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
5
Le Guin, U. K. (1973). ''The ones who walk away from Omelas''. In R. Silverberg (Ed.), ''New dimensions 3'' (pp. 1–8). Nelson Doubleday. +
<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> +
Here are additional external resources to learn more about how to make labs greener:
1. “How to Green Your Lab 10 Sustainable Things Every Lab Can Do” [[https://www.bing.com/videos/riverview/relatedvideo?&q=greening+our+labs&&mid=E361FEE82009E2B5D15BE361FEE82009E2B5D15B&mmscn=mtsc&aps=67&FORM=VRDGAR Bing Videos]]
2. “Five Steps to a Greener Lab: A roadmap to environmental action” [[https://www.neb.com/en/tools-and-resources/feature-articles/five-steps-to-a-greener-lab-a-roadmap-to-environmental-action Five Steps to a Greener Lab: A roadmap to environmental action | NEB]] +
Planetary health is not only a diagnostic concept but also a call to action. You will now explore concrete pathways on mitigation, adaptation, and restoration, as well as the ethical and justice-oriented shifts required to reframe how we promote health and well-being. +
Incorporating gender, health, and climate justice in your research: A reflexive question card exercise +
'''1.''' Hankivsky, O. (2014). Intersectionality 101. The Institute for Intersectionality Research and Policy, Simon Fraser University. [https://bccampus.ca/wp-content/uploads/2020/07/Hankivsky-Intersectionality101-2014.pdf?utm_source=chatgpt.com https://bccampus.ca/wp-content/uploads/2020/07/Hankivsky-Intersectionality101-2014.pdf]
'''2.''' Hankivsky, O., Grace, D., Hunting, G., Giesbrecht, M., Fridkin, A., Rudrum, S., Ferlatte, O., & Clark, N. (2014). An intersectionality-based policy analysis framework: Critical reflections on a methodology for advancing equity. International Journal for Equity in Health, 13, 119. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12939-014-0119-x
'''3.''' Kaijser, A., & Kronsell, A. (2014). Climate change through the lens of intersectionality. Environmental Politics, 23(3), 417–433. https://doi.org/10.1080/09644016.2013.835203
'''4.''' Verdonk, P., van Marlen, J., Tumas, N., & van Valkengoed, I. (2024). Coloring connections: Researching gender, intersectionality and health in the climate crisis. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.14047986 +
Note the most important issues that might be affecting your research +
Please take a close look at the following slide show, which provides a brief introduction to what the 9R strategy is and what it aims to achieve.You can expand the slides to full screen by clicking the button in the '''bottom-right''' corner. +
6
Once you have designed the program and the time schedule you advertise the training and invite participants. In order to decide who to invite please consider that the VIRT2UE training primarily targets researchers or trainers/educators/teachers who have a background in research (i.e. are or have been working as researchers) and who want to become research integrity trainers. Trainees of your training should have a basic understanding of research integrity. To invite people to join your training you can use the template invitation letter. +
Remind participants about the fact that in order to become certified VIRT2UE trainers, they have to train 10 others, preferably trainers. If it is not feasible to train 10 trainers they may also train researchers who have the potential to be come trainers. +
Explain the difference between a debate and a dialogue. Do the participants recognise their answers in step 2 as describing a debate and their answers to step 3 as a dialogue? +
An impression of the 'Virtues & Norms Exercise' of the VIRT2UE Train-the-Trainer program.
[[File:Train-the-trainer program2.png|link=https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IZMDWGTLXWo|caption]] +
04 - Moral Case Deliberation: A Method for Analysing Cases in Research Ethics and Research Integrity +
The aim of this step is to brainstorm in order to get a view on possible courses or actions which lie beyond the dilemma. +
If the previous step is not sufficient to identify the preferred course of action, a further step is required consisting of the analysis of foreseeable consequences of each course of action. The analysis of consequences depends on a good determination of the facts. It should include foreseeable consequences related to the persons involved, the working environment, the external environment, and society at large. +
02 - The Seven Steps Method: A Method for Analysing Cases in Research Ethics and Research Integrity +
All things considered, make a choice. +
Turn the focus to a dialogue and present the characteristics of a dialogue: slowing down, listening instead of telling, postponing judgment, asking questions (see practical tips). You can distribute an overview of the differences between a debate and a dialogue among the participants (see practical tips). +
Explain how the game is played by mentioning the rules, the materials to be used, and steps to be followed. If using the app, the steps will include:
'''Playing the game (app version)'''
#Providing participants with the room code provided by the app.
#Share your screen in lecture mode, introduce the first dilemma.
#Invite the participants to choose one of the four alternative courses of action which best reflects how they would act in the dilemma situation.
#Collect the responses via the app. When all responses have been received, display the proportions choosing a, b, c, or d in lecture mode.
Emphasize that participants can ask technical questions to you any time, and let participants know how much time they will have to discuss the dilemma(s). +
You and your group will be asked to fill out tables to identify the principles and practices of the European Code of Conduct for Research Integrity, and scientific virtues, that are relevant to the dilemma at stake.
[[File:Modified Dilemma Game Table 1.png|thumb|'''Table 1: Which principles from European Code for Research Integrity can you identify in each dilemma?''']]
<br />
[[File:Modified Dilemma Game Table 2.png|thumb|'''Table 2. Which research misbehaviors can you identify in this dilemma?''']]
<br />
[[File:Modified Dilemma Game Table 3.jpg|thumb|'''Table 3. Which scientific virtues are important when deciding on a course of action?''']]
<br /> +
Is there a positive balance between good and bad consequences? +
This part only has one instruction "Practicing Reflection in Dialogue", for both trainer and trainee, to be found [https://public.3.basecamp.com/p/vNfbMo7JdtnkVj4YmxrK1Eq1 here]. +
This module aims to equip students with the knowledge to comprehend the meaning and importance of research integrity through the lens of a subject that is highly relatable in our society and through which students can easily engage and discuss research integrity issues.
The primary focus of this module is on research integrity. We have chosen to pair it with the subject of Art to allow for a wider ethical discussion through a subject that is relevant to the target audience. +
