Revision as of 11:32, 30 July 2021

Instructions

Modified Dilemma Game

Instructions for:TraineeTrainer

Goal

This exercise supports participants in identifying research integrity principles, virtues and questionable research practices in a hypothetical case. It provides a framework to consider, choose and defend alternative courses of action regarding realistic research integrity dilemmas.

Requirements

You need to have read the instructions before experiencing the exercise.

Moreover, you need to be familiar with:

a) The concept of virtue and its importance for research integrity;

b) The concept of a norm;

c) The concept of a moral dilemma;

d) Section 1 of the European Code of Conduct for Research Integrity.

To fully benefit from this exercise you should have a background in research (i.e. be employed as researchers) or be a trainer/educator/teacher who has had experience in research in the past.

Duration (hours)

2

Participants

20

For whom is this important?

Research integrity trainersTrainers in trainingResearchers

Method

Face to Face Participatory sessions

Part of

Steps

5Dialogue about the individual choices

6Filling out the tables

7Short presentation of the group discussions

8Plenary debriefs

9Conclusions

What is this about?

The Rotterdam Dilemma Game (RDG) is a game composed of dilemmas concerning a variety of research integrity issues. As the dilemmas are based on real cases, they are recognizable and relevant to those who take part in research activities. The game was developed by the Erasmus University Rotterdam for the use of researchers, coordinators, supervisors, administrators, reviewers, and all of those who are involved in research at different levels. The game consists of short descriptions of dilemmas, which are grouped in three main categories: researcher position, research strategy and research phase. Players can pick a case which corresponds to the issue they would like to discuss.

The game may be used as an exercise for exchanging experiences, opinions, perspectives and justifications. It could also be used to develop a shared understanding of formally defined principles and the moral content of our actions, as well as of roles of values and norms in decision-making.

The original game developed by the Erasmus University Rotterdam was adapted in the context of VIRT2UE project. The aim of this modification is to raise awareness about virtues and values in research processes and to bring attention to the principles adopted by the European Code of Conduct for Research Integrity. Concordantly, the modified RDG has several alterations, such as focusing on a dialogical approach while exchanging justifications for a moral choice and associating them with the virtues and values presented in the European Code of Conduct for Research Integrity.

Why is this important?

Reflecting on a variety of moral dilemmas with others in a fun way makes researchers gain awareness about the moral content of their day-to-day decisions and actions. That might lead them to consider and understand other stakeholders’ positions and justifications as well as their own in the light of RI values and the principles outlined in the European Code of Conduct for Research Integrity when faced a specific moral dilemma.

1

Preparation

Watch the video to have an impression of the 'Modified Dilemma Game' of the VIRT2UE Train-the-Trainer program.

If you are playing the app version of the game, your trainer will ask you to download the Dilemma Game app before the session and watch this video for an introduction to using the app.

2

Introduction

At the beginning of the session you will be informed about the background, the aim and the description of the game. You will also be asked to keep information and concerns discussed in relation to the dilemmas confidential.

3

Forming groups

The game can be played plenary or you might be assigned to a group by the trainer. If your trainer prefers to assign you to groups, she/he will instruct you on how to proceed.

4

Playing the game

In playing the game, you will read hypothetical cases concerning research integrity dilemmas. You will need to decide which of the four proposed courses of action to take in relation to the dilemmas.

The trainer might share these dilemmas on a slide or flip board, or she/he might make use of the Dilemma Game app. If using the app, the trainer will guide you through the following steps:

Playing the game (app version)

Input the room code provided by the trainer into the app.
You will be able to see the first dilemma.
The trainer will share the dilemma on a screen with you (lecture mode in the app)
Choose one of the four alternative courses of action which best reflects how you would act in the dilemma
The facilitator will guide you in a discussion about your choices

5

Dialogue about the individual choices

You will be invited to the plenary. The trainer will ask you to reflect on your individual choices and engage in a dialogue with other participants.

6

Filling out the tables

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.

Table 1: Which principles from European Code for Research Integrity can you identify in each dilemma?

Table 2. Which research misbehaviors can you identify in this dilemma?

Table 3. Which scientific virtues are important when deciding on a course of action?

7

Short presentation of the group discussions

You, as a group, will be asked to present a brief summary of what has just been discussed in your group. You may assign a member as a spokesman to shortly present the results of your discussion.

8

Plenary debriefs

After the presentation, you may be invited to actively listen to what others have to say and share their views openly. While playing the game with several small groups, a plenary debrief may be useful to allow room for you to ask questions to each other and identify dilemmas, justifications for choices, and even more general themes.

9

Conclusions

You will be asked to reflect on the process, and to evaluate if the learning objectives were met. You will be invited to have a brief dialogue on what you might have just learned as a group. You may be asked to seek answers to questions such as the following:

Was it easy or difficult to identify the relevant principles and virtues in the chosen dilemma?
Did this exercise help you with identifying and connecting to formally defined principles, such as those in the European Code of Conduct for Research Integrity?
Did most of the players agree or disagree with the final choice?
What were the main points of contention?
How come people disagreed (e.g. differences in experience, training, background, values, norms…)?
Was any alternative option proposed?
Did anybody change her/his mind as a result of the discussion?
What is needed in order to do the moral good in your work setting? What were the most convincing arguments used in the discussion?
On which areas do you feel there is insufficient consensus?
How to best address such future dilemmas in your daily work?

Remarks

List of contributors:

Mustafa Volkan Kavas, Joana Araújo, Ana Sofia Carvalho, Giulia Inguaggiato and Margreet Stolper

This training has been developed by the VIRT2UE project, which has received funding form the European Union’s H2020 research programme under grant agreement N 741782.

Steps

5Select a format for the case

6Introduction – 5 min

7Forming groups – 5 min

8Explaining the rules and letting participants play the game – 15 min

9Dialogue about the individual choices - 10 min

10Filling out the tables – 15 min

11Plenary debriefs – 15 min

What is this about?

The Rotterdam Dilemma Game (RDG) is a game composed of dilemmas concerning a variety of research integrity issues. The game targets a diverse population of researchers and is designed to foster conversations about moral dilemmas that researchers might face during their career. RDG can be used for various purposes. For example, it can be used as an educational tool in a course setting with a group of young researchers to increase awareness of research integrity issues or it can be played by team members working at the same lab or institution to gain insight in each other’s perspectives on research integrity dilemmas.

The modified RDG has been developed within the scope of the VIRT2UE project to provide a focus on the virtues and values which are important for researchers in day-to-day activities and to bring attention to the principles and content of the European Code of Conduct for Research Integrity.

Why is this important?

Reflecting on a variety of moral dilemmas in a fun way makes researchers gain awareness about the moral content of their day-to-day actions and decisions. This might lead them to consider other stakeholders’ positions and justifications as well as their own, when faced with day to day moral dilemma. Moreover, the modified version of the RDG helps participants to reflect on their preferred course of action in light of the principles and practices presented in the European Code of Conduct for Research Integrity.

Practical Tips

Selection of the format: playing the game in small groups or plenary

The exercise is suitable to be used both in bigger groups or with several small groups. Bear in mind that it is usually fun to play a game in bigger groups. If you would like to use the game to build connections among participants that might be a preference. Consider whether to form homogeneous or heterogeneous groups before the actual training. The former would rule out communication problems arising from different backgrounds - such as career stage - whereas the latter might create room for diverse viewpoints.

If you prefer to work with one big group and are experiencing the exercise face to face, consider using the corners of the room where you play the game representing the four choices of action (A, B, C and D). Then you can ask everybody to stand up and position themselves at the corner representing the option they have selected. In that case, as a trainer you need to be active in facilitating the group discussion. Using corners allows people to use their own bodies which might open up space for expressing emotions.

On the other hand, if you prefer to work with smaller groups please make sure that you assign the same dilemmas to all the groups so that they can discuss the result of the sub-group work in plenary.

1

Preparation

Read the instructions. Please note that there are some differences between the original game and the modified RDG in terms of aims and applications. In the following steps the procedures for the use of the modified version are explained. This version requires participants not merely to play the game, but at the same time to reflect on their justifications, analyze their and others’ discussion processes, and work together to relate the case at hand with the elements of the European Code of Conduct and research integrity virtues. This version therefore takes longer, and is more demanding.

Before the session:

If using the Dilemma Game app:

- Ask participants to download the app

- Ask participants to watch the introductory video

2

Select the cases

Examine the Rotterdam Dilemma Game cases and familiarize yourself with the classification criteria.^[1] Select the dilemmas you want to discuss. If using the Dilemma Game app, start a new 'room' in group mode, creating a name for the room and specifying that it will be used for a 'lecture'. You will then be able to select the cases.

Please note that cases are grouped per topic. If the training is specifically aimed at reflecting on issues such as research processes, roles of different parties or publication ethics, the trainer might pick cases which correspond to those topics. Besides, while selecting the cases, take the attributes of the trainee group into account as well. For example, if you are going to play the game with a group of PhD students, then you should pick the cases suitable for them.

↑ https://www.eur.nl/en/about-eur/policy-and-regulations/integrity/research-integrity/dilemma-game

3

Select a format for the case

The exercise is suitable to be used both in bigger groups or with several small groups. If you aim for more reflection in your training, go for small groups. If you would like to create awareness in participants first, then facilitate the exercise with bigger groups. Please make sure to decide on this beforehand (see Practical Tips for more instructions).

4

Introduction – 5 min

Introduce yourself. Briefly inform participants about the background, the aim, and the description of the game. Emphasize that the information shared during the exercise should be kept confidential.

5

Forming groups – 5 min

Divide participants into groups (e.g. of around 5 participants in each). Keep in mind that the game can also be played plenary if this fits the groups’ aims (please see Practical Tips).

6

Explaining the rules and letting participants play the game – 15 min

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).

7

Dialogue about the individual choices - 10 min

Invite participants to reflect on their individual choices and engage in a conversation with each other using the dialogical attitude. Provide a framework to create awareness of the socially desirable answer. You can support this by introducing the following questions:

a. What would you do? Why?

b. What would you ideally do? Why?

8

Filling out the tables – 15 min

Table 1: Which principles from European Code for Research Integrity can you identify in each dilemma?

Ask participants to work in groups to fill out the below tables. You may suggest groups to assign a member as a spokesman to shortly present their discussions in the next step.

Table 2. Which research misbehaviors can you identify in this dilemma?

Table 3. Which scientific virtues are important when deciding on a course of action?

9

Plenary debriefs – 15 min

Ask a brief summary of what has just been discussed in the group(s). A plenary debrief may be useful to allow room for questions, justifications or more general themes. Invite participants to actively listen to what others have to say and share their views openly.

10

Conclusion - 15 min

Ask the group to reflect on the process, and to evaluate if the learning objectives were met. Foster a brief dialogue on what might have been learned as a group.

In this step the facilitator may ask participants questions such as:

- Was it easy or difficult to identify the relevant principles and virtues in the chosen dilemma?

- Did this exercise help you with identifying and connecting to formally defined principles (e.g. from the European Code of Conduct for Research Integrity)?

- Did most of the players agree or disagree with the final choice?

- What were the main points of contention?

- Why did people disagree (e.g. differences in experience, training, background, values, norms…)?

- What were the other options?

- Was any alternative option proposed?

- Did anybody change her/his mind as a result of the discussion?

- Why would you NOT follow the morally ideal course of action?

- What is needed to act morally in your work setting? What were the most convincing arguments used in the discussion?

- On which areas do you feel there is insufficient consensus?

- How can you best address future dilemmas in your daily work?

- How can shared values and principles be fostered?

11

Evaluation

Ask participants to shortly evaluate the session and your facilitation. In this step you may ask participants questions such as:

- Were the instructions clear enough?

- Do you think that the case was appropriate?

- Would you have any suggestions to do the session differently?

- What do you think the strong aspects of this session are?

- Are there any points to improve?

Remarks

List of contributors:

Mustafa Volkan Kavas, Joana Araújo, Ana Sofia Carvalho, Giulia Inguaggiato and Margreet Stolper

This training has been developed by the VIRT2UE project, which has received funding form the European Union’s H2020 research programme under grant agreement N 741782.

Other information

[1] ttps://www.eur.nl/en/about-eur/policy-and-regulations/integrity/research-integrity/dilemma-game

[1]

Difference between revisions of "Instruction:A0dd2e82-52e7-4030-a396-54525630e75c"

Revision as of 11:32, 30 July 2021

Contents

Modified Dilemma Game

What is this about?

Why is this important?

Preparation

Introduction

Forming groups

Playing the game

Dialogue about the individual choices

Filling out the tables

Short presentation of the group discussions

Plenary debriefs

Conclusions

Remarks

What is this about?

Why is this important?

Practical Tips

Preparation

Select the cases

Select a format for the case

Introduction – 5 min

Forming groups – 5 min

Explaining the rules and letting participants play the game – 15 min

Dialogue about the individual choices - 10 min

Filling out the tables – 15 min

Plenary debriefs – 15 min

Conclusion - 15 min

Evaluation

Remarks

Other information

@@ Line 1: / Line 1: @@
 {{Instruction
 |Title=Modified Dilemma Game
-|Instruction Goal=This exercise supports participants in identifying research integrity (RI) principles, virtues and misconduct in a case and provides a framework to consider, choose and defend alternative courses of action regarding realistic dilemmas in research integrity.
+|Instruction Goal=This exercise supports participants in identifying research integrity principles, virtues and questionable research practices in a hypothetical case. It provides a framework to consider, choose and defend alternative courses of action regarding realistic research integrity dilemmas.
 |Has Requirements=You need to have read the instructions before experiencing the exercise.
-Moreover, you need to be familiar with the following:
+Moreover, you need to be familiar with:
-Moreover, you need to be acquainted with:
+a) The concept of [[Theme:520b3bc7-a6ab-4617-95f2-89c9dee31c53|virtue]] and its importance for research integrity;
-a) The concept of [[Theme:520b3bc7-a6ab-4617-95f2-89c9dee31c53|virtue]] and its importance for RI;
+b) The concept of a [[Theme:B4f7b2e3-af61-4466-94dc-2504affab5a8|norm;]]
-b) The concept of [[Theme:B4f7b2e3-af61-4466-94dc-2504affab5a8|norm;]]
+c) The concept of a moral [[Theme:17d406f9-0b0f-4325-aa2d-2fe186d5ff34|dilemma]];
-c) The concept of moral [[Theme:17d406f9-0b0f-4325-aa2d-2fe186d5ff34|dilemma]];
 d) Section 1 of the [https://www.allea.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/05/ALLEA-European-Code-of-Conduct-for-Research-Integrity-2017.pdf European Code of Conduct for Research Integrity].
-In order to fruitfully take part in this exercise you need to have a background in research (i.e. be employed as researchers) or be a trainer/educator/teacher who has had experience in research in the past.
+To fully benefit from this exercise you should have a background in research (i.e. be employed as researchers) or be a trainer/educator/teacher who has had experience in research in the past.
 |Has Duration=2
 |Has Participants=20
@@ Line 25: / Line 23: @@
 {{Instruction Steps Foldout Trainee}}
 {{Instruction Perspective Trainee
-|Is About=The [https://www.eur.nl/en/about-eur/strategy-and-policy/integrity/research-integrity/dilemma-game Rotterdam Dilemma Game] (RDG) is a card game composed of dilemmas concerning a variety of research integrity issues. As the dilemmas are based on real cases, they are recognizable and relevant to those who take part in research activities. The game was developed by the Erasmus University Rotterdam for the use of  researchers, coordinators, supervisors, administrators, reviewers, and all of those who are involved in research at different levels. The game covers 75 cases, each involving a short description of a dilemma, which are grouped in three main categories: researcher position, research strategy and research phase. Players can pick a case which corresponds to the issue they would like to discuss.
+|Is About=The [https://www.eur.nl/en/about-eur/strategy-and-policy/integrity/research-integrity/dilemma-game Rotterdam Dilemma Game] (RDG) is a game composed of dilemmas concerning a variety of research integrity issues. As the dilemmas are based on real cases, they are recognizable and relevant to those who take part in research activities. The game was developed by the Erasmus University Rotterdam for the use of  researchers, coordinators, supervisors, administrators, reviewers, and all of those who are involved in research at different levels. The game consists of short descriptions of dilemmas, which are grouped in three main categories: researcher position, research strategy and research phase. Players can pick a case which corresponds to the issue they would like to discuss.
+The game may be used as an exercise for exchanging experiences, opinions, perspectives and justifications. It could also be used to develop a shared understanding of formally defined principles and the moral content of our actions, as well as of roles of values and norms in decision-making.
-The game may be used as an exercise for exchanging experiences, opinions, perspectives and justifications. It could also be used to develop a shared understanding of formally defined principles and the moral content of our actions, as well as of roles of values and norms in decision-making. The original game kit developed by the Erasmus University Rotterdam was adapted in the context of VIRT2UE project. The aim of this modification is to raise awareness about virtues and values in research processes and to bring attention to the principles adopted by the [https://allea.org/code-of-conduct/ European Code of Conduct for Research Integrity] (ECoC). Concordantly, the modified RDG has several alterations, such as focusing on a dialogical approach while exchanging justifications for a moral choice and associating them with the virtues and values presented in the ECoC.
+The original game developed by the Erasmus University Rotterdam was adapted in the context of VIRT2UE project. The aim of this modification is to raise awareness about virtues and values in research processes and to bring attention to the principles adopted by the [https://allea.org/code-of-conduct/ European Code of Conduct for Research Integrity]. Concordantly, the modified RDG has several alterations, such as focusing on a dialogical approach while exchanging justifications for a moral choice and associating them with the virtues and values presented in the European Code of Conduct for Research Integrity.
-|Important Because=Reflecting on a variety of moral dilemmas with others in a fun way makes researchers gain awareness about the moral content of their day-to-day decisions and actions. That might lead them to consider and understand other stakeholders’ positions and justifications as well as their own in the light of RI values and ECoC principles when faced a specific moral dilemma.
+|Important Because=Reflecting on a variety of moral dilemmas with others in a fun way makes researchers gain awareness about the moral content of their day-to-day decisions and actions. That might lead them to consider and understand other stakeholders’ positions and justifications as well as their own in the light of RI values and the principles outlined in the European Code of Conduct for Research Integrity when faced a specific moral dilemma.
-|Has Practical Tips='''Table 1: Principles (Virtues) and research misconduct and other unacceptable practices from the ECoC that could be identified in each dilemma'''
-{{{!}} class="wikitable" border="0" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="0" width="597"
-{{!}} width="410"{{!}}'''PRINCIPLES/DILEMMA'''
-{{!}} width="105"{{!}}'''DILEMMA  Nº _____'''
-{{!}}
-{{!}}-
-{{!}} width="410" valign="top"{{!}}'''Reliability''' in ensuring the  quality of research, reflected in the design, the methodology, the analysis  and the use of resources.
-{{!}} width="105" valign="top"{{!}}
-{{!}}
-{{!}}-
-{{!}} width="410" valign="top"{{!}}'''Honesty''' in developing,  undertaking, reviewing, reporting and communicating research in a  transparent, fair, full and unbiased way.
-{{!}} width="105" valign="top"{{!}}
-{{!}}
-{{!}}-
-{{!}} width="410" valign="top"{{!}}'''Respect for  colleagues''',  research participants, society, ecosystems, cultural heritage and the  environment.
-{{!}} width="105" valign="top"{{!}}
-{{!}}
-{{!}}-
-{{!}} width="410" valign="top"{{!}}'''Accountability''' for the research  from idea to publication, for its management and organisation, for training,  supervision and mentoring, and for its wider impacts
-{{!}} width="105" valign="top"{{!}}
-{{!}}
-{{!}}}
-'''Table 2. What are the main research misconducts that you can identify in this dilemma?'''
-{{{!}} class="wikitable mw-collapsible" border="0" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="0" width="668"
-{{!}} width="425"{{!}}'''RESEARCH  MISCONDUCT/DILEMMA'''
-{{!}} width="85"{{!}}'''DILEMMA Nº  _____'''
-{{!}}
-{{!}}-
-{{!}} width="425" valign="top"{{!}}'''Fabrication'''  is  making up results and recording them as if they were real.
-{{!}} width="85" valign="top"{{!}}
-{{!}}
-{{!}}-
-{{!}} width="425" valign="top"{{!}}'''Falsification'''  is  manipulating research materials, equipment or processes or changing, omitting  or suppressing data or results without justification.
-{{!}} width="85" valign="top"{{!}}
-{{!}}
-{{!}}-
-{{!}} width="425" valign="top"{{!}}'''Plagiarism'''  is using other people’s work and ideas without giving proper credit to the  original source, thus violating the rights of the original author(s) to their  intellectual outputs.
-{{!}} width="85" valign="top"{{!}}
-{{!}}
-{{!}}-
-{{!}} width="425" valign="top"{{!}}Manipulating  authorship or denigrating the role of other researchers in publications.
-{{!}} width="85" valign="top"{{!}}
-{{!}}
-{{!}}-
-{{!}} width="425" valign="top"{{!}}Accusing  a researcher of misconduct or other violations in a malicious way.
-{{!}} width="85" valign="top"{{!}}
-{{!}}
-{{!}}-
-{{!}} width="425" valign="top"{{!}}Misrepresenting  research achievements.
-{{!}} width="85" valign="top"{{!}}
-{{!}}
-{{!}}-
-{{!}} width="425" valign="top"{{!}}Exaggerating  the importance and practical applicability of findings.
-{{!}} width="85" valign="top"{{!}}
-{{!}}
-{{!}}-
-{{!}} width="425" valign="top"{{!}}Re-publishing  substantive parts of one’s own earlier publications, including translations,  without duly acknowledging or citing the original (‘self-plagiarism’).
-{{!}} width="85" valign="top"{{!}}
-{{!}}
-{{!}}-
-{{!}} width="425" valign="top"{{!}}Citing  selectively to enhance own findings or to please editors, reviewers or colleagues.
-{{!}} width="85" valign="top"{{!}}
-{{!}}
-{{!}}-
-{{!}} width="425" valign="top"{{!}}Withholding  research results.
-{{!}} width="85" valign="top"{{!}}
-{{!}}
-{{!}}-
-{{!}} width="425" valign="top"{{!}}Allowing  funders/sponsors to jeopardise independence in the research process or  reporting of results so as to introduce or promulgate bias.
-{{!}} width="85" valign="top"{{!}}
-{{!}}
-{{!}}-
-{{!}} width="425" valign="top"{{!}}Expanding  unnecessarily the bibliography of a study.
-{{!}} width="85" valign="top"{{!}}
-{{!}}
-{{!}}-
-{{!}} width="425" valign="top"{{!}}Delaying  or inappropriately hampering the work of other researchers.
-{{!}} width="85" valign="top"{{!}}
-{{!}}
-{{!}}-
-{{!}} width="425" valign="top"{{!}}Misusing  seniority to encourage violations of research integrity.
-{{!}} width="85" valign="top"{{!}}
-{{!}}
-{{!}}-
-{{!}} width="425" valign="top"{{!}}Ignoring  putative violations of research integrity by others or covering up  inappropriate responses to misconduct or other violations by institutions.
-{{!}} width="85" valign="top"{{!}}
-{{!}}
-{{!}}-
-{{!}} width="425" valign="top"{{!}}Establishing  or supporting journals that undermine the quality control of research  (‘predatory journals’).
-{{!}} width="85" valign="top"{{!}}
-{{!}}
-{{!}}}
-'''Table 3. What are the relevant virtues that the researcher must have in order to take the decision chosen by the group?'''
-{{{!}} class="wikitable" border="1" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="0"
-{{!}} width="243"{{!}}'''VIRTUES'''
-{{!}} width="142"{{!}}'''DILEMMA  Nº _____'''
-{{!}}-
-{{!}} width="243"{{!}}Resoluteness
-{{!}} width="142" valign="top"{{!}}
-{{!}}-
-{{!}} width="243"{{!}}Accountability
-{{!}} width="142" valign="top"{{!}}
-{{!}}-
-{{!}} width="243"{{!}}Availability
-{{!}} width="142" valign="top"{{!}}
-{{!}}-
-{{!}} width="243"{{!}}Competency
-{{!}} width="142" valign="top"{{!}}
-{{!}}-
-{{!}} width="243"{{!}}Patience
-{{!}} width="142" valign="top"{{!}}
-{{!}}-
-{{!}} width="243"{{!}}Perseverance
-{{!}} width="142" valign="top"{{!}}
-{{!}}-
-{{!}} width="243"{{!}}Reliability
-{{!}} width="142" valign="top"{{!}}
-{{!}}-
-{{!}} width="243"{{!}}Sincerity
-{{!}} width="142" valign="top"{{!}}
-{{!}}-
-{{!}} width="243"{{!}}Creativity
-{{!}} width="142" valign="top"{{!}}
-{{!}}-
-{{!}} width="243"{{!}}Honesty
-{{!}} width="142" valign="top"{{!}}
-{{!}}-
-{{!}} width="243"{{!}}Objectivity
-{{!}} width="142" valign="top"{{!}}
-{{!}}-
-{{!}} width="243"{{!}}Humility
-{{!}} width="142" valign="top"{{!}}
-{{!}}-
-{{!}} width="243"{{!}}Punctuality
-{{!}} width="142" valign="top"{{!}}
-{{!}}-
-{{!}} width="243"{{!}}Trustworthiness/truthfulness
-{{!}} width="142" valign="top"{{!}}
-{{!}}-
-{{!}} width="243"{{!}}Selflessness
-{{!}} width="142" valign="top"{{!}}
-{{!}}-
-{{!}} width="243"{{!}}Reflexivity
-{{!}} width="142" valign="top"{{!}}
-{{!}}-
-{{!}} width="243"{{!}}Clarity  of purpose
-{{!}} width="142" valign="top"{{!}}
-{{!}}-
-{{!}} width="243"{{!}}Collaborative  spirit
-{{!}} width="142" valign="top"{{!}}
-{{!}}-
-{{!}} width="243"{{!}}Fairness
-{{!}} width="142" valign="top"{{!}}
-{{!}}-
-{{!}} width="243"{{!}}Loyalty
-{{!}} width="142" valign="top"{{!}}
-{{!}}-
-{{!}} width="243"{{!}}Moderation
-{{!}} width="142" valign="top"{{!}}
-{{!}}-
-{{!}} width="243"{{!}}Positivity
-{{!}} width="142" valign="top"{{!}}
-{{!}}-
-{{!}} width="243" valign="top"{{!}}Respectfulness
-{{!}} width="142" valign="top"{{!}}
-{{!}}}
 }}
 {{Instruction Step Trainee
-|Instruction Step Title=Introduction and confidentiality
+|Instruction Step Title=Preparation
-|Instruction Step Text=At the beginning of the session you will be informed about the background, the aim and the description of the game. Moreover, you will be asked to keep the information shared during this game confidential.
+|Instruction Step Text=Watch the video to have an impression of the 'Modified Dilemma Game' of the VIRT2UE Train-the-Trainer program.
+[[File: DGE.png|link=https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qpq-oWPdvJQ&list=PLabbUwyulAry4tzZ12eHl5JOJhJGiaE6k&index=6]]
+If you are playing the app version of the game, your trainer will ask you to download the Dilemma Game [https://www.eur.nl/en/about-eur/policy-and-regulations/integrity/research-integrity/dilemma-game app] before the session and watch this [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SKhT7qHh9T8&t=8s video] for an introduction to using the app.
+}}
+{{Instruction Step Trainee
+|Instruction Step Title=Introduction
+|Instruction Step Text=At the beginning of the session you will be informed about the background, the aim and the description of the game. You will also be asked to keep information and concerns discussed in relation to the dilemmas confidential.
 }}
 {{Instruction Step Trainee
 |Instruction Step Title=Forming groups
-|Instruction Step Text=You will be assigned to a group by the trainer who will divide participants into groups of four. The game can also be played plenary. If your trainer prefers to do so they will instruct you on how to proceed.
+|Instruction Step Text=The game can be played plenary or you might be assigned to a group by the trainer. If your trainer prefers to assign you to groups, she/he will instruct you on how to proceed.
 }}
 {{Instruction Step Trainee
 |Instruction Step Title=Playing the game
-|Instruction Step Text=The trainer will explain you how the game is played and will ask you to download the [https://www.eur.nl/en/about-eur/policy-and-regulations/integrity/research-integrity/dilemma-game dilemma game app].
+|Instruction Step Text=In playing the game, you will read hypothetical cases concerning research integrity dilemmas. You will need to decide which of the four proposed courses of action to take in relation to the dilemmas.
+The trainer might share these dilemmas on a slide or flip board, or she/he might make use of the [https://www.eur.nl/en/about-eur/policy-and-regulations/integrity/research-integrity/dilemma-game Dilemma Game app].  If using the app, the trainer will guide you through the following steps:
+'''Playing the game (app version)'''
+#Input the room code provided by the trainer into the app.
+#You will be able to see the first dilemma.
+#The trainer will share the dilemma on a screen with you (lecture mode in the app)
+#Choose one of the four alternative courses of action which best reflects how you would act in the dilemma
+#The facilitator will guide you in a discussion about your choices
 <br />
 }}
 {{Instruction Step Trainee
-|Instruction Step Title=Filling in the tables
+|Instruction Step Title=Dialogue about the individual choices
-|Instruction Step Text=You and your group will be asked fill out the tables delivered at the beginning of the session and to identify the issues of ECoC that are relevant to the dilemma at stake (see tables 1, 2 and 3 – Practical Tips).
+|Instruction Step Text=You will be invited to the plenary. The trainer will ask you to reflect on your individual choices and engage in a dialogue with other participants.
+}}
+{{Instruction Step Trainee
+|Instruction Step Title=Filling out the tables
+|Instruction Step Text=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 />
 }}
 {{Instruction Step Trainee
@@ Line 220: / Line 82: @@
 {{Instruction Step Trainee
 |Instruction Step Title=Plenary debriefs
-|Instruction Step Text=After the presentation you may be invited to actively listen to what others have to say and share their views openly.  While playing the game with several small groups, a plenary debrief may be useful to allow room for you to ask questions to each other and identify dilemmas, justifications for choices, and even more general themes.
+|Instruction Step Text=After the presentation, you may be invited to actively listen to what others have to say and share their views openly.  While playing the game with several small groups, a plenary debrief may be useful to allow room for you to ask questions to each other and identify dilemmas, justifications for choices, and even more general themes.
 }}
 {{Instruction Step Trainee
 |Instruction Step Title=Conclusions
-|Instruction Step Text=You, as a group, will be asked to reflect on the process, and to evaluate if the learning objectives were met. You will be invited to have a brief dialogue on what you might have just learned as a group. You may be asked to seek answers to questions such as the following:
+|Instruction Step Text=You will be asked to reflect on the process, and to evaluate if the learning objectives were met. You will be invited to have a brief dialogue on what you might have just learned as a group. You may be asked to seek answers to questions such as the following:
--      Was it easy or difficult to identify the relevant principles and virtues in the chosen dilemma?
+<br />
--      Did this exercise help you with identifying and connecting to formally defined principles (ECoC)?
+*Was it easy or difficult to identify the relevant principles and virtues in the chosen dilemma?
+*Did this exercise help you with identifying and connecting to formally defined principles, such as those in the European Code of Conduct for Research Integrity?
--      Did most of the players agree or disagree with the final choice?
+*Did most of the players agree or disagree with the final choice?
+*What were the main points of contention?
--      What were the main points of contention?
+*How come people disagreed (e.g. differences in experience, training, background, values, norms…)?
+*Was any alternative option proposed?
--      How come people disagreed (e.g. differences in experience, training, background, values, norms…)?
+*Did anybody change her/his mind as a result of the discussion?
+*What is needed in order to do the moral good in your work setting? What were the most convincing arguments used in the discussion?
--      Was any alternative option proposed?
+*On which areas do you feel there is insufficient consensus?
+*How to best address such future dilemmas in your daily work?
--      Did anybody change her/his mind as a result of the discussion?
--      What is needed in order to do the moral good in your work setting? What were the most convincing arguments used in the discussion?
--      On which areas do you feel there is insufficient consensus?
--      How to best address such future dilemmas in your daily work?
 }}
 {{Instruction Remarks Trainee
 |Has Remarks='''List of contributors:'''
-Volkan Kavas, Joana Araújo, Ana Sofia Carvalho, Giulia Inguaggiato and Margreet Stolper
+Mustafa Volkan Kavas, Joana Araújo, Ana Sofia Carvalho, Giulia Inguaggiato and Margreet Stolper
 This training has been developed by the VIRT2UE project, which has received funding form the European Union’s H2020 research programme under grant agreement N 741782.
@@ Line 257: / Line 112: @@
 {{Instruction Steps Foldout Trainer}}
 {{Instruction Perspective Trainer
-|Is About=[https://www.eur.nl/en/about-eur/strategy-and-policy/integrity/research-integrity/dilemma-game Rotterdam Dilemma Game] (RDG) is a card game kit developed by the Erasmus University Rotterdam which includes 75 shortly described dilemmas touching upon various research integrity related issues. The game targets a diverse population of researchers and is designed to foster conversations about moral dilemmas that researchers might face during their career. The Rotterdam Dilemma Game can be used for various purposes. For example, it can be used as education tool in a course setting with a group of young researches to increase awareness of research integrity (RI) issues or it can be played by team members working at the same lab or institution to gain insight in each other’s perspectives on RI dilemmas.
+|Is About=The [https://www.eur.nl/en/about-eur/strategy-and-policy/integrity/research-integrity/dilemma-game Rotterdam Dilemma Game] (RDG) is a game composed of dilemmas concerning a variety of research integrity issues. The game targets a diverse population of researchers and is designed to foster conversations about moral dilemmas that researchers might face during their career. RDG can be used for various purposes. For example, it can be used as an educational tool in a course setting with a group of young researchers to increase awareness of research integrity issues or it can be played by team members working at the same lab or institution to gain insight in each other’s perspectives on research integrity dilemmas.
-The modified RDG has been developed within the scope of the VIRT2UE project to provide a focus on the virtues and values which are important for researchers in day-to-day activities and to bring attention to the principles and content of the European Code of Conduct for Research Integrity (ECoC).
+The modified RDG has been developed within the scope of the VIRT2UE project to provide a focus on the virtues and values which are important for researchers in day-to-day activities and to bring attention to the principles and content of the European Code of Conduct for Research Integrity.
-|Important Because=Reflecting on a variety of moral dilemmas in a fun way makes researchers gain awareness about the moral content of their day-to-day actions and decisions. This might lead them to consider other stakeholders’ positions and justifications as well as their own, when faced with day to day moral dilemma. Moreover, the modified version of the EDG helps participants to reflect on their preferred course of action in light of the participles and practices presented in the ECoC.
+|Important Because=Reflecting on a variety of moral dilemmas in a fun way makes researchers gain awareness about the moral content of their day-to-day actions and decisions. This might lead them to consider other stakeholders’ positions and justifications as well as their own, when faced with day to day moral dilemma. Moreover, the modified version of the RDG helps participants to reflect on their preferred course of action in light of the principles and practices presented in the European Code of Conduct for Research Integrity.
 |Has Practical Tips='''Selection of the format: playing the game in small groups or plenary'''
-The exercise is suitable to be used both in bigger groups or with several small groups. Bear in mind that it is usually fun to play a game in bigger groups. If you would like to use the game to build connections among participants that might be of a preference. Moreover, please consider whether to form homogeneous or heterogeneous groups before the actual training. The former would rule out communication problems arising from different cultural backgrounds, whereas the latter might create room for diverse viewpoints.
+The exercise is suitable to be used both in bigger groups or with several small groups. Bear in mind that it is usually fun to play a game in bigger groups. If you would like to use the game to build connections among participants that might be a preference. Consider whether to form homogeneous or heterogeneous groups before the actual training. The former would rule out communication problems arising from different backgrounds - such as career stage -  whereas the latter might create room for diverse viewpoints.
-If you prefer to work with one big group and are experiencing the exercise face to face, consider using the corners of the room representing the four choices of action (A, B, C and D). Then you can ask everybody to stand up and position themselves at the corner representing the option they have selected. In that case, as a trainer you need to be active in facilitating the group discussion. Using corners allows people to use their own bodies which might open up space for expressing emotions.
+If you prefer to work with one big group and are experiencing the exercise face to face, consider using the corners of the room where you play the game representing the four choices of action (A, B, C and D). Then you can ask everybody to stand up and position themselves at the corner representing the option they have selected. In that case, as a trainer you need to be active in facilitating the group discussion. Using corners allows people to use their own bodies which might open up space for expressing emotions.
-If on the contrary you prefer to work with smaller groups please make sure to assign the same dilemmas to all the groups. This will allow to discuss the results of each group plenary.
+On the other hand, if you prefer to work with smaller groups please make sure that you assign the same dilemmas to all the groups so that they can discuss the result of the sub-group work in plenary.
-'''Table 1: Principles (Virtues) and research misconduct and other unacceptable practices from the ECoC that could be identified in each dilemma'''
-<br />
-{{{!}} class="wikitable" border="0" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="0" width="669"
-{{!}} width="423"{{!}}'''PRINCIPLES/DILEMMA'''
-{{!}} width="87"{{!}}'''DILEMMA  Nº _____'''
-{{!}}-
-{{!}} width="423" valign="top"{{!}}'''Reliability''' in ensuring the  quality of research, reflected in the design, the methodology, the analysis  and the use of resources.
-{{!}} width="87" valign="top"{{!}}
-{{!}}-
-{{!}} width="423" valign="top"{{!}}'''Honesty''' in developing,  undertaking, reviewing, reporting and communicating research in a  transparent, fair, full and unbiased way.
-{{!}} width="87" valign="top"{{!}}
-{{!}}-
-{{!}} width="423" valign="top"{{!}}'''Respect for  colleagues''',  research participants, society, ecosystems, cultural heritage and the  environment.
-{{!}} width="87" valign="top"{{!}}
-{{!}}-
-{{!}} width="423" valign="top"{{!}}'''Accountability''' for the research  from idea to publication, for its management and organisation, for training,  supervision and mentoring, and for its wider impacts
-{{!}} width="87" valign="top"{{!}}
-{{!}}}
-'''Table 2. What are the main research misconducts that you can identify in this dilemma?'''
-{{{!}} class="wikitable" border="0" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="0" width="668"
-{{!}} width="425"{{!}}'''RESEARCH  MISCONDUCT …/DILEMMA'''
-{{!}} width="85"{{!}}'''DILEMMA Nº _____'''
-{{!}}-
-{{!}} width="425" valign="top"{{!}}'''Fabrication'''  is  making up results and recording them as if they were real.
-{{!}} width="85" valign="top"{{!}}
-{{!}}-
-{{!}} width="425" valign="top"{{!}}'''Falsification'''  is  manipulating research materials, equipment or processes or changing, omitting  or suppressing data or results without justification.
-{{!}} width="85" valign="top"{{!}}
-{{!}}-
-{{!}} width="425" valign="top"{{!}}'''Plagiarism'''  is using other people’s work and ideas without giving proper credit to the  original source, thus violating the rights of the original author(s) to their  intellectual outputs.
-{{!}} width="85" valign="top"{{!}}
-{{!}}-
-{{!}} width="425" valign="top"{{!}}Manipulating authorship or  denigrating the role of other researchers in publications.
-{{!}} width="85" valign="top"{{!}}
-{{!}}-
-{{!}} width="425" valign="top"{{!}}Accusing a researcher of  misconduct or other violations in a malicious way.
-{{!}} width="85" valign="top"{{!}}
-{{!}}-
-{{!}} width="425" valign="top"{{!}}Misrepresenting research  achievements.
-{{!}} width="85" valign="top"{{!}}
-{{!}}-
-{{!}} width="425" valign="top"{{!}}Exaggerating the importance  and practical applicability of findings.
-{{!}} width="85" valign="top"{{!}}
-{{!}}-
-{{!}} width="425" valign="top"{{!}}Re-publishing substantive  parts of one’s own earlier publications, including translations, without duly  acknowledging or citing the original (‘self-plagiarism’).
-{{!}} width="85" valign="top"{{!}}
-{{!}}-
-{{!}} width="425" valign="top"{{!}}Citing selectively to  enhance own findings or to please editors, reviewers or colleagues.
-{{!}} width="85" valign="top"{{!}}
-{{!}}-
-{{!}} width="425" valign="top"{{!}}Withholding research  results.
-{{!}} width="85" valign="top"{{!}}
-{{!}}-
-{{!}} width="425" valign="top"{{!}}Allowing funders/sponsors  to jeopardise independence in the research process or reporting of results so  as to introduce or promulgate bias.
-{{!}} width="85" valign="top"{{!}}
-{{!}}-
-{{!}} width="425" valign="top"{{!}}Expanding unnecessarily the  bibliography of a study.
-{{!}} width="85" valign="top"{{!}}
-{{!}}-
-{{!}} width="425" valign="top"{{!}}Delaying or inappropriately  hampering the work of other researchers.
-{{!}} width="85" valign="top"{{!}}
-{{!}}-
-{{!}} width="425" valign="top"{{!}}Misusing seniority to  encourage violations of research integrity.
-{{!}} width="85" valign="top"{{!}}
-{{!}}-
-{{!}} width="425" valign="top"{{!}}Ignoring putative  violations of research integrity by others or covering up inappropriate  responses to misconduct or other violations by institutions.
-{{!}} width="85" valign="top"{{!}}
-{{!}}-
-{{!}} width="425" valign="top"{{!}}Establishing or supporting  journals that undermine the quality control of research (‘predatory  journals’).
-{{!}} width="85" valign="top"{{!}}
-{{!}}}
-'''Table 3. What are the relevant virtues that the researcher must have in order to take the decision chosen by the group?'''
-{{{!}} class="wikitable" border="1" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="0"
-{{!}} width="243"{{!}}'''VIRTUES'''
-{{!}} width="142"{{!}}'''DILEMMA Nº _____'''
-{{!}}-
-{{!}} width="243"{{!}}Resoluteness
-{{!}} width="142" valign="top"{{!}}
-{{!}}-
-{{!}} width="243"{{!}}Accountability
-{{!}} width="142" valign="top"{{!}}
-{{!}}-
-{{!}} width="243"{{!}}Availability
-{{!}} width="142" valign="top"{{!}}
-{{!}}-
-{{!}} width="243"{{!}}Competency
-{{!}} width="142" valign="top"{{!}}
-{{!}}-
-{{!}} width="243"{{!}}Patience
-{{!}} width="142" valign="top"{{!}}
-{{!}}-
-{{!}} width="243"{{!}}Perseverance
-{{!}} width="142" valign="top"{{!}}
-{{!}}-
-{{!}} width="243"{{!}}Reliability
-{{!}} width="142" valign="top"{{!}}
-{{!}}-
-{{!}} width="243"{{!}}Sincerity
-{{!}} width="142" valign="top"{{!}}
-{{!}}-
-{{!}} width="243"{{!}}Creativity
-{{!}} width="142" valign="top"{{!}}
-{{!}}-
-{{!}} width="243"{{!}}Honesty
-{{!}} width="142" valign="top"{{!}}
-{{!}}-
-{{!}} width="243"{{!}}Objectivity
-{{!}} width="142" valign="top"{{!}}
-{{!}}-
-{{!}} width="243"{{!}}Humility
-{{!}} width="142" valign="top"{{!}}
-{{!}}-
-{{!}} width="243"{{!}}Punctuality
-{{!}} width="142" valign="top"{{!}}
-{{!}}-
-{{!}} width="243"{{!}}Trustworthiness/truthfulness
-{{!}} width="142" valign="top"{{!}}
-{{!}}-
-{{!}} width="243"{{!}}Selflessness
-{{!}} width="142" valign="top"{{!}}
-{{!}}-
-{{!}} width="243"{{!}}Reflexivity
-{{!}} width="142" valign="top"{{!}}
-{{!}}-
-{{!}} width="243"{{!}}Clarity of purpose
-{{!}} width="142" valign="top"{{!}}
-{{!}}-
-{{!}} width="243"{{!}}Collaborative spirit
-{{!}} width="142" valign="top"{{!}}
-{{!}}-
-{{!}} width="243"{{!}}Fairness
-{{!}} width="142" valign="top"{{!}}
-{{!}}-
-{{!}} width="243"{{!}}Loyalty
-{{!}} width="142" valign="top"{{!}}
-{{!}}-
-{{!}} width="243"{{!}}Moderation
-{{!}} width="142" valign="top"{{!}}
-{{!}}-
-{{!}} width="243"{{!}}Positivity
-{{!}} width="142" valign="top"{{!}}
-{{!}}-
-{{!}} width="243" valign="top"{{!}}Respectfulness
-{{!}} width="142" valign="top"{{!}}
-{{!}}-
-{{!}} width="243" valign="top"{{!}}Honesty
-{{!}} width="142" valign="top"{{!}}
-{{!}}}
 }}
 {{Instruction Step Trainer
-|Instruction Step Title= Read the instructions
+|Instruction Step Title=Preparation
-|Instruction Step Text=Read the '''[https://www.eur.nl/en/media/2020-07-dilemma-game-app-instructions-and-suggestions instructions]''' of the Rotterdam dilemma game. Please note that there are some differences between the original game kit and the modified RDG in terms of aims and applications. In the following steps the procedures for the use of the modified version are explained. This version requires participants not merely to play the game, but at the same time to reflect on their justifications, analyse their and others’ discussion processes, and work together to relate the case at hand with the elements of the ECoC and RI virtues. Thus, this version takes longer, and is more demanding.
+|Instruction Step Text=Read the instructions. Please note that there are some differences between the original game and the modified RDG in terms of aims and applications. In the following steps the procedures for the use of the modified version are explained. This version requires participants not merely to play the game, but at the same time to reflect on their justifications, analyze their and others’ discussion processes, and work together to relate the case at hand with the elements of the European Code of Conduct and research integrity virtues. This version therefore takes longer, and is more demanding.
+<u>Before the session:</u>
+If using the Dilemma Game app:
+- Ask participants to download the [https://www.eur.nl/en/about-eur/policy-and-regulations/integrity/research-integrity/dilemma-game app]
+- Ask participants to watch the introductory [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SKhT7qHh9T8&t=8s video]
 }}
 {{Instruction Step Trainer
 |Instruction Step Title=Select the cases
-|Instruction Step Text=Examine the cases in the original game kit and familiarize yourself with the classification criteria.    Select the dilemmas you want to discuss. Please note that cases are grouped per topic. If the training is specifically aimed to reflect on issues such as research processes, roles of different parties or publication ethics, the trainer might pick cases which correspond to those topics.
+|Instruction Step Text=Examine the Rotterdam Dilemma Game cases and familiarize yourself with the classification criteria.<ref>https://www.eur.nl/en/about-eur/policy-and-regulations/integrity/research-integrity/dilemma-game</ref>    Select the dilemmas you want to discuss. If using the Dilemma Game [https://www.eur.nl/en/about-eur/policy-and-regulations/integrity/research-integrity/dilemma-game app], start a new 'room' in group mode, creating a name for the room and specifying that it will be used for a 'lecture'. You will then be able to select the cases.
+Please note that cases are grouped per topic. If the training is specifically aimed at reflecting on issues such as research processes, roles of different parties or publication ethics, the trainer might pick cases which correspond to those topics. Besides, while selecting the cases, take the attributes of the trainee group into account as well. For example, if you are going to play the game with a group of PhD students, then you should pick the cases suitable for them.
+<references />
 }}
 {{Instruction Step Trainer
 |Instruction Step Title=Select a format for the case
-|Instruction Step Text=The exercises is suitable to be used both in bigger groups or with several small groups. If you aim for ''more reflection ''in your training, go for small groups. If you would like to ''create awareness'' in participants first, then facilitate the exercise with bigger groups. Please make sure to decide on this beforehand (see practical tips for more instructions).
+|Instruction Step Text=The exercise is suitable to be used both in bigger groups or with several small groups. If you aim for ''more reflection ''in your training, go for small groups. If you would like to ''create awareness'' in participants first, then facilitate the exercise with bigger groups. Please make sure to decide on this beforehand (see '''Practical Tips''' for more instructions).
 }}
 {{Instruction Step Trainer
 |Instruction Step Title=Introduction – 5 min
-|Instruction Step Text=Introduce yourself. Briefly inform participants about the background, the aim, and the description of the game.  Emphasize that the information shared during the exercise will be kept confidential. You can consider asking participants to sign a confidentiality agreement.
+|Instruction Step Text=Introduce yourself. Briefly inform participants about the background, the aim, and the description of the game.  Emphasize that the information shared during the exercise should be kept confidential.
 }}
 {{Instruction Step Trainer
 |Instruction Step Title=Forming groups – 5 min
-|Instruction Step Text=Divide participants into groups of four. Keep in mind that the game can also be played plenary if this fits the groups’ aims (please see practical tips).
+|Instruction Step Text=Divide participants into groups (e.g. of around 5 participants in each). Keep in mind that the game can also be played plenary if this fits the groups’ aims (please see '''Practical Tips''').
 }}
 {{Instruction Step Trainer
 |Instruction Step Title=Explaining the rules and letting participants play the game – 15 min
-|Instruction Step Text=Explain how the game is played by mentioning the [https://www.eur.nl/en/media/2020-07-dilemma-game-app-instructions-and-suggestions rules], the materials to be used, and steps to be followed. Make sure participants have downloaded the dilemma game app.  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).
+|Instruction Step Text=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).
+}}
+{{Instruction Step Trainer
+|Instruction Step Title=Dialogue about the individual choices - 10 min
+|Instruction Step Text=Invite participants to reflect on their individual choices and engage in a conversation with each other using the dialogical attitude.  Provide a framework to create awareness of the socially desirable answer. You can support this by introducing the following questions:
+a. What would you do? Why?
+b.    What would you ''ideally'' do? Why?
 }}
 {{Instruction Step Trainer
-|Instruction Step Title=Filling in the forms – 15 min
+|Instruction Step Title=Filling out the tables – 15 min
-|Instruction Step Text=Ask participants to work in groups to fill out the tables (see practical tips).
+|Instruction Step Text=[[File:Modified Dilemma Game Table 1.png|thumb|'''Table 1: Which principles from European Code for Research Integrity can you identify in each dilemma?''']]
+Ask participants to work in groups to fill out the below tables. You may suggest groups to assign a member as a spokesman to shortly present their discussions in  the next step.
+[[File:Modified Dilemma Game Table 2.png|thumb|'''Table 2. Which research misbehaviors can you identify in this dilemma?''']]
+[[File:Modified Dilemma Game Table 3.jpg|thumb|'''Table 3. Which scientific virtues are important when deciding on a course of action?''']]
+<br />
 }}
 {{Instruction Step Trainer
 |Instruction Step Title=Plenary debriefs – 15 min
-|Instruction Step Text=Ask a brief summary of what has just been discussed in the group(s). You may suggest groups to assign a member as a spokesman to shortly present their discussions. A plenary debrief may be useful to allow room for questions justifications or more general themes. Invite participants to actively listen to what others have to say and share their views openly.
+|Instruction Step Text=Ask a brief summary of what has just been discussed in the group(s). A plenary debrief may be useful to allow room for questions, justifications or more general themes. Invite participants to actively listen to what others have to say and share their views openly.
 }}
 {{Instruction Step Trainer
 |Instruction Step Title=Conclusion - 15 min
-|Instruction Step Text=Ask the group to reflect on the process, and to evaluate if the learning objectives were met. Foster a brief dialogue on what might have just been learned as a group.
+|Instruction Step Text=Ask the group to reflect on the process, and to evaluate if the learning objectives were met. Foster a brief dialogue on what might have been learned as a group.
 In this step the facilitator may ask participants questions such as:
@@ Line 458: / Line 202: @@
 -      Was it easy or difficult to identify the relevant principles and virtues in the chosen dilemma?
--      Did this exercise help you with identifying and connecting to formally defined principles (ECoC)?
+-      Did this exercise help you with identifying and connecting to formally defined principles (e.g. from the European Code of Conduct for Research Integrity)?
 -      Did most of the players agree or disagree with the final choice?
@@ Line 464: / Line 208: @@
 -      What were the main points of contention?
--      How come people disagreed (e.g. differences in experience, training, background, values, norms…)?
+-      Why did people disagree (e.g. differences in experience, training, background, values, norms…)?
 -      What were the other options?
@@ Line 472: / Line 216: @@
 -      Did anybody change her/his mind as a result of the discussion?
--      Why would you NOT do the moral ideal?
+-      Why would you NOT follow the morally ideal course of action?
--      What is needed in order to do the moral good in your work setting? What were the most convincing arguments used in the discussion?
+-      What is needed to act morally in your work setting? What were the most convincing arguments used in the discussion?
 -      On which areas do you feel there is insufficient consensus?
--      How to best address such future dilemmas in your daily work?
+-      How can you best address future dilemmas in your daily work?
--   How to achieve a more commonly shared set of values and principles?
+-   How can shared values and principles be fostered?
 }}
 {{Instruction Step Trainer
@@ Line 494: / Line 238: @@
 -      What do you think the strong aspects of this session are?
-Are there any points to improve?
+- Are there any points to improve?
 }}
 {{Instruction Remarks Trainer
 |Has Remarks='''List of contributors:'''
-Volkan Kavas, Joana Araújo, Ana Sofia Carvalho, Giulia Inguaggiato and Margreet Stolper
+Mustafa Volkan Kavas, Joana Araújo, Ana Sofia Carvalho, Giulia Inguaggiato and Margreet Stolper
 This training has been developed by the VIRT2UE project, which has received funding form the European Union’s H2020 research programme under grant agreement N 741782.
 }}
 {{Custom TabContent Close Trainer}}
-{{Related To}}
+{{Related To
+|Related To Resource=Resource:313feb13-82bc-4489-be7a-387d3415c427
+}}
 {{Tags}}