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
4
Based on what you learned from the video, please answer the following questions. +
<span lang="EN-GB">Decide whether each statement is True (T) or False (F) based on the podcast. Then read the feedback to check your understanding.</span> +
The BEYOND Trainer Guide introduces effectiveness measures to help trainers assess whether the training provided is impactful and beneficial. The versatile evaluation tools (developed in WP4) are designed to be applicable to various target groups and compatible with a variety of training activities and resources. Such evaluation measures are often absent in training resources, yet they provide trainers with a valuable mechanism to ensure how effectively training supports learning. Understanding how training facilitates learning and development is necessary in the process of fostering and strengthening integrity in the research community. Provision of training is a necessary component of the overall building of a culture of integrity. Yet training, the effects of which are not monitored, falls short of its potential to mirror the change it contributes to the research community. Therefore, in the orchard approach, learning and development provides important information about the readiness of the community to build a culture of integrity. Evaluating training effectiveness to ensure training programs achieve their intended outcomes is crucial because it connects training investments to tangible results, ensuring that the effort put into developing and delivering training is worthwhile, and for pinpointing further development needs.
Effectiveness of research ethics and integrity (REI) training can be viewed through an established effectiveness framework, which identifies four outcome domains, namely:
1. reactions (participants’ self-assessment),
2. learning (knowledge, content),
3. behaviour (acting in the research community),
4. results (e.g. institutional outcomes).'"`UNIQ--ref-0000002F-QINU`"''"`UNIQ--ref-00000030-QINU`"'
Evaluating development of ethical competencies should be determined through done as a system to get a more holistic picture. To do this, one can combine different forms of measurement, such as self-assessment and facilitator feedback as well as attitudes and behaviour treats (in tasks that display REI competencies in the research community, like research proposals, ethics sections of theses, articles, etc.). Furthermore, measurement could take place at different time points to gain insight into the learning process, learning outcome, and long-term implications, namely:
• during the training (learning process),
• right after the training – students' and facilitator’s self-reports,
• later as part of another event or course where the display of REI competencies is expected (like RE section in theses and articles, research proposal, evaluation of RE situation in the department, etc.)
It is also important to consider what to do with the results, that is what kind of changes are necessary to improve teaching and/or the environment to build the culture of integrity.
Different tools can be used to collect various learning outputs and analysis instruments can be implemented to analyse the information that has been collected (Table 2) By analysis instruments we mean the taxonomies of learning and application of theoretical models, such as levels of reflection, ethical principles and so on (if data available are mainly in a qualitative format) or statistics and learning analytics (if the data are mainly in quantitative format).
{| class="wikitable"
|+Table 1: Tools and analytical instruments for collecting learning outputs in research ethics and integrity training
!Tool for collecting learning outputs
!Details
!Analysis instrument
|-
|'''''ProLearning'' app'''
|''ProLearning'': https://www.epfl.ch/labs/chili/dualt/current-projects/realto/
<span lang="EN-GB"></span>
|learning analytics
|-
|'''Engagement app'''
|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
|-
|'''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
|}
Evaluation tools can give further insight into the effectiveness of the training and materials proposed. This will help trainers to adjust training content and delivery methods to improve trainees’ learning experience and outcomes. We propose mixing various tools for collecting learning outputs and adjusting them to the intended target groups (thoughout the trainig guide suggestions are provided on which tools would be most suitable for various target groups).
'"`UNIQ--references-00000031-QINU`"'
Training research ethics and integrity experts is vital to promoting a culture of responsible research and safeguarding public trust science. These experts play a key role in developing policies, advising researchers, and providing education on ethical practices, data management, and compliance with regulations.
Resources for research ethics and integrity experts include (please see the last section of the BEYOND trainer guide for an overview of materials divided by topics and target groups):
*The [https://eneri.eu/eneri-classroom/ ENERI Classroom] material exploring [https://classroom.eneri.eu/research-integrity research integrity], [https://classroom.eneri.eu/research-ethics research ethics], [https://classroom.eneri.eu/overlapping-issues Comprehensive and overlapping issues] and the [https://classroom.eneri.eu/node/63 development of proper infrastructure] relevant for academics, and research ethics and integrity experts.
*The dilemmas developed by the Upright training ([https://printeger.eu/upright/toc/dilemma-with-a-little-help/ With a little help], [https://printeger.eu/upright/toc/dilemma-mutual-favours/ Mutual favours], [https://printeger.eu/upright/toc/dilemma-sharing-data/ Sharing data], [https://printeger.eu/upright/toc/dilemma-so-close/ So close], [https://printeger.eu/upright/toc/dilemma-different-results/ Different results], [https://printeger.eu/upright/toc/dilemma-put-your-supervisor-first/ Put your supervisor first], [https://printeger.eu/upright/toc/dilemma-flexible-scope/ Flexible scope], [https://printeger.eu/upright/toc/dilemma-outliers/ Outliers], and [https://printeger.eu/upright/toc/dilemma-invalid-data/ Invalid data])
*The scenarios produced by EnTIRE for The Embassy of Good Science s [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].
Training research ethics and integrity experts is vital to promoting a culture of responsible research and safeguarding public trust science. These experts play a key role in developing policies, advising researchers, and providing education on ethical practices, data management, and compliance with regulations.
Resources for research ethics and integrity experts include (please see the last section of the BEYOND trainer guide for an overview of materials divided by topics and target groups):
*The [https://eneri.eu/eneri-classroom/ ENERI Classroom] material exploring [https://classroom.eneri.eu/research-integrity research integrity], [https://classroom.eneri.eu/research-ethics research ethics], [https://classroom.eneri.eu/overlapping-issues Comprehensive and overlapping issues] and the [https://classroom.eneri.eu/node/63 development of proper infrastructure] relevant for academics, and research ethics and integrity experts.
*The dilemmas developed by the Upright training ([https://printeger.eu/upright/toc/dilemma-with-a-little-help/ With a little help], [https://printeger.eu/upright/toc/dilemma-mutual-favours/ Mutual favours], [https://printeger.eu/upright/toc/dilemma-sharing-data/ Sharing data], [https://printeger.eu/upright/toc/dilemma-so-close/ So close], [https://printeger.eu/upright/toc/dilemma-different-results/ Different results], [https://printeger.eu/upright/toc/dilemma-put-your-supervisor-first/ Put your supervisor first], [https://printeger.eu/upright/toc/dilemma-flexible-scope/ Flexible scope], [https://printeger.eu/upright/toc/dilemma-outliers/ Outliers], and [https://printeger.eu/upright/toc/dilemma-invalid-data/ Invalid data])
*The scenarios produced by EnTIRE for The Embassy of Good Science s [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].
[[File:Standing stones on beach.jpg|center|frameless|600x600px]]
Justification for this type of research cannot rest purely upon the assessment of harms and benefits for the participants. There are many other factors to take into account when assessing the ethical permissibility of leading-edge gene editing research with humans. Work through the presentation below to reveal some other important factors that might need to be considered.
The assessment of proposals like this is a complex matter and it may demand input from a wide range of perspectives. There are specific technical questions (for instance, regarding what the therapy will involve and the potential for off-target or on-target effects), as well as broader and more general questions, (for instance, ‘does this research need to be done?’ and ‘who stands to benefit from the research?’). The involvement of young children also demands careful consideration, ‘Is children's participation in the research necessary or could the information be obtained in other ways?’;‘What would be the likely consequences of not involving children?’. These considerations require individual, case by case scrutiny, from a committee with wide-ranging expertise. +
<div>Various interventions – especially those related to open science – have been proposed to improve the reproducibility and replicability of scientific research. To assess whether and which interventions have been formally tested for their effectiveness in improving reproducibility and replicability, the research team from TIER2 and OSIRIS conducted a scoping review of the literature on interventions to improve reproducibility. They systematically searched Medline, Embase, Web of Science, PsycINFO, Scopus and Eric, on August 18, 2023. Grey literature was requested from experts in the fields of reproducibility and open science. Any study empirically evaluating the effectiveness of interventions aimed at improving the reproducibility or replicability of scientific methods and findings wasincluded. An intervention could be any action taken by either individual researchers or scientific institutions (e.g., research institutes, publishers and funders). We summarized the retrieved evidence narratively and in an evidence gap map. Of the 104 distinct studies we included, 15 directly measured the effect of an intervention on reproducibility or replicability, while the other research questions addressed a proxy outcome that might be expected to increase reproducibility or replicability, such as data sharing, methods transparency or preregistration. Thirty research questions within included studies were non-comparative and 27 were comparative but cross-sectional, precluding any causal inference. Possible limitations of our review may be the search and selection strategy, which was done by a large team including researchers from different disciplines and different expertise levels. Despite studies investigating a range of interventions and addressing various outcomes, our findings indicate that in general the evidence-base for which various interventions to improve reproducibility of research remains remarkably limited in many respects.
The full pre-print is available here: [https://osf.io/preprints/metaarxiv/a8rmu_v1 MetaArXiv Preprints - Open Science interventions to improve reproducibility and replicability of research: a scoping review preprint]
Dudda, L., Kormann, E., Kozula, M., DeVito, N. J., Klebel, T., Dewi, A. P. M., … Leeflang, M. (2024, June 17). Open Science interventions to improve reproducibility and replicability of research: a scoping review preprint. '"`UNIQ--nowiki-00000003-QINU`"'
</div>
02 - The Seven Steps Method: A Method for Analysing Cases in Research Ethics and Research Integrity +
Be imaginative, try to avoid “dilemma”;not “yes” or “no” but whom to go to, what to say. +
REI leadership framework outlined in figure 4 (Tammeleht et al., 2022;Tammeleht et al., submitted) can be used to guide a meta-analysis of surveys or documents guiding the practices of REI.
[[File:Img12.png|center|frameless|600x600px]]
Figure 4. REI leadership framework (improved version from Tammeleht et al., submitted)
The meta-analysis can be guided by the following template (figure 5) (from Tammeleht et al., submitted):
{| class="wikitable"
|+
Figure 5. Template for the individual case meta-analysis (from Tammeleht et al., submitted).
Data analysis example (based on the Estonian and Finnish national REI surveys):
For the theme researchers’ needs evidence could be sought of what was perceived as threats or if the needs were directly asked for. For instance, the Finnish survey asked which dimensions of factors were considered as threats to research. The aspects of ownership and rights being unclear may indicate a need for a discussion in the research community or improved REI infrastructure elements.
To gain insights about the community themes pertaining to REI infrastructure could be collected (e.g. guidelines, trainings, RI advisors, supervision, team support). For example, the Estonian survey asked if REI infrastructure elements were present and whether researchers had used them.
Leaders’ competencies/characteristics became evident mostly from open answers (if they were present) or if there were direct questions about leaders in the institution. For instance, the Finnish survey had open answers that included topics pertaining leadership:
“
My community has excellent research leaders, but the relationships between them have become toxic. This causes them obvious stress, which is unavoidably reflected onto other researchers. There are plenty of models of good, ethical leadership from elsewhere. I have several different [...] superiors, and there are still more positive and supportive examples available than negative ones” (Salminen & Pitkänen, 2020).
Research culture was interpreted from items displaying trust and/or courage, for instance how researchers perceive dealing with misconduct and/or how they perceive support. For example, the Estonian report indicated which forms of misconduct or QRPs were considered more problematic and which ones not so problematic. The survey indicates that salami-slicing is not considered very problematic and is a practice seen among colleagues as well as self-reported practice. Behaviour in the research community may indicate trends in the research culture.
!'''Meta-analysis of a national research ethics/integrity survey'''
Country:
Link to the national survey:
REI leadership principle I:
Researchers’ needs – what is perceived as a threat? What are the needs?
…
REI leadership principle II:
Community – infrastructure: guidelines, trainings, RI advisors;supervision, team support
…
REI leadership principle III:
Leaders’ competencies – from open answers/ any questions that pertain to leadership/administration
…
REI leadership principle IV:
Open research culture – trust, courage – how do researchers perceive dealing with misconduct, how do they perceive support?
|}
Introduction to the evaluation of the effectiveness of Research Ethics and Integrity (REI) training +
Large-scale in our module means that the tool can be used with big groups. As many REI training formats take place with small groups, we also outline tools for use in those groups. The presented tools can be used with different target groups and in different fields within HE (higher education) context. All analysis tools are applicable in different disciplines.
Short-, mid- and long-term are relative concepts. By short-term training effects we understand the learning, which is displayed during and soon after training;by mid-term, training effects learning, which is displayed when the training has ended and usually pertains to the learning content and/or learning process. By long-term effects we understand the learning that is displayed months or even years after training. The longer the timeframe is, the more challenging it becomes to pinpoint what is training effect and what is development and learning in a more general sense. Long-term effects are, thus, best approached as manifestations of behaviour over time.
Feasibility is here understood as the level of effort and specialised competence or equipment that is needed to carry out the measurement or evaluation of learning. Feasibility is higher when a means of measurement is easy and fast to implement, and lower when requiring time and specialised knowledge of the use of the method and the analysis of the results. +
First, group the players into groups of 3–6 players:.
*<span lang="EN-US">Share the cases with the players (different solutions possible: 1) handout with all cases;2) cases printed separately;3) cases shown on slides.)</span>
*Note: case descriptions are brief by necessity thus often the issue of “more information is needed" comes up in discussions. It is important to keep in mind that the communication and open reflection is the objective of the game, more so than the actual solutions. Thus discussions around “filling the gaps” and debating what information is needed or how it would affect one’s decisions is very much the aim.
*Note: solutions are designed so that they are all problematic in some sense. In that way they reflect the common reality where decisions need to be made in non-ideal contexts, compromises are sometimes necessary or certain important values are upheld and others are not. Experiencing some emotional distress when having to decide individually after reading the case, is an important aspect of the methodology.
*<span lang="EN-US">Refer to the Research ecosystem’s logo</span>
[[File:Beyond1.png|center|frameless|500x500px]]
<span lang="EN-US">This logo is meant to facilitate discussion on the contextual – organisational, cultural and other environmental factors – that influence research ethics and integrity practices. It can be projected or included on handouts, either during group discussions or later joint discussions.</span> +
a. Katılımcılardan deneyimledikleri somut bir durumu hatırlamalarını isteyin (bu, toplantıdan/ alıştırmadan önce eğitmen olarak dağıttığınız ödevlerin bir parçasıydı). Bu, katılımcıların kendi araştırma süreçlerinde, araştırma doğruluğuna (ya da araştırma doğruluğu ile ilgili dürüstlük, güvenilirlik, hesap verebilirlik gibi bir erdeme) ilişkin kaygı duydukları ve bir araştırmacı olarak farklı bir şey yapmaları gerekip gerekmediğine dair ahlaki şüphelerinin olduğu somut bir durum olmalıdır.
b. Katılımcılardan, hatırladıkları bu durumda risk altında olan bir erdem seçmelerini isteyin. Araştırmalarda Dürüstlük Konusunda Avrupa Davranış Kodu (ECoC) içerisinde ele alınan erdemlerin kendi durumlarıyla ilgili olup olmadığını sorun. Eğer ilgiliyse ne şekilde ilgili olduğunu, eğer değilse nedenini sorun.
c. Katılımcılardan, hatırladıkları durumda belirledikleri erdeme uygun davranışın ne olacağı üzerine fikir yürütmelerini isteyin. Doğru davranış tarzını belirlemek için mutlaka dengeleyici bir eyleme ihtiyaç vardır. Bunun üzerinde fikir yürütebilmeleri için katılımcılardan kendi durumları üzerine düşünmelerini ve seçtikleri erdeme ilişkin olarak çizilmiş bir doğru hayal etmelerini isteyin. Seçilen erdemin cesaret olduğunu düşündüğümüzde bu doğru aşağıdaki gibi şekillenecektir:
Korkaklık davranışı- - - - - - - - -- - -cesaret davranışı- - - - - - - - - - - - -pervasızlık davranışı
d. Katılımcılardan aşağıdaki soruları yanıtlayacak üç farklı davranışı yazmalarını isteyin (katılımcılar pratik ipuçları bölümündeki çalışma kağıdı 1’i kullanabilirler).
1) Eyleminiz seçtiğiniz erdemle ilişkili davranışı çok fazla taşıyacak olsaydı ne yapardınız (doğrunun sağ ucu)?
2) Eyleminiz seçtiğiniz erdemle ilişkili davranış çok az taşıyacak olsaydı ne yapardınız (doğrunun sol ucu)?
3) Bulunduğunuz durumda seçilen erdemi mükemmel bir şekilde yansıtan doğru davranışı gösterecek olsaydınız ne yapardınız? Yani o spesifik durumda, kendi kanaatiniz ve halihazırda olduğunuz kişiye göre seçeceğiniz bu davranış ne olurdu? Bu noktada bahsi geçen erdemi temsil eden davranışınız ne çok güçlü ne de çok zayıftır. Eylemlerinizde/ düşüncelerinizde/ kararlarınızda iki ekstrem ucun ortasındasınızdır. Burası orta yoldur.
Münazarayı başlatın: gruplara karşı grubu ikilemin kendi savundukları tarafının en iyi seçenek olduğuna ikna etmelerini söyleyin. Münazara esnasında sadece birkaç kişinin söz alması durumunda moderatör olarak siz de katılımcıları zorlayacak ya da ilgilerini uyandıracak şeyler söyleyebilirsiniz. Genel olarak münazaraya - katılımcılar seslerini yükseltmeye başlasa da - fazla müdahale etmemeye çalışın. Sürecin çok duygusal bir hale geldiği izlenimine kapılırsanız münazarayı sonlandırın ve katılımcılara agresifleşmelerine ya da sinirlenmelerine yol açan şeyin ne olduğunu sorun.
Katılımcıların münazarayı fazla kibar ve medeni biçimde sürdürmesi durumunda ise moderatör olarak aktif müdahalede bulunmanız ve grupları birbirlerini ikna etmeye zorlamanız gerekebilir. Hatta aşağıdakiler gibi tahrik edici yorumlarda da bulunabilirsiniz:
* Yok artık, gerçekten böyle mi düşünüyorsun?
* Bu argümanın geçerli bir argüman olduğunu nerden çıkardın? +
Prior research has confirmed (Tammeleht et al., 2019;2022) that using ‘the epistemic artefacts’ in the form of group reports or portfolios reflect the advancement of knowledge and co-creation of knowledge. In addition, a written collaborative ‘artefact’ with facilitator induced guidelines provides structural scaffolding like decomposing the task, asking leading questions, redirecting learners, goal orientation and highlighting important aspects (Tammeleht et al., 2020). Thus, providing a written group report to be filled during the training may act as a didactical as well as a measurement tool as after the training the facilitator can monitor the advancement of ethics competencies of learners based on the report (Kirkpatrick’s level 2).
Group reports/portfolios can be analysed by using the ECAG (the SOLO taxonomy) and content criteria (ethical principles, ethical analysis, ethical approaches). Occasionally, it is possible to monitor the advancement of understanding of separate topics and this can also be visualised (see figure 1).
[[File:Img19.png|center|frameless|450x450px]]
Figure 1. Display of the learning process of one group based on their group portfolio. T1-T8 are topics, Ül1-4 are separate tasks outlined in the group report, numbers 0-4 indicate the SOLO levels.
The tool is suitable for all target groups in HE context.
An example template for a group portfolio can be found in Appendix 1. +
To illustrate how the taxonomies can be applied in creating learning objectives for training, we provide an example of an analysis of learning outcomes in RID-SSISS training material based on the three taxonomies (Table 1).
{| class="wikitable"
|+
Table 1: Example of an analysis of learning outcomes in RID-SSISS training material based on three taxonomies
!Level of training material
!Learning outcomes
!Bloom
!SOLO
!Fink
|-
| rowspan="3"|Foundational level
|Raise awareness of ethical issues during the research process;|remember, understand
|unistructural, multistructural, relational
|foundational knowledge
|-
|Practice utilising the codes of conduct, being familiar with central topics;|understand, apply, analyse
|relational, extended abstract
|application, integration
|-
|Learn together as a team, collaborate with peers.
|evaluate
|relational
|human dimension, learning to learn, caring
|-
| rowspan="3"|Advanced level
|Develop one’s research ethics competencies by combining previous knowledge and implementing new tools;|understand, apply
|unistructural, multistructural, relational
|foundational knowledge, application, integration, learning to learn
|-
|Identify ethical issues by determining which ethical principle might be at stake.'"`UNIQ--ref-0000004D-QINU`"'
|analyse, evaluate
|unistructural, multistructural, relational
|application, integration
|-
|Utilise the ethical analysis steps to provide solutions to ethical dilemmas (in groups).'"`UNIQ--ref-0000004E-QINU`"'
|apply, analyse, evaluate, create
|unistructural, multistructural, relational, extended abstract
|foundational knowledge, application, integration,
human dimension,
caring, learning to learn
|-
| rowspan="5"|Leadership level
|Develop research ethics competencies by combining previous knowledge and implementing new tools;|understand, apply
|unistructural, multistructural, relational
|foundational knowledge, application, integration, learning to learn
|-
|Identify which ethical principles might be at stake in a case.'"`UNIQ--ref-0000004F-QINU`"'
|analyse, evaluate
|unistructural, multistructural, relational
|application, integration
|-
|Utilise the ethical analysis steps to provide solutions to ethical dilemmas.'"`UNIQ--ref-00000050-QINU`"'
|apply, analyse, evaluate, create
|unistructural, multistructural, relational, extended abstract
|foundational knowledge, application, integration,
human dimension,
caring, learning to learn
|-
|Implement different ethical approaches to the possible courses of action;|analyse, evaluate
|unistructural, multistructural, relational
|foundational knowledge, application, integration,
|-
|Take the role of a REI leader and display (some) REI leadership competencies during their group work.
|apply, analyse, evaluate, create
|relational, extended abstract
|human dimension, caring, learning to learn
|}
Learning taxonomies are helpful not only in the design of learning goals for teaching, but also in devising appropriate targets of assessment. The coordination between learning goals or objectives, the methods used for teaching and the activities chosen to support learning, as well as the assessment of the learning are referred to as constructive alignment.'"`UNIQ--ref-00000051-QINU`"''"`UNIQ--ref-00000052-QINU`"''"`UNIQ--ref-00000053-QINU`"' This means that the core components of a teaching should be geared towards supporting the same aim, namely learning. Learning taxonomies are helpful not only in the design of learning goals for teaching, but also in devising appropriate targets of assessment.
'"`UNIQ--references-00000054-QINU`"'
To illustrate how the taxonomies can be applied in creating learning objectives for training, we provide an example of an analysis of learning outcomes in RID-SSISS training material based on the three taxonomies (Table 1).
{| class="wikitable"
|+
Table 1: Example of an analysis of learning outcomes in RID-SSISS training material based on three taxonomies
!Level of training material
!Learning outcomes
!Bloom
!SOLO
!Fink
|-
| rowspan="3"|Foundational level
|Raise awareness of ethical issues during the research process;|remember, understand
|unistructural, multistructural, relational
|foundational knowledge
|-
|Practice utilising the codes of conduct, being familiar with central topics;|understand, apply, analyse
|relational, extended abstract
|application, integration
|-
|Learn together as a team, collaborate with peers.
|evaluate
|relational
|human dimension, learning to learn, caring
|-
| rowspan="3"|Advanced level
|Develop one’s research ethics competencies by combining previous knowledge and implementing new tools;|understand, apply
|unistructural, multistructural, relational
|foundational knowledge, application, integration, learning to learn
|-
|Identify ethical issues by determining which ethical principle might be at stake.'"`UNIQ--ref-00000071-QINU`"'
|analyse, evaluate
|unistructural, multistructural, relational
|application, integration
|-
|Utilise the ethical analysis steps to provide solutions to ethical dilemmas (in groups).'"`UNIQ--ref-00000072-QINU`"'
|apply, analyse, evaluate, create
|unistructural, multistructural, relational, extended abstract
|foundational knowledge, application, integration,
human dimension,
caring, learning to learn
|-
| rowspan="5"|Leadership level
|Develop research ethics competencies by combining previous knowledge and implementing new tools;|understand, apply
|unistructural, multistructural, relational
|foundational knowledge, application, integration, learning to learn
|-
|Identify which ethical principles might be at stake in a case.'"`UNIQ--ref-00000073-QINU`"'
|analyse, evaluate
|unistructural, multistructural, relational
|application, integration
|-
|Utilise the ethical analysis steps to provide solutions to ethical dilemmas.'"`UNIQ--ref-00000074-QINU`"'
|apply, analyse, evaluate, create
|unistructural, multistructural, relational, extended abstract
|foundational knowledge, application, integration,
human dimension,
caring, learning to learn
|-
|Implement different ethical approaches to the possible courses of action;|analyse, evaluate
|unistructural, multistructural, relational
|foundational knowledge, application, integration,
|-
|Take the role of a REI leader and display (some) REI leadership competencies during their group work.
|apply, analyse, evaluate, create
|relational, extended abstract
|human dimension, caring, learning to learn
|}
Learning taxonomies are helpful not only in the design of learning goals for teaching, but also in devising appropriate targets of assessment. The coordination between learning goals or objectives, the methods used for teaching and the activities chosen to support learning, as well as the assessment of the learning are referred to as constructive alignment.'"`UNIQ--ref-00000075-QINU`"''"`UNIQ--ref-00000076-QINU`"''"`UNIQ--ref-00000077-QINU`"' This means that the core components of a teaching should be geared towards supporting the same aim, namely learning. Learning taxonomies are helpful not only in the design of learning goals for teaching, but also in devising appropriate targets of assessment.
'"`UNIQ--references-00000078-QINU`"'
Extending kinship relationships to Nature implies extending the concept of interdependency to the environment and as a consequence the responsibilities that humans have towards the environment. This perspective, rooted in ancestral scientific foundation, based on experimentation, observation and adaptation is deeply embedded in indigenous systems around the world, including Ubuntu among the Bantu and Xhosa peoples of Africa, Lokahi for Native Hawaiians, All my relations widely used by Tribal and Indigenous nations across Turtle Island and Tendrel of Tibetan Buddhism from Tibet, the Himalayas, and South Asia: it underlines how humans hold care responsibilities toward non-human relatives (Gauthier et al 2005).
This view is defined by Gauthier et al. as “Kincentric ecology”.
Watch the video below. You cna expand the window by clicking on the botton on the bottom-right corner. +
<span lang="EN-US">After your story, write a short reflection addressing:</span>
*<span lang="EN-US">What shifts in your thinking emerged through writing it?</span>
*<span lang="EN-US">What implications does your story raise for how research might change?</span>
<span lang="EN-US">If you can, share your thoughts with a colleague or a friend.</span> +
Chambers, J. M., & Hille Ris Lambers, R. (Eds.). (2020). 71 visions on our role in social-environmental transformative change. Wageningen University & Research.
Morris, B. S., Chrysochou, P., Christensen, J. D., Orquin, J. L., Barraza, J., Zak, P. J., & Mitkidis, P. (2019). Stories vs. facts: Triggering emotion and action-taking on climate change. Climatic Change, 154, 19–36. '"`UNIQ--nowiki-0000003A-QINU`"'
Westerink, J., et al. (2026). Transformative pathways for social networks to navigate towards a nature-positive society: Collaborate, challenge, and disrupt. Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability, 79, 101617. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cosust.2026.101617 +
<span lang="EN-US">A PhD candidate realizes their supervisor may have different interests in the outcome of their scientific output due to their investments and connections. This scenario is focused on how to open up and discuss possible conflicts of interests.</span> +
