselves but in general)</u>;
''Tip: focus especially on virtues, and middle positions (not on the specific cases themselves)''
To start a plenary conversation after the brief summaries of the rapporteurs ask participants the following questions:
- Was it easy or difficult to find a personal case, and to select a virtue for it?
- Did you learn to look at inherent moral ambiguity of specific virtues in a broader or in a different way when these were identified by others?
- Would the case owner want to describe how he/she experienced the exercise? +
Explain how the game is played by mentioning the rules, the materials to be used, and steps to be followed. If using the app, the steps will include:
'''Playing the game (app version)'''
#Providing participants with the room code provided by the app.
#Share your screen in lecture mode, introduce the first dilemma.
#Invite the participants to choose one of the four alternative courses of action which best reflects how they would act in the dilemma situation.
#Collect the responses via the app. When all responses have been received, display the proportions choosing a, b, c, or d in lecture mode.
Emphasize that participants can ask technical questions to you any time, and let participants know how much time they will have to discuss the dilemma(s). +
You and your group will be asked to fill out tables to identify the principles and practices of the European Code of Conduct for Research Integrity, and scientific virtues, that are relevant to the dilemma at stake.
[[File:Modified Dilemma Game Table 1.png|thumb|'''Table 1: Which principles from European Code for Research Integrity can you identify in each dilemma?''']]
<br />
[[File:Modified Dilemma Game Table 2.png|thumb|'''Table 2. Which research misbehaviors can you identify in this dilemma?''']]
<br />
[[File:Modified Dilemma Game Table 3.jpg|thumb|'''Table 3. Which scientific virtues are important when deciding on a course of action?''']]
<br /> +
Is there a positive balance between good and bad consequences? +
This part only has one instruction "Practicing Reflection in Dialogue", for both trainer and trainee, to be found [https://public.3.basecamp.com/p/vNfbMo7JdtnkVj4YmxrK1Eq1 here]. +
This module aims to equip students with the knowledge to comprehend 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 Art to allow for a wider ethical discussion through a subject that is relevant to the target audience. +
Programı ve takvimi tasarladıktan sonra eğitimi ilan edin ve katılımcıları davet edin. Kimleri davet edeceğinize karar verirken lütfen VIRT2UE eğitiminin hedef kitlesinin öncelikle araştırmacılar veya araştırma konusunda deneyimi olan (yani araştırmacı olarak çalışmış ya da çalışıyor olan) eğitmenler/ eğitimciler/ öğretmenler olduğunu unutmayın. Eğitiminize katılan kişilerin araştırma doğruluğuna ilişkin temel bir anlayışı haiz olması gerekmektedir. Katılımcıları eğitime davet ederken örnek davet mektubunu kullanabilirsiniz. +
Diyalog yönteminin ayırt edici özelliklerini ve bu yönteme uygun tutumları açıklayın (ağırdan alma, konuşmaktansa dinlemeyi tercih etme, hemen hüküm vermeme, sorular sorma; pratik ipuçları bölümüne bakınız). Odağınızı diyalog yöntemi üzerine çevirip bu yöntemin özelliklerini anlatın veya katılımcılara münazara ve diyalog arasındaki farklılıklara ilişkin tabloyu dağıtın (pratik ipuçları bölümüne bakınız). +
Vaka net bir biçimde anlaşıldıktan sonra katılımcılardan kendilerini vakayı sunan kişinin yerine koymalarını ve eğer sunucu yerinde kendileri olsa bu ikilemde hangi erdem(ler)in (iki tane erdem belirlenmesi yeterlidir ancak daha fazlası da mümkündür) rol oynayacağını düşünmelerini isteyin. Bunun için katılımcılara şu soruyu sorabilirsiniz:
“Eğer vakayı sunan kişinin durumunda olsaydınız ve ne yapacağınıza karar vermeniz gerekseydi, sizin için bu kararı verirken hangi erdem önemli olurdu?”
Lütfen belirtilecek erdemlerin ikilemin seçeneklerinden biriyle bağlantılı olması gerekmediğini unutmayın. Bu aşamada katılımcılar söz konusu durumda doğrulukla hareket edebilmek için hangi ahlaki niteliği (erdemi) hayata geçirmeleri gerektiği üzerine fikir yürütmek durumundadır. Bağlamsal olarak, katılımcılardan seçtikleri erdemi takip edecek eylem kuralının (normunun) ya da davranışın ne olduğu üzerine fikir yürütmelerini isteyin. Bunun için kendilerine şu soruları sorabilirler:
“Bu durumda bu erdeme uygun davranabilmek için ne yapmam gerekir?”
“Bu durumda bu erdemi hayata geçirebilmek için nasıl bir eylem kuralını takip etmem gerekir?”
Lütfen aynı erdemle farklı normların ya da aynı normla farklı erdemlerin ilişkilendirilebileceğini unutmayın. +
