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
1
Kontaktiere die Teilnehmenden eine Woche vor eurem Treffen und der Durchführung der Übung und bitte sie darum, ...
* ein persönliches Research Integrity Fallbeispiel einzureichen (dazu kann das Handout 1 benutzt werden, siehe “Praktische Tipps”).
* die folgenden Themenseiten auf The Embassy.of Good Science zu lesen:
o “Virtues in research integrity”
o “Moral conflict and moral dilemma”
o “Values and norms”
o “Dialogue versus debate”
Bei dem eingereichten Fallbeispiel muss es sich nicht um eine Situation mit wissenschaftlichem Fehlverhalten handeln, sondern vielmehr um eine Situation im Wissenschaftsalltag, bei der die Teilnehmenden im Zweifel darüber waren, ob sie sich „richtig“ verhalten haben.
Wenn Kontakt aufgenommen und nach um Fallbeispiele gebeten wird, ist es gut, die Erwartungen hinsichtlich der Übung zu berücksichtigen. Weise darauf hin, dass nicht alle Fallbeispiele während der Übung diskutiert werden können. Die Reflexion über eine persönlich erfahrene Situation ist jedoch wichtig, da der Fokus auf die Erfahrung der Teilnehmenden gerichtet wird. Dadurch wird verdeutlicht, dass (moralische) Unsicherheit nichts ist, wofür man sich schämen muss, sondern ganz im Gegenteil jeder schon einmal solche Erfahrungen gemacht hat.
Wenn alle Fallbeispiele bei dir eingegangen sind, wählst du ein Fallbeispiel aus, das für möglichst alle Teilnehmenden interessant ist. Frag die Person, die den Fall eingereicht hat, ob sie Interesse hat, diesen Fall während der Übung vorzustellen. Stell sicher, dass es sich um eine tatsächliche und persönliche Situation handelt und dass die präsentierende Person in der Lage ist, die Einzelheiten der Situation zu schildern. Zusammen bereitet ihr eine kurze Einleitung des Fallbeispiels vor, die gegebenenfalls vor der Übung an alle Teilnehmenden ausgehändigt wird. Um die Teilnehmenden bei der Reflexion des Fallbeispiels zu unterstützen, kann außerdem das Handout 2 ausgeteilt werden (siehe „Praktische Tipps“).
Eine Woche bevor die Übung durchgeführt wird, wirst du gebeten, über eine Situation aus deinem wissenschaftlichen Alltag nachzudenken, in der du moralische Zweifel darüber hattest, was passiert ist, oder darüber, was du in der Situation hättest tun können oder sollen. Die Situation muss vor der Übung nicht schriftlich ausformuliert werden. Es muss außerdem keine dramatische Situation sein, auch gewöhnliche Situationen, in denen dir fragwürdige Forschungspraktiken aufgefallen sind, sind für diese Übung geeignet.
Schau dir folgendes Video an, um einen Eindruck von der Übung “Der Balanceakt” im VIRT2UE Train-the-Trainer-Programm zu bekommen:
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sjov1WIvKvg&list=PLabbUwyulAry4tzZ12eHl5JOJhJGiaE6k&index=5 VIRT2UE Train-the-Trainer program: Middle Position Exercise] +
Bevor die Übung in der Gruppe durchgeführt wird, solltest du die einzelnen Teilnehmer:innen kontaktieren und sie darum bitten, sich auf die Übung vorzubereiten, indem sie sich eine Situation aus ihrem Forschungsalltag überlegen, in der sie moralische Zweifel darüber hatten, was passierte oder was sie hätten tun sollen / tun können (d.h., Situationen, in denen offensichtlich ist, dass etwas moralisch verwerflich in Bezug auf Research Integrity ist, sind für die Übung weniger gut geeignet). Es ist wichtig, dass die Teilnehmenden angeregt werden, über ihre eigenen Erfahrungen nachzudenken. Sie müssen dieses Fallbeispiel aber nicht als Vorbereitung aufschreiben. Es muss außerdem keine dramatische Situation sein, auch gewöhnliche Situationen, in denen dir fragwürdige Forschungspraktiken aufgefallen sind, sind für diese Übung geeignet. +
Einige Wochen vor dem Termin wirst du von deinem/r Trainer:in gebeten, dich auf die Übung vorzubereiten. Dazu füllst du das Selbstauskunfts-Arbeitsblatt aus, das dir von deinem/r Trainer:in zugeschickt werden wird. Du solltest ihn spätestens eine Woche vor dem Workshop wieder an dein:e Trainer:in zurücksenden. Das Arbeitsblatt ermöglicht es dir, über deine intuitiven Gedanken zum Konzept des Guten nachzudenken. Dein:e Trainer:in wird es nutzen, um eure Gedanken zu dem Thema in die Diskussion während der Übung einzubeziehen.
[[File:SDA.png|center|frameless|297x297px]]
Sieh dir außerdem dieses [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UYJY50PRLvo&list=PLabbUwyulAry4tzZ12eHl5JOJhJGiaE6k&index=3 Video] an, um dir einen Eindruck vom VIRT2UE Train-the-Trainer-Programm zu verschaffen.
<br /> +
Einige Wochen vor dem Termin solltest du Kontakt zu den Workshop-Teilnehmenden aufnehmen und sie um Folgendes bitten:
* Um möglichst gut vorbereitet zu sein, sollten sie das Selbstauskunfts-Arbeitsblatt ausfüllen. Passe die Arbeitsblätter gern so an, wie du es für richtig hältst.
* Wenn ihr im Workshop die verschiedenen Arten des Guten von Forschung ausgiebig diskutieren wollt, dann teile diesen [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E9SO9HIYTnc Link] mit den Workshop-Teilnehmenden und bitte sie, sich das Video zum Selbstauskunfts-Ansatz und den verschiedenen Arten des Guten in der Forschung anzusehen.
Lege einen Termin fest, bis zu dem dir die Workshop-Teilnehmenden die Arbeitsblätter ausgefüllt zurückschicken sollen (ca. eine Woche vor dem Workshop-Termin).
Das Selbstauskunfts-Arbeitsblatt ermöglicht es den Teilnehmenden, aus ihrer Perspektive darüber nachzudenken, auf wie viele unterschiedliche Arten etwas ''gut'' sein kann. Zusätzlich entsteht dadurch eine gute inhaltliche Grundlage für die Diskussion während des Workshops.
Erwähne bei der Verteilung der Vorbereitungs-Aufgaben, dass die Teilnehmenden eine (gedruckte oder digitale) Kopie ihres ausgefüllten Selbstauskunfts-Arbeitsblattes zum Workshop mitbringen sollten. Sie sollten außerdem darauf vorbereitet sein, ihre Antworten mit dem Rest der Gruppe zu teilen und zu diskutieren. +
A few weeks before the session, you will be asked by your trainer to prepare for the session. For this you will need to fill out the self-declaration sheet (which will be sent to you by your trainer) and send it to the trainer at least a week before the training session. You may download samples of the self-declaration sheets [https://www.dropbox.com/s/ymx1d8qtznt5r7j/SDA%20sheet%20ver%201%20%281%29.docx?dl=0 HERE] and [https://www.dropbox.com/s/rw3e32aj5ed1aas/SDA%20sheet%20ver%203.docx?dl=0 HERE]. The self-declaration sheet allows you to reflect on your intuitions on goodness and will be used by the trainer to include your intuitions in the discussion during the session.
<br>
Watch the videos to have an impression of this VIRT2UE Train-the-Trainer program.
[[File: SDA.png|link=https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E9SO9HIYTnc]]
[[File: VGE.png|link=https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UYJY50PRLvo&list=PLabbUwyulAry4tzZ12eHl5JOJhJGiaE6k&index=3]] +
A few weeks before the session, get in contact with the participants in the session and ask them to do the following:
<br />
*to prepare by filling out the self-declaration sheet. You may download samples of this sheet [https://www.dropbox.com/s/ymx1d8qtznt5r7j/SDA%20sheet%20ver%201%20%281%29.docx?dl=0 HERE] and [https://www.dropbox.com/s/rw3e32aj5ed1aas/SDA%20sheet%20ver%203.docx?dl=0 HERE]. Adapt the sheets as you see fit.
*If you wish to not discuss the typologies of goodness extensively during the session, make the participants watch this [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E9SO9HIYTnc video on the Self-Declaration Approach and the Typologies of Goodness].
Set a deadline for the assignment and ask participants to send you their self-declaration sheet at least one week before the session.
The self-declaration sheet allows participants to reflect on the types of goodness from their standpoint. This also provides you with content for discussion during the session.
When distributing the assignments be sure to mention that participants should not forget to bring a copy (either print or electronic) of their filled-out self-declaration sheets to the session and to be ready to discuss their responses with the rest of the group.
<br /> +
<span lang="HR">Each image contains at least one inappropriate image duplication. Your task is to find the duplications and click on the overlapping areas.</span> +
In this exercise, you will watch an video depicting a scenario between a research supervisor and a supervisee. You may choose to watch '''either''' this scenario '''or''' one of the other 3 options.
'''Your task:'''
*Watch the video and consider the questions asked at the beginning and the end.
'''Note: upon completion of this task, please advance directly to step 5''' +
One week before the exercise takes place you will be asked to submit a research integrity personal case (this doesn’t need to be a research misconduct case but a case in which, as a researcher, you were in doubt about what was the right thing you should do) (see handout 1 in practical tips). Not all the cases can be discussed during the exercise. If your case is selected, the trainer contacts you to prepare a description of the case to be distributed to the rest of the participants.
<br>
Watch the video to have an impression of the 'Virtues & Norms Exercise' of the VIRT2UE Train-the-Trainer program.
[[File: V&N.png|link=https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IZMDWGTLXWo&list=PLabbUwyulAry4tzZ12eHl5JOJhJGiaE6k&index=2]] +
One week before the exercise takes place ask participants to:
1) Submit a research integrity personal case (by using the form for case reflection, see practical tips)
2) Read the following theme pages on The Embassy:
a) [https://embassy.science/wiki/Theme:520b3bc7-a6ab-4617-95f2-89c9dee31c53 Virtues in research integrity]
b) [https://embassy.science/wiki/Theme:17d406f9-0b0f-4325-aa2d-2fe186d5ff34 Moral conflict and moral dilemma]
c) [https://embassy.science/wiki/Theme:B4f7b2e3-af61-4466-94dc-2504affab5a8 Values and norms]
d) [https://embassy.science/wiki/Theme:6217d06b-c907-4b09-af4e-b4c8a17b9847 Dialogue versus debate]
The submitted case does not need to be a research misconduct case but a case in which, as researchers, participants were in doubt about the right thing to do.
While asking for cases it is good to manage expectations. Make sure to mention that not all the cases can be discussed during the exercise. However, reflecting on a personal case is important since it brings the focus on participants’ practice as researchers and underlines the fact that moral uncertainty is not something to be ashamed of but it is part of everyone’s experience.
Select a case which might be interesting for participants and ask the case presenter if they would be willing to present the case during the session. Make sure it is a real and personal case and the case owner is able to tell the details of the case. Together you prepare a short description of the case to be distributed to the other participants (this is not mandatory). To help participants reflect on the case you can use a case reflection form (see practical tips). +
Experience the exercises as facilitated by your trainers. +
Before moderating the first face-to-face session consider the following points:
1) Prepare necessary power point presentations such as:
a. Introduction to the training and the different phases of it
b. Introduction to the varieties of goodness as part of the [https://embassy.science/wiki/Instruction:64cb2917-6ee4-44ca-ad3b-b998bc6786ea Self Declaration Approach].
c. Introduction to the [https://embassy.science/wiki/Instruction:522ba3d0-9f26-41d5-9ecf-b4c88214887c middle position] exercise.
2) Prepare the meeting rooms (if face to face):
a. Bring post-its, markers, pens, flipcharts and paper (read the trainers instruction of the exercises for further information)
b. Arrange the chairs into a circle (i.e. avoid lecture setting). This fosters a dynamic learning environment and encourages people to engage in a dialogue with each other. +
The UNESCO Recommendation on open science defines open science as: “[..] an inclusive construct that combines various movements and practices aiming to make multilingual scientific knowledge openly available, accessible, and reusable for everyone, to increase scientific collaborations and sharing of information for the benefits of science and society, and to open the processes of scientific knowledge creation, evaluation and communication to societal actors beyond the traditional scientific community. It comprises all scientific disciplines and aspects of scholarly practices, including basic and applied sciences, natural and social sciences and the humanities, and it builds on the following key pillars: open scientific knowledge, open science infrastructures, science communication, open engagement of societal actors, and open dialogue with other knowledge systems.” (UNESCO, 2021) Science as an activity and social practice is aimed at generating new knowledge. The most basic justification of open science as an overarching goal is that through the implementation of open science practices we will, as a global society, produce more and more reliable knowledge “for the benefit of science and society” (UNESCO, 2021).
'''References'''
#UNESCO (2021). Recommendation on Open Science. https://doi.org/10.54677/MNMH8546 +
The term 'research participant' refers to an individual who voluntarily takes part in a research study, for example, a patient who takes part in a biomedical research study on new treatment methods or a community member who is interviewed by citizen scientists (like in this [https://londonprosperityboard.org/stories-olympic-park citizen science project on people living in London's neighborhoods]). Research participants are essential contributors to scientific research, including citizen science projects, and their involvement can vary widely depending on the nature of the study. The rights and interests of research participants lie at the core of research ethics and the same time should apply to citizen science as well. However, citizen science raises new challenges in this regard for at least two reasons. First, there is a great variety of citizen science projects and many of them are conducted outside institutional settings which makes applying the traditional research ethics frameworks challenging. Second, citizen scientists might play different roles in the research, usually, they are involved only as citizen scientists, but in some cases (e.g., in biomedical citizen science research) they might play both roles - a citizen researcher and a research subject. +
Citizen and participatory science form a critical component of the broader open science framework, which seeks to make the scientific process more transparent and collaborative. UNESCO recognizes the value of involving citizens in scientific research, not only to advance scientific knowledge but also to enhance public engagement with science (UNESCO, 2021).
Citizen and participatory science form a critical component of the broader open science framework, which seeks to make the scientific process more transparent and collaborative. UNESCO recognizes the value of involving citizens in scientific research, not only to advance scientific knowledge but also to enhance public engagement with science (UNESCO, 2021). Collaboration, participation, and inclusion are crucial for achieving several broader open science goals (data, collection, science literacy, dissemination of research results, implementation of evidence-based policies etc.). Nonetheless, this involvement presents challenges, such as reconciling the activism of citizen science with the discovery-oriented and objective nature of academic research (Rasmussen & Cooper, 2019) or blurring of the researchers/research subject roles in research that have largely been kept separate in traditional research ethics guidance (Resnik, 2019). Issues of potential conflicts of interest may arise when citizen scientists are motivated by personal or group interests. Addressing these challenges requires transparency about research goals, openness regarding the roles and interests of all scientists, and ethical handling of open data. The field is rapidly evolving, and many ethical considerations are still being developed and resolved.
'''References'''
#Rasmussen, L. M., & Cooper, C. (2019). Citizen science ethics. ''Citizen Science: Theory and Practice'', 4(1). https://doi.org/10.5334/cstp.235
#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
#UNESCO (2021). Recommendation on Open Science. https://doi.org/10.54677/MNMH8546
The collection of research data is arguably one of the most challenging aspects of open science practice because it is highly vulnerable to misconduct (Hofmann, 2022). Misconduct related to data collection can be particularly costly to science and society, especially when data is shared open access for reuse and re-analysis. Therefore, it is crucial to ensure that both researchers and citizen scientists share an understanding of data collection standards. These standards ensure that data collected at different institutions and by various researchers are compatible and interoperable, facilitating the integration of datasets. This allows for meaningful reuse, comparisons, re-analysis, and the reproduction of research findings by other scientists. Adherence to data collection standards also contributes to the long-term accessibility of research data. Proper documentation and standardized formats make it easier for future researchers to understand, use, and build upon the data, thereby preserving the scientific record.
'''References'''
#Hofmann, B. (2022). Open science knowledge production: Addressing epistemological challenges and ethical implications. ''Publications, 10''(3), 24. https://doi.org/10.3390/publications10030024 +
Conflict of interest can happen in a variety of human activities, but in some areas such as science and research, it is especially important, because it erodes objectivity – one of the central virtues of scientific research. A recent review revealed that industry-sponsored studies are more often in favour of the sponsors’ products compared with studies with other sources of funding (Lundh et al., 2017). Because of the effect it can potentially have on research, scientific journals require a separate declaration of conflict of interest when submitting scientific articles. The issue of conflict of interest is especially relevant in the context of citizen science due to the nature of some of its projects. Namely, some citizen science projects are citizen-initiated and therefore the investigators might have an inherent conflict of interest which in turn might prevent them from seeing their study in a more objective light.
'''References'''
#Lundh, A., Lexchin, J., Mintzes, B., Schroll, J. B., & Bero, L. (2017). Industry sponsorship and research outcome. ''Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews'', 2. https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.MR000033.pub3 +
Citizen scientists play an increasingly significant role in knowledge production and there are many scientific projects to which their contribution is vitally important. For example, monitoring threatened species requires collecting vast amounts of data and correspondingly significant financial investment. To accomplish this task cost-effectively, scientists increasingly rely on data, collected by citizen scientists via projects like iNaturalist. However, although extremely valuable, this practice presents some risks for the environment and ecosystems.
'''References'''
#[https://www.inaturalist.org/ https://www.inaturalist.org] +
[https://printeger.eu/ PRINTEGER] project, aims to strengthen research integrity by fostering a culture where integrity is integral to excellent research, beyond just external regulation. The project seeks to improve integrity governance by focusing on researchers’ everyday practices within a complex research environment +
