Synopsis: This paper presents the design, administration, pilot implementation and evaluation of a research ethics and integrity training module developed for PhD students and early career researchers across multiple higher education institutions. The study offers a transferable model for institutional and national-level research integrity capacity building.
Keywords: Research Ethics Education; Research Integrity; Higher Education; Georgia
Abstract: Strengthening research ethics and integrity has become a strategic priority for higher education systems, particularly in light of increasing concerns about research misconduct, questionable research practices, and the ethical implications of emerging technologies (Sorensen et al., 2021; Bjelobaba et al., 2025). Empirical studies from the Georgian context, while primarily focused on the healthcare system rather than higher education institutions, indicate that ethical dilemmas - particularly those related to autonomy, confidentiality, and data protection are often inadequately identified and addressed, partly due to fragmented training provision and limited engagement with formal ethics committees (Shengelia et al., 2025). At the regulatory level, national accreditation standards in Georgia do not explicitly require stand-alone instruction in research ethics or academic honesty, with ethical principles instead embedded implicitly as a sub-standard within institutional authorization frameworks. This regulatory positioning contributes to fragmented provision of ethics education and limits the systematic integration of research integrity training within doctoral programs (Chikhladze et al. 2022). Research on research ethics and integrity in Georgia remains limited, with relatively little empirical evidence addressing either institutional practices or the extent to which these topics are systematically incorporated into doctoral education. This paper presents the design, administration, and pilot implementation of a research ethics and integrity training module developed within the ETHICS[1] project and delivered across ten higher education institutions in Georgia.
The primary aim of the module was to support the development of ethical awareness, responsible research practices, and integrity-related competences among PhD students and early career researchers. Rather than approaching research ethics as a compliance exercise, the course was designed as an educational intervention that integrates knowledge transfer on relevant ethical standards and corresponding international and local regulations, ethical reasoning, practical application, and institutional context. The training was delivered repeatedly over three semesters, allowing for iterative refinement of both content and delivery based on participant feedback and institutional experience.
The research ethics and integrity training module were initially designed by expert teams from the European Union partner institutions, namely Charles University in Prague and the Free University of Amsterdam. The design of the module was guided by three core principles: interdisciplinarity, accessibility, and practical relevance. Core thematic areas included research ethics and integrity principles, responsible research conduct, authorship and collaboration ethics, data management, open science, and academic misconduct prevention. Particular attention was paid to aligning the content with doctoral education processes and real research practices. A blended learning model was adopted, combining synchronous online sessions with asynchronous learning activities hosted on a learning management system. Pedagogically, the course employed interactive lectures, case-based discussions, guided reflection, and peer exchange, encouraging participants to critically engage with ethical dilemmas encountered in their own research contexts.
The course was developed within a Moodle-based learning environment and subsequently shared with partner institutions in Georgia. Following this, Georgian partners localized the course content by translating the materials into the local language and adapting selected elements to the national higher education context. The localized version (both ENG and GEO) of the training was then piloted across ten higher education institutions, representing a diverse institutional landscape, including state and private universities, capital-based and regional institutions, as well as both single-discipline and multidisciplinary universities.
The pilot implementation engaged two primary target groups: PhD students and academic staff, including faculty members involved in research supervision. To allow for iterative refinement and institutional learning, the training was delivered over three consecutive semesters, with one pilot conducted in each semester. Evaluation of the training was conducted using a unified post-course survey administered across all participating institutions, enabling systematic collection and comparison of participant feedback on course relevance, design, delivery, and perceived learning outcomes, as well as knowledge acquired by participants during the course.
Methodologically, the study is based on a mixed evaluation approach combining (1) post-training surveys, (2) structured self-reflection by participants, and (3) in-depth interviews with trainers involved in the course delivery. The survey instrument was developed through the integration of two previously validated tools used for post-training evaluation in research ethics education at Charles University in Prague and the Free University of Amsterdam, ensuring both contextual relevance and comparability. The evaluation focuses primarily on perceived learning outcomes and participant experience, rather than experimental or control-group-based measurement of impact. As this study constitutes a program evaluation of an educational intervention, formal research ethics approval was not required under institutional regulations.
At the time of writing, evaluation data have already been collected from five participating higher education institutions, while pilot implementations in the remaining institutions are ongoing. Preliminary findings indicate strong participant support for making this type of training mandatory not only for PhD students but also for doctoral supervisors. Participants also emphasized the need for more field-specific ethical case discussions, particularly within the humanities and social sciences, and called for the systematic inclusion of ethical issues related to the use of artificial intelligence in research.
Data collection is expected to be completed before the first week of March 2026, coinciding with the start of the Spring semester. This timeline will allow sufficient time for systematic data analysis, enabling the presentation of consolidated evaluation findings at the conference. By presenting a multi-institutional pilot, this paper contributes empirical and practical insights into how research ethics and integrity training can be designed, administered, and institutionalized beyond a single institutional context.
References:
Bjelobaba, S., Waddington, L., Perkins, M., Foltýnek, T., Bhattacharyya, S., & Weber-Wulff, D. (2025). Maintaining research integrity in the age of GenAI: An analysis of ethical challenges and recommendations to researchers. International Journal for Educational Integrity, 21, Article 18. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40979-025-00191-w
Chikhladze, N., Tadevosian, A., & Cherecheş, R. M. (Eds.). 2022. Doctoral education and practice in public health and social sciences: International perspectives. Ivane Javakhishvili Tbilisi State University Press.
Shengelia, L., Inaishvili, S., & Grdzelidze, N. (2025). Safeguarding privacy in Georgia: Medical ethics in the digital era – A cross-sectional study. Research Square. https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-7325394/v1
Sorensen, M. P., Ravn, T., Marušić, A., Reyes Elizondo, A., Kavouras, P., Tijdink, J. K., & Bendtsen, A.-K. (2021). Strengthening research integrity: Which topic areas should organizations focus on? Humanities and Social Sciences Communications, 8(1), Article 198. https://doi.org/10.1057/s41599-021-00874-y
Gen AI acknowledgement: Chat GPT 5 was used for grammar and language corrections
[1] “Responsible Conduct of Research - Research Integrity and Ethics in Georgian Universities (ETHICS)" funded by the European Commission