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="EL">Please take 10 minutes to hover over the figure and explore the concepts (from <span lang="en-DE">→ to)</span> interactively. <span lang="EN-US">(Please click on the top right of the image to expand it to full screen and improve your experience).</span></span> +
The BEYOND approach - ‘it’s not the apple, but the orchard’ - reflects the idea that integrity is upheld as a collaborative effort. This is why it is important that training also models the collaborative way. Cases have the capacity to open up discussion space for the complexities of integrity and ethics in research, again, guiding learners to think of the full complexity, not just individuals, but also other systemic levels, including meso and macro levels, that is organisation, research community, and national, international and global context. Scaffolding provides a technique acknowledging where the individual or even a team or research community is at and designing the next steps to facilitate learning and development eventually leading to better alignment with the highest ethical and integrity standards. The point of departure is that there is always room for improvement, even in the strongest of research communities and the work starts with acknowledging status quo and identifying the next goals, which are within reach, irrespective of whether we envision the learning of individuals or communities. With these approaches;case-based and collaborative learning and scaffolding we believe training is well geared towards nurturing the orchard.
The BEYOND Trainer Guide goes beyond simply listing training materials;it adds value by explaining various pedagogical approaches that can be applied to enhance the use of different materials. It shows how learning taxonomies can be applied to create learning-focused training (as opposed to mere information transmission) irrespective of which materials produced in EU-funded projects that are implemented. We have structured the material according to target group, so that trainers can easily identify materials that are suitable for the target group they are training.
Additionally, the content is also structured according to the type of learning activities to support those trainers who wish to work using specific activities but may hesitate whether they are suitable for a particular target group, or simply would like to know more about the activity itself.
To summarise, the BEYOND approach is manifested in the Trainer Guide as:
- A proposal for a research-based approach to an ‘orchard pedagogy’
- Suggestions for measuring training effect to gain an indication of the preparedness of the research community to develop a culture of integrity
Facilitation for using existing RE/RI training resources by providing two alternative structures for trainers, including one, which addresses various actors in ‘the orchard’ through a career-level approach. We wish trainers and other readers, as well as learners taking part in trainings and learning activities utilising the resources referred to in the BEYOND Trainer Guide, a joyful journey through the orchard!
The Omelas analogy shows that awareness alone doesn’t lead to action;deeper emotional and ethical engagement is required. Go to min. 3:27 to listen to the story again.
In [https://reading:%20the%20ones%20who%20walk%20away%20from%20omelas%20ursula%20k%20leguin%20:%20Internet%20Archive/ ''The Ones Who Walk Away from Omelas''] by Ursula Le Guin (1973), the city’s prosperity depends on the suffering of one hidden child. In the real world, many communities thrive while others bear disproportionate environmental burdens (polluted water, toxic waste sites, deforestation, or climate change impacts). +
Citizen science offers valuable opportunities for all stakeholders involved;however, it also raises new issues regarding research ethics and integrity. Some authors have expressed concerns regarding the potential '''exploitation and instrumentalization''' of citizen scientists, where their unpaid work is utilized without proper acknowledgment of their contributions (Resnik, 2019). Therefore, '''recognizing the contributions''' of citizen scientists in all phases of research especially in scientific publications is essential to acknowledge their valuable research inputs. In some cases, citizen scientists may qualify for co-authorship if they have made substantial intellectual contributions to the research, including contributions to study design, data analysis, manuscript writing, and agreement to be accountable for all aspects of the research ([https://bit.ly/N7uoq3 <span lang="EN-GB">ICMJE</span>]<span lang="EN-GB">). While traditional academic authorship criteria may not always directly apply to citizen scientists, there are various other ways to appropriately recognize their involvement. Citizen scientists who have contributed to the research but whose contributions do not justify authorship may be acknowledged as contributors, with their roles and specific tasks described in a contributorship statement or acknowledgments. Open and transparent communication with citizen scientists throughout the research process, involving them in discussions about authorship and recognition, is crucial for building trust and ensuring that everyone involved feels appropriately acknowledged for their contributions.</span>
Additionally, issues of '''data quality and ownership''' have been raised in the context of citizen science, as citizen scientists are often not specifically trained in research ethics and methodologies. The quality of data collected by citizen scientists can be ensured through various methods. Researchers can provide appropriate training to citizen scientists on data collection techniques and emphasize the importance of maintaining good research records. It is also crucial to ensure that the technological solutions chosen for citizen science projects are comprehensible and user-friendly, which can help minimize errors or misunderstandings during data collection and improve the overall quality of the collected data. Moreover, facilitating discussions between professional researchers and citizen scientists on questions of data ownership and future data accessibility is important to establish clear agreements on how the data will be used, shared, and accessed.
Citizen scientists should also be provided with information regarding research integrity to ensure ethical conduct. This includes informing them about potential financial and non-financial '''conflicts of interest''', such as relationships with organizations sponsoring research or personal interests (Resnik, 2019). Openly discussing the expectations and motivations of citizen scientists within the research team can help foster transparency and compliance with research ethics principles.
To provide a framework for conducting citizen science projects the European Citizen Science Association (ECSA) has developed the 10 principles of citizen science. Before moving to the next step, please, read: [http://doi.org/10.17605/OSF.IO/XPR2N ECSA (European Citizen Science Association). (2015). Ten Principles of Citizen Science]
'''References'''
#ICMJE. [https://bit.ly/N7uoq3 Defining the role of authors and contributors.]
#Resnik, D.B. (2019). Citizen scientists as human subjects: Ethical issues. ''Citizen Science: Theory and Practice'', 4(1). https://doi.org/10.5334/cstp.150
#The Embassy of Good Science: “[https://embassy.science/wiki-wiki/index.php/Theme:Cbe88760-7f0e-4d6d-952b-b724bb0f375e Authorship criteria]”
Start the session by welcoming participants and by giving a short introduction to the exercise. Explain the aim of the exercise properly.
Please keep in mind that this exercise is not about personal opinions/judgements on what each participant would do in the case, or to justify or condemn what the case-owner did (or did not) do. Participants should be willing to engage in a dialogue and learn from each other. This should be stressed at the beginning of the session. Also, as a facilitator you should take into account that being a case presenter can be challenging and emotionally burdensome. It is your responsibility to protect the case presenter and call for a time-out in case the conversation becomes too heavy or uncomfortable. +
Present an example (hypothetical) research integrity case with a clearly formulated moral dilemma (please see practical tips for an example). While choosing a case, be aware of the target group. Pick a case that is recognizable for the target group - it should be part of their practice. It is important to choose a case which is short and has a clearly formulated dilemma (2 clear choices).
Display the case description clearly on a monitor during the debate/dialogue. Participants should be able to re-read the case description at any time. Make sure you give enough information about the case, otherwise participants will start to ask questions about the case itself. +
In many cases participation in research does not pose '''risks to research participants''', for example, filling in an anonymous questionnaire usually is easy, and no risks are associated with it (nevertheless, sometimes sensitive questions may pose psychological risk). In some other types of research, participation can pose physical or psychological risks. For example, participants of biomedical research who are exposed to experimental treatments might face risks to physical well-being;research in psychology may lead to emotional distress among participants;studies dealing with sensitive information may raise risks for the privacy and confidentiality of participants;some research topics may be socially sensitive and research participants might face social consequences or stigma. In citizen science, sharing data sometimes might pose a privacy risk to the citizen scientists themselves. This might be a case when, for example, management of citizen science programs requires collecting private information about volunteers.
The '''rights and interests of research participants''' are arguably the cornerstone of research ethics and in the traditional research ethics setting there has been developed a certain framework of how these rights are applied in different fields of research. Citizen science however introduces some additional challenges that need to be addressed. Many citizen science projects are conducted outside traditional academic or commercial settings. This raises the issue of ethics oversight of these studies and whether citizen scientists have the necessary research ethics training.
Research involving human research participants is guided by various laws and ethical guidelines. These legal and ethical standards embody important ethical principles and requirements (Emanuel et al 2000;Resnik 2019):
*'''Social value''' means that to justify the participation of human subjects, research should be expected to yield results that can benefit society.
*Evaluation of the '''risk/benefit ratio''' means that risks posed by participation in a research study should be minimized and justified in terms of the potential benefits to the research participants and society.
*'''Informed consent''' means that research participants should receive adequate information about the planned research and their voluntary consent should be sought and appropriately documented.
*'''Confidentiality''' is required to protect personal data and privacy of research participants.
*'''Data safety''' monitoring means that research data should be adequately protected to avoid harming, e.g., stigmatizing research participants.
*'''Fair selection of subjects''' means that the selection of research participants should be based on sound scientific and ethical criteria.
*'''Protection of vulnerable subjects''' requires to ensure additional protections for research participants who may be vulnerable to coercion, exploitation, or harm.
*'''Independent review''' is a requirement applied to some types of research, e.g. biomedical research involving human research participants should be reviewed by an independent research ethics committee according to the national legal framework.
For a research study to be ethical, researchers, including citizen scientists, must comply with all the requirements and principles mentioned above. For example, poorly designed studies will not yield valuable results and therefore, the risks that research participants have been exposed to during the study will be unjustified. One of the suggested ways to avoid these problems is to closely collaborate with professional scientists who are experts in a particular field of research (Resnik 2019).
'''References'''
#Emanuel, E. J., Wendler, D., & Grady, C. (2000). What Makes Clinical Research Ethical? ''JAMA'', 283(20), 2701–2711. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.283.20.2701
#Resnik, D. B. (2019). Citizen scientists as human subjects: Ethical issues. ''Citizen Science: Theory and Practice'', 4(1). https://doi.org/10.5334/cstp.150
One option to measure effectiveness of a learning process and outcomes is to check multiple points during the learning process and after the intervention. Effectiveness of REI training can also be deducted based on the quality of ethics sections in published articles and dissertations. The goal is to measure if the ethical competencies acquired during training (and other activities) have been retained and in use (Kirpatrick’s level 3).
This kind of data collection requires some planning from the facilitator – text collection measures should be planned (a Moodle course may be convenient as all submissions by the same person will accumulate there), group size should be considered (in case of large groups it may be too time-consuming to keep an eye on many submissions), perhaps colleagues can collaborate to collect texts (e.g. one text collected during the course and another later during another course). In case of articles published or dissertations defended by the researchers in the same institution, the quality and content of the ethics sections may shed light on the practices prevalent in that community.
Texts collected at various points can be analysed using the SOLO taxonomy, reflection levels (if relevant), content criteria (ethical principles, ethical analysis, ethical approaches). Ethics sections can be analysed based on the framework analysing ethics content (Cronqvist, 2024).
This tool is suitable for use in training for various target groups, but it may be challenging to reach the participants of prior trainings. +
Während der Übung wird euch eure Trainer:in anleiten, eine Gruppenreflexion über das Konzept des Guten zu führen. Um diese Reflexion zu durchzuführen, werdet ihr:
1. lernen, auf welche verschiedenen Arten Forschung ''gut'' sein kann,
2. in kleinen Gruppen über eure Überlegungen aus dem Selbstauskunfts-Arbeitsblatt sprechen (eine Liste von Fragen, die diese Gruppenbesprechung erleichtert, findest du unter “Praktische Tipps”),
3. darüber reflektieren, wie die unterschiedlichen Arten, auf die Forschung ''gut'' sein kann, kategorisiert werden können,
4. über die Inhalte des Europäischen Verhaltenskodex für Integrität in der Forschung reflektieren, indem ihr diskutiert, wie die unterschiedlichen Arten des Guten in der Forschung im Kodex erläutert werden.
Die Übung wird auf den Gedanken und Ideen aufbauen, die du und die anderen Teilnehmenden auf dem Selbstauskunfts-Arbeitsblatt festgehalten habt.
Eine detaillierte Beschreibung der einzelnen Schritte dieser Übung ist bei den Anweisungen für die Trainer:innen zu finden. +
Once an issue has been identified and clarified, the next step is to ask:
<br />
*"What do I think?"
When formulating an Early View, I need to:
<br />
*Know when I can and can’t rely on this Early View
*Ensure my view does not prejudice against diverging opinions. +
During the session, you are guided by a trainer who facilitates a group reflection about the concept of goodness. For this purpose, you will:
# Learn about the varieties of goodness in research,
# Reflect on your self declaration sheet in small groups (please look at practical tips for a list of questions you can use to structure your reflection),
# Reflect on how the different types of goodness may be categorized,
# Reflect on the content of the European Code of Conduct for Research Integrity (ECoC) by identifying how the types of goodness are exemplified in the code.
The session will be based on the input you and the other participants gave in the self-reflection sheet you have filled in.
For an overview of the steps in this exercise please look at the instructions for trainers. +
03 - Four Quadrant Approach: A Method for Analysing Cases in Research Ethics and Research Integrity +
#'''Relevant Facts''': What are the most relevant facts concerning the situation?
#'''Uncertainties''': Which features of the situation are uncertain, lacking in clarity, or controversial?
#'''Courses of Action''': What are the practically available options for providing a solution to the case?
#'''Contextual Features''': What legal, financial and institutional policies and regulations apply to the case?
+
Oturum esnasında, iyilik kavramı üzerine grup halinde yapacağınız yorumlamalar için bir eğitmen tarafından yönlendirileceksiniz. Bu amaçla:
#Araştırmada iyiliğin türlerini öğrenecek
#Küçük gruplar içerisinde kendi öz beyan formunuz üzerine fikir yürütecek ve yorumlamalarda bulunacak (yorumlama sürecinizi yapılandırmak için kullanabileceğiniz sorulara pratik ipuçları kısmından ulaşabilirsiniz)
#Farklı iyilik türlerinin nasıl kategorize edilebileceği üzerine fikir yürütecek ve yorumlamalarda bulunacak
#Araştırmalarda Dürüstlük Konusunda Avrupa Davranış Kodu (ECoC)’nda iyilik tipolojilerinin nasıl örneklendirildiğini belirleyerek kodun içeriği üzerine fikir yürütecek ve yorumlamalarda bulunacaksınız.
Bu oturum, siz ve diğer katılımcıların öz beyan formlarında verdiğiniz bilgiler üzerinden ilerleyecektir.
Bu alıştırmanın adımlarına ilişkin genel bilgilere eğitimi alanlar için hazırlanmış olan talimatlar kısmından ulaşabilirsiniz. +
<div>
During the session, participants analyse a case using role play. In subgroups (up to 6 participants in each group) they each impersonate a member of an expert group who has been formed by the executive board of a prestigious institution to examine a difficult case and provide advice. <div>
Every participant plays one of following roles: Healthcare professional (physician),R<span lang="EN-US">epresentative of “HealthAI”,
</span> <span lang="EN-US">Patient rights advocacy</span>,<span lang="EN-US">Medical ethicist,</span> <span lang="EN-US">Representative of human resources of the hospital</span><span lang="EN-US">,</span> <span lang="EN-US">Representative of a health insurance company</span>.
</div><div>
The experts are invited to have a dialogue and to learn more from each other’s perspectives. The aim is to formulate an advice for the executive board.
</div></div><div>
Before starting the exercise, it can be useful to emphasize that the groups are invited to engage in [[Theme:6217d06b-c907-4b09-af4e-b4c8a17b9847|dialogue]] rather than debate.
</div><div>
To encourage the dialogue a list of questions has been prepared (see step 5).
</div> +
<div>
During the session, participants analyse a case using role play. In subgroups (up to 6 participants in each group) they each impersonate a member of an expert group who has been formed by the executive board of a prestigious institution to examine a difficult case and provide advice. <div>
Every participant plays one of following roles: Healthcare professional (physician),R<span lang="EN-US">epresentative of “HealthAI”,</span> <span lang="EN-US">Patient rights advocacy</span>,<span lang="EN-US">Medical ethicist,</span> <span lang="EN-US">Representative of human resources of the hospital</span><span lang="EN-US">,</span> <span lang="EN-US">Representative of a health insurance company</span>.
</div><div>
The experts are invited to have a dialogue and to learn more from each other’s perspectives. The aim is to formulate an advice for the executive board.
</div></div><div>
Before starting the exercise, it can be useful to emphasize that the groups are invited to engage in [https://embassy.science/wiki-wiki/index.php/Theme:6217d06b-c907-4b09-af4e-b4c8a17b9847 dialogue] rather than debate.
</div><div>
To encourage the dialogue a list of questions has been prepared (see step 5).
</div> +
[[File:Bio2Image2.png|center|frameless|600x600px]]
'''Issues relating to consent to donate biomaterials and data to biobanks'''
Clear procedures enabling biobank donors to give their informed consent to donate biological materials and health-related information are vital to ensure that they fully understand how their samples and data will be used. Donors should be made aware that biobanks do not routinely provide individual diagnoses, so that they are not falsely reassured when they do not receive results from the analysis of their biospecimens and data. RECs must assess the clarity and comprehensibility of consent forms, addressing any potential risks and benefits.
[https://www.wma.net/policies-post/wma-declaration-of-taipei-on-ethical-considerations-regarding-health-databases-and-biobanks/ The WMA’s Declaration of Taipei] sets out the following criteria for informed consent for multiple and indefinite uses of biomaterials stored in a biobank, stating that consent is only valid if the concerned individuals have been adequately informed about: the purpose of the health database or biobank,the risks and burdens associated with collection, storage and use of data and material,the nature of the data or material to be collected,the procedures for return of results including incidental findings,the rules of access to the health database or biobank,how privacy is protected,the governance arrangements of the biobank,That if the data and material are made non-identifiable the individual may not be able to know what is done with their data/material and that they will not have the option of withdrawing their consent,Their fundamental rights and safeguards established in the Declaration,and when applicable, commercial use and benefit sharing, intellectual property issues and the transfer of data or material to other institutions or third countries. +
'''''Target audience''': Bachelor and master students, doctoral students and early-career researchers.''
The RID-SSISS training aims to help beginner and more experienced researchers develop their research ethics competencies in HE institutions. A CSCL (Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning) ethics resource was designed that utilised cases, collaboration, and structural scaffolding. This resource provides learners with opportunities to gradually develop research ethics competencies, guiding them through three levels. The [https://en.researchethicscompass.net/ Foundation level] focuses on developing (but also helping learners to recall) central concepts of RE/RI, primarily suitable for bachelor’s, master’s, and doctoral students but also usable with academic staff and researchers. During the Foundation level training, participants learn to guide their own REI practices and behaviour. The RID-SSISS training also provides resources for ECRs and junior academics. This material aims to develop RE/RI competencies by supporting ethical analysis competencies as a step towards increased agency in research ethics and integrity. Ethical analysis involves the following steps: identify ethical issues by determining which ethical principle might be at stake,and utilise the ethical analysis steps to provide solutions to ethical dilemmas. In addition to the foundational level, the project developed training materials for ECRs and junior academics ([https://www.researchethicstraining.net/ advanced level]). +
<span lang="EN-US">The course described in the podcast titled “''Transformative Research for Sustainability Challenges”,'' was born out of interviews with 71 researchers about how their work connects to societal transformation.</span>
<span lang="EN-US">What emerged was a striking tension: while many researchers had high aspirations for the societal impact of their work, their day-to-day practice often fell short of those ideals.</span>
The course supports PhD candidates to question assumptions, build solidarity, and explore new ways of doing research.
As Josephine puts it: “We’re so trained into certain ways of doing research and thinking that that’s legitimate.” The course encourages participants to reflect not just on what they study, but on why they do it—prompting questions like:
''What are your values? What do you think is important? How do you position yourself in the world and in your research field?''
<span lang="EN-US">The course creates space for reflection, discomfort, and reimagining. PhD candidates are encouraged to break out of their silos, engage in creative methods, and explore their emotions. Through reflection, researchers are</span> encouraged to reclaim ownership over their own narratives of change. At the heart of the course is the PEPE framework: Pluralizing, Empowering, Politicizing, and Embedding.
<span lang="EN-US">Watch this video to learn more about transformative research and the PEPE framework.</span>
You can expand the window by clicking on the button on the bottom-right corner. +
Plastic is classified into seven main categories, each defined primarily by its distinct chemical properties.
'''To learn more about these categories, match the types of plastic with their descriptions'''. Click on the type of plastic to select it, then click on the blank space to drop it. +
<span lang="EN-US">A PhD candidate, would like to bring new practices (specifically focused on reproducibility) to their research team but they face a lot pushback from their colleagues especially more senior ones. This scenario is focused on how to approach colleagues who are resilient to change.</span> +
