Table of Contents

Cross-Instutional Research Integrity Training (CIRIT)– 28th May/3th June 2021...................... 2

1. Seminar Structure ........................................................................................................... 2
2. Type of Attendee ............................................................................................................. 2
3. Pre and Post Seminar Questions ..................................................................................... 3
4. Dilemma Game ................................................................................................................ 3
5. Virtues in Research Ethics ............................................................................................... 6
6. Middle Position ............................................................................................................... 7
7. Feedback Survey.............................................................................................................. 9
What worked well in the exercise? .......................................................................................... 14
What did not work well in the exercise?.................................................................................. 14
What would you do differently as a trainer next time you facilitate the exercise? ................ 14
Regarding your role as trainer: what would you advise the other trainers who intend to
facilitate this exercise? ............................................................................................................. 15
Looking back at the way you have been trained as trainer for this exercise: what would you
change in the train-the-trainer training for this exercise?....................................................... 15

Research Integrity Training Reflection Kate Dunne

Cross-Instutional Research Integrity Training (CIRIT)– 28th May/3th
June 2021

1. Seminar Structure

Duration Title
15 mins Introductions
15 mins Importance of Research Integrity
30 mins Exercise 01 - Dilemma Game
15 mins What is a “good” researcher?
30 mins Break
10 mins Virtues in Research Integrity
30 mins Exercise 02 - Virtues in real life dilemma
55 mins Exercise 03 - Middle Position
10 mins Closing Remarks

2. Type of Attendee

Seminar 1 28th May 2021

Type of attendee Count %

Masters/PhD student 6 35.29
Contract researcher 0 0
Professional Services 1 5.89
Lecturer 10 58.82
Total 17 100

Seminar 2 4th June 2021

Type of attendee
Masters/PhD student
Contract researcher
Professional Services
Lecturer
Total
Count %
7 31.82
5 22.72
1 4.54
9 40.92
22 100

Research Integrity Training Reflection Kate Dunne

3. Pre and Post Seminar Questions

Trainees were polled with three questions prior to the commencement of the seimar, and
then again when the training session was completed. The table below outlines the 3 questions
along with the answers pre- and post-training.

Seminar 1: 28th May 2021

Questions 1-3 put to the trainees pre- and post-RI Training Pre (n = 13) Post (n = 13)
Yes % Yes %
1. Can you name the four core principles to 1 7.7% 13 100%
Research Integrity?
2. Is it important to acknowledge colleagues that 12 92.3% 13 100%
contributed to your research with co-authorship on
your publication?
3. Are you familiar with what a responsible researcher 10 76.9% 13 100%
ought not to do?

Seminar 2: 4th June 2021

Questions 1-3 put to the trainees pre- and post-RI Training Pre (n = 23) Post (n = 20)
Yes % Yes %
1. Can you name the four core principles to 2 8.7% 20 100%
Research Integrity?
2. Is it important to acknowledge colleagues that 23 100% 20 100%
contributed to your research with co-authorship on
your publication?
3. Are you familiar with what a responsible researcher 17 73.9% 19 95%
ought not to do?

4. Dilemma Game

Dilemma 01
I am a PhD Candidate and I have just published my first paper. Together with the
manuscript, I am planning to publicly share the data collected during this project. The data
are properly anonymized, and a lot of effort has been put in the documentation, to increase
the chances of reusability. This would be a good career move, because this practice is
positively evaluated within my research field. However, my supervisor is afraid of scooping:
other researchers would be able to ask novel research questions, analyse the shared data,
and publish without involving either me or my supervisor.

What do I do?
A. My supervisor is right. The data should not be shared.
B. I should share the data but no documentation. This would make it difficult for other
researchers to reuse the data, unless they ask for help. This would ensure that I will
be co-author in any following publication.

Research Integrity Training Reflection Kate Dunne

 C. I should go to the Head of Department and report my supervisors' unethical
behaviour: data collection was possible thanks to public funding and we should give
back to society as much as possible tell the senior colleague that I do not want to give
him a preferential treatment.
D. I explain to my supervisor the benefits of data sharing, for example increased
citations for the original manuscript. Then I proceed to publicly share the data.

Dilemma 01: ‘Expert Review’

 Sharing data and transparency about data is of crucial importance for the reliability
and verifiability of results. In the case of data reuse, the solution is not secrecy but
acknowledgement or co-authorship.
 Data management is a learning process, and in this case, this involves educating the
supervisor. This also means addressing the supervisor directly to discuss this, rather
than “reporting your supervisor” to the head of department.
 If the issues cannot be addressed through dialogue, a confidential visit to the
integrity officer seems the way to go.
 The research climate should be such that dilemmas like this one can be discussed
openly during team meeting.

Dilemma 02
I am doing research in cooperation with a prestigious private partner. During the process,
however, I discover that this partner has a secret agenda. They deliberately use my research
to their own advantage by prioritizing outcomes advantageous to their own agenda whilst
neglecting other results that could contradict these positive outcomes.
What do I do?
A. I do nothing; the private partner can decide how to deal with the results, and I do not
want to put this project in jeopardy.
B. I request a meeting with the partner to address this issue and to explain the
importance of the independence of science.
C. I withdraw from the research, to safeguard my academic reputation.
D. I discuss what to do with the head of research of my department.

Dilemma 02: ‘Expert Review’

 Collaboration with private partners is an important ambition. They represent
experience and knowledge and may allow us to test the validity of our work and
strengthen the societal impact of our research. At the same time, it is important to
safeguard our core values.
 Integrity is important, we academics should be a reliable source of evidence-based
information, and our prestige and reputation as an academic research performing
organisation should never be compromised. This should be made clear from the very
outset. Outcomes should neither be prioritised nor neglected on the basis of short-
term interest, as the main common interest is to produce reliable knowledge even if
this contains an inconvenient message. That is what academic research is for.
Transparency is important. It may be a clash of research cultures and value system
(academics versus private partners). This must be further explored via an open
deliberation. Request a meeting with the partner to address this issue and to explain
the importance of the independence of science.

Research Integrity Training Reflection Kate Dunne

  You may discuss what to do with the head of research, but he or she will advise
option B. First explore this. If this is tried first, but the collaboration cannot be
improved and the threat to integrity remains in place, then C becomes an option. A is
never an option: you are co-responsible for the situation.

Dilemma 03
As a PhD Candidate, I was involved in supervising a master student, who finished her thesis
two years ago. At the time her results did not seem relevant to my work, but now they turn
out to be. I want to use them in the last chapter of my dissertation, giving credit for it to the
master student. However, I am unsure about how the data were collected and hence doubt
their reliability. Also, I do not have the student’s contact details anymore and I am not sure
how to contact her. She did not have ambitions to pursue an academic career and my
supervisor tells me that it is common practice to just use the data in such cases.
What do I do?
A. I follow my supervisor’s advice and use the data without the student’s permission.
Because I do not have permission, I also do not mention the student’s name in my
chapter.
B. I use the data but acknowledge the work of the student in my chapter.
C. I do not use the data. Without the student’s permission, it would be unethical to do
so.
D. I decide to recollect part of the data to verify their reliability before using them for
my own analysis.

Dilemma 03: ‘Expert Review’

 This case shows that integrity is part of quality care in research. The first question to
be asked is: if the PhD candidate acted as supervisor for the student, quality control
and data management is part of the supervision. Data should be handled with care.
This is not only the responsibility of the PhD candidate, but also a responsibility of
the supervisor. In short, if the thesis was supervised properly, it is difficult to see how
you could be “unsure about how the data were collected”.
 If there is a question as to “how the data were collected”, then the data cannot be
used at all, not only because there is no permission, but because the quality of the
data is questionable.

Research Integrity Training Reflection Kate Dunne

5. Virtues in Research Ethics

Research Integrity Training Reflection Kate Dunne

6. Middle Position

Research Integrity Training Reflection Kate Dunne

Research Integrity Training Reflection Kate Dunne
7. Feedback Survey

Seminar 1 28th May 2021

Question 01
Overall, how would you rate the seminar?

Question 02
Please rate the presentations used in the seminar to explain the role of research
integrity.

Question 03
Please rate the exercises used in the seminar to explain the role of research
integrity.

Question 04
Was the overall seminar length too long, too short or about, right?

Research Integrity Training Reflection Kate Dunne

Question 05
Would you be interested in attending future training seminars on research integrity?

Question 06
Additional comments about the CIRIT training seminar on research integrity?

Response Comment
1 The idea of getting the exercises done is very good and helpful.
2 Breakout rooms worked really well, the exercises and interaction
added greatly to this.
3 I would have liked that link between Institutional/Professional
Research Integrity and the remit of Research Ethics Committees be
discussed.
4 Enjoyed sessions and learned a lot. Would like more time in breakout
groups and discussion, to share ideas. But I do think that is one of the
disadvantages of online. Vgood. And thanks. Generated new thinking
for me and certainly can take it forward.
5 Well done on putting this together
6 It would have been helpful to have a course leader in the break out
rooms to help guide us and keep us on track … there is a danger that
break-out discussion get dominated by a single individual or
digression that are off-piste.. in our final break out on the middle
position, despite an interesting dilemma being posited, we didn’t
really get to discuss the middle position because of the strong views
of one of the participants.
7 I marked yes in Q7 (interest in future seminars on RI) as I would like

Research Integrity Training Reflection Kate Dunne

 to see a refresher course every year or two. A shorter session to
remind and update researchers. Thank you for an excellent session.

Seminar 2 4th June 2021

Question 01
Overall, how would you rate the seminar?

Question 02
Please rate the presentations used in the seminar to explain the role ofresearch
integrity.

Question 03
Please rate the exercises used in the seminar to explain the role of research
integrity.

Question 04

Research Integrity Training Reflection Kate Dunne

Was the overall seminar length too long, too short or about, right?

Question 05
Would you be interested in attending future training seminars on research integrity?

Question 06
Additional comments about the CIRIT training seminar on research integrity?

Response Comment
1 Thank you
2 Thanks, a really interesting and useful event. Particularly appreciated
the focus on real-world examples.
3 I’d like to say thank you to the organisers. This was the best training
on the subject ever! Well done and thank you again � !!! ) (I learn a
lot today.)
4 Thank you for all your work on this, an excellent seminar!
5 Well done on putting this together
6 The seminar was excellently paced and the breakout rooms were
really well managed – they worked very well, with a nice amount of
time to have proper discussions on the topics. Overall I found the
seminar very interesting and thought -provoking. Many thanks to the
organisers!
7 Technologies were very good – good course all round.
8 Very professional and likeable team – a non threatening space.
Clearly very well prepared in advance. I found the content input very
rich and really appreciated it. Perhaps the inputs were a bit fast – I
Research Integrity Training Reflection Kate Dunne
 personally needed time to process – the long coffee break was ideal.
I found it a bit pressurising to do advance ‘homework’ in such a
packed pandemic year – not a big deal, but I would have preferred to
have had those activities included in the session and watch the video
as a follow-on. Overall fantastic- leaned a lot and it will enhance my
supervision practice for sure. Thank you all.
9 Really enjoyable and thought-provoking seminar. Thanks
10 It was very useful
11 Lovely facilitators, extremely well planned and delivered. Interesting
cases.

Research Integrity Training Reflection Kate Dunne

What worked well in the exercise?
• The communication with all participants in advance of the training was beneficial.
The material that was circulated was very digestible and didn’t place too much of a
burden on attendees, however, it provided the opportunity for attendees to
familiarize themselves with the topics for discussion to make it a more productive
session.
• The layout of the seminar worked very well and was very engaging. In summary it
involved a short presentation, followed by breakout room to work on an exercise
followed by a group reflection x 3. This layout flowed very well and maintained
everyone’s interest throughout.
• Planning the breakout groups to include researchers from a range of career stages
(early career e.g., postgraduate researchers to late stage e.g., Principal Investigators).
This enabled the breakout rooms to be very engaging and productive, as there was
fantastic input from a variety of different perspectives.
• Having the host/trainers involved in the first breakout room. This was important as it
provided some direction to the participants in terms of how group discussions were
to progress within the breakout rooms. It also helped to break the ice for the
participants, which then benefitted the remaining breakout room sessions (where
the trainer was not present for the duration).

What did not work well in the exercise?

• Some elements regarding timing didn’t work well. Enough time was not allocated to
the introduction section and put pressure on the timing towards the end of the
session. The introduction section is very important as it enables all the participants to
see who their fellow attendees are and what career stage they are at. It also acts as
an ice breaker and sets the scene for the breakout rooms. Therefore, an additional
10-15 minutes to the overall time of the seminar would alleviate any time pressure.
• Feedback from the first seminar indicated that not enough time was given to the
breakout rooms. This was then taken into consideration for the second seminar
where extra time was given to some of the breakout rooms, and this appeared to
work very well in terms of the overall enjoyment of this seminar.

What would you do differently as a trainer next time you facilitate the
exercise?
Truthfully, there is not too much that I would change if I was to facilitate this exercise again,
particularly as there was very positive feedback overall from both sessions.

• The only small change that I would make, would be to factor in some extra time for
the introductions at the start (as mentioned above). This part took longer than
expected and put some pressure on towards the end of the seminar. We did not
want to go over time as it is important in the environment of online meetings to be
conscious of people’s time and not to create any negativity towards the training.

Research Integrity Training Reflection Kate Dunne

 • In addition, I would maybe add a few more minutes on to the breakout room
sessions as this is where the majority of learning and enjoyment comes from. This
would just require some modifications to the timing of the presentations but would
not impact negatively on the format and flow of the seminar.

Regarding your role as trainer: what would you advise the other
trainers who intend to facilitate this exercise?
• I strongly recommend that where possible, trainers facilitate this training with
others. This support is really important, particularly when trying to conduct this
online and monitoring breakout rooms, polls, timing, questions in the chat etc… It
helps the overall flow of the training and ultimately makes it a very positive
experience for both trainers and attendees.
• I would also encourage that trainers prepare to be flexible in facilitating this training.
There are certain areas that will allow for this more than others. It is important to be
mindful that these events never fully go according to plan and if you do not prepare
to be flexible or to have a Plan B then it will put unnecessary stress on the event and
ultimately impact on the learning experience. For example, be flexible in areas such
as the breakout rooms in case certain participants don’t turn up, or if time needs to
be redirected to one section over another, or if the discussions don’t go the way that
you “planned” for them to go, be prepared to adapt.

Looking back at the way you have been trained as trainer for this
exercise: what would you change in the train-the-trainer training for
this exercise?
• There are no changes that I would recommend. I thoroughly enjoyed my training
experience and have met a number of new colleagues that I have formed a fantastic
working relationship with as a result of this training.

Research Integrity Training Reflection Kate Dunne