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
The goal in training students and PhD candidates in RE/RI is to support ever-deepening understanding of ethical principles and practices in research. This includes exploring aspects of honesty, transparency, objectivity and accountability at all stages of the research process, from conception to dissemination of results. The goal is to equip students 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.
Although these examples can be used to train students and PhD candidates, they can be used in training more senior profiles to brush up competencies on the topic.
Resources for PhD candidates 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/ , the modules focusing specific RE and/or RI issues anf the dilemmas] ([https://printeger.eu/upright/toc/dilemma-with-a-little-help/ With a little help][https://printeger.eu/upright/toc/ ,] [https://printeger.eu/upright/toc/dilemma-mutual-favours/ Mutual favours][https://printeger.eu/upright/toc/ ,] [https://printeger.eu/upright/toc/dilemma-sharing-data/ Sharing data][https://printeger.eu/upright/toc/ ,] [https://printeger.eu/upright/toc/dilemma-so-close/ So close][https://printeger.eu/upright/toc/ ,] [https://printeger.eu/upright/toc/dilemma-different-results/ Different results][https://printeger.eu/upright/toc/ ,] [https://printeger.eu/upright/toc/dilemma-put-your-supervisor-first/ Put your supervisor first][https://printeger.eu/upright/toc/ ,] [https://printeger.eu/upright/toc/dilemma-flexible-scope/ Flexible scope][https://printeger.eu/upright/toc/ ,] [https://printeger.eu/upright/toc/dilemma-outliers/ Outliers][https://printeger.eu/upright/toc/ , and] [https://printeger.eu/upright/toc/dilemma-invalid-data/ Invalid data]) developed for [https://printeger.eu/upright/toc/ the Upright training] by [https://printeger.eu/ PRINTEGER].
*The e-learning modules on [[Instruction:6ceba4e4-fb32-4953-9138-5436807fcde6|research integrity]], [[Instruction:86f47366-a189-4395-9301-36ddb6d1fc68|virtue ethics relevant for RI]], [[Instruction:43c900ea-a317-4528-8ece-1f3fb3564867|virtue ethics under current research conditions]] and the a series of introductory [[Instruction:17705907-d9b2-4f33-bc4f-088d84b4d971|videos]] produced by the [[Guide:Bbe860a3-56a9-45f7-b787-031689729e52|VIRT2UE]]. The [[Instruction:A0dd2e82-52e7-4030-a396-54525630e75c|Modified Dilemma Game]] developed by the [[Guide:Bbe860a3-56a9-45f7-b787-031689729e52|VIRT2UE]] project.
*The introductory videos and information on the teaching methodology and the learning cards ([https://www.path2integrity.eu/ri-materials Path2Integrity learning cards Y]) focusing on doctoral students, alongside a dedicated handbook ([https://www.path2integrity.eu/ri-materials Y-Series handbook]) developed by [https://www.path2integrity.eu/ri-materials Path2Integrity Training Programme]
*The RID-SSISS training materials for ECRs and junior academics ([https://www.researchethicstraining.net/ advanced level]).
*The [https://www.academicintegrity.eu/wp/bridge/ BRIDGE project] provides [https://www.academicintegrity.eu/wp/bridge-modules-2/ training modules] and [https://www.academicintegrity.eu/wp/vignettes_interactive/ vignettes] that can be inserted into research ethics and integrity courses.
*The [https://h2020integrity.eu/toolkit/tools-phd-students/ modules and a full interactive training] developed by the [https://h2020integrity.eu/ INTEGRITY] project.
*The scenarios produced by EnTIRE for The Embassy of Good Science ([https://embassy.science/wiki-wiki/index.php/Resource:F6100097-fddb-4c77-9098-1bc767c34a6a Research Procedures and Research Integrity];[https://embassy.science/wiki-wiki/index.php/Resource:1d26fd13-1ced-44bc-8d19-e094b37f8f70 Collaborative Working Between Academia and Industry];[https://embassy.science/wiki-wiki/index.php/Resource:45a04c31-5a75-4816-8484-2dd9b71d1674 Data Practices, Data Management and FAIR Principles];[https://embassy.science/wiki-wiki/index.php/Resource:Aef6b98d-9cc5-4db0-bffd-4a3daa99a3f3 Publication, Dissemination and Research Integrity];[https://embassy.science/wiki-wiki/index.php/Resource:C99f17ec-3d1e-4f7a-bfc7-3e3607934ead Research Environments and Research Integrity];[https://embassy.science/wiki-wiki/index.php/Resource:7f7810d8-74a2-42ac-906c-7f6a73fcd183 Reviewing, Evaluating, Editing and Research Integrity];[https://embassy.science/wiki-wiki/index.php/Resource:67caae86-68db-49ea-8305-2010fe701aa6 Training, Supervision and Mentoring with Integrity];[https://embassy.science/wiki-wiki/index.php/Resource:E99e20d0-8116-4d77-84ec-7df396703bf4 Safeguards, Data-sharing and the Disclosure of Sensitive Results]).
Trainers can select one or more of the following tools for evaluating training effectiveness for PhD candidates and early career researchers:
{| class="wikitable"
|+
Table 6: BEYOND Tools for evaluating training effectiveness for early-career researchers
!'''Tool for collecting learning outputs'''
!'''Details'''
!'''Analysis instrument **'''
|-
|'''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 (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.
|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
|}
For instance, to measure participants’ reactions during or right after the training, 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.
Examples for implementation can be found here: [https://helsinkifi.sharepoint.com/:p:/r/sites/BEYONDHelsinkiteam/Shared%20Documents/ENERI%20CR%20material%20example%20for%20ECRs.pptx?d=w10c8dc6f452042fdae8775faf52ca081&csf=1&web=1&e=NAqYpk ENERI CR material example for ECRs.pptx]
'"`UNIQ--nowiki-0000001C-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-0000001D-QINU`"' Analysis instruments are described in WP4.2, later available at the Embassy’s website.
In order to monitor how ethics competencies develop during the training session and also see if the competencies are retained over a longer period of time reflective learning diaries can be used to monitor the development of REI competencies as well as measure the effectiveness of the training in the long term (Kirkpatrick’s levels 2 and 3). Reflection is a crucial part of ethics education as it supports the development of ethical sensitivity and ethical decision-making (Mustajoki and Mustajoki, 2017;Löfström and Tammeleht, 2023). Written reflection tasks may provide good results as writing offers a chance to pause and have an inner dialogue with oneself.
Implementation is relatively easy, but analysis may take some time. There are different ways to elicit learner’s texts – from pen-and-paper format to individual digital diaries (on various platforms) as well as forum format (where learners can see and respond to each other’s entries). Forum format has provided the best results (Tammeleht et al., 2024). Diaries should be kept during a longer period of time (at least a few months) and include weekly or bimonthly submissions. Some guiding questions or topics should be provided for each entry – this helps to keep focus and guide discussion.
Various instruments can be used for analysis: the SOLO taxonomy to evaluate the level of understanding, reflection levels to see the advancement of reflective skills, content criteria (ethical principles, ethical analysis, ethical approaches) or specific topics relevant for the course content.
There are various ethical aspects to consider when collecting and analysing learning diaries (Thorpe, 2004;Gibbs et al., 2007). Learners can be asked if they would prefer individual or forum format diary-keeping. Depending on the level of trust in the group, forum format may be uncomfortable for some learners. In HE context learners are adults, who take responsibility for writing the entries on time and honestly. This may call for keeping the content confidential unless agreed otherwise
The tool is suitable for students and ECRs. Supervisors may find it challenging to keep a diary in addition to their regular work-load.
<div>
<span lang="EN-GB">Improving reproducibility is a multifaceted challenge requiring both behavioural and cultural change.</span> <span lang="EN-US">The adoption of reproducibility practices has been sparked and embraced by the Open Science movement. However, a lot of researchers are not fully aware of the implications of reproducibility and how Open Science and reproducibility are connected and intertwined (Haven et al., 2022). To increase awareness and change research practices several steps should be taken (Nosek, 2019). First, the infrastructure for the desired behaviour should be provided to make it possible. Second, the user interface and experience of the infrastructure should be improved to make the behaviour easy. Third, communities of practice should be fostered to make the behaviour visible and so increasingly normative. Fourth, incentives to enact the behaviour should be provided to make it rewarding. Last, policies should be enacted to make the behaviour required (Nosek, 2019). To further this work, we sought to explore the future of reproducibility for different stakeholders and question what should be the next steps for reproducibility and how diverse epistemic contexts can adopt reproducibility in different forms. In this deliverable, we aim to add nuance to the reproducibility debate through flexible investigation of diverse epistemic contexts (researchers from the field of machine learning and researchers working with qualitative methods), exploring the future of reproducibility through the lens of diverse research stakeholders – researchers, funders, and publishers.</span>
</div><div>
<span lang="EN-US">In this context, we look to the future of reproducibility by exploring the preferred scenarios for multiple stakeholders, including how these scenarios can be realized. We reflect on the steps that are necessary for adherence to reproducibility-enabling practices and what different epistemic contexts need to make reproducibility a priority. Lastly, we reflect on what are the new problems that we may face when aiming to improve reproducibility. We believe exploring the possible futures for reproducibility is essential to discover the next steps for different members of the scientific community to take to realize the preferred future and the actions to avoid steering away from the dystopian futures.</span>
</div><div>
<span lang="EN-US">We aim to highlight the essential role of institutions, funders and publishers in this endeavor to make reproducibility a priority by recognizing, rewarding, evaluating and monitoring reproducibility. Ultimately, we hope to steer and move forward the debate on reproducibility in the research community by</span> <span lang="EN-GB">addressing a set of core research questions related to how key stakeholders in the academic community envision the way in which matters of reproducibility should be addressed in the future. More specifically, it asks representatives from research funders, scholarly publishers, and researchers from diverse disciplinary backgrounds:</span>
</div><div>
<span lang="EN-GB">1. What are the preferred futures of reproducibility?</span>
</div><div>
<span lang="EN-GB">2. What are the enablers and barriers on the way to the preferred future or reproducibility more generally?</span>
</div><div>
Below we present the results of our study below.
</div>
For more information, please refer to the full paper: [https://osf.io/preprints/metaarxiv/gx9jq_v1 MetaArXiv Preprints - How to get there from here? Barriers and enablers on the road towards reproducibility in research].
'''''Target audience:''' Doctoral students and early career researchers, Senior researchers and RERI experts''
The EnTIRE project created eight scenarios on The [https://embassy.science/wiki/Special:BrowseData/Resource?_search_Resource_Type%5B0%5D=Scenarios Embassy of Science], each of which presented a fictitious story along with eight distinct themes. The purpose of each of the eight scenarios is to provide RECs, research administrators, researchers, and researchers with the opportunity to concentrate their attention on the fundamental ideas and research settings that support both local regulations and practices and effective research practices. The scenarios developed are the following: [https://embassy.science/wiki-wiki/index.php/Resource:F6100097-fddb-4c77-9098-1bc767c34a6a Research Procedures and Research Integrity];[https://embassy.science/wiki-wiki/index.php/Resource:1d26fd13-1ced-44bc-8d19-e094b37f8f70 Collaborative Working Between Academia and Industry];[https://embassy.science/wiki-wiki/index.php/Resource:45a04c31-5a75-4816-8484-2dd9b71d1674 Data Practices, Data Management and FAIR Principles];[https://embassy.science/wiki-wiki/index.php/Resource:Aef6b98d-9cc5-4db0-bffd-4a3daa99a3f3 Publication, Dissemination and Research Integrity];[https://embassy.science/wiki-wiki/index.php/Resource:C99f17ec-3d1e-4f7a-bfc7-3e3607934ead Research Environments and Research Integrity];[https://embassy.science/wiki-wiki/index.php/Resource:7f7810d8-74a2-42ac-906c-7f6a73fcd183 Reviewing, Evaluating, Editing and Research Integrity];[https://embassy.science/wiki-wiki/index.php/Resource:67caae86-68db-49ea-8305-2010fe701aa6 Training, Supervision and Mentoring with Integrity];[https://embassy.science/wiki-wiki/index.php/Resource:E99e20d0-8116-4d77-84ec-7df396703bf4 Safeguards, Data-sharing and the Disclosure of Sensitive Results]. +
Vignettes can be integrated in various contexts, like team training sessions, institutional or national surveys and so on. While the use of vignettes is quite common in the training contexts, comments collected on vignettes is not very common in non-training contexts (e.g. as part of national REI surveys, team meetings, conferences). Still, the comments collected on the vignettes may prove to be a great source of information about the respondents’ attitudes, beliefs, knowledge and ethical sensitivity (Kirkpatrick’s level 3).
Vignettes contain a situation with one or several ethical aspects and there can be a straightforward solution or not. There are several measures to gauge ethical sensitivity with vignettes – for example, Likert scale can be used to indicate how ethical the situation seems to the respondent. An open-answer option could be added, and research indicates (Parder et al., 2024;Tammeleht et al., forthcoming) that open responses reveal more about ethical sensitivity than quantitative data.
Implementing vignettes into various surveys or team meetings/conferences requires some preparation from the facilitators, but collecting responses and comments is quite simple. Analysing results may take some time, especially in case open answers are scrutinised. We recommend using an EASM (Ethical Awareness and Sensitivity Meter) for measuring the level on sensitivity in the open answers. Content criteria (ethical principles, ethical analysis, ethical approaches) or recognising the topics present in the vignette (similar to the domain-specific measure).
For example, Estonian national REI survey included four vignettes. The survey asked respondents to indicate the ethicality of the situation on a Likert scale (1-6). The results (of statistical analysis) show (figure 1) that the ethicality of vignettes was evaluated on different levels, some topics were considered more unethical than others.
[[File:Img25.png|left|frameless|263x263px]]
Figure 1. Unethical behaviour identified on a Likert scale (all unethical indications) (from Parder et al., 2024).
Then the respondents had a chance to add a comment – this was optional but about a half of the respondents used the opportunity (which may indicate some ethical sensitivity). Open comments were analysed based on the EASM and the picture looked a bit different (see figure 2). Based on the Likert scale results, vignette 4 was not considered very unethical (or not connected to ethics). Open answers revealed that 70% of respondents actually considered the situation to be ethical in nature and showed understanding of the topic. It also became clear that 30% of respondents had completely missed the topic, meaning they had not understood the situation from the ethical perspective.
[[File:Img26.png|center|frameless|500x500px]]
Figure 2. Analysis of open comments to the vignettes (from Parder et al., 2024).
Overall, it can be concluded that the identified misconceptions and not noticing ethical issues (both on the prestructural level in the SOLO taxonomy) may be the indication that training might be needed to clarify the topics.
This tool is suitable for use in training for ECRs, supervisors/mentors and expert researchers.
[https://www.structural-learning.com/post/scaffolding-in-education-a-teachers-guide Scaffolding] is a teaching technique, which involves providing tailored support to learners based on their current expertise and gradually withdrawing support as they become more proficient. This approach, researched in the context of research ethics and integrity, is used in both face-to-face and online learning environments, including problem-based and inquiry learning.'"`UNIQ--ref-000000A2-QINU`"''"`UNIQ--ref-000000A3-QINU`"''"`UNIQ--ref-000000A4-QINU`"' Conceptual scaffolding is crucial in problem-based and inquiry learning, helping learners navigate complex concepts and considering various learning styles. Teachers can adjust academic content to suit learners' abilities. Online courses benefit from personalised learning paths that can be adjusted in real-time. Scaffolding aligns with the idea of Vygotsky's zone of proximal development, that is instruction and facilitation should target the domain where the learner can function with assistance. It is unnecessary to provide scaffolding in domains which the learner already masters, or which are still beyond the learners reach.
When teaching research ethics and integrity, scaffolding entails dissecting difficult ideas into smaller, more digestible chunks and supporting students as they gain knowledge. Scaffolding can be planned into the design of the course teaching/learning activities and the instructions of these, but often opportunities to incorporate scaffolding techniques present themselves ad hoc. In this case, it is important that the trainer is aware of a variety of techniques and recognises situations in which they can be beneficially used to support learning. The steps for incorporating scaffolding include:
#Identifying what the learner already knows, that is, what is their current level and where is the zone of proximal development:#Setting goals, which reflect the learning objectives, for the learner in line with what was determined to be within reach in the prior step:#Planning a suitable breakdown of goals and activities in support of the goals:#Carrying out the training with scaffolding, monitoring of learning and provision of feedback during the learning:#Adjusting the support and gradually decreasing it as the learner progresses towards the goal:#New goals and planning activities as the prior goals are reached.
For example the website [https://www.buffalo.edu/catt.html Scaffolding Over Time] prepared by the Office of Curriculum and Teaching Transformation, University of Buffalo provides more information on Scaffolding for the trainer interested in using this technique.
Table 3 presents a scaffolding framework utilised in research ethics training.'"`UNIQ--ref-000000A5-QINU`"'
{| class="wikitable"
|+
!'''Scaffolding process'''
!'''Scaffolding mechanism'''
!'''Scaffolding technique'''
!'''Scaffolding purpose'''
!'''Illustrative example'''
|-
| rowspan="6"|SENSE-MAKING
|Problematising
|Hinting
|Give an indirect suggestion or piece of evidence that leads toward a problem solution (Merriam-Webster)
|‘So, the documents pertaining to research ethics and integrity to consult would be…’ (implying that some documents should be consulted)
|-
|Problematising
|Describing the problem to direct focus
|Orient to the important features (Tambaum, 2017)
|‘Indeed, when you have to get an informed consent you should consider various aspects, for example …’
|-
|Structural/ Problematising
|Making fill-in-the-blank kinds of requests
|A statement or a question with a missing component (but some info is given)
|‘A good way to highlight the importance of research integrity would be to ….?’
|-
|Structural/ Problematising
|Asking a leading question (P – why?)
|A question that prompts or encourages the answer wanted
|‘Where can you find the information pertaining to the codes of conduct?’
|-
|Structural
|Providing an example
|Giving an example to illustrate a point
|‘For example, in Europe it is a common practice to consult a research integrity advisor.’
|-
|Structural
|Providing physical props
|Helping to understand by mimicking or showing a visual aid
|‘What do you think are the ethical aspects of designing this item?’ (show e.g. a fork)
|-
| rowspan="6"|PROCESS
MANAGEMENT
|Structural
|Pumping
|Simulating to go further without specific instructions (Tambaum, 2017)
|‘OK, what else?’
|-
|Structural
|Redirecting the learner
|Showing which direction to go, which aspect should be tackled next (especially when seeing that the direction is lost/off)
|‘All right, let’s get back to the track and discuss the next steps of the ethics review process’
|-
|Structural
|Decomposing the task
|Making the bigger task into smaller components
|‘First, think what you know about the ethics review process, then, read the paragraph and finally…’ (give instructions one task after another)
|-
|Structural
|Initiating the reasoning step
|Use the faculty of reason so as to arrive at conclusions
|‘First, think what you know about the ethics review process, then, read the paragraph and finally…’ (give instructions one task after another)
|-
|Structural
|Completing the learners’ reasoning
|‘Splicing in’ the correct answer (Tambaum, 2017)
|(the learner cannot end the thought) ‘... you mean a code of conduct should be consulted?’
|-
|Structural
|Executing parts of the skill
|Do parts of the task for the learner to give an example
|‘OK, so first you consult the ALLEA code of conduct and then …’
|-
| rowspan="3"|ARTICULATION
&
REFLECTION
|Structural
|Maintaining goal orientation
|Reminding the learner of some aspect of the task
|‘Have you also had time to think about …?’
|-
|Structural/ Problematising
|Highlighting critical features
|Drawing attention to the most important aspects of the problem;highlighting ‘discrepancies’ (Reiser, 2004)
|‘Do you remember you mentioned the ethics review, what other purposes might it have?’
|-
|Problematising
|Comparing the current problem with a previously solved one
|Showing similarities between solutions
|‘Do you recall the situation that happened to Dr Smith when he invited participants into his survey? This situation may actually have similar implications.’
|}
Offering feedback and facilitating reflection are critical components when using scaffolding in research ethics and integrity training.
Feedback is more effective:
*when given as soon as possible after the session,
*when it is focused,
*when considered as a process, not a one-time shot,
*when receivers participate in the feedback process freely or when doing so is required by regular professional standards,
*when it has a restricted and chosen number of negative comments mixed in with a decent number of positive and encouraging remarks.'"`UNIQ--ref-000000A6-QINU`"'
*when negative information is "sandwiched" between positive information,
*when it allows the receiver to respond and interact,
*when given frequently, but not excessively,
*when it creates cognitive [https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/basics/cognitive-dissonance dissonance].'"`UNIQ--ref-000000A7-QINU`"'
Feedback can be provided by the trainer as well as by peers. Peer feedback is effective:
*when information is gathered from different people,
*when it is believed that the information's source is reliable, informed, and has a good intention,
*when the status or career level of the feedback provider and its’ recipient are the same.'"`UNIQ--ref-000000A8-QINU`"'
Scaffolding techniques are utilised in [[Initiative:Fa186292-623f-4b6f-a21e-44250c057f15|RID-SSISS]], [[Initiative:76ef100a-e459-4942-bd1f-701f747e8906|ROSiE]], [[Initiative:8eed30fd-c2ed-44d1-9752-753092bd350e|VIRT2UE]], [[Initiative:F9656f91-a514-44ff-9264-d6b3414fdddc|INTEGRITY]], [[Initiative:0582c7af-35eb-4def-b74e-c884f29965da|Path2Integrity]], and in the Case studies section of [https://classroom.eneri.eu/ ENERI Classroom].
'"`UNIQ--references-000000A9-QINU`"'
[https://www.structural-learning.com/post/scaffolding-in-education-a-teachers-guide Scaffolding] is a teaching technique, which involves providing tailored support to learners based on their current expertise and gradually withdrawing support as they become more proficient. This approach, researched in the context of research ethics and integrity, is used in both face-to-face and online learning environments, including problem-based and inquiry learning.'"`UNIQ--ref-00000070-QINU`"''"`UNIQ--ref-00000071-QINU`"''"`UNIQ--ref-00000072-QINU`"' Conceptual scaffolding is crucial in problem-based and inquiry learning, helping learners navigate complex concepts and considering various learning styles. Teachers can adjust academic content to suit learners' abilities. Online courses benefit from personalised learning paths that can be adjusted in real-time. Scaffolding aligns with the idea of Vygotsky's zone of proximal development, that is instruction and facilitation should target the domain where the learner can function with assistance. It is unnecessary to provide scaffolding in domains which the learner already masters, or which are still beyond the learners reach.
When teaching research ethics and integrity, scaffolding entails dissecting difficult ideas into smaller, more digestible chunks and supporting students as they gain knowledge. Scaffolding can be planned into the design of the course teaching/learning activities and the instructions of these, but often opportunities to incorporate scaffolding techniques present themselves ad hoc. In this case, it is important that the trainer is aware of a variety of techniques and recognises situations in which they can be beneficially used to support learning. The steps for incorporating scaffolding include:
#Identifying what the learner already knows, that is, what is their current level and where is the zone of proximal development
#Setting goals, which reflect the learning objectives, for the learner in line with what was determined to be within reach in the prior step
#Planning a suitable breakdown of goals and activities in support of the goals
#Carrying out the training with scaffolding, monitoring of learning and provision of feedback during the learning
#Adjusting the support and gradually decreasing it as the learner progresses towards the goal
#New goals and planning activities as the prior goals are reached
For example the website [https://www.buffalo.edu/catt.html Scaffolding Over Time] prepared by the Office of Curriculum and Teaching Transformation, University of Buffalo provides more information on Scaffolding for the trainer interested in using this technique.
Table 3 presents a scaffolding framework utilised in research ethics training.'"`UNIQ--ref-00000073-QINU`"'
{| class="wikitable"
|+
!'''Scaffolding process'''
!'''Scaffolding mechanism'''
!'''Scaffolding technique'''
!'''Scaffolding purpose'''
!'''Illustrative example'''
|-
| rowspan="6"|SENSE-MAKING
|Problematising
|Hinting
|Give an indirect suggestion or piece of evidence that leads toward a problem solution (Merriam-Webster)
|‘So, the documents pertaining to research ethics and integrity to consult would be…’ (implying that some documents should be consulted)
|-
|Problematising
|Describing the problem to direct focus
|Orient to the important features (Tambaum, 2017)
|‘Indeed, when you have to get an informed consent you should consider various aspects, for example …’
|-
|Structural/ Problematising
|Making fill-in-the-blank kinds of requests
|A statement or a question with a missing component (but some info is given)
|‘A good way to highlight the importance of research integrity would be to ….?’
|-
|Structural/ Problematising
|Asking a leading question (P – why?)
|A question that prompts or encourages the answer wanted
|‘Where can you find the information pertaining to the codes of conduct?’
|-
|Structural
|Providing an example
|Giving an example to illustrate a point
|‘For example, in Europe it is a common practice to consult a research integrity advisor.’
|-
|Structural
|Providing physical props
|Helping to understand by mimicking or showing a visual aid
|‘What do you think are the ethical aspects of designing this item?’ (show e.g. a fork)
|-
| rowspan="6"|PROCESS
MANAGEMENT
|Structural
|Pumping
|Simulating to go further without specific instructions (Tambaum, 2017)
|‘OK, what else?’
|-
|Structural
|Redirecting the learner
|Showing which direction to go, which aspect should be tackled next (especially when seeing that the direction is lost/off)
|‘All right, let’s get back to the track and discuss the next steps of the ethics review process’
|-
|Structural
|Decomposing the task
|Making the bigger task into smaller components
|‘First, think what you know about the ethics review process, then, read the paragraph and finally…’ (give instructions one task after another)
|-
|Structural
|Initiating the reasoning step
|Use the faculty of reason so as to arrive at conclusions
|‘First, think what you know about the ethics review process, then, read the paragraph and finally…’ (give instructions one task after another)
|-
|Structural
|Completing the learners’ reasoning
|‘Splicing in’ the correct answer (Tambaum, 2017)
|(the learner cannot end the thought) ‘... you mean a code of conduct should be consulted?’
|-
|Structural
|Executing parts of the skill
|Do parts of the task for the learner to give an example
|‘OK, so first you consult the ALLEA code of conduct and then …’
|-
| rowspan="3"|ARTICULATION
&
REFLECTION
|Structural
|Maintaining goal orientation
|Reminding the learner of some aspect of the task
|‘Have you also had time to think about …?’
|-
|Structural/ Problematising
|Highlighting critical features
|Drawing attention to the most important aspects of the problem, highlighting ‘discrepancies’ (Reiser, 2004)
|‘Do you remember you mentioned the ethics review, what other purposes might it have?’
|-
|Problematising
|Comparing the current problem with a previously solved one
|Showing similarities between solutions
|‘Do you recall the situation that happened to Dr Smith when he invited participants into his survey? This situation may actually have similar implications.’
|}
Offering feedback and facilitating reflection are critical components when using scaffolding in research ethics and integrity training.
Feedback is more effective:
*when given as soon as possible after the session,
*when it is focused,
*when considered as a process, not a one-time shot,
*when receivers participate in the feedback process freely or when doing so is required by regular professional standards,
*when it has a restricted and chosen number of negative comments mixed in with a decent number of positive and encouraging remarks.'"`UNIQ--ref-00000074-QINU`"'
*when negative information is "sandwiched" between positive information,
*when it allows the receiver to respond and interact,
*when given frequently, but not excessively,
*when it creates cognitive [https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/basics/cognitive-dissonance dissonance].'"`UNIQ--ref-00000075-QINU`"'
Feedback can be provided by the trainer as well as by peers. Peer feedback is effective:
*when information is gathered from different people,
*when it is believed that the information's source is reliable, informed, and has a good intention,
*when the status or career level of the feedback provider and its’ recipient are the same.'"`UNIQ--ref-00000076-QINU`"'
Scaffolding techniques are utilised in [[Initiative:Fa186292-623f-4b6f-a21e-44250c057f15|RID-SSISS]], [[Initiative:76ef100a-e459-4942-bd1f-701f747e8906|ROSiE]], [[Initiative:8eed30fd-c2ed-44d1-9752-753092bd350e|VIRT2UE]], [[Initiative:F9656f91-a514-44ff-9264-d6b3414fdddc|INTEGRITY]], [[Initiative:0582c7af-35eb-4def-b74e-c884f29965da|Path2Integrity]], and in the Case studies section of [https://classroom.eneri.eu/ ENERI Classroom].
'"`UNIQ--references-00000077-QINU`"'
Divide the group in two sub-groups and instruct each group which side of the dilemma they have to defend. There are two ways to split the group: A) participants choose a side themselves, or B) the trainer divides the group in two subgroups. Both approaches have pros and cons to consideration. With option A, the participants are more likely to believe in and strongly defend their position. With option B, the participants have to learn to defend a position which they might not agree with.
If you are aware of power differences in a group e.g. supervisors and (PhD) students, it might be advisable for the moderator to divide the group. Participants assigned to a group might feel less pressure when defending their position against people more powerful than them.
If there is enough space available in the room, position the two subgroups facing each other,they should literarily stand facing each other.
Before starting the debate, give both groups a few minutes to discuss their arguments and strategy to convince the other group. +
Der Trainer wird die Übung in drei Teilen durchführen:
''Teil I: Individuelle Reflexion''
Erinnere dich an eine Situation (siehe “Vorbereitung”), in der du dir nicht sicher warst, was das richtige Verhalten in der Situation ist, oder in der du Bedenken bezüglich der Research Integrity hattest. Welcher Wert war in dieser Situation angegriffen? Überlege dir, welches Verhalten du in der Situation zeigen müsstest, um diesem Wert gerecht zu werden.
''Teil II: Reflexion in der Kleingruppe''
Wählt eine Person aus (“Sprecher:in”), die später im Plenum über den nun stattfindenden Gruppenprozess berichten wird. Nun schildert jede:r in der Kleingruppe seine Situation und hört sich die Schilderung der anderen Kleingruppenmitglieder aufmerksam an. Wählt eine Situation aus, über die ihr gemeinsam intensiv nachdenken wollt.Nach der Auswahl der Situation füllt jede:r individuell das Handout 2 aus (siehe “Praktische Tipps”).
Tauscht im Anschluss eure Notizen in der Kleingruppe aus, indem ihr in einer Gruppenreflexion oder einem Gruppendialog über Unterschiede und Ähnlichkeiten in Bezug auf die ausgewählten Werte und Verhaltensweisen sprecht.
''Teil III: Zusammenfassung der Arbeit in den Kleingruppen und allgemeine Erkenntnisse''
In diesem Teil werden die Diskussionsergebnisse aus den Kleingruppen berichtet,allgemeine Erkenntnisse formuliert,und die Übung evaluiert.
(Eine detaillierte Beschreibung der einzelnen Schritte ist bei den Anweisungen für Trainer:innen zu finden) +
Katılımcı grubunuzu iki alt gruba ayırın ve her bir gruba ikilemdeki seçeneklerden hangisini savunacaklarını söyleyin. Alt grupları iki şekilde oluşturabilirsiniz: A) Katılımcılar kendileri bir tarafı seçebilir ya da B) eğitmen katılımcıları gruplara ayırabilir. Her iki yaklaşımın da göz önünde bulundurulması gereken kendine özgü olumlu ve olumsuz yönleri vardır: A seçeneğinde katılımcılar gruplarını kendileri tercih ettikleri için zaten benimsemiş oldukları tarafı/düşünceyi kolaylıkla savunma eğilimine gireceklerdir. B seçeneğinde ise benimsemedikleri bir görüşü savunmayı öğrenmek durumunda kalabilirler, bu da kendi savunacakları taraf için argüman aramak zorunda kalacakları anlamına gelir. Grubunuz içerisinde hiyerarşik bir yapı varsa – örneğin danışmanlar ve (doktora düzeyindeki) öğrenciler gibi – alt grupları oluştururken dikkatli davranmanız gerekecektir. Böyle bir durumda grupların eğitmen tarafından oluşturulması tavsiye edilir. Bu sayede katılımcılar bulundukları gruba eğitmen tarafından yerleştirildikleri için üstleriyle tartışırken daha az sıkıntı yaşayacaklardır.
Toplantı salonunda yeterli alan varsa iki alt grubu karşılıklı olarak oturtun. Yani gruplar birbirinin karşısında konumlansın. Münazaraya başlamadan önce her bir gruba karşı grubu ikna edebilmek için gerekli argüman ve stratejiler üzerine düşünebilmeleri için birkaç dakika verin. +
Katılımcı grubunuzu iki alt gruba ayırın ve her bir gruba ikilemdeki seçeneklerden hangisini savunacaklarını söyleyin. Alt grupları iki şekilde oluşturabilirsiniz: A) Katılımcılar kendileri bir tarafı seçebilir ya da B) eğitmen katılımcıları gruplara ayırabilir. Her iki yaklaşımın da göz önünde bulundurulması gereken kendine özgü olumlu ve olumsuz yönleri vardır: A seçeneğinde katılımcılar gruplarını kendileri tercih ettikleri için zaten benimsemiş oldukları tarafı/düşünceyi kolaylıkla savunma eğilimine gireceklerdir. B seçeneğinde ise benimsemedikleri bir görüşü savunmayı öğrenmek durumunda kalabilirler, bu da kendi savunacakları taraf için argüman aramak zorunda kalacakları anlamına gelir. Grubunuz içerisinde hiyerarşik bir yapı varsa – örneğin danışmanlar ve (doktora düzeyindeki) öğrenciler gibi – alt grupları oluştururken dikkatli davranmanız gerekecektir. Böyle bir durumda grupların eğitmen tarafından oluşturulması tavsiye edilir. Bu sayede katılımcılar bulundukları gruba eğitmen tarafından yerleştirildikleri için üstleriyle tartışırken daha az sıkıntı yaşayacaklardır.
Toplantı salonunda yeterli alan varsa iki alt grubu karşılıklı olarak oturtun. Yani gruplar birbirinin karşısında konumlansın. Münazaraya başlamadan önce her bir gruba karşı grubu ikna edebilmek için gerekli argüman ve stratejiler üzerine düşünebilmeleri için birkaç dakika verin. +
03 - Four Quadrant Approach: A Method for Analysing Cases in Research Ethics and Research Integrity +
Once the details of a case have been outlined according to the four quadrants, there are a series of questions that should be considered:
<br />
*What is at issue? Try to list what is the major ethical issue at the case, e.g researchers’ dishonesty, negligent conduct, informed consent, rules of data collection etc.)
*Where is the conflict? Is there a conflict between principles of research or principles of research integrity? (e.g. autonomy, justice, beneficence or between honesty, reliability and respect for colleagues)
*What is this a case of? Does it sound like other cases you may have encountered? (e.g. Is it a case of "self-plagiarism", “fabrication of data in a grant application” or “low risk research involving humans without a valid informed consent”?)
*What do we know about other cases like this one? Is there clear precedent? If so, we call this a paradigm case. A paradigm case is one in which the facts of the case are very clear cut and there has been much professional and/or public agreement about resolution of the case.
*How is the present case similar to the paradigm case? How is it different? Is it similar (or different) in significant ways? +
Katılımcı grubunuzu iki alt gruba ayırın ve her bir gruba ikilemdeki seçeneklerden hangisini savunacaklarını söyleyin. Alt grupları iki şekilde oluşturabilirsiniz: A) Katılımcılar kendileri bir tarafı seçebilir ya da B) eğitmen katılımcıları gruplara ayırabilir. Her iki yaklaşımın da göz önünde bulundurulması gereken kendine özgü olumlu ve olumsuz yönleri vardır: A seçeneğinde katılımcılar gruplarını kendileri tercih ettikleri için zaten benimsemiş oldukları tarafı/düşünceyi kolaylıkla savunma eğilimine gireceklerdir. B seçeneğinde ise benimsemedikleri bir görüşü savunmayı öğrenmek durumunda kalabilirler,bu da kendi savunacakları taraf için argüman aramak zorunda kalacakları anlamına gelir. Grubunuz içerisinde hiyerarşik bir yapı varsa – örneğin danışmanlar ve (doktora düzeyindeki) öğrenciler gibi – alt grupları oluştururken dikkatli davranmanız gerekecektir. Böyle bir durumda grupların eğitmen tarafından oluşturulması tavsiye edilir. Bu sayede katılımcılar bulundukları gruba eğitmen tarafından yerleştirildikleri için üstleriyle tartışırken daha az sıkıntı yaşayacaklardır.
Toplantı salonunda yeterli alan varsa iki alt grubu karşılıklı olarak oturtun. Yani gruplar birbirinin karşısında konumlansın. Münazaraya başlamadan önce her bir gruba karşı grubu ikna edebilmek için gerekli argüman ve stratejiler üzerine düşünebilmeleri için birkaç dakika verin. +
'''''Target audience''': Bachelor and master students, doctoral students and early-career researchers.''
The RID-SSISS training aims to help beginner and more experienced researchers develop their research ethics competencies in HE institutions. A CSCL (Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning) ethics resource was designed that utilised cases, collaboration, and structural scaffolding. This resource provides learners with opportunities to gradually develop research ethics competencies, guiding them through three levels. The [https://en.researchethicscompass.net/ Foundation level] focuses on developing (but also helping learners to recall) central concepts of RE/RI, primarily suitable for bachelor’s, master’s, and doctoral students but also usable with academic staff and researchers. During the Foundation level training, participants learn to guide their own REI practices and behaviour. The RID-SSISS training also provides resources for ECRs and junior academics. This material aims to develop RE/RI competencies by supporting ethical analysis competencies as a step towards increased agency in research ethics and integrity. Ethical analysis involves the following steps: identify ethical issues by determining which ethical principle might be at stake,and utilise the ethical analysis steps to provide solutions to ethical dilemmas. In addition to the foundational level, the project developed training materials for ECRs and junior academics ([https://www.researchethicstraining.net/ advanced level]). +
Teile die Gruppe in zwei Subgruppen auf und teile jeder Gruppe mit, welche Seite des Dilemmas sie verteidigen soll.
Einteilung der Gruppen:
* Zur Aufteilung der Gruppe hast du zwei Möglichkeiten:
a) du lässt die Teilnehmenden sich selbst einteilen
b) du als Trainer:in teilst die Subgruppen ein.
* Beide Varianten haben Vor- und Nachteile. Variante A: die Teilnehmenden werden sich wahrscheinlich mehr mit ihrer Subgruppe identifizieren und ihre Positionen engagierter verteidigen,Variante B: die Teilnehmenden lernen, wie sie eine Position verteidigen, die sie eventuell nicht selbst vertreten. Gesetzt dem Fall, deine Gesamtgruppe besteht aus Personen unterschiedlicher Hierarchiepositionen (z.B. Supervisoren und Promovierende), dann kann es vorteilhaft sein, dass du als Trainer:in die Gruppen aufteilst. Die zugeteilten Teilnehmer:innen werden es dann als leichter empfinden, eine Gegenposition gegenüber einer hierarchisch höher gestellten Person zu verteidigen.]
Ist genügend Platz im Raum vorhanden, positioniere die zwei Subgruppen so, dass sie sich gegenseitig ansehen. Die zu verteidigenden gegenüberliegenden Positionen in der Debatte spiegeln sich so in der räumlichen Position wider, was den Effekt der Übung verstärkt.
Gib beiden Gruppen 3-5 Minuten Zeit, um ihre Argumente zu besprechen und eine Strategie zu diskutieren, wie die andere Gruppe von der eigenen Position überzeugt werden kann. Danach kann die Debatte gestartet werden. +
The taxonomy of Significant Learning or the Fink’s taxonomy is a non-hierarchical system that helps trainers devise learning outcomes to support deep learning. No dimension is considered more important than the other and within the course various aspects should be present.'"`UNIQ--ref-0000004B-QINU`"' Thus, this taxonomy provides an alternative frame for devising learning objectives for training.
*<span lang="EN-GB">'''Foundational knowledge''': understand and recall ethical information.</span>
*<span lang="EN-GB">'''Application''': demonstrate skills in ethical analysis and problem-solving.</span>
*<span lang="EN-GB">'''Integration''': connect ethical theories and compare different approaches.</span>
*<span lang="EN-GB">H'''uman dimension''': recognize the impact of ethical decisions on oneself and others.</span>
*<span lang="EN-GB"> C'''aring''': develop empathy and values related to ethics.</span>
* L'''earning to learn:''' reflect on the learning process and self-assess ethical understanding.
'"`UNIQ--references-0000004C-QINU`"' +
The taxonomy of Significant Learning or the Fink’s taxonomy is a non-hierarchical system that helps trainers devise learning outcomes to support deep learning. No dimension is considered more important than the other and within the course various aspects should be present.'"`UNIQ--ref-0000006E-QINU`"' Thus, this taxonomy provides an alternative frame for devising learning objectives for training. The fact that this taxonomy emphasises care and empathy makes it very suitable for training on ethics and integrity. The following is a short overview of the various dimensions:
''Foundational knowledge''
This dimension focuses on content knowledge and includes recalling and understanding of information and ideas.
''Application''
Here the learner demonstrates skills – they can be related to the use of knowledge or include skills necessary to interact in the subject, e.g. critical and creative thinking, decision-making, solving problems etc. For example, using the steps of ethical analysis to solve a situation involving an integrity-related challenge.
''Integration''
In this dimension the learner perceives connections between various ideas, disciplines, and experiences. It includes relating various ideas to each other, comparing, contrasting ideas and examples, and so on. For example, in solving an ethical issue, different ethical theoretical viewpoints may lead to diverse actions and solutions. Recognising how for example a virtue ethical approach may lead to a different solution than reasoning based on utilitarianism may be an expression of integration.
''Human dimension''
Learners learn with others, and they gain new understanding of themselves as well as others and alsoin the learning process. They recognise how people influence each other. Understanding how to respectfully work together for the greater good is an example of how the human dimension materialises positively in practice.
''Caring''
The caring dimension includes an affective stance and involves change in a learner. The learners start to see the reason to care about a topic, they gain new interests, feelings and values about the subject. Empathy and an ethics of care are values compatible with caring.
''Learning to learn''
In this dimension the learner understands that it is not only the outcome of learning that matters but also the process is important. This dimension includes guiding one’s learning for instance by inquiry, reflection and self-assessment. The role of reflection has been emphasised as a key activity in learning and individual development.'"`UNIQ--ref-0000006F-QINU`"'
'"`UNIQ--references-00000070-QINU`"'
[[File:Man thinking .png|center|frameless|600x600px]]
Philosopher Immanuel Kant maintained that a priori knowledge is independent of experience. He contrasted this with a posteriori knowledge, which has its sources in experience and observation. In life, most knowledge is of the a posteriori form;it is rooted in experience and observation.
Watch this video to find out why philosophers think there might be a problem with this.
'''The Problem Of Induction'''
Understanding how we construct knowledge helps us to take a critical standpoint and to exercise caution when making assumptions about proof. As well as the above evidence-proof issue, it is also important to acknowledge the impact of the researcher on the creation of knowledge. +
As we learned in step 1 care ethics values interconnectedness, interdependence, and rejects the individualistic rational autonomy, typical of the colonial wester perspective.
This way of understanding human relationship and of centering care responsibilities at the core of human flourishing was brought forward by feminist scholars and lies at the core of many indigenous practices and knowledges, where the interdependence among being and the reciprocal responsibilities that connect humans, the natural environment, including water and other beings, is recognized.
The concept of “care” is integrated in the discourse and practices of indigenous environmental movements and provide important paradigms for caring as part of environmental ethics.
According to Whyte and Cuomo (2016) indigenous conceptions of care include:
1) the importance of one’s awareness of their own place within a web of different connections (including humans, non-human beings and entities, and collectives (e.g., forests, seasonal cycles)
2) the understanding of moral connections as including relationships of interdependence that motivate reciprocal responsibilities
3) the valorization of skills and virtues, such as the wisdom of grandparents and elders, attentiveness to the environment, and indigenous stewardship practices
4) the will to restore people and communities wounded by injustices by rebuilding relationships that can generate responsibilities pertinent to the environmental challenges such as biodiversity loss
5) the conception of political autonomy as involving the protection of the right to serve as responsible stewards of lands and the environment.
These conceptions of care align with the idea that in indigenous knowledge, care responsibilities extend to nature and the environment. This is exemplified by the concept of kinship (i.e. the bond that exists between members of a group, often a family, based on which relationships, social structures, rights, obligations, and expectations are determined) which in indigenous traditions extends to the place we live in, including nature, animals and the elements which sustain life. In this view, kinship, is not merely a status (defined belonging to a certain group) but an action, and in particular the reciprocal care that members of the kinship exercise for each other.
Watch the video below:
<span lang="EN-US">A PhD candidate, meets with their esteemed but chaotic promotor every 6 weeks, where their unpreparedness and inconsistent advice leave them feeling unsupported. This scenario is focused on handling conflicts and communication issues with a supervisor.</span> +
