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
3
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] +
04 - Moral Case Deliberation: A Method for Analysing Cases in Research Ethics and Research Integrity +
In this step, the case presenter’s underlying moral question is made explicit. By formulating his/her moral question, the other participants can better understand what is at stake and what (morally) matters for the case presenter. Furthermore, to make the moral question more concrete, the case presenter is asked to formulate the situation in terms of a dilemma: what are the concrete choices available in this situation? +
Usually, there are several possible courses of action. Some result in misconduct while others effectively and ethically solve the problem(s). +
Once I have formed my Early View, the next step is to ask:
<br />
*"What are my reasons for thinking this?"
When formulating these reasons, I need to:
<br />
*Assess the strengths and weaknesses of the reasons for my view. +
02 - The Seven Steps Method: A Method for Analysing Cases in Research Ethics and Research Integrity +
For example, persons involved, laws, professional codes, and other practical constraints. +
Share your experiences of participating and facilitating the exercise with the other participants. +
Get acquainted with the concepts of values and norms.
[https://embassy.science/wiki/Theme:B4f7b2e3-af61-4466-94dc-2504affab5a8 Open the page about values and norms]. +
The trainer will facilitate the exercise by following the three parts.
PART I:
INDIVIDUAL REFLECTION
#Recall a situation in which you had concerns about research integrity, and in which you had doubts about the right thing to do.
#Select one virtue, which was at stake in that situation.
#Reflect on which behavior fits well with this specific virtue.
PART II:
REFLECTIONS IN SUBGROUP
#Select a spokesperson who can report on your group process to the larger group.
#Share your case with the group and listen carefully to other’s cases.
#Select a case to reflect on collectively.
#Fill in handout 2 individually (see practical tips).
#Share your notes with your subgroup by engaging in a group reflection/dialogue about differences/similarities related to the virtues and behaviors which were chosen.
Part III:
PLENARY: SUMMARY OF THE SUBGROUP WORK AND OVERALL LESSONS LEARNED
#Report back on the discussion in subgroups.
#Formulate lesson(s) learned.
#Evaluate the session.
(For a detailed description of the steps see the trainers instructions). +
a. Welcome participants and start the session by engaging participants in an open reflection (ice breaker). Ask participants:
<br />
*Are you always honest (as researcher)?
*Can you be too honest (as researcher)?
b. After collecting a couple of answers, move to the explanation of the aims/learning objectives of the exercise. Emphasize that in this exercise participants are invited to reflect on their own moral challenges related to research integrity (i.e. one should not morally judge or condemn the other participants if they present their own personal case).
c. Give a brief introduction to the meaning of virtues, virtue ethics, and the middle position. You should keep in mind and convey to the trainees the fact that the process of finding the middle position as described by Aristotle is something which requires practice and education. In that sense becoming accustomed to the virtuous life is something you develop through day-to-day experience. Remind participants that the middle position does not have to be exactly in the middle (see the You Tube video on virtue ethics). The golden mean varies according to the situation. At this point it might be helpful to refer participants to the page “Virtues in research integrity” where a list of virtues can be found (see practical tips).
TIP:
During the exercise, it is recommended to refrain from having a theoretical discussion on (Aristotelian) virtue ethics and the respective meta-theoretical issues since this can put participants in an abstract mode of academic discussion which is not the aim of the exercise. +
