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
<div>
<span lang="EN-US">The course invites learners to step into the role of the '''Sustainable Researcher''', i.e. a professional who not only understands sustainability as a concept but lives it as a practice. Throughout the programme, you will develop the knowledge, skills, and attitudes needed to respond meaningfully to today’s intertwined social, environmental, and climate challenges.</span>
</div><div>
<span lang="EN-US">The course is organized into four thematic sections that together guide participants from foundational understanding to practical application. Each section contains multiple micromodules that address specific aspects of sustainability and eco-justice in research.</span>
</div><div>
<span lang="EN-US">It begins with '''Embodying Sustainability Values''', exploring personal and professional values such as care, fairness, respect, humility and responsibility shape research practice. From there, it moves to '''Embracing Complexity''', where you will engage with systems thinking, interdisciplinarity, and the dynamic relationships between ecological systems and social justice. In '''Envisioning Sustainable Futures''', you will learn to imagine and critically assess alternative futures, strengthening your capacity to think long-term and work creatively with uncertainty. Finally, '''Acting for Sustainability''' focuses on translating insights into practice, developing the reflexivity, collaboration skills, and community engagement strategies necessary to create tangible impact.</span> [[File:Re2.png|center|frameless|600x600px]]<span lang="EN-US">Image generated by Microsoft Copilot (2026) to illustrate the four sections of a sustainability course.</span>
<div>
<span lang="EN-US">These four domains reflect the professional competence profile of the Sustainable Researcher. This profile was shaped through 28 in-depth interviews and a Delphi survey involving 21 participants ensuring it is grounded in lived experience and collective expertise. The competence profile of the Sustainable Researcher forms the foundation of the course and mirrors the structure of the European sustainability competence framework, GreenComp (Bianchi et al., 2022).</span>
</div><div>
<span lang="EN-US">At the heart of this course is the understanding that sustainability is not only about environmental protection. The Sustainable Researcher recognizes the interconnectedness of ecological integrity and social and climate justice. They cultivate reflexivity in their own practice, collaborate across disciplines, engage meaningfully with communities, and approach complex problems with systems thinking.</span>
</div><span lang="EN-US">This course is an invitation to grow into that role, developing not just expertise, but a way of being and acting in the world that advances sustainability in research and beyond. Even though taking this course can feel like an isolating endeavor, the course developers encourage you to approach it as food for thought and to use it as a conversation starter, sharing and discussing your reflections and learning with others. Knowledge, after all, is a collective process and the first step toward action.</span>
</div>
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 (you can expand the image by clicking on the bottom right button):
In this step you’ll learn about the energy and resource demands of generative AI, as well as realistic strategies that reduce environmental impacts while maintaining performance.
You can expand the image by clicking on the button on the bottom right-hand corner. +
Listen to the podcast from 08:07 to 15:35 and answer the questions below. +
Not every sequence of information forms a story.
A narrative simply describes events in sequence. It tells what happened, but does not necessarily explain why those events matter or to whom.
A story, however, introduces change, tension, emotional engagement, and a personal point of view. It shows how a situation is disrupted and what follows from that disruption and why.
Example:
A narrative gives you the sequence of events, the skeleton. It tells you what happened in a straightforward, almost clinical way.
Example: “The researchers conducted a study, collected data, and published their results.”
It’s factual, efficient, and emotionally neutral. You understand the actions, but you don’t feel anything about them.
A story gives you the emotional logic—the heartbeat. It tells you why it mattered and how it felt.
Example: “Researchers noticed that some patients weren’t responding to treatment as expected, and at first, the unexpected results made them uneasy. But that worry soon shifted into curiosity, pushing them to dig deeper. Their investigation uncovered a new explanation—one that could reshape how the condition is treated.”
A story adds tension, motivation, and transformation. It doesn’t just say what happened;it shows how the people involved changed because of it.
Test your knowledge by completing the drag and drop. +
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-00000014-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-00000015-QINU`"' Analysis instruments are described in WP4.2, later available at the Embassy’s website.
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.
The ethical conduct of research is crucial for maintaining the integrity of science. [https://oir.nih.gov/sourcebook/ethical-conduct/responsible-conduct-research-training Responsible Conduct of Research] (RCR) advances scientific goals, fosters a collaborative research environment, and builds public trust in scientific advances that benefit society. Conversely, unethical research practices such as data fabrication and falsification lead to the dissemination of false hypotheses and unreliable data, which harms the search for valid knowledge. Similarly, plagiarism and harassment undermine respect and trust among researchers, while fraudulent or socially irresponsible research weakens public trust and support for science. [https://oir.nih.gov/sourcebook/ethical-conduct/responsible-conduct-research-training The goals of RCR training] include developing a culture of integrity in science and improving knowledge and awareness about the conduct of research.
RCR training and education should be continuous and extend beyond the academic programme throughout a scientist's career. This education can take place in a variety of contexts, such as seminars, workshops, conferences on research ethics and informal mentoring sessions, training courses and laboratory meetings where ethical behaviour and practises are discussed.
As described by van den Hoven and colleagues, multiple factors influence research integrity (RI) training (learning objectives), RI learning (learning outcomes), and changes in RI behaviour (learning outcomes).'"`UNIQ--ref-0000002A-QINU`"' Through these, it is possible to promote trustworthy science, responsible research practices, and high integrity/ethical standards. "Training effects" Can be conceptualised through the (intended) impacts of RI training on various performance levels, including individual, institutional, and societal levels.'"`UNIQ--ref-0000002B-QINU`"' Furthermore, the authors distinguish among intended training effects (for example changes in behaviour);training input and output (that is training focus/content and learners orientating themselves towards this content);outcomes (that is, learners change their behaviour);and training impact (manifestation of the outcome, such as decreases in misconduct).
[https://nap.nationalacademies.org/read/21896/chapter/15 Effective education in research ethics and integrity aims to achieve several crucial goals.]Defining goals for teaching research integrity and research ethics is crucial to promote and foster responsible research practices and a trustworthy research ecosystem. The main goals to achieve in training RE/RI are related to promoting knowledge (in relation to responsible research practices, norms, and guidelines), skills (in relation to ethical decision-making, problem solving and critical thinking), ‘theoretical’ attitude (in relation to what should be done to foster responsible research) and ‘practical’ behaviour (in relation to how researchers behave in their daily practice).'"`UNIQ--ref-0000002C-QINU`"'
'"`UNIQ--references-0000002D-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-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`"'
[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`"'
[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`"'
Podcasts are not all the same. Different formats shape how information is presented and how listeners experience it.
Choosing a format influences how structured an episode needs to be, how much preparation is required, and how information is delivered to the listener.
Common podcast formats include interviews, solo episodes, conversations, and more produced or edited formats. In an interview, a host speaks with a guest, allowing for different perspectives. Solo formats give one speaker full control over structure and explanation, while conversations involve multiple voices and can feel more informal. More produced formats use editing, narration, or sound design, which can be engaging but require more preparation.
The format you choose affects how easily listeners can follow your content. +
Work in groups or pairs. If this is not possible, reflect individually. Identify an area of research and reflect on the questions below.
*Power and responsibility
o Who makes decisions related to what is an important research question and which studies get funded?
o Who is most affected by the research?
*Knowledge and inclusion
o What types of knowledge are relevant (scientific, local, traditional)?
o Are any perspectives missing or undervalued?
o How do the ways we do research influence whose knowledge is heard?
o Are community members involved in interpretation and decision-making, or only data collection?
*Fairness and benefits
o Who benefits from current practices?
o Who might be excluded or disadvantaged?
o Have expectations related to the benefits of research (e.g. intellectual property, authorship, and data ownership) been discussed? +
Incorporating gender, health, and climate justice in your research: A reflexive question card exercise +
Listen to an episode of the Earth to Research podcast, which explores how research can respond to the ecological crisis and broader societal challenges. In this episode health psychologist Dr. Petra Verdonk explores what planetary health means for all researchers, practitioners, and change-makers.
Speaking with host Lucy Sabin, Verdonk connects intersectionality, gender mainstreaming, and reflexivity to wider movements in policy, action research, and climate campaigning.
The podcast episode explores how climate change, gender, and health are deeply interconnected and must be understood through an intersectional and systems-oriented lens. Petra Verdonk argues that much research and policy is still based on narrow and “skewed” knowledge systems that assume neutrality while in fact reflecting limited and dominant perspectives. She emphasises that simply including more women or marginalised groups is not enough;instead, research frameworks themselves need to be critically rethought. The conversation highlights how climate change intensifies existing inequalities and cannot be addressed through purely technical or individual-focused solutions, such as simply “greening” current systems like transport or healthcare. Instead, it calls for reimagining these systems entirely, considering context, place, and lived experience. The episode also discusses intersectionality as a theory rooted in injustice and inequality rather than just a method for categorising differences, and stresses the importance of reflexivity,
positional awareness, and learning from diverse communities in both research and policy-making. +
'''Valuing sustainability'''
Acknowledge diverse perspectives and values concerning environmental and climate justice in the context of research and innovation. Reflect on how personal values and perspectives regarding the environment influence decisions and actions taken during the research process. Consider professional competency in research and innovation to include a responsibility to reduce environmental harms and increase environmental benefits. Uphold the do no (significant) harm principle and precautionary principle in relation to research and innovation.
'''Supporting fairness'''
Recognize the disproportionate impact of the planetary crisis on and within different communities due to coloniality and systemic injustice.
Consider the implications of global and local justice perspectives on research methodologies, priorities, and outcomes.
Support equity and justice for present and future generations in research and innovation proposals.
Conduct research and innovation activities in a way that contributes to both social and environmental justice
'''Promoting nature'''
Acknowledge that research and innovation are embedded in, and can cause significant harm to, ecological systems. Perceive the needs and rights of non-human Nature as a fundamental aspect of research ethics. Practice care and respect towards the environment and other species when designing a research or innovation project +
Click on the hotspots to explore the environmental impacts associated with wet and dry laboratory research practices and discover how Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) can help identify each environmental hotspots and support more sustainable research. +
Doing research with communities affected by climate change: Climate-conscious methodologies matrix (for researchers and ethics reviewers) +
The climate-conscious methodologies matrix helps researchers, students, and citizen scientists make ethical and responsible decisions in research. It is especially useful when working with climate-related impacts (such as floods, heatwaves, or droughts), with vulnerable or affected communities.
The tool encourages you to '''ask good questions''' throughout all stages of your research (from the early design to communication of results) and helps you adapt your methods while keeping fairness, safety, and community needs at the centre.
In a changing climate, traditional research methods may not work or may cause harm. Communities may be under stress. Researchers may face risks. By using the matrix, you can:
*'''Stay flexible,''' but still do high-quality research
*'''Respect local people and ecosystems'''
*'''Build trust''' through careful planning and honest communication
*'''Support climate justice''' by including affected voices in all stages of research.
In the following steps 5 deks of cards are presented. Each of them addresses the following methodological components:
*Research design
*Assessment and measurement strategies
*Data evaluation and interpretation
*Ethical issues and scientific integrity
*Communication of research findings
Have a look at how to use the cards by clicking on the link below. +
A fair plan for access to the benefits of pandemic research should be agreed early on in any project, in collaboration with stakeholders. +
The Stories Behind (the) Research – Ep. 2. From Skepticism to Action: Embracing a culture of humility in research +
Use the instructions below to reflect on your own experience +
