Difference between revisions of "Resource:3b5cfd90-972a-4d17-accd-395b6cec560d"
From The Embassy of Good Science
| (One intermediate revision by one other user not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{Resource | {{Resource | ||
|Resource Type=Cases | |Resource Type=Cases | ||
| − | |Title= | + | |Title=UK Research Integrity Office's Case Study Collection |
| − | |Is About=The case studies in this pack are not literal accounts of any particular enquiry to UKRIO. Instead they are scenarios, based on real-life situations, which illustrate recurring or notable issues and problems which have been brought to our attention. This pack is suitable for any audience (e.g. case study 2) but may be of particular interest to managers, researchers and administrators involved in responding to allegations of research misconduct. While some case studies may mention a particular discipline, they contain themes that cut across all subjects. | + | |Is About=The case studies in this pack are not literal accounts of any particular enquiry to the UK Research Integrity Office (UKRIO). Instead they are scenarios, based on real-life situations, which illustrate recurring or notable issues and problems which have been brought to our attention. This pack is suitable for any audience (e.g. case study 2) but may be of particular interest to managers, researchers and administrators involved in responding to allegations of research misconduct. While some case studies may mention a particular discipline, they contain themes that cut across all subjects. |
|Important Because=Each case study is accompanied by some suggested points for discussion. These are intended as a starting point for debate and reflection, drawing on the major themes of the case study. Certain approaches are proposed but discussion of the cases may well suggest others – there is often no single ‘right’ answer | |Important Because=Each case study is accompanied by some suggested points for discussion. These are intended as a starting point for debate and reflection, drawing on the major themes of the case study. Certain approaches are proposed but discussion of the cases may well suggest others – there is often no single ‘right’ answer | ||
|Important For=All stakeholders in research | |Important For=All stakeholders in research | ||
| Line 9: | Line 9: | ||
|Has Link=https://ukrio.org/wp-content/uploads/UKRIO-Case-study-pack-No.-1.pdf | |Has Link=https://ukrio.org/wp-content/uploads/UKRIO-Case-study-pack-No.-1.pdf | ||
}} | }} | ||
| − | {{Related To}} | + | {{Related To |
| + | |Related To Theme=Theme:28a0859b-9e52-4af4-97f0-b0f8eeac1f1c | ||
| + | }} | ||
{{Tags | {{Tags | ||
|Involves=UKRIO | |Involves=UKRIO | ||
Latest revision as of 11:36, 30 September 2020
ResourcesCases
UK Research Integrity Office's Case Study Collection
What is this about?
The case studies in this pack are not literal accounts of any particular enquiry to the UK Research Integrity Office (UKRIO). Instead they are scenarios, based on real-life situations, which illustrate recurring or notable issues and problems which have been brought to our attention. This pack is suitable for any audience (e.g. case study 2) but may be of particular interest to managers, researchers and administrators involved in responding to allegations of research misconduct. While some case studies may mention a particular discipline, they contain themes that cut across all subjects.
Why is this important?
Each case study is accompanied by some suggested points for discussion. These are intended as a starting point for debate and reflection, drawing on the major themes of the case study. Certain approaches are proposed but discussion of the cases may well suggest others – there is often no single ‘right’ answer
