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
<span lang="EN-GB">Define the broader (socio-economic, political) and narrower (institutional) context of the problem to be solved. Consider all background issues that can have a direct or indirect influence on the successful implementation of the recommendation. List general assumptions that you can make about the recommendation, i.e. list all those educated premises that you consider as a starting point for an effective application scenario. These assumptions are the starting points on which further reasoning and development of the scenario can be built. These assumptions can vary in nature and might relate to specific contexts like economics or social interactions.</span>
<span lang="EN-GB">· What is the core problem that needs to be solved to foster trust in science? What are the basic assumptions on which the application scenario can be built on?</span>
<span lang="EN-GB">· What are the socio-economic, political, and cultural aspects that fundamentally shape the implementation of the recommendation?</span>
<span lang="EN-GB">· What are the main organisational or institutional settings that potentially affect the implementation of the recommendation?</span> +
Research coordination and cooperation are essential to avoid the unnecessary duplication of studies, which could place unfair burdens on participants and waste time and resources. +
What if innovation projects were designed with nature in mind? Multispecies Thinking broadens our perspective, recognizing the interconnectedness of all life forms and the need to include non-human beings in our ethical and research considerations. Designer Liina Lember explores how light pollution might be tackled from the perspective of another species. View the slideshow on “In-Visible Moth Spells” and notice how it makes you feel. +
===Why build communities and engage stakeholders?===
<div>
<span lang="EN-GB">TIER2 actively engages with researchers from different research areas (social, life, and computer sciences) and two cross-disciplinary stakeholder groups (funders and publishers) to enhance reproducibility across contexts.</span>
</div><div>
<span lang="EN-GB">Through our co-creation and engagement activities, we are actively fostering communication within and across stakeholder groups creating communities of practices. Opportunities for knowledge exchange and sharing of perspectives further enhances our TIER2 community building efforts</span>
</div><div>
<span lang="EN-GB">We are emphasizing our stakeholder engagement and collaboration especially during the selection, prioritization, development, implementation, and evaluation phases of our new reproducibility-related tools and practices, designed within out eight pilot activities. Through co-creation activities, we explore opportunities for closer collaboration within and across stakeholder communities and facilitate the sharing of resources and expertise. By fostering a sense of ownership and involvement, we ensure that the new tools and practices, created within the project, are valuable and useful to the communities as well as beneficial to all parties involved.</span>
</div>
===<span lang="EN-US">Resources to plan and conduct open and inclusive co-creation activities:</span>===
*[https://osf.io/7zpyd/files/hyf9z Types of co-creation events]
*[https://osf.io/7zpyd/files/sy3za DEIA resources for virtual co-creation events]
[[File:TIER2 Stakeholder Communities.jpg|thumb|Infographic illustrating the stakeholder communities and the activities they are involved with within TIER2.]]
[[File:WCRI Co-creation Poster.jpg|thumb|Strategies for fostering research integrity through community co-creation. ]] +
In this lecture, Rosemarie Barnabe discusses how different stakeholders – researchers, the broader research community, and the general public – can benefit from Open Science. The lecture introduces components of Open Science and explains how these components benefit different stakeholders.
'''Watch the lecture and then answer the questions.'''
'''Further reading:'''
UNESCO Recommendation on Open Science. (2021) https://doi.org/10.54677/MNMH8546
Tennant, J. P., Waldner, F., Jacques, D. C., Masuzzo, P., Collister, L. B., & Hartgerink, C. H. J. (2016). The academic, economic and societal impacts of Open Access: An evidence-based review (5:632). F1000Research. https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.8460.3
Catalano, G., Delugas, E., & Vignetti, S. (2025). Costs and Benefits of Open Science: Contributing to the Development of a Rigorous Assessment Framework. In J. Gutleber & P. Charitos (Eds.), The Economics of Big Science 2.0: Essays by Leading Scientists and Policymakers (pp. 127–135). Springer Nature Switzerland. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-60931-2_10
Arza, V., & Fressoli, M. (2017). Systematizing benefits of open science practices. Information Services and Use, 37(4), 463–474. https://doi.org/10.3233/ISU-170861
Meskus, M., Marelli, L., & D’Agostino, G. (2017). Research Misconduct in the Age of Open Science: The Case of STAP Stem Cells. Science as Culture, 27(1), 1–23. https://doi.org/10.1080/09505431.2017.1316975 <div></div> +
Introduction to the evaluation of the effectiveness of Research Ethics and Integrity (REI) training +
Challenges in assessing training effectiveness are that results are limited through extensive missing data, heterogeneity of trainings and evaluation tools, short interventions not allowing sufficient time to induce change or development, and small sample sizes. As the goals of trainings differ, different tests are used to measure those goals, making comparisons difficult. In addition, measurements take a lot of time and labour to assess and analyse, especially if the data are qualitative and learners receive feedback on their learning and development. +
Based on the video you just watched, answer the following multiple-choice questions by selecting the option that best reflects the key ideas presented. +
Answer the multiple-choice questions, based on the previously studied slideshow, and reflect on essential conditions, staff engagement strategies, communication tools, and fundraising approaches. This encourages you to engage in critical thinking on how climate actions can be embedded in organisational culture and daily practices. +
Doing research with communities affected by climate change: Climate-conscious methodologies matrix (for students and citizen scientists) +
Please complete the multiple answers mini quiz. +
ECAG was introduced by Tammeleht and colleagues (2019) to help evaluate development of understanding during group-work. The number and content of tasks can be modified by the teacher. The unit of analysis can be an individual or a group. SOLO levels can be identified in written work or during oral presentations.
Table 1. ECAG example (from Tammeleht, 2022). (Pam Hook has provided permission to use the images).
[[File:Img5.png|center|frameless|500x500px|alt=]] +
Ethics sections in doctoral dissertations can be seen as one type of display of learning of REI, especially if the final piece of writing can be compared to earlier drafts. Based on an analysis of the ethics sections of 60 PhD dissertations, Marita Cronqvist (2024) has identified topic areas and corresponding criteria (Table 1). This framework could be applied in the analysis of the content and evaluating the quality of ethical considerations displayed in the research ethics section of dissertations (Table 1).
Table 1. Criteria for assessing ethics sections (Cronqvist, 2024)
[[File:Img8.png|center|frameless|600x600px]]
There may be guidelines present in different countries on which ethics components should be considered in the dissertations, but there seems to be no consensus on that. The topics identified by Cronqvist (2024) can be used to analyse the content and quality of the ethical considerations in dissertations, but perhaps also research articles or reports on research conduct. +
The ethical analysis framework (Mustajoki & Mustajoki, 2017.) is used as a tool for solving ethical dilemmas. The framework consists of the following steps:
[[File:Img10.png|frameless|500x500px]]
Figure 2. Ethical analysis (Mustajoki & Mustajoki, 2017).
In the case introduced in the section what is this about the following response may be given by learners:
*'''Who are the stakeholders? Why them? What are the responsibilities and rights of the stakeholders?'''
A. Researchers - the team of researchers need data for their research, they have planned their activities and data management, they have the support from their leader and institution, they need the research to bring new knowledge into the society and also promote their own careers.
B. Children - research may often include children, they will also benefit from the research. By law, underage children (there are some differences of age in different countries) need a parental consent to be part of the research. At the same time, UN Article 12 states that the child’s opinion must be asked and considered (depending on their development). If the parent’s and child’s opinions contradict, the researchers cannot decide what to do, the best option might be to quit data collection and find new measures and plan the informing procedure better.
C. Parents - are responsible for their children, have the right to decide for their underage children, must consider the well-being of their children. Parents should be aware of the implication of their decision - whether their decision may harm the child (mentally), whether they are hindering the improvements in the society. Parent should seek for more information to consider all the alternatives.
D. (Pre)School - if the school allows the researchers conduct data collection in their institution, then the school leader should also be informed and evaluate the situation - either make suggestions on how better organise data collection and what the benefit is to the children/school.
E. Research institution - provide guidance, training to the researchers on how to better organise data collection, especially involving people/children. Maybe an ethics review is necessary or advice from the ethics committee.
F. Society - needs research for improvements, should encourage researchers conduct research to develop better policies. It is important to spread knowledge that all citizens can contribute to improvements by participating in surveys.
*'''What are the possible courses of action? What are their implications?''' -
this event is done, and it was harmful to the children - it would have been better if the researchers had stopped the data collection procedure once they learned that some children cannot participate in video recording. Maybe more time should have been spent on informing parents. In the future the research teams should plan more time (e.g. in the data management plan) on informing and getting the consent - organising an information seminar for the parents, encouraging questions, and asking also the children, giving families more time to make the decision, inventing new ways to organise recordings. Parents should also give it more thought - how can they contribute to research and society, maybe they could read some newspaper articles about how research is conducted and what happens to the collected data. Research institution should organise trainings and guidelines on data management, collection and protection.
The self-reflection tool (as a form or an app) helps learners and teachers monitor the learning process as well as provide important insights about the uptake of REI course content to facilitators.
The tool supports teachers to get insights whether the content of the training has been understood, how the learners progress and achieve their learning outcomes, measure if the training has been effective. The tool also helps implement reflection into training which is a crucial part of ethics competencies. The results from testing iterations show that most learners can evaluate quite accurately their level of understanding in the context of research ethics and integrity, and repeated reflection appears to improve accuracy of self-reflection.
The self-reflection tool asks the learner to assess their level of understanding on the teacher-assigned or self-assigned topic (activity or content) and then write a short reflective paragraph on what has been learned and how they perceive it. After submission the tool provides pre-written feedback on the student-selected level and provides advice on how to improve understanding. In the app version the teacher can also provide feedback on the texts written by learners. Repeated use of the tool will show the progress of learners as well as pinpoint topics that may need further revision (e.g. if they have not been understood well enough).
The tool is more suitable for evaluation of short-term outcomes of training (like specific tasks or topics), result can provide information on Kirkpatrick levels 1 and 2. Conclusions on training impact on researcher behaviour cannot be made based on the self-reflection alone, but perhaps in combination with other tools. The teacher should introduce the usefulness of the tool to the learners and encourage them to use it repeatedly. It would work best if the tool is combined with other measurements to provide a holistic picture of the learning process. The tool is suitable for HE context and it is not field-specific.
The tool is based on the SOLO taxonomy and the reflective texts can be analysed based on both the SOLO taxonomy as well as reflection levels.
The tool may be used with all target groups in HE and it is most suitable for short trainings.
The MS Forms version of SRF is available here (learner’s view): https://forms.office.com/e/YTzAzJSAz7
The Google Forms and MS Forms copiable links are here:
[https://docs.google.com/forms/d/1f4xNbQka73bfeDtwKCXTC5W5CoyhfVrtr4dwMXRNmWk/copy] [https://forms.office.com/Pages/ShareFormPage.aspx?id=WXWumNwQiEKOLkWT5i_j7twYn7PlpvpDlgGDpz2LgIdUMk5XRTVYQTVKRFRDWDlHOUdGU1FHTUlFVi4u&sharetoken=03epmvYBRpmfXvpRg9os]
The SRC app is under development and expected to be launched by February 2025.
Ethical awareness can be investigated through domain-specific and domain-transcending measures (see Jordan, 2007). Domain-specific measure can be used to measure awareness and knowledge of a specific field. Domain-transcending measure provides an opportunity to obtain information about more general ethical issues irrespective of the discipline. These measures can be used simultaneously or separately, and they may provide information about the outcomes of training but also perhaps about the impact on practices and behaviour (mostly Kirkpatrick’s level 2). (Löfström, 2012)
A domain-specific measure contains ethical issues typical of a field and may rely on authentic examples, such as the following example, which is a fictive research proposal with multiple choice questions about ethical issues addressed in the proposal (Löfström, 2012). Such a measure is relatively easy to compose based on a fictive but realistic research proposal or other realistic academic text. The measure is suitable for use in HE context and can be adopted for various disciplines when research proposals of the filed as well as ethical issues are modified. A score can be calculated for each correct response (2 per section totalling a maximum score of 10).
Instruction: Read through the following four excerpts from a research proposal. Sentences with a number following it contain an ethical issue. Please, pair the number in the parenthesis with the corresponding ethical issue in the column to the right.
{| class="wikitable"
|+*(Suggested responses are marked in bold here. In the questionnaire the respondent gets five options and should choose 2.)
The tool is suitable for use in training for more knowledgeable learners like early-career researchers and supervisors.
A domain-transcending measure contains ethical issues which are common to research irrespective of the field. Depending on when the tool is used, it can provide information about Kirkpatrick’s levels 2 and 3. Various ethical issues may have varying prevalence depending on the field. In the following example, there are ten examples of ethical/integrity issues, and the participant is asked to indicate whether or not these involve ethical issues, and then provide their own examples of when the named issue may pose ethical considerations (Löfström, 2012). Depending on the field, the examples could vary highly. Potentially, all items could pose ethical issues. A score can be provided based on participant’s recognition of the item as potentially involving ethical considerations. Furthermore, the examples provided by participants can be analysed applying the SOLO taxonomy/ECAG.
This tool is most suitable for use in training for students and ECRs.
Instruction: Indicate by checking the boxes whether you consider the following to be research ethical issues. If you answer: ‘Can be an ethical issue’, please provide an example of when it could be an ethical issue in the space below each item.
|The goal of the proposed research is to gain a broader understanding of education and wellbeing issues and concerns of youth. To accomplish this, aim a focus group involving youth aged 9-15 is formed (1). During regular bi-monthly meetings the youths’ concerns relating to education and wellbeing will be identified and discussed. The project also aims at developing the dissemination of wellbeing-related information through web-based and printed resources and materials (2). Local development needs in the area of educational, recreational and health services for youth will be identified. Participants are encouraged to disseminate information resulting from the project.
|Confidentiality *
Right to withdraw
Vulnerable populations
Reporting of results
Risk-benefit analysis
|-
|Research participants will be recruited at local schools, and if necessary, through the snowball technique (3). Parental permission will be sought from the youth volunteering for the focus group. Youth receiving parental permission will be included in the project. Informed consent and parental consent will be obtained in writing. The nature and purpose of the research project, its potential risks and benefits to participation will be explained to the participating adolescents and their parents or legal guardians (4).
|Informed consent
Right to withdraw
Vulnerable populations
Voluntary participation
Reporting of results
|-
|Participants will be asked to share their experiences and thoughts about education and wellbeing-related issues and concerns with participants in the focus group and with the researchers. Participants have the right to determine what and how much information they disclose. Identifiable personal information will not be disclosed (5). Participants may discontinue at any time without penalty or inquiries about their decision (6).
|Anonymity
Confidentiality
Informed consent
Right to withdraw
Vulnerable populations
|-
|The researchers will monitor and facilitate focus group discussions as needed. The youth participating in the focus group are encouraged to show respect for their peers and not to disclose information about the other participants outside the research project (7). Participants are informed of their obligation to report information that indicates potential risk or harm to self or others (8).
|Confidentiality
Right to withdraw
Voluntary participation
Reporting of results
Risk-benefit analysis
|-
|Discussion sessions are taped and recorded, and transcribed verbatim, and also survey data will be collected from the participants. All data will be maintained in a secure location on campus with only project researchers having access to it (9). Data will be stored a year after project completion, after which it will be destroyed. Participants and their parents will be informed that discussions may cover sensitive areas and that participants may be provided with psychological and medical information pertaining to questions that may arise during focus group sessions. A psychologist will be available to assist participating youth who may feel discomfort due to issues raised in the project (10).
|Anonymity
Confidentiality
Informed consent Voluntary participation
Risk-benefit analysis
|}
[[File:Img18.png|center|frameless|600x600px]]
Having watched the video, you will apply the ethical principles to your own research practices using interactive prompt cards. +
Look closely at the image and reflect on the issues that might be affecting your research. Hover over the image to reveal example reflection questions that can help you reflect on your research. +
<span lang="EN-US">The purpose of this training activity is to engage participants in a game to encourage discussion and promote better self-understanding and mutual understanding, while also enhancing listening and argumentation skills. The game is played in groups of 3–6 players. There can be as many groups as needed, although facilitation might require more effort with more groups. The cases focus on issues that are especially relevant for young and/or early career researchers and attempt has been made to cover topics that have emerged more recently in research ethics and integrity field (AI, researcher rehabilitation etc.).</span> +
Test +
The activity supports development of supervisors’ REI competencies. The learning outcomes are:
*understand what are the elements contributing to a culture of integrity in research communities
*become aware of both the implicit and explicit ways in which supervisors and mentors influence the learning processes of their supervisees/mentees and others working in the research community
*understand the role of and possess a command of practices that supervisors and mentors employ in establishing a culture of integrity
*develop and display competencies in ethical decision-making
*adopt the role of REI leader and display REI leadership competencies. +
<span lang="EN-US">After you have listened to the podcast, engage in the following activity to check your understanding and confront common misconceptions while receiving instant feedback that deepens learning.</span> +
