Keywords: Research Integrity; Research Ethics Education; PhD training.
In recent years, increasing concerns about research misconduct, questionable research practices, and the ethical use of emerging technologies have highlighted the need for systematic research ethics education, particularly for PhD students and early-career researchers (Greco et al., 2024; Salwén et al., 2025). While research integrity is often addressed through policy documents and compliance mechanisms, less attention is paid to structured, pedagogically grounded training that supports researchers in developing ethical judgment, practical skills, and reflexive awareness. This paper contributes to this gap by presenting the delivery and evaluation of a pilot training module on research integrity and ethics implemented at Ilia State University.
The training, titled Research Integrity and Ethics, was developed within the framework of the European Commission-funded project “Responsible Conduct of Research – Research Integrity and Ethics in Georgian Universities (ETHICS)”, as part of institutional efforts to strengthen responsible research practices and academic integrity culture. It targeted PhD students, supervisors, and early-career academic staff, with priority given to PhD students and those involved in research supervision. The course was delivered over six consecutive online sessions (three iterations since 2024) and supported by a dedicated Moodle course. A blended learning design was adopted, combining synchronous interactive sessions with asynchronous, self-paced engagement with curated learning materials.
What distinguishes this training from more conventional research ethics courses is its explicitly practice-oriented and dialogic design, which moves beyond compliance-based instruction toward the development of applied ethical reasoning. Unlike standard lecture-based or policy-driven formats, the course integrates real-case analysis, peer discussion, and reflective tasks tailored to participants’ disciplinary contexts. This approach enables participants not only to understand ethical principles but also to apply them in authentic research scenarios.
Pedagogically, the training was grounded in a flipped classroom approach. Participants were introduced to key concepts and resources in advance, allowing live sessions to focus on discussion, case analysis, and critical reflection. Core thematic areas included research ethics and integrity principles, corresponding guidance documents, responsible research conduct, open science practices, authorship and collaboration ethics, data management, and plagiarism prevention. Trainers were selected based on their expertise and experience in research ethics and integrity, and their involvement in international capacity-building initiatives in this field. The instructional approach emphasized dialogue, contextualized examples, and practical application rather than rule-based instruction alone.
The study addresses the following key questions: How can a research ethics training module be pedagogically designed to be both accessible and rigorous for early-career researchers? What forms of engagement and assessment support meaningful learning in research integrity education? How do participants perceive the relevance, workload, and practical value of such training? To answer these questions, a qualitative-dominant mixed-methods approach was employed, drawing on course documentation, participation data, final assignments, and post-training anonymous survey feedback.
Approximately 74 participants actively engaged in the course by participating in discussions and submitting the required assessments. The training was delivered three times, once per semester, starting from the Fall semester of 2024, allowing for iterative refinement of both content and assessment design across cohorts. Assessment strategies evolved across the training cycles and combined multiple formats to capture both conceptual understanding and practical application. In the first implementation, assessment consisted of a written analytical and reflective assignment focused on previously defended PhD theses and published academic articles, requiring participants to apply ethical evaluation criteria introduced during the course. Starting from the second training, participants also completed an end-of-course online quiz comprising 30 questions based on the learning materials. Active participation during synchronous sessions was strongly encouraged and considered an integral component of the learning and assessment process, reinforcing engagement, critical discussion, and peer learning.
Findings from participant feedback indicate a high level of perceived relevance and overall satisfaction with the training. Participants highlighted increased awareness of ethical research practices, improved ability to identify ethical dilemmas, and a stronger understanding of open science and responsible data management. The interactive format and practical orientation of the sessions were identified as key strengths. At the same time, participants pointed to areas for improvement, including the intensity of the final assignment, the need for additional consultation opportunities, and the desirability of providing selected learning materials in the local language.
Beyond these operational aspects, feedback pointed to more strategic recommendations. Participants emphasized the importance of incorporating field-specific ethical considerations, noting that ethical challenges differ substantially across disciplines such as natural sciences, medicine, and social sciences, and therefore require deeper, discipline-sensitive treatment. Many participants recommended making the course mandatory in the first semester of doctoral studies, arguing that early exposure would better inform subsequent research decisions. Participants also expressed a clear interest in expanding the curriculum to include the ethical use of artificial intelligence in research.
By foregrounding a pedagogical model that integrates blended learning, flipped classroom design, and applied ethical reflection, this study demonstrates how research ethics training can move beyond “one-size-fits-all” approaches and instead offer a scalable yet context-sensitive framework. In contrast to traditional formats, the model emphasizes continuous engagement, iterative assessment, and alignment with real research practices, thereby increasing its relevance and sustainability.
By presenting a concrete institutional case, this paper offers transferable insights for universities seeking to move beyond compliance-driven approaches to research integrity education. It argues for research ethics training as a formative, dialogic, and practice-oriented process that contributes to sustainable academic integrity cultures in higher education.
References:
Greco, F., Ceruti, S., Martini, S., Picozzi, M., Cosentino, M., & Marino, F. (2024). Educating and training in research integrity: Perceptions and experiences of early-career researchers attending an institutional research integrity course. Journal of Academic Ethics. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10805-023-09501-3
Salwén, H., Holm, C., Achermann, G., Asaduzzaman, M., Blom, F., Dwojak-Matras, A., Groenink, L., Gruber, B., van den Hoven, M., Ristić, D. I., Iphofen, R., & Priess-Buchheit, J. (2025). Teaching research integrity: A manual of good practices: An outline. International Journal for Educational Integrity, 21(1), Article 13. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40979-025-00186-7
Gen AI acknowledgement: Chat GPT 5 was used for grammar and language corrections