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
The BEYOND Trainer Guide introduces effectiveness measures to help trainers assess whether the training provided is impactful and beneficial. The versatile evaluation tools are designed to be applicable to various target groups and compatible with a variety of training activities and resources. Such evaluation measures are often absent in training resources, yet they provide trainers with a valuable mechanism to ensure how effectively training supports learning. Understanding how training facilitates learning and development is necessary in the process of fostering and strengthening integrity in the research community. Provision of training is a necessary component of the overall building of a culture of integrity. Yet training, the effects of which are not monitored, falls short of its potential to mirror the change it contributes to the research community. Therefore, in the orchard approach, learning and development provides important information about the readiness of the community to build a culture of integrity. Evaluating training effectiveness to ensure training programmes achieve their intended outcomes is crucial because it connects training investments to tangible results, ensuring that the effort put into developing and delivering training is worthwhile, and for pinpointing further development needs.
Effectiveness of research ethics and integrity (REI) training can be viewed through an established effectiveness framework, which identifies four outcome domains, namely:
1. reactions (participants’ self-assessment),
2. learning (knowledge, content),
3. behaviour (acting in the research community),
4. results (e.g. institutional outcomes).'"`UNIQ--ref-0000001C-QINU`"''"`UNIQ--ref-0000001D-QINU`"'
Evaluating development of ethical competencies should be determined through done as a system to get a more holistic picture. To do this, one can combine different forms of measurement, such as self-assessment and facilitator feedback as well as attitudes and behaviour treats (in tasks that display REI competencies in the research community, like research proposals, ethics sections of theses, articles, etc.). Furthermore, measurement could take place at different times to gain insight into the learning process, learning outcome, and long-term implications, namely:
• during the training (learning process),
• right after the training – students' and facilitator’s self-reports,
• later as part of another event or course where the display of REI competencies is expected (like RE section in theses and articles, research proposal, evaluation of RE situation in the department, etc.)
It is also important to consider what to do with the results, that is what kind of changes are necessary to improve teaching and/or the environment to build a culture of integrity.
Different tools can be used to collect various learning outputs and analysis instruments can be implemented to analyse the information that has been collected (Table 2). By analysis instruments we mean the taxonomies of learning and application of theoretical models, such as levels of reflection, ethical principles and so on (if data available are mainly in a qualitative format) or statistics and learning analytics (if the data are mainly in quantitative format).
{| class="wikitable"
|+Table 1: Tools and analytical instruments for collecting learning outputs in research ethics and integrity training
!Tool for collecting learning outputs
!Details
!Analysis instrument
|-
|'''''ProLearning'' app'''
|''ProLearning'': https://www.epfl.ch/labs/chili/dualt/current-projects/realto/
|learning analytics
|-
|'''Engagement app'''
|App under development, [https://forms.office.com/Pages/ShareFormPage.aspx?id=WXWumNwQiEKOLkWT5i_j7twYn7PlpvpDlgGDpz2LgIdUMk5XRTVYQTVKRFRDWDlHOUdGU1FHTUlFVi4u&sharetoken=03epmvYBRpmfXvpRg9os form] (for copying and editing)
|SOLO taxonomy, reflection levels, content criteria
|-
|'''Self-Reflection Form/Compass'''
|App under development, [https://forms.office.com/Pages/ShareFormPage.aspx?id=WXWumNwQiEKOLkWT5i_j7twYn7PlpvpDlgGDpz2LgIdUMk5XRTVYQTVKRFRDWDlHOUdGU1FHTUlFVi4u&sharetoken=03epmvYBRpmfXvpRg9os form] (for copying and editing)
|SOLO taxonomy, reflection levels, content criteria
|-
|'''Pre-post texts'''
|Collect a short text (e.g. a response to a case or short essay) before the training and after the training
|SOLO taxonomy, reflection levels, content criteria
|-
|'''Learning diaries'''
|Ask learners keep a diary over a certain period, for each submission provide some guiding questions or topics
|SOLO taxonomy, reflection levels, content criteria
|-
|'''Group reports'''
|Ask groups working together to provide a (short) group report (or provide a template with points to work on)
|SOLO taxonomy, content criteria
|-
|'''Group discussions'''
|Monitor the group discussions to evaluate the level of understanding and content discussed (scaffold as appropriate)
|SOLO taxonomy, content criteria
|-
|'''Group dynamics'''
|''CoTrack'' application: https://www.cotrack.website/en/
|learning analytics
|-
|'''Online learning platform'''
|Make use of accumulated authentic learning outputs in the learning platform.
|statistics, SOLO taxonomy, reflection scale, content criteria
|-
|'''Domain-specific/ domain-transcending measure'''
|Use either of the two forms measuring recognition and exemplifying of ethical issues.
|statistics, SOLO taxonomy, content criteria
|-
|'''Retention check'''
|After a certain time (few weeks/months) ask learners to provide a short text (analysis of a case, short essay on an ethics topic/question). Compare the levels of understanding to another piece collected during or right after the training.
|SOLO taxonomy, content criteria
|-
|'''Vignettes'''
|This can be used for measuring ethical sensitivity in (non-)training context
|statistics, EASM (based on the SOLO taxonomy), content criteria
|-
|'''National surveys'''
|Can be used for analysing training-related content in reports and monitoring the display of REI leadership.
|statistics, REI leadership framework
|}
Evaluation tools can give further insight into the effectiveness of the training and materials proposed. This will help trainers to adjust training content and delivery methods to improve trainees’ learning experience and outcomes. We propose mixing various tools for collecting learning outputs and adjusting them to the intended target groups (throughout the training guide suggestions are provided on which tools would be most suitable for various target groups).
'"`UNIQ--references-0000001E-QINU`"'
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). +
The aim of training students in research ethics and integrity is to promote an understanding of ethical principles and practices in research. This includes exploring aspects of honesty, transparency, objectivity and accountability. Although at these levels, students are marginally involved in doing research, it is important to equip them with the knowledge and skills to conduct research responsibly, avoid misconduct such as plagiarism or falsification, comply with relevant regulations and guidelines, and uphold the integrity of the scientific community.
Resources for Bachelor and master students include (please see the last section of the BEYOND trainer guide for an overview of materials divided by topics and target groups):
*The [https://printeger.eu/upright/toc/obas-introduction/ introductory module][https://printeger.eu/upright/toc/ , and modules focusing specific RE and/or RI issues of the Upright training] developed by the [https://printeger.eu/ PRINTEGER] project
*The e-learning modules on [[Instruction:6ceba4e4-fb32-4953-9138-5436807fcde6|research integrity]], [[Instruction:86f47366-a189-4395-9301-36ddb6d1fc68|virtue ethics relevant for RI]], the series of introductory [[Instruction:17705907-d9b2-4f33-bc4f-088d84b4d971|videos]] and The [[Instruction:A0dd2e82-52e7-4030-a396-54525630e75c|Modified Rotterdam Dilemma Game]] developed by the [[Guide:Bbe860a3-56a9-45f7-b787-031689729e52|VIRT2UE]] project.
*The introductory videos and [https://www.path2integrity.eu/ri-materials information on the teaching methodology discussing research integrity and its significance], the series of learning cards ([https://www.path2integrity.eu/ri-materials Path2Integrity learning cards S]) focusing on bachelor students, alongside a dedicated handbook ([https://www.path2integrity.eu/ri-materials S-Series handbook]), and a series of learning cards ([https://www.path2integrity.eu/ri-materials Path2Integrity learning cards M]) focusing on bachelor students, alongside a dedicated handbook [https://www.path2integrity.eu/ri-materials (M-Series handbook]) developed byt the Path2Integrity project.
*The [https://en.researchethicscompass.net/ RID-SSISS training Foundation level] focuses on developing (but also helping learners to recall) central concepts of RE/RI
*The [https://www.academicintegrity.eu/wp/bridge/ BRIDGE project] [https://www.academicintegrity.eu/wp/bridge-modules-2/ training modules] and [https://www.academicintegrity.eu/wp/vignettes_interactive/ vignettes]
*The INTEGRITY project training tool for [https://h2020integrity.eu/toolkit/tools-undergraduate-students/integrity-games/ undergraduate].
*The [https://www.academicintegrity.eu/wp/bridge/ BRIDGE project] online games, board games, role-play games and scenarios game can be found [https://www.academicintegrity.eu/wp/bridge-games/ here].
*The [https://rosie-project.eu/ ROSiE] Training Materials for Responsible Open Science and the learning resources produced by the ROSIE project available on [https://rosie-project.eu/rosie-knowledge-hub/ ROSiE Knowledge Hub].
Trainers can select one or more of the following tools for evaluating training effectiveness for bachelor and master students.
{| class="wikitable"
|+Table 5: Tools for evaluating training effectiveness for bachelor and master students
!'''Tool for collecting learning outputs'''
!'''Details'''
!'''Analysis instrument **'''
|-
|'''ProLearning app'''
|''ProLearning'': [http://www.prolearning.realto.ch/ www.prolearning.realto.ch]https://www.epfl.ch/labs/chili/dualt/current-projects/realto/
<span lang="EN-GB"></span>
|learning analytics
|-
|'''Engagement app'''
|''ForgetNot'' (by EduLog): https://web.htk.tlu.ee/forgetnot
|learning analytics
|-
|'''Self-Reflection Form/Compass'''
|App under development, [https://docs.google.com/forms/d/1f4xNbQka73bfeDtwKCXTC5W5CoyhfVrtr4dwMXRNmWk/copy form] * (for copying and editing)
|SOLO taxonomy, reflection levels, content criteria
|-
|'''Pre-post texts'''
|Collect a short text (e.g. a response to a case or short essay) before the training and after the training
|SOLO taxonomy, reflection levels, content criteria
|-
|'''Learning diaries'''
|Ask learners keep a diary over a certain period, for each submission provide some guiding questions or topics
|SOLO taxonomy, reflection levels, content criteria
|-
|'''Group reports'''
|Ask groups working together to provide a (short) group report (or provide a template with points to work on)
|SOLO taxonomy, content criteria
|-
|'''Group discussions'''
|Monitor the group discussions to evaluate the level of understanding and content discussed (scaffold as appropriate)
|SOLO taxonomy, content criteria
|-
|'''Group dynamics'''
|''CoTrack'' application: https://www.cotrack.website/en/
|learning analytics
|-
|'''Online learning platform'''
|Make use of accumulated authentic learning outputs in the learning platform
|statistics, SOLO taxonomy, reflection scale, content criteria
|-
|'''Domain-specific/ domain-transcending measure'''
|Use either of the two forms (WP4.2) measuring recognition and exemplifying of ethical issues
|statistics, SOLO taxonomy, content criteria
|-
|'''Retention check'''
|After a certain time (few weeks/months) ask learners to provide a short text (analysis of a case, short essay on an ethics topic/question). Compare the levels of understanding to another piece collected during or right after the training.[https://amsterdamumc-my.sharepoint.com/personal/g_inguaggiato_amsterdamumc_nl/Documents/!Oude%20N%20schijf/Documenten/Beyond/Training%20guide%20V7_GI.docx#_msocom_1 '"`UNIQ--nowiki-00000010-QINU`"'] [https://amsterdamumc-my.sharepoint.com/personal/g_inguaggiato_amsterdamumc_nl/Documents/!Oude%20N%20schijf/Documenten/Beyond/Training%20guide%20V7_GI.docx#_msocom_2 '"`UNIQ--nowiki-00000011-QINU`"']
|SOLO taxonomy, content criteria
|}
For instance, to measure participants’ reactions during or right after the training, ProLearning app or Self-Reflection Form can be used. In addition, if learners worked in groups so their group discussions can be monitored, and if they provided a group-report, the learning process can be evaluated based on the SOLO taxonomy to measure the levels of understanding. Moreover, if possible, a couple of months after the training an additional case study could be given to the same learners, and the content of their analysis could again be evaluated with the SOLO taxonomy. With this target group the domain-specific and domain-transcending measure could be implemented. This kind of effectiveness measure would give a possibility to triangulate the measurement in different time points.
An example for implementation can be found here: [https://helsinkifi.sharepoint.com/:p:/r/sites/BEYONDHelsinkiteam/Shared%20Documents/ENERI%20CR%20material%20example%20for%20ba_ma%20students.pptx?d=wdfb62d452de140f6a5a8df15611b48e2&csf=1&web=1&e=z2OYsx ENERI CR material example for ba_ma students.pptx]
'"`UNIQ--nowiki-00000012-QINU`"' The Self-Reflection Form link enables the facilitator to make a copy of the form, which they can then edit and the data will accumulate on the facilitator’s cloud service (Google or Microsoft).
'"`UNIQ--nowiki-00000013-QINU`"' Analysis instruments are described in WP4.2, later available at the Embassy’s website.
The aim of training students in research ethics and integrity is to promote an understanding of ethical principles and practices in research. This includes exploring aspects of honesty, transparency, objectivity and accountability. Although at these levels, students are marginally involved in doing research, it is important to equip them with the knowledge and skills to conduct research responsibly, avoid misconduct such as plagiarism or falsification, comply with relevant regulations and guidelines, and uphold the integrity of the scientific community.
Resources for Bachelor and master students include (please see the last section of the BEYOND trainer guide for an overview of materials divided by topics and target groups):
*The [https://printeger.eu/upright/toc/obas-introduction/ introductory module][https://printeger.eu/upright/toc/ , and modules focusing specific RE and/or RI issues of the Upright training] developed by the [https://printeger.eu/ PRINTEGER] project
*The e-learning modules on [[Instruction:6ceba4e4-fb32-4953-9138-5436807fcde6|research integrity]], [[Instruction:86f47366-a189-4395-9301-36ddb6d1fc68|virtue ethics relevant for RI]], the series of introductory [[Instruction:17705907-d9b2-4f33-bc4f-088d84b4d971|videos]] and The [[Instruction:A0dd2e82-52e7-4030-a396-54525630e75c|Modified Rotterdam Dilemma Game]] developed by the [[Guide:Bbe860a3-56a9-45f7-b787-031689729e52|VIRT2UE]] project.
*The introductory videos and [https://www.path2integrity.eu/ri-materials information on the teaching methodology discussing research integrity and its significance], the series of learning cards ([https://www.path2integrity.eu/ri-materials Path2Integrity learning cards S]) focusing on bachelor students, alongside a dedicated handbook ([https://www.path2integrity.eu/ri-materials S-Series handbook]), and a series of learning cards ([https://www.path2integrity.eu/ri-materials Path2Integrity learning cards M]) focusing on bachelor students, alongside a dedicated handbook [https://www.path2integrity.eu/ri-materials (M-Series handbook]) developed byt the Path2Integrity project.
*The [https://en.researchethicscompass.net/ RID-SSISS training Foundation level] focuses on developing (but also helping learners to recall) central concepts of RE/RI
*The [https://www.academicintegrity.eu/wp/bridge/ BRIDGE project] [https://www.academicintegrity.eu/wp/bridge-modules-2/ training modules] and [https://www.academicintegrity.eu/wp/vignettes_interactive/ vignettes]
*The INTEGRITY project training tool for [https://h2020integrity.eu/toolkit/tools-undergraduate-students/integrity-games/ undergraduate].
*The [https://www.academicintegrity.eu/wp/bridge/ BRIDGE project] online games, board games, role-play games and scenarios game can be found [https://www.academicintegrity.eu/wp/bridge-games/ here].
*The [https://rosie-project.eu/ ROSiE] Training Materials for Responsible Open Science and the learning resources produced by the ROSIE project available on [https://rosie-project.eu/rosie-knowledge-hub/ ROSiE Knowledge Hub].
Trainers can select one or more of the following tools for evaluating training effectiveness for bachelor and master students.
{| class="wikitable"
|+Table 5: Tools for evaluating training effectiveness for bachelor and master students
!'''Tool for collecting learning outputs'''
!'''Details'''
!'''Analysis instrument **'''
|-
|'''ProLearning app'''
|''ProLearning'': https://www.epfl.ch/labs/chili/dualt/current-projects/realto/
<span lang="EN-GB"></span>
|learning analytics
|-
|'''Engagement app'''
|''ForgetNot'' (by EduLog): https://web.htk.tlu.ee/forgetnot
|learning analytics
|-
|'''Self-Reflection Form/Compass'''
|App under development, [https://docs.google.com/forms/d/1f4xNbQka73bfeDtwKCXTC5W5CoyhfVrtr4dwMXRNmWk/copy form] * (for copying and editing)
|SOLO taxonomy, reflection levels, content criteria
|-
|'''Pre-post texts'''
|Collect a short text (e.g. a response to a case or short essay) before the training and after the training
|SOLO taxonomy, reflection levels, content criteria
|-
|'''Learning diaries'''
|Ask learners keep a diary over a certain period, for each submission provide some guiding questions or topics
|SOLO taxonomy, reflection levels, content criteria
|-
|'''Group reports'''
|Ask groups working together to provide a (short) group report (or provide a template with points to work on)
|SOLO taxonomy, content criteria
|-
|'''Group discussions'''
|Monitor the group discussions to evaluate the level of understanding and content discussed (scaffold as appropriate)
|SOLO taxonomy, content criteria
|-
|'''Group dynamics'''
|''CoTrack'' application: https://www.cotrack.website/en/
|learning analytics
|-
|'''Online learning platform'''
|Make use of accumulated authentic learning outputs in the learning platform
|statistics, SOLO taxonomy, reflection scale, content criteria
|-
|'''Domain-specific/ domain-transcending measure'''
|Use either of the two forms (WP4.2) measuring recognition and exemplifying of ethical issues
|statistics, SOLO taxonomy, content criteria
|-
|'''Retention check'''
|After a certain time (few weeks/months) ask learners to provide a short text (analysis of a case, short essay on an ethics topic/question). Compare the levels of understanding to another piece collected during or right after the training.[https://amsterdamumc-my.sharepoint.com/personal/g_inguaggiato_amsterdamumc_nl/Documents/!Oude%20N%20schijf/Documenten/Beyond/Training%20guide%20V7_GI.docx#_msocom_1 '"`UNIQ--nowiki-00000018-QINU`"'] [https://amsterdamumc-my.sharepoint.com/personal/g_inguaggiato_amsterdamumc_nl/Documents/!Oude%20N%20schijf/Documenten/Beyond/Training%20guide%20V7_GI.docx#_msocom_2 '"`UNIQ--nowiki-00000019-QINU`"']
|SOLO taxonomy, content criteria
|}
For instance, to measure participants’ reactions during or right after the training, ProLearning app or Self-Reflection Form can be used. In addition, if learners worked in groups so their group discussions can be monitored, and if they provided a group-report, the learning process can be evaluated based on the SOLO taxonomy to measure the levels of understanding. Moreover, if possible, a couple of months after the training an additional case study could be given to the same learners, and the content of their analysis could again be evaluated with the SOLO taxonomy. With this target group the domain-specific and domain-transcending measure could be implemented. This kind of effectiveness measure would give a possibility to triangulate the measurement in different time points.
An example for implementation can be found here: [https://helsinkifi.sharepoint.com/:p:/r/sites/BEYONDHelsinkiteam/Shared%20Documents/ENERI%20CR%20material%20example%20for%20ba_ma%20students.pptx?d=wdfb62d452de140f6a5a8df15611b48e2&csf=1&web=1&e=z2OYsx ENERI CR material example for ba_ma students.pptx]
'"`UNIQ--nowiki-0000001A-QINU`"' The Self-Reflection Form link enables the facilitator to make a copy of the form, which they can then edit and the data will accumulate on the facilitator’s cloud service (Google or Microsoft).
'"`UNIQ--nowiki-0000001B-QINU`"' Analysis instruments are described in WP4.2, later available at the Embassy’s website.
<blockquote>"The integrative review presented here examines how reproducibility and replicability are conceptualized and discussed in relation to qualitative research, and which factors and practices enable or undermine them. Both peer-reviewed and grey English-language literature that address reproducibility and/or Open Science in relation to qualitative research were eligible for inclusion. Initial searches were conducted in Scopus, Web of Science, Dimensions, PubMed, APA PsychInfo, and JSTOR, and followed with snowball sampling from included literature. Studies were screened and both quantitative and qualitative data were extracted using the SyRF online platform, with 248 papers included. We found that conceptualizations that stem from quantitative standpoints are overwhelmingly framed as inappropriate practices and epistemic criteria for (most) qualitative research. When conceptualized in alternative ways that are adapted to the epistemic conditions, aims and practices of qualitative research, they can be both applicable and appropriate. Key barriers include the ontological and epistemological misalignment of reproducibility, replicability and Open Science and qualitative research, and ethical and practical concerns surrounding data sharing and reuse. Key enablers include practices that respond to ethical and practical concerns around data sharing and reuse (anonymization, ethical consent practices, context documentation, and ethical access management), adapting expectations and norms of openness, and established qualitative practices including documentation, reflexivity, and considering positionality. We conclude that reproducibility, replicability and Open Science practices must be adapted to the aims and epistemic conditions of qualitative research for them to be applicable and feasible, and that they will not always be both for all qualitative research."
Find the full paper here: [https://osf.io/preprints/metaarxiv/n5zkw_v1 MetaArXiv Preprints - Reproducibility and replicability of qualitative research: an integrative review of concepts, barriers and enablers].</blockquote>
Reference:
Cole, N. L., Ulpts, S., Bochynska, A., Kormann, E., Good, M., Leitner, B., & Ross-Hellauer, T. (2024, December 23). Reproducibility and replicability of qualitative research: an integrative review of concepts, barriers and enablers. '"`UNIQ--nowiki-00000001-QINU`"'
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. +
Examine the Rotterdam Dilemma Game cases and familiarize yourself with the classification criteria.'"`UNIQ--ref-00000002-QINU`"' Select the dilemmas you want to discuss. If using the Dilemma Game [https://www.eur.nl/en/about-eur/policy-and-regulations/integrity/research-integrity/dilemma-game app], start a new 'room' in group mode, creating a name for the room and specifying that it will be used for a 'lecture'. You will then be able to select the cases.
Please note that cases are grouped per topic. If the training is specifically aimed at reflecting on issues such as research processes, roles of different parties or publication ethics, the trainer might pick cases which correspond to those topics. Besides, while selecting the cases, take the attributes of the trainee group into account as well. For example, if you are going to play the game with a group of PhD students, then you should pick the cases suitable for them.
'"`UNIQ--references-00000003-QINU`"' +
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
Collaborative learning is a pedagogical approach that emphasises active participation, shared responsibility and mutual support among students. Collaborative learning is based on the idea that the production and internalisation of the knowledge is established by collaboration. Moreover, learning is usually best supported through social negotiation rarther than competition. Furthermore, team learning has been demonstrated to significantly enhance ethical practice. Research indicates that students primarily interpret their socialisation into academia and their field by the ethical standards and practices that they observe.'"`UNIQ--ref-0000005C-QINU`"''"`UNIQ--ref-0000005D-QINU`"''"`UNIQ--ref-0000005E-QINU`"'
When teaching research ethics and integrity, collaborative learning can be particularly effective as it can promote deeper understanding, critical thinking and ethical reasoning skills. In collaborative learning environments, students are actively engaged in the learning process rather than passively receiving information. They participate in discussions, debates and hands-on activities that require them to grapple with ethical dilemmas, analyse complex issues and apply ethical principles to real-world scenarios. This active engagement promotes deeper learning and retention of ethical concepts and principles. Collaborative learning encourages students to critically evaluate information, perspectives and arguments related to research ethics and integrity. Through discussions with peers, analysing case studies and reflecting on their own ethical beliefs and values, learners develop the ability to identify ethical issues, consider alternative viewpoints and make informed decisions.'"`UNIQ--ref-0000005F-QINU`"''"`UNIQ--ref-00000060-QINU`"''"`UNIQ--ref-00000061-QINU`"'
Collaborative learning environments provide opportunities for learners to challenge assumptions, explore ethical complexity and develop reasoned arguments based on evidence and ethical principles. Peer interaction is a central component of collaborative learning that allows learners to learn from each other's experiences, perspectives, and insights. By participating in discussions, debates, and collaborative projects with their peers, learners learn about various viewpoints, cultural perspectives, and disciplinary approaches to research ethics and integrity. Peer interaction also fosters collaboration, communication skills and teamwork, which are essential for addressing ethical challenges in research environments where collaboration and interdisciplinary cooperation are increasingly common.'"`UNIQ--ref-00000062-QINU`"''"`UNIQ--ref-00000063-QINU`"''"`UNIQ--ref-00000064-QINU`"'
During collaborating trainings, a variety of teaching methods can be used. Prior research has addressed collaborative learning with the use of case-based approaches, storytelling, flipped classroom, and role play and games (e.g., [https://www.erim.eur.nl/research-integrity/training-and-education/dilemma-game/ Rotterdam dilemma game]) .'"`UNIQ--ref-00000065-QINU`"''"`UNIQ--ref-00000066-QINU`"''"`UNIQ--ref-00000067-QINU`"''"`UNIQ--ref-00000068-QINU`"'
Collaborative approaches are utilised in [[Initiative:0582c7af-35eb-4def-b74e-c884f29965da|Path2Integrity]], [[Initiative:F9656f91-a514-44ff-9264-d6b3414fdddc|INTEGRITY]] and [[Initiative:8eed30fd-c2ed-44d1-9752-753092bd350e|VIRT2UE]].
'"`UNIQ--references-00000069-QINU`"'
Collaborative learning is a pedagogical approach that emphasises active participation, shared responsibility and mutual support among students. Collaborative learning is based on the idea that the production and internalisation of the knowledge is established by collaboration. Moreover, learning is usually best supported through social negotiation rarther than competition. Furthermore, team learning has been demonstrated to significantly enhance ethical practice. Research indicates that students primarily interpret their socialisation into academia and their field by the ethical standards and practices that they observe.'"`UNIQ--ref-0000008E-QINU`"''"`UNIQ--ref-0000008F-QINU`"''"`UNIQ--ref-00000090-QINU`"'
When teaching research ethics and integrity, collaborative learning can be particularly effective as it can promote deeper understanding, critical thinking and ethical reasoning skills. In collaborative learning environments, students are actively engaged in the learning process rather than passively receiving information. They participate in discussions, debates and hands-on activities that require them to grapple with ethical dilemmas, analyse complex issues and apply ethical principles to real-world scenarios. This active engagement promotes deeper learning and retention of ethical concepts and principles. Collaborative learning encourages students to critically evaluate information, perspectives and arguments related to research ethics and integrity. Through discussions with peers, analysing case studies and reflecting on their own ethical beliefs and values, learners develop the ability to identify ethical issues, consider alternative viewpoints and make informed decisions.'"`UNIQ--ref-00000091-QINU`"''"`UNIQ--ref-00000092-QINU`"''"`UNIQ--ref-00000093-QINU`"'
Collaborative learning environments provide opportunities for learners to challenge assumptions, explore ethical complexity and develop reasoned arguments based on evidence and ethical principles. Peer interaction is a central component of collaborative learning that allows learners to learn from each other's experiences, perspectives, and insights. By participating in discussions, debates, and collaborative projects with their peers, learners learn about various viewpoints, cultural perspectives, and disciplinary approaches to research ethics and integrity. Peer interaction also fosters collaboration, communication skills and teamwork, which are essential for addressing ethical challenges in research environments where collaboration and interdisciplinary cooperation are increasingly common.'"`UNIQ--ref-00000094-QINU`"''"`UNIQ--ref-00000095-QINU`"''"`UNIQ--ref-00000096-QINU`"'
During collaborating trainings, a variety of teaching methods can be used. Prior research has addressed collaborative learning with the use of case-based approaches, storytelling, flipped classroom, and role play and games (e.g., [https://www.erim.eur.nl/research-integrity/training-and-education/dilemma-game/ Rotterdam dilemma game]) .'"`UNIQ--ref-00000097-QINU`"''"`UNIQ--ref-00000098-QINU`"''"`UNIQ--ref-00000099-QINU`"''"`UNIQ--ref-0000009A-QINU`"'
Collaborative approaches are utilised in [[Initiative:0582c7af-35eb-4def-b74e-c884f29965da|Path2Integrity]], [[Initiative:F9656f91-a514-44ff-9264-d6b3414fdddc|INTEGRITY]] and [[Initiative:8eed30fd-c2ed-44d1-9752-753092bd350e|VIRT2UE]].
'"`UNIQ--references-0000009B-QINU`"'
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> +
