Path2Integrity Learning Cards & Handbook for Trainers and Lecturers: M-Series

Do you want to teach future researchers how to integrate their knowledge into their own research activities, as well as help them understand how important reliable research is for society? This handbook accompanies the Path2Integrity learning cards (P2ILC) on six topics (https://www.path2integrity.eu/ri-materials) and introduces you to an easy and fun learning programme that has been evaluated in over 15 training sessions. The Path2Integrity learning cards M-series is especially designed for graduates who already have a university degree. They learn how responsible research needs to be conducted in order to be reliable and thus useful for society.

The M-series learning cards help students use research findings responsibly while understanding the research landscape and processes within it, and by appreciating the importance of research integrity's criteria for society (cf. Häberlein 2020, 6f.). With the aid of many experienced teachers and trainers, the authors collected tips in this handbook on how to prepare each card, how to support your students' learning curve, and how to overcome the various challenges that might arise as you bring this important topic to your students.
In the next chapters, this handbook helps you prepare and carry out lessons on what makes for good, reliable research with the following learning cards (Fig. 1).

Learning Stages
This unit has been prepared for all learning groups with a university degree.
Emphasises how important responsible conduct of research is for society Challenges (future) researchers to comply with research codes and principles Introduces (future) researchers to the process of producing reliable research results

Description and background
Good research is based on honesty!  The session was a complete success! In class we introduced ourselves to Hannah, Rory and the various members at the conference, and performed an engaging storytelling exercise about the possibilities of promoting research integrity. Using the card, we got to know our research infrastructure, rules and procedures in detail and were able to identify possible gaps in our discipline. I enjoyed how much fun we had, and continued using the cards in future classes.
After the third session, my students began to anticipate the learning routine, even starting to regulate themselves and creating ideal learning opportunities. I was really able to become a mediator of their learning! In two subsequent sessions, I changed the phases to include longer discussions, after seeing how eager my course was to exchange their thoughts and arguments.   In the description of each learning card, the authors prepared additional material that you can use for the preparation phase (see the section "Eight sessions on integrity in research and society" on page 11 of this handbook). For more information on how to flip your classroom, as well as on how to supplement the learning material, please refer to the Path2Integrity roadmap (https://www.path2integrity.eu/teaching-RI Fig. 5).

2
For further information see Nimmerfroh 2016.

II. You can introduce Hannah's protocol: Is there a need for a research integrity policy?
Hannah's protocol is a narrative from the Path2Integrity learning card programme, in which research integrity is at stake. The narrative is introduced in M0 and subsequently used in several cards while developing in different directions. This is really, vitally important; we need to have solid, transparent rules around ethics and research methods, or this institution's reputation will be a joke.
(General agitation; Whispers in the hall; Call from other member: "Don´t overdo it!")

Member 2:
You can't regulate honesty. There are just too many different circumstances to be able to account for all of them with individual rules, and we certainly don't need more administration here. You can only encourage people to do the right thing, or hire people who have values like honesty and integrity, and the institution already has a code of conduct for that.

Member 3:
Doesn't each discipline have its own professional code and standards anyway? A Research Integrity policy for the whole institution doesn´t make any sense, as accepted practices differ too greatly from field to field.
(Sounds of approval and positive comments)

Member 1:
A Research Integrity statement is needed to establish values and processes. These would help address specific issues like authorship, scientific rigour and data management, as well as aid in investigations of scientific misconduct.
(General agitation; Call from other member: "Why would we need that?")

Member 4:
It's all about being clear on what we expect at this university and giving people the tools to navigate tricky issues. We believe you can't have research excellence without integrity in research.

IV. You can promote role play
Role-playing is an exploratory game in which participants assume an "as-if character". 6  To get started with role play in the Path2Integrity learning cards, you can orientate yourself using the following steps: 1. Preparation: You know your learning group best. Get them in the right mood thematically and emotionally. Read the instructions together and help your participants identify with their role. Offer them a comprehensive picture of the situation. You can also describe characteristics of the role to be played in detail. 8 2. Performing: Provide ample space for the role-playing scenario, making sure to give your students enough time as well. If necessary, you can also provide a start signal or assign moderators to take over a guiding function in the role play.
3. Reflection: Make sure that you plan in at least as much time to reflect the role play as for the role play itself. Gradually

VI. Evaluating future researchers' knowledge and ability to defend good scientific practice
Over the lifetime of the project, the Path2Integrity learning card programme additionally includes one card each for pre-and post-testing (M0 and M9). If you prefer to evaluate without the cards, you can use the following two links (Fig. 9): The 3. Acknowledge each contribution to the discussion as a noteworthy argument.
4. Share your prior knowledge when required and be prepared to discuss it.

11
These are nine out of 14 rules on how to conduct a rational dialogue (cf. Klare and Krope 1977, 124

The dialogical approach to teaching students about what is necessary to produce reliable research results and evidence-based decisions in society: a closer look.
According to Lorenz (2005, 189-191), a dialogue is a verbal discussion between two or more people, characterised by speech and counter-speech with the following specifics: question and answer (to clarify terms), claim and counterclaim (to justify decisions), and proof and falsification (to disclose inferences). A dialogue is a high-quality interpersonal relationship (cf. Widdershoven and Solbakk 2019) and seeks to be an ideal speech situation (cf. Habermas 1990, 43-115) in which the other (›you‹) is recognised as a person, instrumentalisation is renounced, others' right to differing opinions is taken seriously, and an I and you role can be clearly defined (cf. Lorenz 2005, 189-191). When impartial, unconstrained and non-persuasive acts are respected, a dialogue can be conducted (cf. Gethmann 2005, 191).
A dialogical approach in teaching and learning builds common language and enables participants to answer questions

A piece of advice from gender expert Katharina Miller:
One challenge within dialogical learning settings can be the lack of eye-level conversations between different genders.
Within the Path2Integrity project, the gender dimension has been observed to play a role in interactive sessions.
"Storytelling and role play are often gender-mixed interactions in classrooms, incorporating gender-specific interaction patterns. Because women have less speech percentage and more speech interruptions in gender-mixed discussion groups […]" 12 P2I suggests teachers be aware of these (usually unconscious) power structures. That is why we recommend that you empower men and women to "[…] unfold their different emotions connected to their experiences" 13 by raising their awareness of existing differences and supporting their individual approaches towards participating in the dialogical discussions. This could be accomplished through an awareness training before the use of the learning cards starts. I am happy to accompany your learning experience. You can send an email to miller@3ccompliance.com and I will provide you with more information.

Eight sessions on integrity in research and society
The document "Why do we even give sources?" presents a list of reasons why we give sources.
The reasons can be collected by participants.
https://www.academicintegrity.eu/wp/materials/ why-do-we-even-give-sources-a-list-of-reasonsfor-good-practice-maintaining-integrity/  "Just as we, as researchers, introduce people to the world, they will see this world through our eyes. And it is crucial that we base everything we present on solid evidence that we gather in the course of our scientific work." (Anna Wójcicka, an advocate for research integrity) For insight into the learning progress after P2I sessions, please send an email with your two-letter group code to zollitsch@path2integrity.uni-kiel.de. path2integrity.uni-kiel.de, you will be able to gain insight into your students' improvement.

"
It was great to do the test again at the end of the course with four of the P2ILC and to hear from the students themselves that they felt much more confident in their answers on research integrity questions.

Learning stages
This unit has been prepared for all learning groups with a university degree.

Alexander Gerber
This project receives funding from the European Union's Horizon 2020 research and innovation programme under grant agreement No 824488.

Keywords
Research practice; misconduct; honesty; reliability; accountability; respect in research; research and society 3 Dive into an interesting story:

M0
1 Become familiar with the topic: Homework (before the unit starts) or reading session 2 Collect your experience: In your class, discuss how sure or unsure you were regarding your answers to the survey. Which cases from the survey were especially interesting to you? Read Hannah's story aloud. Describe her by embellishing the story. Who is she in your imagination? Is she, for example, a motivated master student in the field of humanities or rather a doctoral candidate in chemistry? Does she have many friends and prefers spending time out rather than studying?

Connect to your own life:
Take a minute for yourselves, and think about someone in your environment who used research results to argue in favour of something. Write down a description of that person and what they argued in favour of.

Engage in storytelling:
Introduce your character. In pairs, introduce your character vividly to your partner. What did the person argue in favour of, using their research results? Explain whether this person is a researcher or whether they are working in another area of society.
Imagine the worst. In a co-creative process with your partner, pick one of the people you wrote about and imagine a scenario in which the research results turn out to be fraudulent because the researcher cheated. Build a story around the cheating researcher and your character. Include a person or part of society that is hurt by the fraudulent results. Write your storyline down in bullet points.
Turn it to its best. Now rewrite your story! Together, imagine that another researcher steps in to stop the cheating. Describe this researcher's values, as well as how your character is now able to use reliable research results to make their argument. Write a short story in which a person or part of society benefits from the reliable results.

Read some of these stories aloud!
Research principles are... "Reliability in ensuring the quality of research, reflected in the design, the methodology, the analysis and the use of resources. Honesty in developing, undertaking, reviewing, reporting and communicating research in a transparent, fair, full and unbiased way. Respect for colleagues, research participants, society, ecosystems, cultural heritage and the environment. Accountability for the research from idea to publication, for its management and organisation, for training, supervision and mentoring, and for its wider impacts." (ECoC 2017, p. 4) 6 Reflect on reasons for reliable research in society: As a class, brainstorm reasons for reliable research and write these on a chalk board or flip chart. Discuss why it is important that researchers follow good research practice! Pick four significant reasons from the board as to why researchers need to follow these principles. Write them in your notebook.

Fill out the survey to evaluate the learning units.
Use this link: https://path2integrity.eu/limesurvey/index.php/238122?newtest=Y&amp;lang=en A two-digit group code is required to link relevant data in an anonymised manner. Before you begin, define this code together with the group and use it in the questionnaire. Keep a note of the code for later use. Note any interesting or challenging cases as well as any unknown words and bring these notes to your class.
Spread out in the room, holding up your paper. Read what others have written on their papers and find someone whose message goes well with yours. Together, brainstorm a research landscape for your discipline.
Draw the landscape on a piece of paper, and have it photocopied so that it can be passed around.
Meanwhile, start a question-and-answer circle around the room. One person should ask their neighbour: How and why do you foster research integrity? The neighbour should answer as clearly as possible and then ask the next student the same question. This should continue until everyone has both asked and answered.
Move the tables and chairs back to discuss the activity as a class.
Together, agree on the most important part of the research landscape for your discipline.

Who was missing in your portrayal?
Where was there a lack of clear infrastructure, rules or procedures in your discipline?
Formulate three statements with the words: The research environment in our discipline should ___________________________! Copy these statements into your notebook.
How can you handle these leaps in your upcoming research? Find solutions together! This unit has been prepared for disciplinary learning groups.
"We must be neutral and represent the best of science to help make this a better world for all of us. We have to figure out how we can do that." (Philippe Grandjean, an advocate for research integrity)

Dive into an interesting challenge
Learning stages

Description and background
This learning unit: 3 Engage in role play:

Explain and justify research procedures
Flesh out your challenge with details; Imagine a conflict happens between two parties in this challenge, and perform it in a role play; Describe the conflict and write it down (each group member needs a text version).

M2
1 Become familiar with the topic:

Read the paragraph on good research practice in "The European Code of Conduct for Research Integrity"
Discuss the meanings of any unknown words.

Dive into an interesting challenge:
To prepare the following exercise, please choose a situation in which some of you are unsure about how to proceed.
This challenge, regarding model procedures in the natural sciences, shows some uncertainty as to how best to proceed: A new approach on modelling particle behaviour has been introduced to a researcher at a conference; however, it conflicts with the model he currently uses. Does he have to address this in his next paper and presentation or can he just let it go, as the model he uses is already well accepted within the community?
Likewise, the following challenge demonstrates a questionable situation with vulnerable populations: You are running a social media experiment and receive a request from a colleague: "Please let Paul attend your experiment as he needs the money." Should you invite Paul to attend?
In the field of research on self-driving cars, an expert questions the following: Is it necessary to check the alarm system for distance control before every test run in the city?
If one of these challenges is relevant to your discipline, you are welcome to use it. If not, please select an equivalent challenge from your research. Display it with one or two sentences on the chalkboard.

Go through the next steps in groups of four to six people:
Reflect on your own and answer the following questions: Which rules do the parties explicitly or implicitly refer to in your conflict?
Did the parties explain rules in the role play?
If not, can you imagine which rules justify the actions of the two parties?
Which rules exclude or at least hinder each other? Write down the relevant rules.
Pick out one rule that you agree with, and a second one that you reject.
Describe why you agree with the first, and why you disagree with the second. If possible, refer to The European Code of Conduct for Research Integrity or another guideline on research procedures, e.g. from your institution or country.
Discuss your rules in the plenum. Start by arguing in favour of specific research procedures and then turn to your denials.

Reflect on conditions and help
mechanisms for an open and transparent dialogue: 1. Ombudspersons are officially elected to represent the codes and regulations of research integrity at your institution; 2. Research ethics committees are elected to assess ethical issues in research projects; 3. Persons of trust are trustworthy and experienced in the field of research integrity, in some cases officially appointed by your institution.
Guardians of research integrity are: 2 Immerse yourself in rules relevant to your discipline: 1 Become familiar with the topic:

Read the paragraph on safeguards in "The European Code of Conduct for Research Integrity"
Find at least two codes or regulations that affect your discipline.
Read them and bring them to your class. In class, discuss the meanings of any unknown words.
Working in pairs, discuss which codes and regulations from your discipline you brought with you and decide together which rule you value as most important. Write your chosen rule on a chalk board or flip chart. As a class, agree on the most important rule relevant to your discipline out of all the recommendations. Write this rule in your notebook! Together with your partner, recall or read Hannah's protocol. Imagine meeting her; you have two minutes to tell her the rule within your discipline that you have decided on as a class.
3 Engage in rotatory role play: Go through the next steps in pairs, choosing one student to play A and one to play B: A has a conflict with their superior B, because B is not adhering to the rule (from your notebook); in fact they have instructed A to ignore this rule. Flesh out your conflict with details.
Write down a dialogue of your conflict in which A explains to B that it is both necessary and reasonable to follow this rule. Perform your dialogue in role play! Refer to codes and regulations.
Go through this dialogue at least four times with B using different forms of aggressive verbal behaviour to try to prevent A from following this rule. A should continue to address the conflict in an open and transparent way. Rotate roles for every turn.
Reflect on the differences between the four turns.

Description and background
This learning unit:

Practice understanding and being understood in a dialogue
Learn to discard arguments that cannot be justified To learn about research integrity in research groups, please select an example from your discipline. Choose a situation in which collaborative work is common. Here are two possible examples: 1. "To promote more female speakers at high-level European conferences, three partners decided to work together on project X3. X3 supports high-level conference hosts by conducting and publishing the results of a survey about the most pressing needs of women while they are at conferences." 2. "To tackle health challenges in Europe, 15 institutions from different European countries support an experiment with different randomised trials to improve patient care." These examples are similar in that they refer to collaborative teams pursuing scientific results using known and state-of-the-art research procedures. If one of these examples is relevant to you, you are welcome to use it. If not, please select an equivalent example from your discipline. Write it down in one or two sentences.
You do not know who your partners will be. Write down which research practices they might use that would jeopardise the research collaboration.
Consider what you would need from your project partners so as not to step into this pitfall.
Write down on what you and your partners should agree together in advance of the project so that you can confidently start your project without hesitation or discomfort.

4
What are the roles and responsibilities of the different partners in research collaborations?
Think about processes such as research reporting on findings and problems, collecting and storing information, changing research design or models etc.
In addition, think about intellectual property rights and ownership issues for research data and publication.
When does the collaboration start? When does it end? To which code of conduct should the different partners adhere?
Present your request for collaborative work to each other, starting with one partner and following the instructions below: As a class, discuss: • What did different groups agree on, and why?
• What was challenging in the process?
• If groups could not come to an agreement, how did they proceed?
• Why is an agreement necessary in research collaborations?
4 Engage in storytelling about rules for appropriate citation: In groups of three or four, imagine you are tutoring Hannah. She has written you an email asking for tips on academic writing.
Before you answer her, discuss the specifics of your discipline:

How to quote directly
Take a statement, idea or text of somebody else and tell it in your own words. Acknowledge the original source by using a reference at the end of the paraphrased section.

How to paraphrase
Describe the basic idea of a piece of work in your own words. State the original source of the summarised ideas.

How to summarise
3 Compare citations and prioritise appropriate academic writing:

Write Ethically from Start to Finish:
This exercise is taken in modified form from Glendinning, I (2011), adapted by Dlabolová, D;Foltýnek, T;Schäfer, A (2016) Find a code for academic writing for your discipline, read it and bring it with you to class. Discuss the meanings of any unknown words and contents.
2 Dive into an interesting story: Read or recall Hannah's protocol and briefly flesh out what happened in the meeting. Now imagine the story continues as follows: During a seminar, Hannah's lecturer had informed the students that their final papers would be subjected to a plagiarism test, as incidents of misconduct had been increasing. Hannah did not believe she was guilty of plagiarism, but when the lecturer mentioned correct quoting and references, as well as acknowledging important work and intellectual contribution of others, Hannah began to feel nervous. "What exactly is appropriate citation?", she wondered.
copy word for word with no quotation marks, but reference to the original source and author ..

Learning objectives
This unit has been prepared for disciplinary learning groups.

Be ready to choose norms together with the dialogue group and for your target group
Be open, unbiased and accepting of ambiguity Explain and justify data management

Researchers, research institutions and organisations ensure access to data is as open as possible and as closed as necessary.
(cf. ECoC 2017, p. 6)

Emphasises the principles of findable, accessible, interoperable and re-usable (FAIR) data while describing their limitations
"Reliable data must first be collected, then processed accurately in order to draw reliable conclusions and present them fairly." (Tymon Zieliński, an advocate for research integrity)

Description and background
This learning unit:

Builds the competency to explain and justify proper data management
Become familiar with the topic Evaluate different arguments, face dissent and achieve consensus  This project receives funding from the European Union's Horizon 2020 research and innovation programme under grant agreement No 824488.