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?
    1. Home
    2. Courses
    3. Tohtorikoulutusverkosto
    4. Vanhat Download-kurssit
    5. RE_Testi23
    6. Reflective Activities
    7. B1.1 Optional Reflective Activity - Your research context
    Assignment

    B1.1 Optional Reflective Activity - Your research context

    Back to course

    B1.1 Optional Reflective Activity - Your research context

    This exercise is about recognising the extent of elements surrounding every research project. It is most effective when related to your own research as the first step and then expanded to consider research activities more generally. The lists created in this activity can be used later in other reflective activities or independently as a way of mapping your research context.

    A useful tool to understand context is to consider stakeholders. Stakeholders are individuals, groups, and collectives either influencing the research project or are influenced by the research project. Stakeholders typically have their own interests and motivations. Therefore the research project and stakeholders often interact and influence each other.

    It will be helpful to consider the potential stakeholders of your research from the following list:

    Within your research area -

    • your colleagues, supervisors, other research groups
    • sources of data - research subjects, environment, animals, documents


    Immediate context of your research

    • institutions (department/faculty),
    • funding bodies,
    • graduate school
    • Users of research results - who will use it, who will benefit (or not), who delivers results to users


    External context of your research

    • society,
    • research legislation and
    • funding structure

    The stakeholder list you have created has many different types of stakeholders. They may all have interests, but these interests are not all similar or equal. Many ethical challenges in research work come down to competing interests between stakeholders. These competing interests can relate to rights and responsibilities each stakeholder may have or there may be conflicts between different values attached to goals or reasons for doing research.

    The stakeholder list is an important tool for managing ethical aspects of your research. it becomes even more useful, if you are able to identify for each stakeholder their

    • rights,
    • responsibilities and
    • intentions


    Identifying these is often helped by asking:

    • How can these stakeholders influence how the research is carried out?
    • How are these stakeholders influenced by the research results or the chosen methodology?
    • Do the stakeholders have expectations on the results or methodology of the research? and why would they have these expectations?


    • B1_Reflective_activity_conflict_of_interest.pdf B1_Reflective_activity_conflict_of_interest.pdf
      8 March 2023, 8:50 AM
    ◄ A2. MANDATORY Reflective Activity - Thinking through ethics
    B1.2 MANDATORY Reflective Activity - Subjectivity Statement ►

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