Ismael-KG
commented
2 years ago Attempt 1 (one)
Protocol Protocol
Protocols for A History of Research Ethics are on different topics. Their one defining element is their flexibility. Neither of the below protocols are set in stone, nor shielded from critique. Rather, contributors should feel welcome to create issues to discuss ideas for improving these protocols as per Protocol 2. Please also note that "A History of Research Ethics" and "The Timeline" are used interchangeably to refer to the present project.
Navigate to a protocol:
- Protocol 1: Code of Conduct
- Protocol 2: Referencing The Timeline
- Protocol 3: Contribution Types
- Protocol 4: Lifecycle of a Story
- Protocol 5: Style Guide
- Protocol 6: Reliable Sources
- Protocol 7: Public Engagement
Protocol 1: Code of Conduct
A key purpose of A History of Research Ethics is to demonstrate the variety of disciplines and backgrounds that can help gain a richer notion of research ethics. Whilst this "richness" needs spelling out, this is not the place for that. This is the place where we note the pernicious aspects of human nature, which become particularly salient when we encounter voices we are not accustomed to and perspectives that differ from our own in areas we are especially passionate about. The necessity for diversity in a project such as A History of Research Ethics can result in clashes or conflicts. This code will continue to be improved, but it sets out two things: (i) expected behaviours when contributing to the present repository, and (ii) methods for resolution.
Click to expand!
## Principles for Participation Participating in discussions on the present repository means adhering to the following principles, adapted from All European Academies ([2011](https://allea.org/portfolio-item/the-european-code-of-conduct-for-research-integrity-2/)): * _Duty of care_ is paramount. We are all here to learn from one another and that requires that we all feel safe and included in discussions, even when they do get heated. Kindness is key to the success of _A History of Research Ethics_. * _Honesty_ in engaging with views and interpretations that differ from our own, and in providing evidence to argue for one's position. It also means being honest about the contributions we make to _The Timeline_. * _Humility_ relates to honesty insofar that we must be honest with our own limitations. Contributors to _The Timeline_ must be open to others' perspectives and accepting that someone else just knows more about a certain domain. * _Charitability_ is about treating all perspectives with the same due diligence. No perspective is automatically better than another, and adequate argumentation is necessary to overcome differences. * _Open communication_ requires that discussions about the repository and published stories be maintained publicly. This is not to enforce full transparency. There will be cases where an author of a story might have got something "embarrassingly wrong" ([me](https://github.com/Ismael-KG)) and should be messaged privately. This is perfectly acceptable. (Changes are then tracked through the repository.) But the go-to method for discussing and improving stories is by opening [an issue](https://github.com/Ismael-KG/A-History-of-Research-Ethics/issues) using the "Lightbulb Moments 💡" template. * _Reliability_ of sources drawn on when contributing to _The Timeline_. This principle is captured by [Protocol 6](#Protocol-6-Reliable-Sources). * _Impartiality_ from political, financial or ideological pressure groups. This does not mean you are to be "apolitical" (the history of humanity is deeply political), but contributing with some political, financial or ideological agenda can lead to biased readings of historical events. * _Sustainability_ of _The Timeline_ hinges on contributors being aware of this code of conduct and broader governance procedures. The Protocols capture guidelines for all contributors to adhere to. ### Resolution: Reconciliation or Reprimand _The Timeline_ is a private endeavour. There are no formal mechanisms for mediation, but personality clashes and unassailably divergent communication styles sometimes meet. The above eight principles will guide behaviours and be drawn on to establish whether an engagement is in good faith or crosses a line. However, whistleblowers and victims will always be taken seriously, and the principles will adjust if needed. Three approaches to conflicts between contributors are listed below: 1. The priority when handling relationships that have soured will be reconciliation. The key is that all contributors get on together. If, through dialogue, we can set our differences aside and move on in tandem, so it shall be! 2. When problems have gone too far, we can aim for tolerance; the parties shall need to learn to tolerate that the other is also a part of the project. However, the involved parties will be assigned different tasks to work on, so that encounters are kept to a minimum. 3. In the unfortunate case that a contributor posts unkind or unhelpful comments that clearly break with the eight principles, [they will be blocked](https://docs.github.com/en/communities/maintaining-your-safety-on-github/blocking-a-user-from-your-personal-account) after a discussion with [Ismael-KG](https://github.com/Ismael-KG), which will only take place if they are deemed redeemable.Protocol 2: Referencing The Timeline
Click to expand!
_A History of Research Ethics_ is intended to be a useful resource for various audiences, and the best way to reach these audiences is by being shared as much as possible! This protocol is of particular use to ⭐ **Advocates** ⭐, as per [Protocol 7](#Protocol-7-Public-Engagement) This protocol attempts to supplement (and certainly does not override) the [citation](https://github.com/Ismael-KG/A-History-of-Research-Ethics/blob/ddb6497dcf3c88fff4d19693a711da1f9a6e24f6/CITATION.cff) file and the [licence](https://github.com/Ismael-KG/A-History-of-Research-Ethics/blob/main/LICENCE.md). As the licence is [CC-BY 4.0](https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), references to _The Timeline_ must be attributed appropriately. In-line references to _A History of Research Ethics_ can be made by referencing either: * Kherroubi Garcia et al., 2021; or, if a specific story is being referenced, * Kherroubi Garcia et al., 2021: §[story name]. For example: > Kherroubi Garcia et al. (2021) claim [...]. > _The Timeline_ (Kherroubi Garcia et al., 2021) provides a case in point. > _A History of Research Ethics_ (Kherroubi Garcia et al., 2021) has failed to demonstrate [...]. > Autonomy is a key value in modern bioethics (Kherroubi Garcia et al., 2021: §The Principle of Patient Autonomy). The preferred citation style in bibliographies (as the [citation](https://github.com/Ismael-KG/A-History-of-Research-Ethics/blob/ddb6497dcf3c88fff4d19693a711da1f9a6e24f6/CITATION.cff) file might be unclear) is: Kherroubi Garcia et al. (2021) [story name if you reference only one, In] _A History of Research Ethics_, DOI: [10.5281/zenodo.5731453](https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.5731453). For example: > Kherroubi Garcia et al. (2021) _A History of Research Ethics_, DOI: [10.5281/zenodo.5731453](https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.5731453) > Kherroubi Garcia et al. (2021) The Principle of Patient Autonomy, In _A History of Research Ethics_, DOI: [10.5281/zenodo.5731453](https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.5731453)Protocol 3: Contribution Types
This protocol establishes the roles that contributors may fall under. Similar to CRediT, the point is to acknowledge the different types of effort contributors bring to the wider project. In the case of The Timeline, emphasis is on types of contribution rather than categorising contributors. This can help if, in the future, a contributor wants to show evidence (to potential employers, etc.) that they can make a certain type of contribution - that they have a certain skill. The below taxonomy can also be used by potential contributors to be inspired as to how they might support the creation and maintenance of A History of Research Ethics.
Click to expand!
It is worth noting that there is a low bar for becoming a contributor to this project. At present, practically taking the time to discuss the project with me (@Ismael-KG) will render you a contributor. I intend that to continue being the case, and to be clear that all contributions are deemed equally valuable. Contributions then fall under one of two broad categories: _sustainability_ or _stories_. Each of these, in turn, are broken down as follows: ## Sustainability Sustainability contributions are those that relate to the GitHub repository and have little to do with the content of stories. * **Engineering:** these are contributions that have to do with (i) how the GitHub repository is managed and arranged, (ii) how different sites host content pertaining to the timeline, and (iii) maintenance of the present platform (Tiki-Toki) and its eventual migration to a better platform (hopefully). * **Policy-making:** this is about writing and improving protocols. For example, on the review process, the code of conduct, or even this very taxonomy! * **Communications:** these include contributions relating to strategising about social media-usage, but also spreading the word online (at present, communications is mostly @Ismael-KG's tweets, which don't get very far!). * **Ideation:** this is a broad type of contribution to acknowledge that both stories and protocols can result from discussions that can be held on GitHub issues or offline. ## Stories The content of the timeline can be improved and maintained by the following contribution-types: * **Conceptualisation:** contributions of this sort occur early on in the story-creation life-cycle. This can amount to something as simple as drawing a fellow contributor's attention to some historical event that might be worth capturing in _The Timeline_. * **Research:** research contributions are useful during the conceptualisation and story-writing stages. It is mostly about providing links to useful resources. * **Authorship or co-authorship:** this is when a new story has been drafted in full by one or more people. * **Review:** providing reviews requires expertise on the stories to be reviewed. It is about ensuring the accuracy of claims and quality of argumentation. Reviews are "higher-level" than copy-editing. * **Copy-editing:** this is a thorough analysis of a text's consistency and clarity, and ensures that the text is also in line with _The Timeline_'s style guide (yet to be made). * **Proofreading:** proofreeding is when contributors scour stories for syntactical, grammatical and spelling mistakes. ## Recognition It would be unfair to create a system where anybody can contribute yet nobody gains recognition. As contributions grow, sustainability ones will be acknowledged at the end of protocols. For example, a protocol might end with "This protocol was designed by @/so-and-so." Similarly, stories will end with an acknowledgements section, listing stories-type contributions and the people behind them. The principles of _honesty_ and _humility_ are particularly important to recognition, as we must truthfully recognise both the work we conduct, and where we have requested for others' help.Protocol 4: Lifecycle of a Story
There are 7 stages to the development of stories for The Timeline. Each one can be repeated, and you can always revisit previous steps. You are strongly encouraged to develop stories (i) with the help of others, and (ii) by creating an issue using the "Conceptualisation 🖊️" template.
Click to expand!
## Step 1: Idea generation This is where you can put your most creative self to work. There are at least two approaches to idea generation: * **Top-down idea generation** means thinking big and whittling down. You might be curious about the warring states period in Ancient China, or perhaps evolutionary psychology, or anything! From this broad interest of your own, the goal is then to establish an event that has a clear link to a question for research ethics. * **Bottom-up idea generation** is about starting with an event or concept you are aware of, and then studying the broader historical context in which that phenomenon originated. The link between the historical event and topic for research ethics can be established through the process of studying the historical context. Once you have clarity on the idea or feel you need support to develop it, raise an issue following the "Conceptualisation 🖊️" template and invite discussion. ## Step 2: Compiling Resources You are encouraged to employ diverse sources of information when at the idea generation stage. Once an idea becomes clearer, you should draw on sources that adhere to [Protocol 6](#Protocol-6-Reliable-Sources). ## Step 3: Finding coherent narratives With the general idea and the vast quantity of resources you have found, it is finally time to establish the outline of the story and any philosophical arguments to be put forward. [Protocol 5](#Protocol-5-Style-Guide) can help you structure your thoughts. Also, don't be afraid to discard academic papers, articles or books that become irrelevant. The story must be clear and coherent. This is not to say you should adjust evidence to your own narrative (that would be deeply unethical), but that you must focus on clear arguments and not lead readers astray by introducing too many topics or events. One more thing, having made it to step three, the story will have earned a file in the "Stories in Progress" folder! Just mention [@Ismael-KG](https://github.com/Ismael-KG) in the "Conceptualisation 🖊️" issue for the story and ask to have the file created. Be clear about the event's date, so it can be added to Tiki-Toki. ## Step 4: Draft and re-draft the story And re-draft again and again and again! You can choose to do this publicly using [HackMD](https://hackmd.io/) or your preferred collaboration tool, or you can draft work privately. Be open to holding discussions on GitHub, but don't feel pressured to share things publicly until you feel comfortable to do so. ## Step 5: Pre-Publication Peer Review I find GitHub terribly exclusionary. For this reason, stories, once drafted, are placed in this [online HackMD document](https://hackmd.io/VW6SvaOYTemXnOd4SMcC4Q?both) (as described in [issue #5](https://github.com/Ismael-KG/A-History-of-Research-Ethics/issues/5)). This wil require [signing up to HackMD](https://hackmd.io/join). Drafts are kept in the pre-publication document for a period of anything between nine and fifteen days, the last day of which will always be a Saturday. During this time, the HackMD document is re-shared publicly and people are encouraged to contribute and help improve the drafts. ## Step 6: Publish on GitHub Every Thursday, the pre-publication file must be checked and an issue - following the "Sunday uploads" template - must be created. On the day after the end of the pre-publication peer review, the new story is revised one last time and given a file in the [Stories folder](https://github.com/Ismael-KG/A-History-of-Research-Ethics/tree/main/Stories) following the [relevant template](https://github.com/Ismael-KG/A-History-of-Research-Ethics/blob/main/A%20Template%20for%20Stories.md). ## Step 7: Publish on [tiki-toki](https://www.tiki-toki.com/timeline/entry/1753034/A-History-of-Research-Ethics/) [@Ismael-KG](https://github.com/Ismael-KG) can now go ahead and publish new stories on the tiki-toki platform, as he has the admin rights.Protocol 5: Style Guide
This protocol is intended for stories to adhere to some loose rules. By writing stories following the below, they can fit into a more consistent whole.
Click to expand!
## All stories must have * A short title * An introductory line with less than 240 characters. * A summary paragraph at the start (an "abstract") to excite readers but also keep people from wasting their time if a text is not that relevant; * At least one paragraph on basic historical context (e.g.: "the events took place as eugenics were gaining traction across the pond..."); * A clear message for researchers and/or research governance folk (e.g.: "we here see the importance of including perspectives from groups who have been historically marginalised from academia"). ### Titles Story titles must be under 70 characters and conform to one of the following styles (or result in an issue to expand this list if they do not meet these guidelines): * Simple name of the institution or technology being discussed (e.g. [_A Bablylonian Library_](https://www.tiki-toki.com/timeline/entry/1753034/A-History-of-Research-Ethics/#vars!panel=16443368!) and [_The Lunisolar Calendar_](https://www.tiki-toki.com/timeline/entry/1753034/A-History-of-Research-Ethics/#vars!panel=16475774!)). * The name of texts without clear authors (e.g. [_Edwin Smith Surgical Papyrus_](https://www.tiki-toki.com/timeline/entry/1753034/A-History-of-Research-Ethics/#vars!panel=16456093!), [_Ebers Papyrus_](https://www.tiki-toki.com/timeline/entry/1753034/A-History-of-Research-Ethics/#vars!panel=16457367!)). * Books and papers with clear authors will be called "[book title], by [author's full name, or surnames if two authors, or "first author surname et al." if more than two authors]" (e.g. [_Hind Swaraj, by Mahatma Gandhi_](https://www.tiki-toki.com/timeline/entry/1753034/A-History-of-Research-Ethics/#vars!panel=16443706!), [_The Principles of Humane Experimental Technique, by Russell and Burch_](https://www.tiki-toki.com/timeline/entry/1753034/A-History-of-Research-Ethics/#vars!panel=16443919!)). * Titles of the coined terms theme (#3) will be called "[author's full name, or surnames if two authors, or "first author surname et al." if more than two authors] coin(s) ["coined term"]" (e.g. [_Émile Durkheim coins "collective consciousness"_](https://www.tiki-toki.com/timeline/entry/1753034/A-History-of-Research-Ethics/#vars!panel=16554598!), [_Molyneux et al. coin "neglected tropical diseases"_](https://www.tiki-toki.com/timeline/entry/1753034/A-History-of-Research-Ethics/#vars!panel=16638090!) * Titles in the "Legislation [...]" category (#11) will be the name of the text being analysed (e.g.: [_Code of Hamurabi_](https://www.tiki-toki.com/timeline/entry/1753034/A-History-of-Research-Ethics/#vars!panel=16462371!), [_The Belmont Report_](https://www.tiki-toki.com/timeline/entry/1753034/A-History-of-Research-Ethics/#vars!panel=16444358!)). * Stories in the research tragedies category (#13) will be titled by "[common plot], Part [Roman numbers, I, II, III, IV, V, VI, VII...]" (e.g. [_Heliocentrism, Part I_](https://www.tiki-toki.com/timeline/entry/1753034/A-History-of-Research-Ethics/#vars!panel=16443483!)). ### Introductory lines These are very short, are to be kept under 240 characters, and should: * Introduce the main event, and/or * Introduce the concept that is relevant to ethics. A case with both points is found in [Princess Dashkova's story](https://www.tiki-toki.com/timeline/entry/1753034/A-History-of-Research-Ethics/#vars!panel=16575859!): > Princess Dashkova Yekaterina Romanovna Vorontsova is appointed to direct the Petersburg Academy of Arts and Sciences, establishes the Russian Academy, and helps reflect on gender stereotypes and allyship. But both points needn't be present, as 240 characters is a tight limit. The event is, for example, the only element present in the case of [_Comptes Rendus_](https://www.tiki-toki.com/timeline/entry/1753034/A-History-of-Research-Ethics/#vars!panel=16443638!): > Following some, perhaps unpleasant, exchanges with journalists, "Comptes Rendus" becomes the French Académie's academic journal. A story's intro that emphasises only the second point can be found in the [Humboldt University](https://www.tiki-toki.com/timeline/entry/1753034/A-History-of-Research-Ethics/#vars!panel=16443616!) story: > "Academic freedom" gains form in Humboldt’s University of Berlin, in Germany. ### Abstracts Must include at least one sentence on: * Sociohistorical context; * The event the story will study; and * The key ethical question that the story raises. ### Historical Context and clear message This is really the body of the story, and the following "structures" subsection provides some guidance. ## Structures The basic structure for all stories to follow: 1. The **historical scene** must be set to absorb the reader into this different world, whether it be a year or a thousand years earlier. Sociohistorical context means answering to where, when and why the event took place. 2. **The event itself** must respond to _what_ and _how_. _What_ requires a description of the particular event. _How_ means engaging with the continuous nature of, well, time. 3. The scene is set for an **Ethical Quandary™️**. It is here where different [_dramatic structures_](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dramatic_structure) might be employed. Is it all smooth-sailing until **panic**! A nefarious application of some technology! Or, perhaps the quandary section begins with sorrow and woe — unforgettable pain or untenable obstacles — and we gradually come to see the light. **The point is** that we can draw on some degree of theatricality. This is both (i) so that the narrative is captivating and (ii) that the very palpable distresses that complex ethical questions can come to cause are made as salient as possible. (Think Hacking's [1996](https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780198524021.003.0012) "sensationalism.) 4. The **conclusion** must outline either (i) key ethical concepts gained from (3) above, (ii) questions for researchers to reflect on in their work, and/or (iii) thoughts for research governance folk to draw on when designing or reviewing policies. Ideally, the conclusion is _not_ a summary of (1), (2) and (3), as we might find in an academic philosophy paper. ## Communication style Given the diverse audiences _The Timeline_ seeks to adapt to, the below guidelines emphasise the need to break down barriers. * Prioritise simple terminology and explain any technical jargon _immediately_. By technical jargon, I mean terms used by a particular professions and which are hard for others to understand. (See what I did there?) * Don't be afraid of trying to be funny. _A History of Research Ethics_ is not a dull academic journal that almost purposefully alienates anybody who isn't in the academics' club already. Humour breaks down barriers between writers and readers. * On breaking down barriers, take readers on a journey with you. Learn together and speak in terms of "we." For example: "In this story, _we_ will visit the complexity of conducting research in environments where _we_ don't share the training that _our_ colleagues have" (roughly). * The language employed can be informal. Feel free to use contractions, for example, and see Nordqist ([2020](https://www.thoughtco.com/informal-style-prose-1691170)) for more on informal language. But informality must not detract from clarity, or undermine the severity of stories or certain parts of stories. More formal tones can be employed when discussing more technical aspects of stories, either the ethical frameworks that they hint at, or any field-specific knowledge that might need spelling out.Protocol 6: Reliable Sources
Click to expand!
The quality of stories in _A History of Research Ethics_ will depend on their accuracy. Accuracy in recounting historical events - from their dates to their main characters and broader context - requires drawing on reliable sources. Whilst no source is shielded from corruption and history is often written by the vistors, I suggest taking a leap of faith and employing a variety of some of the following sources when backing up claims in stories: * Academic journals * Dictionaries * Documentaries * Encyclopedias * News articles that employ clear references * Recorded presentations or conferences This is not to say that other sources cannot be employed or that these are perfect. Feel free to work with Wikipedia, for example, when looking for ideas. Wikipedia often links to sources that are best drawn on to adhere to the principle of _reliability_.Protocol 7: Public Engagement
This protocol briefly introduces (i) the intended audiences of The Timeline, (ii) some platforms to consider for sharing the project and example calls to action, and (iii) what it means to become an ⭐ Advocate ⭐.
Title
Protocol Harmonisation 🌈
Elevator Pitch
The protocols are not entirely disjointed, but still need some tightening up. They should be able to reference each other and issue templates.
Justification
Clarity, consistency, robustness - all the epistemic values.
Unformed Thoughts