Teaching and Learning Research Integrity

A world ever more permeated by technology and impacted by Covid-19 poses a range of new challenges for both researchers and citizens as well as exacerbating existing ones.

Among the most important questions raised by these circumstances are: How can we help citizens to wisely and safely navigate in a world where facts and fiction compete for our attention? And to this end, how can we best teach the next generation about the guiding principles of reliable research?

This collection aims to engage stakeholders in responding to these challenges through an effort to foster a vibrant research integrity culture. The Path2Integrity project is inviting everyone interested in these issues to come together to learn about and co-create new approaches and methods to teach research integrity.

We have specifically invited teachers in lower and higher levels of education, curriculum developers, ethics and research integrity officers, researchers, university managers and administrators, representatives of research and education funding agencies, and media and citizen representatives to participate in this collection.

OPEN ACCESS
How to set the agenda for training in responsible conduct of research using the target audience as a narrative guide
FACETS • Vol. 7 • pp. 1258 - 1275
There is a growing interest in training on responsible conduct of research (RCR). The availability and range of such training materials, for a diversity of audiences and addressing a diversity of RCR related topics, is growing too. This is of great help to all who are looking for materials to set up their RCR training, but how can one select what topics to include within the often-limited time available for training? In this paper we propose a step-by-step approach to set the agenda for RCR training, using the target audience as a narrative guide. The process consists of six steps: (1) mapping the needs and translating them into learning objectives; (2) prioritizing, selecting, and combining objectives and themes; (3) demarcation of the training; (4) completion of the program; (5) development or adaptation of training materials; and (6) pilot and evaluation. The development process of a training program for researchers in Dutch Universities of Applied Sciences is used as an example to illustrate the step-by-step process.
OPEN ACCESS
Students’ mindsets on research integrity—a cross-cultural comparison
FACETS • Vol. 7 • pp. 528 - 542
Research integrity (RI) has been a focus of society in recent years as a means to create and to keep trust in science. Higher education institutions (HEIs) play a key role in promoting a culture of RI and responsible conduct of research (RCR). The understanding and practice of RI can vary across cultures. This article aims to outline initial insights into university students’ RI mindsets based on five RI facets: understanding, importance, value–action gap, enforcement approaches, and training. A qualitative exploratory cross-cultural study was conducted with participants from Germany and Bulgaria via semi-structured guided group interviews. An explicit transcultural agreement regarding the significance of RI was categorically indicated. Intercultural differences between the two European countries were revealed and discussed in reference to understanding RI, the value–action gap, enforcement approaches, and training preferences.
OPEN ACCESS
Research integrity: learning from collective action in Nepal
- Bibek Dahal and
- Shristi Rijal
FACETS • Vol. 7 • pp. 236 - 246
Early career researchers in developing countries like Nepal have faced many barriers while learning and practicing research integrity. Having easy access to appropriate resources for learning research integrity is essential to ensure academic integrity in higher education in Nepal and promote responsible research practices. This paper presents an approach to collective learning that will help stakeholders initiate learning and foster research integrity at their own level. Methodologically, the learning interventions were conducted in four phases: preparation, planning, implementation, and learning. Throughout the process of each phase, social exchange theory and collaboration in social learning were considered as new literacy models to promote research integrity knowledge. The interpretation of experiential learning interventions led to the development of the 4Co collective learning model. This model is contextually applicable for gaining deeper knowledge and skills and new networks of research integrity. With the purposes of awareness and development, this article is divided into two sections: the first part explores the actions taken and the second explores experiential learning that provides insights about the 4Co collective learning model.
OPEN ACCESS
Teaching phronesis in a research integrity course
- Mads Paludan Goddiksen and
- Mickey Gjerris
FACETS • Vol. 7 • pp. 139 - 152
More and more research institutions are implementing courses in research integrity (RI). Recent studies indicate that teachers of RI courses are increasingly adopting a “phronetic” approach to their teaching, where the focus is on nurturing values and practical wisdom—what Aristotle called phronesis. When adopting a phronetic approach, it is important to understand what phronesis in relation to RI entails and how and to what extent an RI course can contribute to the development of research phronesis. This paper contains a practice-based discussion of the realistic aims of RI courses and a first step towards a specification of the skill set necessary for developing research phronesis drawing on experiences from the PhD courses on Responsible Conduct of Research at the University of Copenhagen. We discuss the limited extent to which research phronesis can be taught in short courses and examine the broader implications of this for the role of RI courses in the training of good researchers.
OPEN ACCESS
What’s integrity got to do with it? Second-year experiences of the Path2Integrity e-learning programme
- Noémie Hermeking and
- Julia Priess-Buchheit
FACETS • Vol. 7 • pp. 110 - 125
Organisations in Europe differ significantly in how they promote research integrity (RI). Higher education institutions play a pivotal role in disseminating a culture of RI and responsible conduct of research (RCR). Adhering and strengthening mentoring systems, implementing codes of conduct, and raising awareness are just a few initiatives among many to enhance students’ training in RCR. This article describes the Path2Integrity Learning Card (P2LIC) programme, a proactive training programme to foster RI. This programme was further developed in 2020 and the updated feedback loops took place in four countries (Germany, Denmark, Spain, and Poland). We outline the P2ILC development and final design, the trainer feedback on the programme from the second year of operation, and suggest future considerations for RCR training to strengthen research integrity.
OPEN ACCESS
Dialogical teaching of research integrity: an overview of selected methods
FACETS • Vol. 6 • pp. 2138 - 2154
This communication discusses the dialogical methods of teaching research integrity and ethics as a part of the positive integrity trend focused on supporting ethical behaviour. The aim of this paper is to offer a brief overview of the selected dialogical strategies based on cases that can be successfully implemented in teaching ethical research and when sharing experiences on good scientific practice. We describe such methods as: storytelling, rotatory role playing, and the fishbowl debate, along with the “Dilemma Game” tool, “ConscienceApp” performance, and a flipped classroom idea. These theoretical considerations are based on research conducted as part of a European project under the Horizon 2020 programme.

Curators

Katharina Miller

Guest Editor

Julia Prieß-Buchheit

Guest Editor

Verify Phone

Congrats!

Collection