BEYOND cases collection for training early career researchers
ResourcesBEYOND cases collection for training early career researchers
Related Initiative
What is this about?
This collection of cases for teaching and training was developed within the EU-funded BEYOND (Beyond Bad Apples: Towards a Behavioral and Evidence-based Approach to Promote Research Ethics and Integrity in Europe) project.
Ethics and ethics education have traditionally emphasized individual responsibility in decision-making and actions. While this perspective remains vital, it does not encompass the full complexity of ethical decision-making processes. Human beings are inherently social creatures and their decisions are influenced not only by personal choices but also by their broader environment and situational contexts. This underscores the need to integrate an understanding of social and contextual factors into ethical frameworks and teaching methodologies.
Ethical and other decisions within the research context are conditioned by institutional missions and values, disciplinary rules, organizational culture, and the particular, often implicit, practices of specific units and teams. These layers of context can and do influence how research is conducted, for example by emphasizing ethical considerations and equipping individuals with critical thinking tools, training opportunities, and providing a “research ethics infrastructure” comprising guidelines, transparent procedures, safeguards, and counseling opportunities.
BEYOND cases for young and early career researchers have been developed to support critical ethical reflection, acknowledging that practical ethics often involves choosing between incompatible values within complex social environments.
The material consists of ethical dilemmas which are developed in accordance with the methodology described by Parder et al. (2024)[1].
· The narrative is described from the perspective of the protagonist – the protagonist must be someone that the trainees find it easy to identify with.
· The characters and the basic relationships between them are described without too much detail, leaving thus room for trainees to fill the missing information with their own life experiences.
· The information about the motives of the actors has been kept to a minimum to give the trainees an opportunity to draw from their experiences.
· The temporal dimension of the narrative is also kept limited – in some cases background information is given, but the pre-given choices were kept within one temporal moment.
· The dilemma and the pre-given solutions were balanced – the narrative was written from the neutral perspective and the pre-given solutions were morally acceptable from the perspective of at least one ethical theory.
The drafting of solutions was inspired by four ethical theories: deontology, utilitarianism, care ethics and virtue ethics. It has to be noted that the solutions are not in perfect accordance with the theories as the aim of this training methodology is not to teach ethical theories to trainees, but rather to provide realistic alternative solutions to choose from.
Finally, the aim of the methodology is not to teach a “right” answer to the dilemma as dilemmas often involve conflicts between two or more valuable ethical principles, but to focus on the reflection of the cases and solutions and to guide participants to carry out moral reasoning with emphasis on the skills of listening and discussing.
The purpose of this training activity is to engage participants in a game to encourage discussion and promote better self-understanding and mutual understanding, while also enhancing listening and argumentation skills. The game is played in groups of 3–6 players. There can be as many groups as needed, although facilitation might require more effort with more groups. The cases focus on issues that are especially relevant for young and/or early career researchers and attempt has been made to cover topics that have emerged more recently in research ethics and integrity field (AI, researcher rehabilitation etc.).
Educators and trainers can find detailed instructions on how to facilitate reflection using these cases here .
Why is this important?
Case-based methodologies in teaching have a long history with the disciplines of law, business and medicine being first to employ real-life cases in university-level teaching. In ethics teaching these methods were first developed in the 1980s within the context of business ethics. Today, as case-based methodologies (descriptions of cases sometimes complemented by a set of solutions) have proven to be more effective compared to other approaches for teaching ethics[2], they have widely been used in different settings[3]. In the context of research ethics and integrity, well-known examples of the training materials employing this method are the Rotterdam dilemma game [4] and Virtue training materials[5].
The methodology of BEYOND cases is rooted in the values clarification method. It simultaneously develops discussions on ethics and values-related issues while enhancing competencies necessary for dialogic communication, including: 1) skills for listening and responding, 2) openness, 3) empathy, and 4) mutuality orientation.[6].
This particular methodology has been developed through various educational games created by the Centre for Ethics at the University of Tartu, with the first game released in 2010 for teachers. Subsequent games have been designed for medical workers, students, researchers and the general public. The training material is intended for use as active learning methods with high interactivity, such as group work and group discussions. The method combines individual activities (taking first personal responsibility via choosing one’s own solution) with group activities (discussing the case, solutions and their underlying motivations and values, and potentially reaching a consensus).
[2] Todd, E. M. et al. (2017, July 4). Effective Practices in the Delivery of Research Ethics Education: A Qualitative Review of Instructional Methods. Accountability in Research, 24(5), 297–321. https://doi.org/10.1080/08989621.2017.1301210
[3] Baldor, R. A., Field, T. S., and Gurwitz, J. H. (2001). Using the 'Question of Scruples' Game to Teach Managed Care Ethics to Students. Academic Medicine, 76(5), 510–511. https://doi.org/10.1097/00001888-200105000-00040; Bekir, N. et al. (2001). Teaching Engineering Ethics: A New Approach. In 31st Annual Frontiers in Education Conference. Impact on Engineering and Science Education. Conference Proceedings, 1. https://doi.org/10.1109/FIE.2001.963895; Cohen, H. (1993). The Citicorp Interactive Work Ethic Game: Sociological Practice Use in the Classroom. Clinical Sociology Review, 11(1). https://digitalcommons.wayne.edu/csr/vol11/iss1/14; Dahlin, J.-E. (n.d.). A Board Game for Teaching Sustainable Development. https://www.jonerikdahlin.com/dilemma/; Nelson, J. (1992). The Market Ethic: Moral Dilemmas and Microeconomics. Journal of Business Ethics, 11(4), 317–320. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00872174
[4] Erasmus University Rotterdam. (n.d.). Dilemma game: Professionalism and integrity in research. https://www.eur.nl/en/about-eur/policy-and-regulations/integrity/research-integrity/dilemma-game
[5] The Embassy of Good Science. (n.d.). Modified Dilemma Game (Instruction: A0dd2e82-52e7-4030-a396-54525630e75c). https://embassy.science/wiki/Instruction:A0dd2e82-52e7-4030-a396-54525630e75c
[6] Kent , M. L., and Taylor, M. (2002). Toward a Dialogic Theory of Public Relations. Public Relations Review, 28(1), 21–37. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0363-8111(02)00108-X; Taylor, M., and Kent, M. L. (2014). Dialogic Engagement: Clarifying Foundational Concepts. Journal of Public Relations Research, 26(5), 384–398. https://doi.org/10.1080/1062726X.2014.956106; Yang, S.-U., Kang, M., and Cha, H. (2015). A Study on Dialogic Communication, Trust, and Distrust: Testing a Scale for Measuring Organization–Public Dialogic Communication (OPDC). Journal of Public Relations Research, 27(2), 175–192. https://doi.org/10.1080/1062726X.2015.1007998
