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
7
Lass nun die beiden Subgruppen wieder in kommunikative Interaktion miteinander treten, nun jedoch mit einer „dialogischen Haltung“.
Gleiches oder anderes Fallbeispiel?
* Es ist von Vorteil, wenn ihr das gleiche Fallbeispiel und dieselben Gruppen wie in Schritt 3) verwendet. An diesem Punkt der Übung kann es für die Teilnehmer:innen herausfordernd sein, ihre eigene Grundhaltung aktiv zu verändern (von Debatte zu Dialog). Zu diesem Zweck könnte es sinnvoll sein, ein neues Fallbeispiel einzuführen und neue Gruppen einzuteilen, die die unterschiedlichen Positionen des Dilemmas vertreten – den Teilnehmer:innen wird es leichter fallen, eine andere Grundhaltung einzunehmen.
Cave:
* Die Erfahrung mit dieser Übung hat gezeigt, dass die Teilnehmer:innen erst einmal wieder zu debattieren beginnen. Sei als Moderator:in des Dialogs aufmerksam, wenn Merkmale einer Debatte zu erkennen sind (z.B. wenn sich die Teilnehmer:innen gegenseitig unterbrechen, sich nicht zuhören, mit vorschnellen Urteilen oder wertenden Gesten kommunizieren, oder in den Selbstverteidigungsmodus verfallen, statt klärende Fragen zu stellen). Falls das passiert, beende das Gespräch und hilf den Teilnehmer:innen dabei, darüber zu reflektieren, was gerade passiert ist. Dabei können folgende Fragen nützlich sein:
o Was passiert gerade?
o Was nimmst du gerade wahr?
o Kann jemand erklären oder beschreiben, was gerade passiert ist?
o (Nach der Beschreibung, was gerade passiert ist:) Was könntet ihr nun stattdessen tun? (Dabei auf die Merkmale eines Dialogs verweisen.)
Versuche in diesem Moment, möglichst konkrete Aussagen herauszuarbeiten, die die Haltung in der eben erlebten Interaktion beschreiben (z.B. wir haben versucht, uns gegenseitig zu überzeugen, wir haben uns unterbrochen, …). Wenn ihr das herausgearbeitet habt, gib den Teilnehmer:innen Tipps, wie sie in der kommenden Interaktion einen Dialog aufgreifen können, z.B.:
o Was würde dir helfen, die andere Position besser zu verstehen?
o Welche Fragen könntest du stellen?
o Was kannst du tun, um die andere Gruppe dazu zu bringen, euch Fragen zu stellen?
o Was können wir verändern, um den Dialog zu stärken?
Bevor ihr in der Übung fortschreitet, erläutere den Teilnehmenden die Konzepte der Werte / Tugenden und der Normen anhand einer kurzen Definition (siehe „Werte und Tugenden“ und „Tugenden in der Research Integrity“). Falls die Teilnehmenden Fragen haben oder Zweifel besteht, ob inhaltlich alles verstanden wurde, dann ist jetzt der Zeitpunkt, um darüber zu sprechen. +
Formuliere gemeinsam mit allen Teilnehmenden einige übergreifende Erkenntnisse für die Gruppe. Achte besonders auf die Identifizierung und Begründung der mittleren Position (d.h. des tugendhaften Verhaltens).
Frage die Teilnehmenden, wie sich die aus dieser Übung gezogenen Erkenntnisse auf den Europäischen Verhaltenskodex für die Integrität der Forschung beziehen und auf welche Weise diese Übung ihnen bei der Förderung der im Europäischen Verhaltenskodex für die Integrität der Forschung genannten Prinzipien, Werte und Tugenden helfen könnte;
Frage die Teilnehmenden, ob und wie diese Übung und die Idee, eine mittlere Position zu finden, ihnen helfen könnte, wenn sie in ihrer Arbeit als Wissenschaftler:in mit einer moralischen Frage bezüglich der Research Integrity konfrontiert werden.
Wiederhole kurz die Ziele dieser Übung und frage die Teilnehmenden, inwieweit die Ziele für jede:n erfüllt werden konnten.
Notiere abschließend auf einem Flipchart die wichtigsten Erkenntnisse und einige Überlegungen dazu, wie diese Übung den Teilnehmenden helfen könnte, wenn sie mit einem moralischen Problem bezüglich der Integrität der Forschung konfrontiert werden. +
Before moving forward provide participants with a short definition of virtues and norms (please see [https://embassy.science/wiki/Theme:B4f7b2e3-af61-4466-94dc-2504affab5a8 Values and norms] and [https://embassy.science/wiki/Theme:520b3bc7-a6ab-4617-95f2-89c9dee31c53 Virtues in research integrity]) If people have question or doubts you can address them at this stage. +
Watch the video below about how the TRUST code addresses these issues to make global research partnerships more equitable. +
EnTIRE is the project behind [[Main Page|The Embassy of Good Science]], a Wiki based community driven platform on research ethics and integrity which provides resources such as guidelines, cases and training material for and by researchers and research stakeholders who want to support good science. +
The teacher encourages participants to consider the content of the modules they had to study and asks them to reflect on how it relates to the case they have just explored.
One of the questions [https://classroom.eneri.eu/node/285 from the irecs modules] can be used: "Reflect on the importance of finding a balance between AI technologies and the human touch in healthcare. How can technology enhance, rather than replace, the human connection between patients and healthcare providers?"
Key concepts about this topic are: Privacy, Accuracy, Ownership and control, Data sharing and interoperability. For more information see [https://classroom.eneri.eu/node/238 AI In Healthcare: Ethics Issues]. +
Split up the group (if more than 10 people attend) in smaller groups. For this session you can pick among the following activities. Each of these activities have been presented in a separate module and applied to a specific topic. You can use these instructions as a guide and adapt the format to your training topic.
<span lang="EN-US">· Case study</span>
<span lang="EN-US">· Mind mapping</span>
<span lang="EN-US">· [[Instruction:1d832939-90e0-4879-a557-e60627c0555e|Role play]]</span>
At the end of the group work facilitate a plenary reflection, reporting back and harvesting results of subgroups’ discussion. +
8
Reflect again. What differences did they experience? What felt better? Do they understand the choice of the other team and feel understood by that team themselves, and how did the style of conversation influence that? +
Varieties of goodness in research - a rotary style exercise (variation to original VIRT2UE exercise)) +
The same exercise as in round 3 can be repeated with the next group. The number of rounds is dependent of the number of subgroups and the time available. +
04 - Moral Case Deliberation: A Method for Analysing Cases in Research Ethics and Research Integrity +
In this step, similarities and differences between the individual considerations are examined. Sometimes, two participants make a different choice based on the same value. Alternatively, participants may choose the same option based on different values or norms. Identifying similarities and differences may lead to better understanding and a better insight of what is at stake in a specific case. +
In order for our committee to reach a consensus regarding a specific case:
<br />
*I must share my Informed Judgment and associated reasons with the rest of the committee;
*Listen to and recognise the Informed Judgments and associated reasons of all other members of the committee.
The final step is to deliberate and debate with our fellow committee members.
<br />
*If we all agree, then the decision is made and little needs to be done, although, from time to time, we should critique our views;
*If we fail to obtain a consensus, we can ask for further involvement from interested parties ("Empathy"), outside advice and deliberation ("Expertise") and/or new research ("Evidence"). +
Stop the dialogue after 10 minutes and reflect with the group on the differences between debate and dialogue by referring/asking questions about:
**
*Experiences, feelings during the debate and dialogue,
*The extent of understanding each other,
*The group dynamics (who was talking, did everybody had a say etc.),
*The understanding of the content of the case (motives; interests),
*Other outcomes of a debate and dialogue (e.g. gaining new insights).
Reflect with the group on the differences between debate and dialogue. You may look at additional questions in the practical tips section. Take notes of the reflection on a flip-chart. +
After the presentation, you may be invited to actively listen to what others have to say and share their views openly. While playing the game with several small groups, a plenary debrief may be useful to allow room for you to ask questions to each other and identify dilemmas, justifications for choices, and even more general themes. +
[[File:Modified Dilemma Game Table 1.png|thumb|'''Table 1: Which principles from European Code for Research Integrity can you identify in each dilemma?''']]
Ask participants to work in groups to fill out the below tables. You may suggest groups to assign a member as a spokesman to shortly present their discussions in the next step.
[[File:Modified Dilemma Game Table 2.png|thumb|'''Table 2. Which research misbehaviors can you identify in this dilemma?''']]
[[File:Modified Dilemma Game Table 3.jpg|thumb|'''Table 3. Which scientific virtues are important when deciding on a course of action?''']]
<br /> +
The link to the instruction "Interim Practice Work" can be found [https://public.3.basecamp.com/p/5PqnuPhVF5EtiYZJ9WCet1PN here]. +
This session aims to equip students with the knowledge to comprehend the meaning and importance of research integrity. This will be achieved through a practical hands-on approach, where real and fictional cases, outlining research integrity issues in biomedical research using animals, will be presented. We aim for students to identify and relate such examples of research misconduct and questionable research practices, with their own school work practices and environment. This will engage students in a group discussion and critical reflection about the importance of acting responsibly and with honesty in their own school work and within their life. +
10 dakikanın ardından diyaloğu sonlandırın ve aşağıdaki maddeler üzerine sorular sorarak grupla birlikte münazara ve diyalog yöntemleri arasındaki farklar üzerine fikir yürütün:
a. Münazara ve diyalog esnasında yaşanılan deneyim ve uyanan hisler
b. Katılımcıların birbirlerini ne kadar anlayabildikleri
c. Grup dinamikleri (kimler konuştu, herkes söz alabildi mi vs.)
d. Vaka içeriğinin anlaşılması (gerekçeler; menfaatler)
e. Münazara ve diyaloğa ilişkin çıkarılan diğer sonuçlar (örn., yeni bir şey fark etme, yeni bir anlayış kazanma)
Grupla birlikte münazara ve diyalog yöntemleri arasındaki farklar üzerine fikir yürütün. Konuyla ilgili sorabileceğiniz ek sorulara pratik ipuçları kısmından ulaşabilirsiniz. Grupla birlikte gerçekleştirdiğiniz fikir yürütme ve yorumlama sürecine ilişkin olarak yazı panosuna notlar almayı unutmayın. +
Katılımcılardan tabloyu aşağıda gördüğünüz şekilde doldurmalarını isteyin:
{| class="wikitable" border="1" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="0" width="474"
| width="170" valign="top" |'''Erdem'''
| width="304" valign="top" |'''Norm/eylem'''
|-
| width="170" valign="top" |Adalet
| width="304" valign="top" |Katkıda bulunan herkesin adını vermeliyim.
|-
| width="170" valign="top" |Cesaret
| width="304" valign="top" |Düşündüklerimi açıkça söylemeliyim.
|}
Katılımcılara Araştırma Doğruluğuyla ilgili erdemler '''listesiyle''' birlikte '''örnek''' ve '''boş tablo'''ların bulunduğu çalışma kağıtları dağıtabilirsiniz (pratik ipuçları bölümüne bakınız). Boş tabloyla birlikte katılımcılara yapışkanlı kağıtlar da verin.
Bu arada, yazı panosuna (ya da tahtaya) tablonun aynısını üç sütunlu olacak şekilde çizin: perspektif, erdem, norm (aşağıdaki gibi). Bunu oturumdan önce de yapabilirsiniz.
{| class="wikitable" border="1" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="0" width="615"
| width="141" valign="top" |'''İsim'''
| width="170" valign="top" |'''Erdem'''
| width="304" valign="top" |'''Norm/eylem'''
|-
| rowspan="2" width="141" valign="top" |Louise
| width="170" valign="top" |Adalet
| width="304" valign="top" |Katkıda bulunan herkesin adını vermeliyim.
|-
| width="170" valign="top" |Cesaret
| width="304" valign="top" |Düşündüklerimi açıkça söylemeliyim.
|-
| width="141" valign="top" |Ben
| width="170" valign="top" |…
| width="304" valign="top" |…
|}
Katılımcılara değer ve normlarını yapışkanlı kâğıt üzerine (anlaşılabilir şekilde) yazmalarını söyleyin ve sonrasında kendilerinden yazı panosu üzerine çizdiğiniz tabloya isimlerini yazıp ellerindeki yapışkanlı kağıtları da isimlerinin yanına yapıştırmalarını isteyin. Böylelikle panoda perspektif, erdem ve normların genel bir listesi oluşmuş olacaktır. +
10 dakikanın ardından diyaloğu sonlandırın ve aşağıdaki maddeler üzerine sorular sorarak grupla birlikte münazara ve diyalog yöntemleri arasındaki farklar üzerine fikir yürütün:
a. Münazara ve diyalog esnasında yaşanılan deneyim ve uyanan hisler
b. Katılımcıların birbirlerini ne kadar anlayabildikleri
c. Grup dinamikleri (kimler konuştu, herkes söz alabildi mi vs.)
d. Vaka içeriğinin anlaşılması (gerekçeler; menfaatler)
e. Münazara ve diyaloğa ilişkin çıkarılan diğer sonuçlar (örn., yeni bir şey fark etme, yeni bir anlayış kazanma)
Grupla birlikte münazara ve diyalog yöntemleri arasındaki farklar üzerine fikir yürütün. Konuyla ilgili sorabileceğiniz ek sorulara pratik ipuçları kısmından ulaşabilirsiniz. Grupla birlikte gerçekleştirdiğiniz fikir yürütme ve yorumlama sürecine ilişkin olarak yazı panosuna notlar almayı unutmayın. +
