Search by property

This page provides a simple browsing interface for finding entities described by a property and a named value. Other available search interfaces include the page property search, and the ask query builder.

List of results

Der Balanceakt + (Bevor die Übung in der Gruppe durchgeführt … Bevor die Übung in der Gruppe durchgeführt wird, solltest du die einzelnen Teilnehmer:innen kontaktieren und sie darum bitten, sich auf die Übung vorzubereiten, indem sie sich eine Situation aus ihrem Forschungsalltag überlegen, in der sie moralische Zweifel darüber hatten, was passierte oder was sie hätten tun sollen / tun können (d.h., Situationen, in denen offensichtlich ist, dass etwas moralisch verwerflich in Bezug auf Research Integrity ist, sind für die Übung weniger gut geeignet). Es ist wichtig, dass die Teilnehmenden angeregt werden, über ihre eigenen Erfahrungen nachzudenken. Sie müssen dieses Fallbeispiel aber nicht als Vorbereitung aufschreiben. Es muss außerdem keine dramatische Situation sein, auch gewöhnliche Situationen, in denen dir fragwürdige Forschungspraktiken aufgefallen sind, sind für diese Übung geeignet.allen sind, sind für diese Übung geeignet.)
Der Balanceakt + (Bevor die Übung in der Gruppe durchgeführt … Bevor die Übung in der Gruppe durchgeführt wird, wirst du und die anderen Teilnehmenden gebeten, eine Vertraulichkeitsvereinbarung zu unterschreiben. Dies ist ein schriftliches Festhalten der Erwartungshaltung, dass die während der Übung ausgetauschten Informationen von dir und den anderen Teilnehmenden vertraulich behandelt werden.eilnehmenden vertraulich behandelt werden.)
Werte/Tugenden und Normen + (Bevor die Übung in der Gruppe durchgeführt … Bevor die Übung in der Gruppe durchgeführt wird, werden du und die anderen Teilnehmenden gebeten, eine Vertraulichkeitsvereinbarung zu unterschreiben. Dies ist ein schriftliches Festhalten der Erwartungshaltung, dass die während der Übung ausgetauschten Informationen von dir und den anderen Teilnehmenden vertraulich behandelt werden und nach der Durchführung der Übung vernichtet werden. Durchführung der Übung vernichtet werden.)
Werte/Tugenden und Normen + (Bevor ihr in der Übung fortschreitet, erlä … Bevor ihr in der Übung fortschreitet, erläutere den Teilnehmenden die Konzepte der Werte / Tugenden und der Normen anhand einer kurzen Definition (siehe „Werte und Tugenden“ und „Tugenden in der Research Integrity“). Falls die Teilnehmenden Fragen haben oder Zweifel besteht, ob inhaltlich alles verstanden wurde, dann ist jetzt der Zeitpunkt, um darüber zu sprechen.tzt der Zeitpunkt, um darüber zu sprechen.)
Erdemler ve Normlar + (Bir sonraki adıma geçmeden önce katılımcıl … Bir sonraki adıma geçmeden önce katılımcılara erdem ve norm kavramlarının tanımlarını verin ([https://embassy.science/wiki/Theme:B4f7b2e3-af61-4466-94dc-2504affab5a8 Değerler ve normlar] ve [https://embassy.science/wiki/Theme:520b3bc7-a6ab-4617-95f2-89c9dee31c53 Araştırma doğruluğu ile ilgili erdemler] sayfalarına bakınız). Katılımcıların kafasında soru işareti ya da şüphe doğuran herhangi bir nokta varsa bu aşamada bunları ele alabilirsiniz.ran herhangi bir nokta varsa bu aşamada bunları ele alabilirsiniz.)
Der Selbstauskunfts-Ansatz: Eine Reflexion über das Konzept des Guten in der Wissenschaft + (Bitte die Teilnehmenden nach der Reflexion … Bitte die Teilnehmenden nach der Reflexion ihrer Selbstauskunfts-Arbeitsblätter in Kleingruppen zurück ins Plenum, um dort über ihre Antworten auf die Fragen zu berichten. Im Plenum muss nicht jedes Beispiel berichtet werden. Vielmehr solltest du nachfragen, ob es Schwierigkeiten bei der Nennung von Beispielen gab und ob Unstimmigkeiten aufgetreten sind.Beende den Workshop, indem du die Erkenntnisse der Gruppe zusammenfasst und die verschiedenen Sektionen des [https://allea.org/code-of-conduct/%20ECoC Europäischen Verhaltenskodex für Integrität in der Forschung] zeigst, in denen die verschiedenen Arten des Guten in der Forschung veranschaulicht sind.ten in der Forschung veranschaulicht sind.)
Werte/Tugenden und Normen + (Bitte die Teilnehmenden, jede:r für sich s … Bitte die Teilnehmenden, jede:r für sich selbst eine Tabelle auszufüllen, die aussehen kann wie diese hier:{| class="wikitable" border="1" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="0"| width="123" valign="top" |'''Wert / Tugend'''| width="472" valign="top" |'''Norm / Handlung'''|-| width="123" valign="top" |Ehrlichkeit| width="472" valign="top" |Ich sollte alle Beteiligten in meinem Manuskript nennen. |-| width="123" valign="top" |Mut| width="472" valign="top" |Ich sollte mit meinem/meiner Betreuer:in sprechen.|}Zur Unterstützung kannst du für diese Übung folgende Dokumente austeilen, die im Handout 2 enthalten sind (siehe „Praktische Tipps“):- Liste von Werten / Tugenden, die relevant für Research Integrity sind- Tabelle mit Beispielen (wie oben)- Leere Tabelle- HaftnotizzettelZeichne in der Zwischenzeit dieselbe Tabelle auf ein Flipchart oder Whiteboard mit den folgenden drei Spalten: Perspektive, Wert / Tugend, Norm / Handlungsvorschrift (siehe unten). Diese Tabelle kann auch schon gut vor der Sitzung vorbereitet werden.Beispieltabelle:{| class="wikitable" border="1" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="0"| width="113" valign="top" |'''Perspektive'''| width="123" valign="top" |'''Wert / Tugend'''| width="368" valign="top" |'''Norm / Handlung'''|-| rowspan="2" width="113" valign="top" |Louise| width="123" valign="top" |Ehrlichkeit| width="368" valign="top" |Ich sollte alle Beteiligten in meinem Manuskript nennen. |-| width="123" valign="top" |Mut| width="368" valign="top" |Ich sollte mit meinem/meiner Betreuer:in sprechen.|-| width="113" valign="top" |Ben| width="123" valign="top" |Verlässlichkeit| width="368" valign="top" |Ich sollte genau das tun, was ich meinen Kolleg:innen versprochen hatte.|}Bitte nun alle Teilnehmenden, ihre Werte / Tugenden und Normen deutlich lesbar auf einen Haftnotizzettel zu schreiben. Fordere sie dann auf, zur Flipchart zu gehen, um dort ihren Namen in das Feld „Perspektive“ zu schreiben und in der zugehörigen Zeile ihre Haftnotizzettel im Feld Wert / Tugend und Norm / Handlung zu kleben. Auf diese Weise entsteht ein schöner Überblick über die verschiedenen Perspektiven, Werte / Tugenden und Normen der Gruppe.n, Werte / Tugenden und Normen der Gruppe.)
Werte/Tugenden und Normen + (Bitte die Teilnehmenden, sich die Tabelle … Bitte die Teilnehmenden, sich die Tabelle mit der Übersicht über Perspektiven, Werte / Tugenden und Normen anzusehen. Stelle zum Beispiel die folgenden Fragen, um einen Reflexionsprozess in Gang zu bringen:* Was fällt euch auf?* Welche Gemeinsamkeiten gibt es zwischen den verschiedenen Perspektiven? Welche Unterschiede gibt es zwischen den verschiedenen Perspektiven? Stehen sie im Widerspruch zueinander?* Werden die genannten Werte / Tugenden auch im Europäischen Verhaltenskodex für Integrität in der Forschung erwähnt? Falls ja, welche?* Ist es möglich, einen Wert / eine Tugend auszuwählen, die in dieser Situation am wichtigsten sein sollte? Falls ja, warum ist dieser Wert / diese Tugend am wichtigsten?* Versetze dich in die Lage der Person, die den Fall präsentiert hat: Was bräuchtest du (konkret), um den von der Gruppe ausgewählten Wert / Tugend in konkretes Verhalten umzusetzen? Gibt es irgendwelche limitierenden Rahmenbedingungen oder Einschränkungen?Notiere die Antworten der Teilnehmenden am Flipchart. Dafür kannst du Stichpunkte aufschreiben, unterschiedliche Farben zur Hervorhebung benutzen, oder vorhandene Wörter unterstreichen.Vor allem wenn du die Übung zum ersten Mal durchführst, kann es hilfreich sein, alle oben genannten Fragen anzuwenden, um eine dialogische Reflexion zu ermöglichen. Vergiss nicht, den Europäischen Verhaltenskodex für Integrität in der Forschung zu erwähnen. Du könntest sogar ein ausgedrucktes Exemplar des Kodex mitbringen, wenn du möchtest. Bei den Fragen solltest du dir nicht zu viel Zeit bei den einzelnen Fragen lassen. Wenn die Teilnehmenden anfangen abzuschweifen oder sich in einer Diskussion verlieren, solltest du sie auf die eigentliche Frage zurück lenken.Falls sich die Teilnehmenden nicht auf einen Wert / eine Tugend einigen können, ist das kein Problem. Trage dann einfach verschiedene Schlussfolgerungen in die Tabelle auf dem Flipchart ein.Tipp: Hab keine Angst vor einer schweigenden Gruppe. Lass die Leute über ihre Antwort nachdenken. Gib ihnen Zeit, über deine Fragen nachzudenken. Gib ihnen aber nicht zu viel Zeit. Wenn es keine Beiträge aus der Gruppe mehr gibt, fahre mit der Übung fort.ruppe mehr gibt, fahre mit der Übung fort.)
Debatte und Dialog + (Bitte die Teilnehmer:innen, über den Nutze … Bitte die Teilnehmer:innen, über den Nutzen eines Dialogs zu reflektieren und darüber nachzudenken, wie man einen Dialog nutzen kann, um Gruppenreflexionsprozesse anzustoßen. Konzentriere dich dabei auf allgemeine Erkenntnisse in Zusammenhang mit den Zielen der Übung. Mögliche Fragen sind:* In Anbetracht der Lernziele der Übung – was hat du gelernt? Genauer:o Inwiefern wurden die die Stärken eines Dialogs und einer Debatte bewusst?o Denkst du, die Übung hilft dabei, zu lernen, auf welche Weise man einen Dialog als Werkzeug zum Anstoßen eines Reflexionsprozesses nutzen kann?o Was hast du darüber hinaus gelernt?Cave: die Reihenfolge der Übung könnte bei den Teilnehmer:innen den Eindruck hinterlassen, eine Debatte sei „falsch“ und ein Dialog „richtig“. Nutze den letzten Schritt der Übung, um zu betonen, dass ein Dialog sinnvoll und nützlich für Reflexionsprozesse ist, aber eine Debatte in anderen Situationen mit anderen Zielsetzungen angebracht und sinnvoll ist.Zielsetzungen angebracht und sinnvoll ist.)
Der Balanceakt + (Bitte nun die Berichterstatter:innen, in a … Bitte nun die Berichterstatter:innen, in aller Kürze …* die in den Untergruppendiskussionen diskutierten Werte und tugendhaften Verhaltensweisen zusammenfassend darzustellen, einschließlich der Unterschiede und Gemeinsamkeiten;* die Unterschiede und Gemeinsamkeiten in der Art und Weise zusammenzufassen, wie die Teilnehmenden die mittlere Position / den Balanceakt formuliert haben (nicht die Unterschiede und Gemeinsamkeiten selbst, sondern im Allgemeinen);Tipp: Richte den Fokus auf die Werte und mittlere Positionen (d.h. tugendhafte Verhaltensweisen) und nicht auf die spezifischen Situationen. Um nach den kurzen Zusammenfassungen der Berichterstatter:innen ein Gespräch im Plenum zu beginnen, stelle den Teilnehmer:innen die folgenden Fragen:- War es einfach oder schwierig, eine persönliche Situation zu finden und einen Wert dafür zu benennen und tugendhafte Verhaltensweisen zu identifizieren? - Habt ihr gelernt, die inhärente moralische Ambiguität von manchen Werten und Tugenden wahrzunehmen? Zum Beispiel dadurch, wie andere die Situation einschätzten oder welche Werte und Verhaltensweisen sie auswählten?- Möchte die Person, die die Situation ursprünglich präsentiert hat, beschreiben, wie sie die Übung erlebt hat?beschreiben, wie sie die Übung erlebt hat?)
Using Different Learning Taxonomies + (Bloom's Taxonomy is a well-known education … Bloom's Taxonomy is a well-known educational framework that offers a methodical way to classify learning objectives according to cognitive difficulty. (e.g., Adams, 2015).'"`UNIQ--ref-000000E0-QINU`"' It is a hierarchical framework that uses cognitive complexity to classify learning objectives. Benjamin Bloom created it in the 1950s, and it is now a vital instrument in educational theory and practice. The taxonomy is divided into six stages: remembering, understanding, applying, analysing, evaluating, and creating. The levels are arranged from lower to higher order cognitive skills. Fundamentally, remembering entails recollecting words, information, and fundamental ideas. Understanding is more than just remembering concepts; it also involves understanding meanings. Applying necessitates applying knowledge to novel contexts or problem-solving. Analysing means dissecting data into its constituent elements and identifying connections between them. Making decisions based on standards and criteria is the process of evaluating. Creating, in the end, involves coming up with original concepts and/or interpretations. The goal of applying Bloom's Taxonomy to training aims and results is to enhance comprehension by considering the knowledge, skills, and competencies that the specific training programmes were created to impart. The Remembering, Understanding, Applying, Analysing, Evaluating, and Creating domains of Bloom's Taxonomy each reflect a different cognitive process and the depth and complexity of learning.[[File:BloomsTaxonomy.jpg|alt=|center|frame|Fig 21. Bloom’s Taxonomy (taken from the Centre for teaching, Vanderbilt University. '"`UNIQ--nowiki-000000E1-QINU`"') ]]All taxonomic levels are relevant irrespective of the study or career level. However, the taxonomic levels may mean different things for different individuals. For example, application of knowledge may mean engaging with research designs, but senior researchers often use more complex designs than students still learning how to do research. Nevertheless, it is essential that the learning extends beyond remembering and understanding, and that the complexity of activities at all levels gradually grow as the individual gains experience, knowledge and confidence.''Remembering and understanding:''Here, the focus is on memorising key facts, concepts and theories relevant to the field of research and innovation. Understanding these foundational elements is critical to moving forward. For example, undergraduate students need to master the basic principles and terminology related to ethics and integrity to effectively navigate through more complex topics later. Similarly, individuals pursuing a PhD or who are new to academia need a solid understanding of basic concepts before they can conduct more in-depth analyses and applications, such as mastering the ethics of their own PhD research. Moreover, senior researchers may need to understand the basic concept of supervision and mentoring practices when it comes to supervising a team and PhD candidates.''Apply and analyse:''Learning should always be an active endeavour irrespective of career or studies applying and analysing knowledge. This is where the emphasis shifts to practical application and critical thinking. Early career researchers, junior professors and academics need competencies for applying the ethics and integrity concepts they have learnt to real-life scenarios in connection to conducting experiments, collecting data and critically analysing the results to gain meaningful insights. Through these activities, participants develop the skills necessary to contribute to the advancement of their field and address research questions with greater depth and sophistication. In terms of research ethics and integrity, this involves applying such knowledge and values to every step of the research.''Evaluate and create:''The highest level in Bloom’s Taxonomy involves evaluating existing knowledge and creating new knowledge. All researchers play a critical role in shaping the direction of research and innovation. They are responsible for assessing the validity and significance of research findings and identifying areas for further investigation and innovation. By synthesising existing knowledge and developing new ideas, theories or methods, researchers develop their field forward and inspire the next generation of researchers and innovators. All RE/RI training should include components, which encourage learners to extend their thinking to evaluation and creation. In practice, this involves having such a robust knowledge base and values so that even when encountering new ethical dilemmas or being posed with a novel potentially integrity-threatening situation, they can rely on having the ‘tools’ to handle the situation.'"`UNIQ--references-000000E2-QINU`"'tion. '"`UNIQ--references-000000E2-QINU`"')
Uyarlanmış ikilem oyunu + (Bu alıştırma hem büyük gruplar içerisinde … Bu alıştırma hem büyük gruplar içerisinde hem de birkaç küçük grup ile kullanılmaya uygundur. Eğer eğitim esnasında daha çok ''fikir yürütme/ yorumlama'' süreçleri üzerine eğilmek istiyorsanız oyunu küçük gruplarla oynamayı tercih edin. Ancak öncelikli hedefiniz katılımcılarda ''farkındalık yaratmaksa'' daha büyük gruplarla çalışın. Lütfen eğitim gerçekleşmeden önce bu konudaki kararınızı vermiş olun (daha fazla bilgi için '''Pratik İpuçları''' bölümüne bakınız).n '''Pratik İpuçları''' bölümüne bakınız).)
Orta Yol + (Bu alıştırmada kişisel deneyimler ve ahlak … Bu alıştırmada kişisel deneyimler ve ahlaki belirsizlik üzerine fikir yürütmeyi teşvik edeceksiniz. Bu nedenle katılımcılarınızın kendi deneyim ve fikirlerini güvenle paylaşabilecekleri bir öğrenme ortamı yaratmanız önemlidir.Alıştırmayı yönetirken katılımcılarınızın hassas noktalarını korumaya çalışın ve katılımcıları başkalarının görüşlerine saygı duymaya teşvik edin.Bunun yanı sıra, oturumdan önce katılımcılarınıza, alıştırma esnasında paylaşılan bilgilerin siz ve oturumdaki diğer katılımcılarca gizli tutulacağına ilişkin bir gizlilik beyanı imzalatmanızı tavsiye ederiz.lilik beyanı imzalatmanızı tavsiye ederiz.)
Erdemler ve Normlar + (Bu aşamada gizlilik ilkesi üzerinde durulm … Bu aşamada gizlilik ilkesi üzerinde durulması önem arz etmektedir. Oturum esnasında gerçek hayatta karşılaşılmış bir ikilem inceleneceğinden katılımcıların oturumda paylaşılan bilgiyi kesinlikle gizli tutmaları gerekmektedir. Katılımcılara, alıştırma esnasında paylaşılan bilgilerin gizli kalacağı ve eğitimden sonra imha edileceğine ilişkin bir gizlilik beyanı dağıtmanız ve imzalatmanız şiddetle tavsiye edilir.z ve imzalatmanız şiddetle tavsiye edilir.)
Erdemler ve Normlar + (Bu aşamada katılımcılardan, kendilerini va … Bu aşamada katılımcılardan, kendilerini vaka sunucusunun yerine koymalarını ve durumu daha iyi anlayabilmeleri için vakadaki hangi noktaların netleştirilmesi gerektiği üzerine düşünmelerini isteyin. Katılımcıların kendilerini vaka sunucusunun yerine koymalarını sağlayacak tüm sorular bu noktada sorulmalıdır.yacak tüm sorular bu noktada sorulmalıdır.)
Eğitimi organize etme + (Bu eğitim programı, bir bütün olarak, eğitmenlerin ciddi manada özveri göstermesini gerektirdiğinden eğitimi organize etme ve yönetme işini bir meslektaşınızla birlikte gerçekleştirmeniz şiddetle tavsiye edilir (özellikle yüz yüze oturumlar için).)
VIRT2UE Train-the-Trainer program + (Can you be too honest? This exercise helps … Can you be too honest? This exercise helps to develop moral sensitivity with respect to basic virtues related to Research Integrity (RI). In particular it fosters reflection on the inherent moral ambiguity of specific virtues and how this ambiguity looks like in concrete research practice.[[File: MPE.png|link=https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sjov1WIvKvg&list=PLabbUwyulAry4tzZ12eHl5JOJhJGiaE6k&index=5]][[File: MPE.png|link=https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sjov1WIvKvg&list=PLabbUwyulAry4tzZ12eHl5JOJhJGiaE6k&index=5]])
Rights of Citizen Scientists + (Citizen and participatory science form a c … Citizen and participatory science form a critical component of the broader open science framework, which seeks to make the scientific process more transparent and collaborative. UNESCO recognizes the value of involving citizens in scientific research, not only to advance scientific knowledge but also to enhance public engagement with science (UNESCO, 2021).Citizen and participatory science form a critical component of the broader open science framework, which seeks to make the scientific process more transparent and collaborative. UNESCO recognizes the value of involving citizens in scientific research, not only to advance scientific knowledge but also to enhance public engagement with science (UNESCO, 2021). Collaboration, participation, and inclusion are crucial for achieving several broader open science goals (data, collection, science literacy, dissemination of research results, implementation of evidence-based policies etc.). Nonetheless, this involvement presents challenges, such as reconciling the activism of citizen science with the discovery-oriented and objective nature of academic research (Rasmussen & Cooper, 2019) or blurring of the researchers/research subject roles in research that have largely been kept separate in traditional research ethics guidance (Resnik, 2019). Issues of potential conflicts of interest may arise when citizen scientists are motivated by personal or group interests. Addressing these challenges requires transparency about research goals, openness regarding the roles and interests of all scientists, and ethical handling of open data. The field is rapidly evolving, and many ethical considerations are still being developed and resolved.'''References'''#Rasmussen, L. M., & Cooper, C. (2019). Citizen science ethics. ''Citizen Science: Theory and Practice'', 4(1). https://doi.org/10.5334/cstp.235#Resnik, D.B. (2019). Citizen scientists as human subjects: Ethical issues. ''Citizen Science: Theory and Practice'', 4(1). https://doi.org/10.5334/cstp.150#UNESCO (2021). Recommendation on Open Science. https://doi.org/10.54677/MNMH8546on Open Science. https://doi.org/10.54677/MNMH8546)
Rights of Citizen Scientists + (Citizen science offers valuable opportunit … Citizen science offers valuable opportunities for all stakeholders involved; however, it also raises new issues regarding research ethics and integrity. Some authors have expressed concerns regarding the potential '''exploitation and instrumentalization''' of citizen scientists, where their unpaid work is utilized without proper acknowledgment of their contributions (Resnik, 2019). Therefore, '''recognizing the contributions''' of citizen scientists in all phases of research especially in scientific publications is essential to acknowledge their valuable research inputs. In some cases, citizen scientists may qualify for co-authorship if they have made substantial intellectual contributions to the research, including contributions to study design, data analysis, manuscript writing, and agreement to be accountable for all aspects of the research ([https://bit.ly/N7uoq3 ICMJE]). While traditional academic authorship criteria may not always directly apply to citizen scientists, there are various other ways to appropriately recognize their involvement. Citizen scientists who have contributed to the research but whose contributions do not justify authorship may be acknowledged as contributors, with their roles and specific tasks described in a contributorship statement or acknowledgments. Open and transparent communication with citizen scientists throughout the research process, involving them in discussions about authorship and recognition, is crucial for building trust and ensuring that everyone involved feels appropriately acknowledged for their contributions.Additionally, issues of '''data quality and ownership''' have been raised in the context of citizen science, as citizen scientists are often not specifically trained in research ethics and methodologies. The quality of data collected by citizen scientists can be ensured through various methods. Researchers can provide appropriate training to citizen scientists on data collection techniques and emphasize the importance of maintaining good research records. It is also crucial to ensure that the technological solutions chosen for citizen science projects are comprehensible and user-friendly, which can help minimize errors or misunderstandings during data collection and improve the overall quality of the collected data. Moreover, facilitating discussions between professional researchers and citizen scientists on questions of data ownership and future data accessibility is important to establish clear agreements on how the data will be used, shared, and accessed.Citizen scientists should also be provided with information regarding research integrity to ensure ethical conduct. This includes informing them about potential financial and non-financial '''conflicts of interest''', such as relationships with organizations sponsoring research or personal interests (Resnik, 2019). Openly discussing the expectations and motivations of citizen scientists within the research team can help foster transparency and compliance with research ethics principles.To provide a framework for conducting citizen science projects the European Citizen Science Association (ECSA) has developed the 10 principles of citizen science. Before moving to the next step, please, read: [http://doi.org/10.17605/OSF.IO/XPR2N ECSA (European Citizen Science Association). (2015). Ten Principles of Citizen Science]'''References'''#ICMJE. [https://bit.ly/N7uoq3 Defining the role of authors and contributors.]#Resnik, D.B. (2019). Citizen scientists as human subjects: Ethical issues. ''Citizen Science: Theory and Practice'', 4(1). https://doi.org/10.5334/cstp.150#The Embassy of Good Science: “[https://embassy.science/wiki-wiki/index.php/Theme:Cbe88760-7f0e-4d6d-952b-b724bb0f375e Authorship criteria]”p/Theme:Cbe88760-7f0e-4d6d-952b-b724bb0f375e Authorship criteria]”)
Quality of research outputs and data sets + (Citizen science projects collect and share … Citizen science projects collect and share diverse types of data. As pointed out by Balázs et al.: "Some projects are solely quantitative data projects, while others are solely qualitative. Mixed-method citizen science projects also exist which include both quantitative and qualitative data collection, generation, and manipulation." (Balázs et al., 2021) Due to this variety of data and other reasons, data quality in citizen science encounters various challenges that can impact the reliability and usability of the collected information. For example, analysis of the data collected by iNaturalist project revealed that the data suffers from various kinds of biases, for example, towards certain taxa (such as birds, plants, and mammals). Also, there is some evidence of spatial sampling bias. For example, about 58% of all threatened species observations in iNaturalist come from the U.S., Canada, Mexico, Russia and New Zealand (Soroye et al., 2022).Balázs et al. point out the two main aspects of data quality in citizen science - reliability and validity. Reliability refers to the stability and consistency of data over time. In the context of citizen science, reliable data means that results can be replicated consistently. (Balázs et al., 2021) For example, in a project tracking water quality in a river, if different citizen scientists using the same measurement tools consistently report similar results for the same water samples, the data is deemed reliable. Validity in data refers to the extent to which the data accurately represents what it is supposed to measure or describe. For example, in a citizen science project on weather monitoring, if citizen scientists consistently report all relevant weather parameters (temperature, humidity, precipitation), the data is valid as it provides a comprehensive view of weather conditions.Data contextualization refers to the practice of providing essential context and information surrounding a dataset, enabling a better understanding of how the data was generated, its purpose, and its quality. It includes metadata, attribution, and curation details to situate the data within its broader context. (Balázs et al., 2021) For example, in a climate monitoring citizen science project, metadata could include details about the creation of data set, contributors, methodology, instruments used, calibration procedures, and the temporal and spatial resolution of data. Metadata enhances the understanding and usability of the data.''Four aspects of data accuracy in citizen science''. Balázs B. et al. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-58278-4_8, [https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ CC BY 4.0]'''References'''#Balázs, B., Mooney, P., Nováková, E., Bastin, L., Jokar Arsanjani, J. (2021). Data Quality in Citizen Science. In: ''The Science of Citizen Science''. Springer https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-58278-4_8#Soroye, P. et al. (2022). The risks and rewards of community science for threatened species monitoring. ''Conservation Science and Practice'', 4(9), e12788. https://doi.org/10.1111/csp2.12788e12788. https://doi.org/10.1111/csp2.12788)
Risks to the environment, animals, plants, and ecosystems + (Citizen scientists play an increasingly si … Citizen scientists play an increasingly significant role in knowledge production and there are many scientific projects to which their contribution is vitally important. For example, monitoring threatened species requires collecting vast amounts of data and correspondingly significant financial investment. To accomplish this task cost-effectively, scientists increasingly rely on data, collected by citizen scientists via projects like iNaturalist. However, although extremely valuable, this practice presents some risks for the environment and ecosystems.'''References'''#[https://www.inaturalist.org/ https://www.inaturalist.org]turalist.org/ https://www.inaturalist.org])
Expert Dialogues on Pandemic Preparedness + (Click below to watch the annotated video from the PREPARED meeting in Paris!)
Expert Dialogues on Pandemic Preparedness + (Click below to watch the annotated video from the PREPARED kick-off meeting in Bonn!)
The TRUST Code in 45 Minutes + (Click the arrow below to learn more about how communities can work to ensure equitable research partnerships from the bottom-up.)
The TRUST Code in 45 Minutes + (Click the arrow below to learn more about what publishers and editors can do to ensure equitable research partnerships.)

The TRUST Code in 45 Minutes + (Click the arrow below to learn more about Helicopter Research.)

The TRUST Code in 45 Minutes + (Click the arrow below to learn more about Humanity's Challenges.)
The TRUST Code in 45 Minutes + (Click the arrow below to learn more about Skewed Research Attention.)
The TRUST Code in 45 Minutes + (Click the arrow below to learn more and watch a video about Ethics Dumping.)
‘And the band played on’ movie fragment no. 3 + (Close the exercise with underlining the importance of good communication in dealing with research integrity issues and dilemma’s. Continue with the next fragment or next part of the workshop.)
Teaching methods for strengthening research ethics and integrity + (Collaborative learning is a pedagogical ap … Collaborative learning is a pedagogical approach that emphasises active participation, shared responsibility and mutual support among students. Collaborative learning is based on the idea that the production and internalisation of the knowledge is established by collaboration. Moreover, learning is usually best supported through social negotiation rarther than competition. Furthermore, team learning has been demonstrated to significantly enhance ethical practice. Research indicates that students primarily interpret their socialisation into academia and their field by the ethical standards and practices that they observe.'"`UNIQ--ref-00000071-QINU`"''"`UNIQ--ref-00000072-QINU`"''"`UNIQ--ref-00000073-QINU`"' When teaching research ethics and integrity, collaborative learning can be particularly effective as it can promote deeper understanding, critical thinking and ethical reasoning skills. In collaborative learning environments, students are actively engaged in the learning process rather than passively receiving information. They participate in discussions, debates and hands-on activities that require them to grapple with ethical dilemmas, analyse complex issues and apply ethical principles to real-world scenarios. This active engagement promotes deeper learning and retention of ethical concepts and principles. Collaborative learning encourages students to critically evaluate information, perspectives and arguments related to research ethics and integrity. Through discussions with peers, analysing case studies and reflecting on their own ethical beliefs and values, learners develop the ability to identify ethical issues, consider alternative viewpoints and make informed decisions.'"`UNIQ--ref-00000074-QINU`"''"`UNIQ--ref-00000075-QINU`"''"`UNIQ--ref-00000076-QINU`"' Collaborative learning environments provide opportunities for learners to challenge assumptions, explore ethical complexity and develop reasoned arguments based on evidence and ethical principles. Peer interaction is a central component of collaborative learning that allows learners to learn from each other's experiences, perspectives, and insights. By participating in discussions, debates, and collaborative projects with their peers, learners learn about various viewpoints, cultural perspectives, and disciplinary approaches to research ethics and integrity. Peer interaction also fosters collaboration, communication skills and teamwork, which are essential for addressing ethical challenges in research environments where collaboration and interdisciplinary cooperation are increasingly common.'"`UNIQ--ref-00000077-QINU`"''"`UNIQ--ref-00000078-QINU`"''"`UNIQ--ref-00000079-QINU`"' During collaborating trainings, a variety of teaching methods can be used. Prior research has addressed collaborative learning with the use of case-based approaches, storytelling, flipped classroom, and role play and games (e.g., [https://www.erim.eur.nl/research-integrity/training-and-education/dilemma-game/ Rotterdam dilemma game]) .'"`UNIQ--ref-0000007A-QINU`"''"`UNIQ--ref-0000007B-QINU`"''"`UNIQ--ref-0000007C-QINU`"''"`UNIQ--ref-0000007D-QINU`"' Collaborative approaches are utilised in [[Initiative:0582c7af-35eb-4def-b74e-c884f29965da|Path2Integrity]], [[Initiative:F9656f91-a514-44ff-9264-d6b3414fdddc|INTEGRITY]] and [[Initiative:8eed30fd-c2ed-44d1-9752-753092bd350e|VIRT2UE]].'"`UNIQ--references-0000007E-QINU`"'nitiative:8eed30fd-c2ed-44d1-9752-753092bd350e|VIRT2UE]]. '"`UNIQ--references-0000007E-QINU`"')
Self Declaration Approach - a Reflection on the Varieties of Goodness in Research + (Collect the sheets in due time and familia … Collect the sheets in due time and familiarize yourself with the responses given by participants. Participant’s input will be useful the content of the session. Prepare a Powerpoint presentation to facilitate the reflection during the session. If you made the participants watch the [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E9SO9HIYTnc video on the typologies of goodness], here is a [https://www.dropbox.com/s/a30do4g82u2a4fb/SDA%20Sample%20ppt%20on%20Goodness%20simplified%20version%20%281%29.pptx?dl=0 sample powerpoint] you can use. If you did not make the participants watch the video, you may [https://www.dropbox.com/s/xwiv7e0hggu3h9c/SDA%20Sample%20ppt%20on%20Goodness%20extended%20version.pptx?dl=0 use this powerpoint]. Revise the presentation as needed.point]. Revise the presentation as needed.)
05 - REalistiC Decisions: A Method for Analysing Cases in Research Ethics and Research Integrity + (Communicate my Early View and associated reasons to the rest of the committee)
Conflicts of interest in citizen science + (Conflict of interest can happen in a varie … Conflict of interest can happen in a variety of human activities, but in some areas such as science and research, it is especially important, because it erodes objectivity – one of the central virtues of scientific research. A recent review revealed that industry-sponsored studies are more often in favour of the sponsors’ products compared with studies with other sources of funding (Lundh et al., 2017). Because of the effect it can potentially have on research, scientific journals require a separate declaration of conflict of interest when submitting scientific articles. The issue of conflict of interest is especially relevant in the context of citizen science due to the nature of some of its projects. Namely, some citizen science projects are citizen-initiated and therefore the investigators might have an inherent conflict of interest which in turn might prevent them from seeing their study in a more objective light.'''References'''#Lundh, A., Lexchin, J., Mintzes, B., Schroll, J. B., & Bero, L. (2017). Industry sponsorship and research outcome. ''Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews'', 2. https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.MR000033.pub3https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.MR000033.pub3)
‘And the band played on’ movie fragment no. 3 + (Continue the conversation between the two groups and ask them to try to make it a dialogue instead of debate. The observers get to call for a time out when they feel the dialogue shifts to a debate.)
Reproducibility + (Defining reproducibility and replicability … Defining reproducibility and replicability, has been a challenge in the research community, as different interpretations and even contradicting definitions are often used. Defining these terms has proven to be challenging as their use and understanding differs between fields of research. However, the European funded iRise consortium developed a reproducibility glossary by critically reviewing existing scientific literature. The glossary provides working definitions for the use of terms reproducibility, replicability and replication, as well as related concepts.'''References'''Voelkl, B., Heyard, R., Fanelli, D., Wever, K., Held, L., Würbel, H., Zellers, S., & Maniadis, Z. (2024). Glossary of common terminology resulting from scoping reviews. https://osf.io/ewybt.ng from scoping reviews. https://osf.io/ewybt.)
Der Balanceakt + (Der Trainer wird die Übung in drei Teilen … Der Trainer wird die Übung in drei Teilen durchführen:''Teil I: Individuelle Reflexion''Erinnere dich an eine Situation (siehe “Vorbereitung”), in der du dir nicht sicher warst, was das richtige Verhalten in der Situation ist, oder in der du Bedenken bezüglich der Research Integrity hattest. Welcher Wert war in dieser Situation angegriffen? Überlege dir, welches Verhalten du in der Situation zeigen müsstest, um diesem Wert gerecht zu werden.''Teil II: Reflexion in der Kleingruppe''Wählt eine Person aus (“Sprecher:in”), die später im Plenum über den nun stattfindenden Gruppenprozess berichten wird. Nun schildert jede:r in der Kleingruppe seine Situation und hört sich die Schilderung der anderen Kleingruppenmitglieder aufmerksam an. Wählt eine Situation aus, über die ihr gemeinsam intensiv nachdenken wollt.Nach der Auswahl der Situation füllt jede:r individuell das Handout 2 aus (siehe “Praktische Tipps”).Tauscht im Anschluss eure Notizen in der Kleingruppe aus, indem ihr in einer Gruppenreflexion oder einem Gruppendialog über Unterschiede und Ähnlichkeiten in Bezug auf die ausgewählten Werte und Verhaltensweisen sprecht.''Teil III: Zusammenfassung der Arbeit in den Kleingruppen und allgemeine Erkenntnisse'' In diesem Teil werden die Diskussionsergebnisse aus den Kleingruppen berichtet; allgemeine Erkenntnisse formuliert; und die Übung evaluiert.(Eine detaillierte Beschreibung der einzelnen Schritte ist bei den Anweisungen für Trainer:innen zu finden)n Anweisungen für Trainer:innen zu finden))
Werte/Tugenden und Normen + (Der/die Trainer:in wird die Übung in 5 Tei … Der/die Trainer:in wird die Übung in 5 Teilen durchführen:''Teil I: Orientierung: Situation und Dilemma''Die ausgewählte Situation wird präsentiert und das Dilemma wird ausformuliert.''Teil II: Klärungsphase''Die Teilnehmenden haben nun Zeit, sich in die Lage der Person zu versetzen, die die Situation präsentiert hat. Dafür können sie der präsentierenden Person Fragen stellen.''Teil III: Werte/Tugenden und Normen''Im Anschluss werden Werte und Normen gesammelt, die die Teilnehmenden für die besprochen Situation als relevant erachten (siehe „Handout 2“).''Teil IV: Dialog über Unterschiede und Gemeinsamkeiten''Unter Betrachtung der eben gesammelten Werte/Tugeden und Normen aller Teilnehmenden in der Gruppe: Was fällt euch auf? Was ist bemerkenswert?''Teil V: Konklusion''Zum Abschluss werden die Eindrücke zusammengefasst und Erkenntnisse formuliert. (Eine detaillierte Beschreibung der einzelnen Schritte ist bei den Anweisungen für Trainer:innen zu finden.) Anweisungen für Trainer:innen zu finden.))
Kavramlara aşinalık kazanmak + (Değer ve norm kavramlarına aşinalık kazanmak için [https://embassy.science/wiki/Theme:B4f7b2e3-af61-4466-94dc-2504affab5a8 değerler ve normlar] sayfasını açın.)
Debatte und Dialog + (Die Durchführung der Übung durch eine:n Tr … Die Durchführung der Übung durch eine:n Trainer:in beinhaltet die folgenden Schritte:# Vorbereitung# Präsentation eines Fallbeispiels mit einem moralischen Dilemma (mit genau zwei Optionen)# Einteilung von Subgruppen (jede Subgruppe hat die Aufgabe, eine der zwei Optionen des Dilemmas zu verteidigen)# Alle Teilnehmenden führen eine Debatte # Reflexion über die Debatte mit Fokus auf den Prozess# Erklärung der Merkmale eines Dialogs# Alle Teilnehmenden führen einen Dialog# Reflexion über die Unterschiede zwischen der Debatte und dem Dialog# Reflexion über den Nutzen eines Dialogs in Gruppenprozessen/ReflexionsprozessenDie einzelnen Schritte sind im Detail bei den Anleitungen für die Trainer:innen beschrieben.itungen für die Trainer:innen beschrieben.)
Reflecting on Experiences and Practicing Exercises + (Discuss issues you (might) have encountere … Discuss issues you (might) have encountered during the exercises with other participants and reflect on your role and experience in facilitating the exercises.Make sure the specific goals of the exercises and their contribution to the overall goals of the training are clear to you. In particular reflect on the virtue-based approach to research integrity which is put forward in this training and on how to enable a virtue ethics approach in people’s ways to think about and do research. You might consider asking clarifying questions to make sure you have a good understanding of the approach and are able to use the same approach in training others. use the same approach in training others.)
Modified Dilemma Game + (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''').)
Self Declaration Approach - a Reflection on the Varieties of Goodness in Research + (Divide participants into groups of 3 to 5 … Divide participants into groups of 3 to 5 and ask them to discuss their inputs in their self-declaration sheets and to relate their inputs to virtues and research integrity . Provide trainees with the following lists of questions which they can use to stimulate reflection: 1. Share with the group your inputs in the self-declaration sheets on the types of goodness. Explain why you think your example exemplifies a certain type of goodness. Allow your group mates to ask questions.2. For each typology of goodness, discuss with your group what can happen if a type of goodness is not present.3. Are there varieties of goodness that are less relevant for research integrity?4. Are virtues necessary to achieve each typology of goodness?Give the trainees 20 to 30 minutes to discuss and to decide among themselves who should be the rapporteur.g themselves who should be the rapporteur.)
Debate and Dialogue + (Divide the group in two sub-groups and ins … Divide the group in two sub-groups and instruct each group which side of the dilemma they have to defend. There are two ways to split the group: A) participants choose a side themselves, or B) the trainer divides the group in two subgroups. Both approaches have pros and cons to consideration. With option A, the participants are more likely to believe in and strongly defend their position. With option B, the participants have to learn to defend a position which they might not agree with. If you are aware of power differences in a group e.g. supervisors and (PhD) students, it might be advisable for the moderator to divide the group. Participants assigned to a group might feel less pressure when defending their position against people more powerful than them. If there is enough space available in the room, position the two subgroups facing each other; they should literarily stand facing each other. Before starting the debate, give both groups a few minutes to discuss their arguments and strategy to convince the other group. and strategy to convince the other group.)
Münazara ve Diyalog + (Diyalog yönteminin ayırt edici özellikleri … Diyalog yönteminin ayırt edici özelliklerini ve bu yönteme uygun tutumları açıklayın (ağırdan alma, konuşmaktansa dinlemeyi tercih etme, hemen hüküm vermeme, sorular sorma; pratik ipuçları bölümüne bakınız). Odağınızı diyalog yöntemi üzerine çevirip bu yöntemin özelliklerini anlatın veya katılımcılara münazara ve diyalog arasındaki farklılıklara ilişkin tabloyu dağıtın (pratik ipuçları bölümüne bakınız).ağıtın (pratik ipuçları bölümüne bakınız).)
Münazara ve Diyalog + (Diyalog yönteminin ayırt edici özellikleri … Diyalog yönteminin ayırt edici özelliklerini ve bu yönteme uygun tutumları açıklayın (ağırdan alma, konuşmaktansa dinlemeyi tercih etme, hemen hüküm vermeme, sorular sorma; pratik ipuçları bölümüne bakınız). Odağınızı diyalog yöntemi üzerine çevirip bu yöntemin özelliklerini anlatın veya katılımcılara münazara ve diyalog arasındaki farklılıklara ilişkin tabloyu dağıtın (pratik ipuçları bölümüne bakınız).ağıtın (pratik ipuçları bölümüne bakınız).)
Münazara ve Diyalog + (Diyalog yönteminin ayırt edici özellikleri … Diyalog yönteminin ayırt edici özelliklerini ve bu yönteme uygun tutumları açıklayın (ağırdan alma, konuşmaktansa dinlemeyi tercih etme, hemen hüküm vermeme, sorular sorma; pratik ipuçları bölümüne bakınız). Odağınızı diyalog yöntemi üzerine çevirip bu yöntemin özelliklerini anlatın veya katılımcılara münazara ve diyalog arasındaki farklılıklara ilişkin tabloyu dağıtın (pratik ipuçları bölümüne bakınız).ağıtın (pratik ipuçları bölümüne bakınız).)
Der Selbstauskunfts-Ansatz: Eine Reflexion über das Konzept des Guten in der Wissenschaft + (Du beginnst die Übung, in dem du in einer … Du beginnst die Übung, in dem du in einer kurzen Präsentation die verschiedenen Typen des Guten vorstellst. Fokussiere dich dabei auf das Gute in der Forschung. Die Dauer und Tiefe der Diskussion hängt unter anderem davon ab, ob die Teilnehmenden zuvor das Video geschaut haben.lnehmenden zuvor das Video geschaut haben.)
Debatte und Dialog + (Du startest die Debatte, indem du beide Su … Du startest die Debatte, indem du beide Subgruppen einlädst, die andere Seite von ihrer Position zu überzeugen (z.B. „Liebe Gruppe 1, liebe Gruppe 2: Warum ist eure Position die richtige? Überzeugt die andere Seite davon. Die Debatte beginnt JETZT.“)Eingreifen in die Debatte als Moderator:in:- Im Allgemeinen solltest du als Moderator:in nicht zu sehr in die Debatte eingreifen, selbst wenn die Teilnehmer:innen lauter werden. - Du solltest die Debatte jedoch dann beenden, wenn Personen besonders emotional reagieren. In dem Fall, spreche die Person an („Ich habe den Eindruck, du bist gerade sehr ängstlich/traurig…“) und frag sie, was an der Situation dazu geführt hat, dass sie so ängstlich/traurig/.. ist. - Falls sich nur wenige Personen beteiligen, oder die Teilnehmer:innen zu höflich oder zurückhaltend agieren, kannst du als Moderator:in intervenieren und die Gruppen auffordern, sich gegenseitig von ihren Positionen zu überzeugen. Mögliche Formulierungen dafür sind bspw:o An Person aus Gruppe A: „Komm schon, denkst du wirklich, dass …?“ (dann wiederhole, was gerade von einer Person aus Gruppe B gesagt wurde)o „Und warum genau denkst du, dieses Argument sei wichtig?“u denkst du, dieses Argument sei wichtig?“)
VIRT2UE Videos + (During the 2019 World Conference on Research Integrity in Hong Kong, we asked experts to explain the concept of Research Integrity. [[File: What is research integrity3.png|link=https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CIIjtAgkfr4]])
VIRT2UE Videos + (During the 2019 World Conference on Research Integrity in Hong Kong, we asked experts on their opinions and views on Research Integrity education [[File: Research Integrity Education3.png|link=https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DHKhvewTNP4]])