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
In this lecture, François Jost discusses the responsibilities of citizen scientists. The first segment explains what citizen science is and addresses topics such as informed consent, data privacy and security, communication, and transparency. The second segment covers data accuracy and honesty, adherence to project guidance, the significance of training and education, and the role of Open Science in the democratisation of science.
'''Watch the lecture and then answer the questions.'''
'''Further reading:'''
[https://www.ecsa.ngo/10-principles/ Ten Principles of Citizen Science – European Citizen Science Association] (ECSA).
[https://projects.research-and-innovation.ec.europa.eu/en/horizon-magazine/extreme-citizen-science-gives-voice-marginalised-remote-communities Extreme citizen science gives a voice to the marginalised in remote communities, Horizon Magazine]. (2022, April 5)
Elliott, K. C., & Rosenberg, J. (2019). [https://doi.org/10.5334/cstp.155 Philosophical Foundations for Citizen Science. Citizen Science]: Theory and Practice, 4(1).
Balázs, B., Mooney, P., Nováková, E., Bastin, L., & Jokar Arsanjani, J. (2021). Data Quality in Citizen Science. In K. Vohland, A. Land-Zandstra, L. Ceccaroni, R. Lemmens, J. Perelló, M. Ponti, R. Samson, & K. Wagenknecht (Eds.), [https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-58278-4_8 The Science of Citizen Science] (pp. 139–157). Springer International Publishing.
Rasmussen, L. M. (2019). [https://doi.org/10.5334/cstp.207 Confronting Research Misconduct in Citizen Science. Citizen Science]: Theory and Practice, 4(1). +
Try to answer the questions about the case. +
3
Sufficient time should be given to trainees to prepare for the first session and for practicing the exercises in between the sessions. When preparing the schedule for the training you:
a. Distribute preparation materials (including online modules and assignments) at least one month prior to the first participatory session.
b. Plan at least two months’ time in between the first participatory session(s) and the follow up session. +
Invite trainees to facilitate exercises in the way they did in their own work setting give then feedback and ask them to elaborate on possible modifications in the structure or steps of the exercises. +
Ask the group who they vouch for: Dr. Jim Curran or Dr. Don Francis. Show their picture with their names so that all participants remember who is who. Based on their choice, the group is divided in two groups.
1. If one group turns out to be really small, you can ask if a couple of participants feel condent to switch teams.
2. In case there are some participants who don’t feel condent to choose either one, you could decide to include them in the exercise as observers. +
Facilitate each exercise and evaluate/reflect upon the experiences with your training participants. After facilitating each exercise reflect on your experience and on your role as trainer by filling in the '''[https://www.dropbox.com/s/1fmppqv189jxlqj/Self%20reflection%20form.pdf?dl=0 self-reflection form]'''. +
Varieties of goodness in research - a rotary style exercise (variation to original VIRT2UE exercise)) +
Plenary discussion of oneVariety of Goodness in research. The trainer prepared a presentation including:
*Brief explanation of this Variety of Goodness
*Links the Variety of Goodness to research
*Links ECoC to this Variety of Goodness
*Links examples for the preparation sheet by participants to the Variety of Goodness
In each step of the reflection on this Variety of Goodness, the trainer asks the participants to also name examples of research, the code of conduct and own experiences. +
After completing the training and after having trained 10 researchers (time investment 60 h) you are eligible to receive the 'Trainer' certificate from the VIRT2UE consortium. Please discuss with your trainer to check that you have indeed met all of the course requirements. +
This module explores the difference between responsible conduct of research, research misconduct, and questionable research practices. This differentiation is exemplified explicitly and/or implied, e.g. regarding the prevalence and impact of research misconduct and breaches of responsible research practices. Publication pressure, and its implications on the integrity of research is discussed as one major driver of breaches of research integrity. This discussion is complemented by an exercise to foster reflection about the effect of publication pressure.
[http://courses.embassy.science/scope_of_research_integrity/story.html Open the course] +
This module offers a definition of a virtue, and introduces virtues that are relevant for research . Along the historic example of Galileo Galilei, five virtues are discussed in more detail in its relevance for research integrity.
[http://courses.embassy.science/virtues_in_research/story.html Open course] +
This module aims to both explain and demonstrate the underlying dynamics informing the application of self-justification strategies in research. In a two-step exercise, learners are first required to choose the most relevant violation of research integrity in their discipline. Then, they are asked to write different types of self-justification strategies (e.g. denial of responsibility, trivialization) that has previously been introduced to them with the example of honorary authorship.
[http://courses.embassy.science/why_we_justify_unethical_behaviour/story.html Open course] +
This module explores the difference between responsible conduct of research, research misconduct, and questionable research practices. Publication pressure, and its implication for the integrity of research is discussed as a major driver of breaches of research integrity. This discussion is complemented by an exercise to foster reflection about the effect of publication pressure.
[[File:Scope of Research Integrity.png|link=http://courses.embassy.science/scope_of_research_integrity/story.html]]
If you want to integrate this module into your institution's learning management system, you may download it as a SCORM Package [http://courses.embassy.science/Scope%20of%20Research%20Integrity_SCORM.zip here] +
This module offers a definition of a virtue, and introduces virtues that are relevant for research . Along the historic example of Galileo Galilei, five virtues are discussed in more detail in its relevance for research integrity.
[[File:Virtues in Research.jpg|link=http://courses.embassy.science/virtues_in_research/story.html]]
If you want to integrate this module into your institution's learning management system, you may download it as a SCORM Package [http://courses.embassy.science/Virtues%20in%20Research_SCORM.zip here] +
Can you be too honest? This exercise helps to develop moral sensitivity with respect to basic virtues related to Research Integrity (RI). In particular it fosters reflection on the inherent moral ambiguity of specific virtues and how this ambiguity looks like in concrete research practice.
[[File: MPE.png|link=https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sjov1WIvKvg&list=PLabbUwyulAry4tzZ12eHl5JOJhJGiaE6k&index=5]] +
During the 2019 World Conference on Research Integrity in Hong Kong, we asked experts on the importance and usefulness of Research Integrity networks.
[[File: Research Integrity Networks3.png|link=https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sCv718oBPl0&list=PLabbUwyulArzx9SIqxfDXbtTELS8uWdFD&index=4]] +
During the 2019 World Conference on Research Integrity in Hong Kong, we asked experts on their opinions and views on Research Integrity education
[[File: Research Integrity Education3.png|link=https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DHKhvewTNP4]] +
Get active networking with research ethics and research integrity experts! +
The third episode is currently under construction. +
The third episode is currently under construction. +
This module aims to both explain and demonstrate the underlying dynamics informing the application of self-justification strategies in research. In a two-step exercise, learners are first required to choose the most relevant violation of research integrity in their discipline. Then, they are asked to write different types of self-justification strategies (e.g. denial of responsibility, trivialization) that has previously been introduced to them with the example of honorary authorship.
[[File:Why we Justify Unethical Behaviour.jpg|link=http://courses.embassy.science/why_we_justify_unethical_behaviour/story.html]]
If you want to integrate this module into your institution's learning management system, you may download it as a SCORM Package [http://courses.embassy.science/Why%20we%20justify%20unethical%20behaviour_SCORM.zip here] +
