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. B2. Data Collection

    Research Ethics Testi2023

    Animated navigation - turn off
    Animated navigation - turn off
    • B2. Data Collection

      • Data Collection


        Finnish Advisory Board on Research Integrity
        Responsible Conduct of Research 2023


        Ethics and foresight

         Acquire any required permits, consent and ethical reviews for scientific activities before starting the collection of research data. Carry out scientific activities in accordance with the rules and guidelines of the relevant academic discipline and in compliance with the RCR guideline. Ensure that the scientific activities do not endanger the health and safety of researchers and research participants. Show respect for colleagues, the parties and targets of scientific activity, research participants and society, ecosystems, cultural heritage and the environment. Report sources of funding and other commitments to the partners and targets of scientific activities.


        Activities that violate responsible conduct of research

        Disregard related to planning and preparation:

        • Failure to request permits, decisions and/or statements related to scientific work (e.g. official permits, data permits, research permits, decisions on the disclosure of data, ethical review statements by ethics committees) 

        Disregard related to implementation: 

        • Failure to comply with data permit and research permit decisions or the statements issued in the ethical review process

        ______________________________________________________________


        Planning on how to collect data for research is essential for the quality of the results. Ethical aspects are interlinked with other methodological questions. All data needs to be reliable and represent the topic studied. It also needs to be collected in a way that respects core values in society relating to individuals, animals, environment, and respect for inanimate objects. 

        In this section the focus will be on aspects everyone should consider when collecting data. Even aspects relating to data types not relevant to your current research are part of general research knowledge everyone in the research environment benefits from understanding. 

        It is also important to note the European Data Protection Regulation (GDPR). You should consult your university legal team if planning to seek consent to confirm your consent procedures comply with the new regulations. See also the links below in Resources, particularly University of Helsinki slides and the one of Finnish Social Science Data Archive.


        Lecture - Values in Data Collection

        LECTURE_values_in_data_collection.m4v

        Transcript


        Lecture - Do I need License or Review?

        LECTURE_Do_I_need_license_or_review.m4v

        Transcript


        Video: Ethical Review in the Human Sciences in Finland 

         

        https://youtu.be/O2tfSV87x7s
         


        Social Media Research


        If you are doing research in social media or in Internet, some specific questions may rise related to participant knowledge and consent, data privacy, security, anonymity and confidentiality, and integrity of data, intellectual property issues, and community, disciplinary, and professional standards or norms. Please read the excelled entry about Internet Research Ethics in Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy and in Oxford Handbook of Internet Psychology (available via Helsinki University Library). Have also a look at the Aderbee University's Ethical Guide to Social Media Research and to a short guidance on using Twitter Data by Dr Nicholas Gold from UCL.


        Research on nature and the environment

         

        In recent years, demands for ethical reviews in the research on nature and the environment have increased. The Research Ethics Committee in Natural, Biological and Environmental Sciences and Engineering began at the University of Helsinki in 2022.

        The demands have been facilitated by the UN Paris Climate Agreement (2015) and EU documents in accordance with its goals, such as the EU taxonomy regulation and the Recovery and Resilience Facility (2021)(hereafter RRF). The climate measures required by the former and the coordinated response to the corona pandemic represented by the latter have made the "do no significant harm" principle (hereafter DNSH principle) relevant.

        The DNSH principle affects the scientific community in such a way that, in applications for RRF funding, researchers must assess the effects of the research on nature and the environment in accordance with the goals of the regulation (such as climate mitigation and adaptation, biodiversity protection, sustainable use of water resources etc.).

        The Finnish National Board on Research Integrity also recommends developing national ethical guidelines for the fields of nature and environmental research. These guidelines would then support the work of ethics committees (like TENK’s guidelines in human sciences). The guidelines will be discussed at TENK's Ethics Days on March 15, which you can follow by registering here (unfortunately only in Finnish).




        B2. Quiz: Data collection questions


        B2.1. Case Study:Professor Helsinki

        B2.2. Case Study: Workplace Recruiters

        B2.3. Case Study: Police and Rescue Training Methods

        B2.4 Case Study: Doing Research in Tinder


        B2. Optional Reflective Activity - Exploring your values


        Resources

        • Research Ethics Committees at the University of Helsinki
        •  Ethical principles of research with human participants and ethical review in the human sciences, Finnish National Board on Research Integrity TENK
        • University of Helsinki slides on GDPR for Researchers
        • in Flamma: DATA PROTECTION GUIDE FOR RESEARCHERS
        • Data protection tools for researchers
        • Informing Research Participants - from Finnish Social Science Data Archive
        • Templates for informed consent procedure from TUKIJA
        • Internet Research Ethics in Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy
        • Privacy and Confidentiality learning module from Columbia University - includes annotated case studies
        • WMA Declaration of Helsinki - Ethical Principles for Medical Research Involving Human Subjects
        • Hallvard Fossheim Lecture, Nordic Open Science Forum, November 2016, Helsinki
        • Hallvard Fossheim lecture on the true meaning of Informed Consent

        • Animal Ethics Dilemma - an interactive learning tool
        • Laboratory animals: authorisation and enforcement
        • TUKIJA - National Committee on Medical Research Ethics
        • Board for Gene Technology: 

          • Legislation regarding genetically modified organisms in Finland
          • Contained use of genetically modified organisms in Finland
          • Field trial application
        • Advisory Board on Biotechnology

        ReTki - Finnish Information Centre for Register Research Information on using existing registers as source of research data, section on approval processes with different registers (more information on the Finnish version of the site)



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