Skip to main content
FinDocNet
  • Home
  • More
English ‎(en)‎
English ‎(en)‎ Suomi ‎(fi)‎
You are currently using guest access
Log in
Home
Research Ethics Testi2023
33
 
33.3% Completed 1 / 3

Contents

    • Page
      Page
      Page
      Key course documents
    • Assignment
      Assignment
      Assignment
      A1. Optional Reflective Activity - Research ethics in your research
    • Assignment
      Assignment
      Assignment
      A2. MANDATORY Reflective Activity - Thinking through ethics
    • Assignment
      Assignment
      Assignment
      B1.1 Optional Reflective Activity - Your research context
    • Assignment
      Assignment
      Assignment
      B1.2 MANDATORY Reflective Activity - Subjectivity Statement
    • Assignment
      Assignment
      Assignment
      B2. Optional Reflective Activity - Exploring your values
    • Assignment
      Assignment
      Assignment
      C1. Optional Reflective Activity - Misconduct
    • Assignment
      Assignment
      Assignment
      C2. Optional Reflective Activity - Supervision
    • Assignment
      Assignment
      Assignment
      C3. Optional Reflective Activity - Research Funding
    • Assignment
      Assignment
      Assignment
      D1.Optional Reflective activity - plagiarism
    • Assignment
      Assignment
      Assignment
      D2. Optional Reflective Activity - Authorship
    • Assignment
      Assignment
      Assignment
      D3. Optional Reflective Activity - choosing a journal
    • Page
      Page
      Page
      B1.1. Case Study - Research Context
    • Page
      Page
      Page
      B1.2. Case Study - Industrially-sponsored research and confidentiality
    • Page
      Page
      Page
      B1.3. Case Study - Industrially-sponsored research and conflict of interests
    • Page
      Page
      Page
      B2.1. Case Study - Professor Helsinki
    • Page
      Page
      Page
      B2.2. Case Study - Workplace Recruiters
    • Page
      Page
      Page
      B2.3. Case Study - Police and Rescue Training Methods
    • Page
      Page
      Page
      B2.4 Case Study – Doing Research in Tinder
    • Page
      Page
      Page
      B3.1. Case Study - Dr. Apple
    • Page
      Page
      Page
      B3.2. Case Study - Dr. Sears
    • Page
      Page
      Page
      B3.3. Case Study - PhD Student and Data Ownership
    • Page
      Page
      Page
      B3.4. Case Study - Another PhD Student and Data Ownership
    • Page
      Page
      Page
      B3.5. Case Study - Third PhD Student and Data Ownership
    • Page
      Page
      Page
      B4.1. Case Study - Bill and Sara
    • Page
      Page
      Page
      B4.2. Case Study - Two kinds of research environments
    • Page
      Page
      Page
      B4.3. Case Study - New Collaborators
    • Page
      Page
      Page
      C1.1. Case Study - Colleague X
    • Page
      Page
      Page
      C1.2. Case Study - Potential Misconduct and Peer-Review
    • Page
      Page
      Page
      C1.3. Case Study - An unsuccessful grant application
    • Page
      Page
      Page
      C2.1. Case Study - Research Misconduct and Supervision
    • Page
      Page
      Page
      C2.2. Case Study - Misconduct and Mentoring
    • Page
      Page
      Page
      D1.1. Case Study - The Role of the Editor
    • Page
      Page
      Page
      D1.2. Case Study - Self-plagiarism
    • Page
      Page
      Page
      D1.3. Case Study - Plagiarism and Peer-Review
    • Page
      Page
      Page
      D2.1. Case Study - Determining Author Order
    • Page
      Page
      Page
      D2.2. Case Study - Assessing Author Contribution
    • Page
      Page
      Page
      D2.3. Case Study - Chancellor
    • Page
      Page
      Page
      D2.4. Case Study - Dr. White
    • Page
      Page
      Page
      D2.5. Case Study - Dr. Quick
    • Page
      Page
      Page
      D3.1. Case Study - Peer-review and confidentiality
    • Page
      Page
      Page
      D3.2. Case Study - Shared peer-review?
    • Page
      Page
      Page
      D.3.3. Putting Social Advocacy Before the Data
    • Page
      Page
      Page
      D4.1. The Magic Key
    • Page
      Page
      Page
      D4.2. Should Scientific Research Be Censored?
    Skip Ohjaaja/Yhteystiedot
    Ohjaaja/Yhteystiedot

    Etunimi Sukunimi

    555 123 4567

    etunimi.sukunimi@sposti.fi

    Tähän voit laittaa tiedot kuka ohjaaja on ja kuinka hänet tavoittaa. Jos tälle ei ole tarvetta, lohkon voi poistaa. 

    Skip Upcoming events
    Upcoming events
    There are no upcoming events
    Go to calendar...
    1. Home
    2. Courses
    3. Tohtorikoulutusverkosto
    4. Vanhat Download-kurssit
    5. RE_Testi23
    6. C2. Ethics and PhD Supervision

    Research Ethics Testi2023

    Animated navigation - turn off
    Animated navigation - turn off
    • C2. Ethics and PhD Supervision

      • Ethics and PhD Supervision

        TENK

        Finnish Advisory Board on Research Integrity
        Responsible Conduct of Research 2023

        Training, supervision and mentoring 

        Include training on responsible conduct of research in the curricula of higher education institutions’ basic and further studies. Regularly analyse the need for training in responsible conduct of research in the organisation, provide related training, support access to said training and monitor participation in it. 

        Highlight the importance of adherence to responsible conduct of research and a research-ethically sustainable culture in the supervision of scientific work.

        Activities that violate RCR

        Disregard related to benefiting from scholarly status

        • Inappropriate use of influence
        –––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––

        PhD supervisors are often the most significant academic relationship during the PhD journey. This sections explores some ethical aspects around this relationship and gives guidance on how to navigate some of the challenges to build stronger and better working supervisory relationships.


        Lecture - Supervision

        C2_LECTURE_Supervision.m4v


        Transcript

        Handout


        C2. Quiz - Supervision


        C2.1. Case Study - Research Misconduct and Supervision

        C2.2. Case Study - Misconduct and Mentoring 


        C2. Optional Reflective Activity - Supervision 

        Resources

        • Role Perception Scale - tool for identifying expectations related to PhD supervision
        • Löfström & Pyhältö (2014): Ethical Issues in Doctoral Supervision. Ethics & Behavior 24:3
        • Ethical Guidelines for Supervision from University of Oslo
        • Code of practice for supervision of doctoral and research master's students from Monash University
        • PhD's to be - Pearls of wisdom - collection of short tips and advice from supervisors



    You are currently using guest access (Log in)
    Policies
    Home
    • English ‎(en)‎
      • English ‎(en)‎
      • Suomi ‎(fi)‎