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
'''''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.
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. +
[[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. +
<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> +
<span lang="EN-US">A PhD candidate, would like to bring new practices (specifically focused on reproducibility) to their research team but they face a lot pushback from their colleagues especially more senior ones. This scenario is focused on how to approach colleagues who are resilient to change.</span> +
<span lang="EN-US">Now you have a brief interaction to feminist research processes! Whilst these four principles are by no means all encompassing, we hope they have provided entry points for being more reflective and transformative within research ethics.</span> +
Match the key concepts in planetary health to their descriptions. +
There are two complementary approaches through which technology can contribute to sustainability:
*Greening by Tech: using technology to enable sustainable solutions (e.g., climate monitoring, carbon tracking, energy-efficient transportation).
*Greening of Tech: making the technologies themselves — including software, cloud, and hardware — more sustainable and energy-efficient. +
Read the slides carefully. The purpose of the exercise is to familiarise participants with certain key issues in the logic and philosophy of post-growth innovation. You can expand the slides to full screen by clicking the button in the '''bottom-right''' corner. +
Read the slides carefully and reflect on how research conferences and events can be planned and conducted in an environmentally responsible way. You will explore practical strategies to reduce carbon emissions, minimize waste, and promote social and environmental sustainability while ensuring accessibility and inclusivity. You can expand the slides to full screen by clicking the button in the '''bottom-right''' corner. +
Environmental justice does not only invite us to reflect on "what" is affected by research but also "who" is affected, and who has power to shape decisions. In this activity we will engage in an exercise to '''identify''' and explore the '''stakeholders''' connected to your research. This will help you better understand who is affected by your work and in what ways. The Rainbow Diagram will be used to classify stakeholders based on their proximity and influence. The closer a stakeholder is placed to the center, the more directly they are affected by the research or have influence over it. +
Please watch the video carefully! The purpose of this exercise is to test your comprehension of circularity and the key processes that support it. Circularity is not only about recycling but also about refusing, reducing, reusing, repairing, refurbishing, remanufacturing, and repurposing materials—always guided by the principle of “reduce by design.” +
