Name lists on Ethics for Academic Research (English)

Ethics for Academic Research (English) :Name lists

Intensive course of the Graduate School of International Cultural Studies, Tohoku University, Year ∞

I. [Lecture & Workshop ] Let's make your dialogic workshop more fun!	Everyone	Time and logic Structure of our Workshop. Our workshop is constituted from seven steps, including introductory "Ice Breaking" time (IB time); The main body of our Problem Based Workshop is constructed from cyclic six sections; (i)Giving short lecture by teacher, (ii)Assignment for your group, (iiiDiscussion within a group, (iv) Reporing back, (v)General discussion, and (vi) Concluding remarks, and Coffee or Tea Break.
II. [Lecture] The three axioms for the modern research ethics	Everyone	When I lecture on Research Ethics for young and old friends, I will first confirm our three axioms. 1. We need our general trust between researchers, 2. We should maintain norms that our society has given as professional sincerity, and 3. Through our daily activity, we have been expected to conduct righteously for the public.
III. [Workshop] A Change of Plans	Yoshio his research adviser	1.Should Yoshio try to change his adviser’s mind? For example, should he review what his measurements already show and compare that with what the new measurements would add and then ask his adviser to reconsider? 2.Should Yoshio talk with other members of his thesis committee to get their opinions? 3.What actions could Yoshio have taken earlier to avoid the problem? 4.What actions can Yoshio take now to avoid future disappointment?
IV. [Workshop] The Selection of Data	Kaori Sayaka	1. What factors should Sayaka and Kaori take into account in deciding how to present the data from their experiment? 2. Should the new explanation predicting the results affect their deliberations? 3. Should a draft paper be prepared at this point? 4. If Kaori and Sayaka can’t agree on how the data should be presented, should one of them consider not being an author of the paper?
V. [Workshop] Discovering an Error	Sakura Takeru	1.What obligations do the authors owe their professional colleagues to correct the published record? 2.How should their decisions be affected by how the model is being used by others? 3.What other options exist beyond publishing a formal correction?
VI. [Workshop] Fabrication in a Grant Proposal	Natsuki	1.Do you think that researchers often exaggerate the publication status of their work in written materials? 2.Do you think the department acted too harshly in dismissing Natsuki from the graduate program? 3.If Natsuki later applied to a graduate program at another institution, does that institution have the right to know what happened? 4.What were Natsuki’s adviser’s responsibilities in reviewing the application before it was submitted?
VII. [Workshop] Is It Plagiarism?	Professor Homer Simpson	1.Does the copying of a few isolated sentences in this case constitute plagiarism? 2.By citing the journal paper, has Homer Simpson given proper credit to the other author?
VIII. [Workshop] A Career in the Balance	Haruki Souta	1.What kind of evidence should Haruki have to be able to go to his adviser? 2.Should Haruki first try to talk with Souta, with his adviser, or with someone else entirely? 3.What other resources can Haruki turn to for information that could help him decide what to do?
IX. [Workshop] Tests on Students	Yuuma	1.Should Yuuma seek IRB (Institutional Reiew Board) approval for his research project with human participants? 2.What do students need to be told about Yuuma’s project? Do they need to give formal informed consent?
X. [Workshop] A Change of Protoco l	Yuzuki	1.What can Yuzuki do to get more information about the issue? 2.If she decides to raise the issue with others, what is the best way to do so? 3.Should the original protocol have been approved?
XI. [Workshop] Publication Practices	Anzai two graduate students	1. How could Anzai have anticipated this problem? And what sort of general guidelines could he have established for lab members? 2.If Anzai’s laboratory or institution has no official policies covering multiple authorship and multiple papers from a single study, how should this issue be resolved? 3.How could Anzai and the students draw on practices within their discipline to resolve this dispute? 4.If the students feel that their concerns are not being addressed, to whom should they turn? 5.What kind of laboratory or institutional policies could keep disputes like this from occurring? 6.If a single paper is published, how can the authors make clear to review committees and funding agencies their various roles and the importance of the paper?
XII. [Workshop] Who Gets Credit?	Nemoto	1. How should Nemoto respond to his supervisor’s demand to be an honorary author? 2. What ways might be possible to appeal the decision within the company? 3.What other resources exist that Nemoto can use in dealing with this issue?
XIII. [Workshop] A Commercial Opportunity?	Ikeda his adviser	1.What obligations does Ikeda have to the developer of the original spreadsheet program? To the university that provided the spreadsheet and computer? 2.What are the pros and cons of trying to commercialize a program that is based on another's product? 3.What conflicts and practical difficulties might Ikeda encounter if he tries to operate a business while working on his dissertatio
XIV. [Workshop] A Conflict of Commitment	Haruna Dr. Koshimoto	1.Has Dr. Koshimoto done anything wrong in giving Haruna this assignment? 2.What potential conflicts in terms of data collection, data interpretation, and publishing might Haruna encounter as she continues with her research?
XV. [Lecture & Workshop] The Elemental Form of the Ethics in Conducting Fieldwork	Everyone	What is an Ethical Dilemma in your fieldwork? "An ethical dilemma (ethical paradox or moral dilemma) is a problem in the decision-making process between two possible options, neither of which is absolutely acceptable from an ethical perspective. Although we face many ethical and moral problems in our lives, most of them come with relatively straightforward solutions." - What is an Ethical Dilemma? (CFI)
XVI. [Lecture] On Critical Thinking	Yoda and Everyone	"Critical thinking is the analysis of facts to form a judgment. The subject is complex, and several different definitions exist, which generally include the rational, skeptical, unbiased analysis, or evaluation of factual evidence. Critical thinking is self-directed, self-disciplined, self-monitored, and self-corrective thinking. It presupposes assent to rigorous standards of excellence and mindful command of their use. It entails effective communication and problem-solving abilities as well as a commitment to overcome native egocentrism and sociocentrism." - Critical thinking.
Ancillary lecture [Violation against Human Rights in Academic Research Context]	Everyone	"Human rights are rights inherent to all human beings, regardless of race, sex, nationality, ethnicity, language, religion, or any other status. Human rights include the right to life and liberty, freedom from slavery and torture, freedom of opinion and expression, the right to work and education, and many more. Everyone is entitled to these rights, without discrimination." - by the UN.