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
In addition to the facilitator feedback after the group-work (whatever form the facilitator decides to use) learner’s self-reflection form (SRF) can be used: click on the [https://forms.office.com/Pages/ShareFormPage.aspx?id=WXWumNwQiEKOLkWT5i_j7twYn7PlpvpDlgGDpz2LgIdUOVQ4RU1ER01aVzk0NllKTk5FUVU3RzJTVi4u&sharetoken=O08ePjwroUE6lLvlP8Fd link] to make a copy of the form for the training (collects also the user feedback on the material). You should modify the form as appropriate (e.g. who collects the answers, as you duplicate the form, the responses will be saved on your cloud and you will be the owner of the answers), but you should keep the statements and order of questions the same – otherwise participants will not receive automated feedback. +
Gauge your knowledge on plastic waste management. +
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. +
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. +
<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> +
<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> +
<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> +
How can we act according to our values? +
Convention on Biological Diversity, [https://www.cbd.int/article/greening-tech-for-people-and-planet Greening Tech for People and Planet], 1 June 2021.
Xavier Harding, [https://www.mozillafoundation.org/en/blog/ai-internet-carbon-footprint/ The Internet's Invisible Carbon Footprint], Mozilla Foundation, 3 Aug 2023.
United Nations, thoughtworks, [https://www.thoughtworks.com/content/dam/thoughtworks/documents/e-book/tw_ebook_responsible_tech_playbook_united_nations.pdf Responsible Technology Playbook. Tools for the United Nations], 2023. +
<span lang="EN-GB">Explore the following additional terms through the lens of the Crisis Tree</span> +
'''1. Main source:'''
Redvers N, Faerron Guzmán C, Parkes M. (2023). Towards an educational praxis for planetary health: a call for transformative, inclusive, and integrative approaches for learning and relearning in the Anthropocene. The Lancet Planetary Health, 7, e77-e85.
https://doi.org/10.1016/S2542-5196(22)00332-1
'''2. Foundational planetary health framing:'''
Whitmee, S., Haines, A., Beyrer, C., et al. (2015). Safeguarding human health in the Anthropocene epoch: Report of The Rockefeller Foundation-Lancet Commission on planetary health. The Lancet, 386(10007), 1973–2028. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(15)60901-1
'''3. Ecologies of Knowledges <span lang="EN-GB">(Chapter 7)</span> + Intercultural Translation <span lang="EN-GB">(Chapter 8)</span>:'''
<span lang="DE">Santos, B. de S. (2014).</span> <span lang="EN-US">Santos, B. de S. (2014). Epistemologies of the South: Justice against epistemicide. Routledge. (</span><span lang="EN-GB">See Chapter 7 on “Ecologies of knowledges” and Chapter 8 on “Intercultural translation: Differing and sharing con passionalità”). https://unescochair-cbrsr.org/pdf/resource/Epistemologies_of_the_South.pdf</span> +
Cortés Valderrama, G., Peláez Cardona, V., Mirembe, A., Ndoye, F., Victoria Bojacá, M., and Ernestine Leikeki, S. (2022) Transformative Pathways: Climate and Gender-Just Alternatives to Intersecting Crises. Women Engage for a Common Future [Online] [https://www.wecf.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/10/WECF_libro_Transformative_Pathways_221018_compressed.pdf Available here.]
Decolonialidad Europa (2013) Charter of Decolonial Research Ethics. [https://decolonialityeurope.wixsite.com/decoloniality/charter-of-decolonial-research-ethics Available here].
Equinox (2021) Towards Climate Justice Rethinking the European Green Deal from a racial justice perspective. [Online] [https://www.equinox-eu.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/06/Towards-Climate-Justice-Equinox.pdf Available here].
Heffernan, R., Heidegger, P., Köhler, G., Stock, A., and Wiese, K., (2022) “A Feminist European Green Deal: Towards an Ecological and Gender Just Transition” Friedrich-Ebert-Stiftung [Online [https://library.fes.de/pdf-files/iez/18990.pdf Available here].
Heidegger, P., Lharaig, N., Stock, A., Wiese, K., and Heffernan, R. (eds) Why the European Green Deal needs ecofeminism: Moving from gender-blind to gender-transformative environmental policies. European Environmental Bureau [Online] [https://eeb.org/library/why-the-european-green-deal-needs-ecofeminism/ Available here].
Kimberlé, C. (2016) The urgency of intersectionality. Ted Talks. [https://www.ted.com/talks/kimberle_crenshaw_the_urgency_of_intersectionality Available here].
Marin, D., Cotts, F., Heidegger, Ruby Silk and Lorena Doghi, Ituen, I, Gallagher, H., Acker, W., and Schüpf, D. (2024) Bearing the brunt: Roma and traveller experiences of environmental racism in Western Europe. European Environmental Bureau [Online] [https://eeb.org/wpcontent/uploads/2024/01/roma-report-WEB-1.pdf Available here]. +
