The main challenge facing the research community is to mobilize cognitive resources for the knowledge-based society to enhance the capacity to produce, transfer and utilize knowledge. Training young researchers in a transparent and efficient manner is one way to address this issue, if the scientific community is to move away from a much criticized “system of reproduction”. As Yehuda Elkana, President of the Central European University in Budapest, notes, there is a need to rethink the training of scientists and “educate the caring scientist”.

Views are changing as to what the product of research training is – a dissertation, research or an individual, a new researcher? – and as to the activities and skills involved – research in depth in a narrow area or knowledge and skills in a wider area ? NorFa report, 2004, pp. 10-11.

While meaningful efforts are being made to support students’ development and training through career development, skill assessment schemes or academic courses, little has been done so far to tackle the issue of supervision and have supervisors and mentors commit themselves to explicit training programmes to really improve the training they must deliver as part of their professional responsibilities.

We indeed do not believe that courses are sufficient to deal with such personal and behavioural issues like ethics, Responsible Conduct of Research or rights and duties. It is well known that although regulations and standards exist, and all kinds of booklets are available everywhere, there is no guarantee that all the golden rules will be implemented ; very often the literature is not read or makes little sense to the brave reader. In a widely published paper “ On Being a Scientist”authors emphasize that “Responsible Conduct of Research (RCR) and Ethics are not a complete and finalized body of knowledge, but that ethical issues need to be discussed, explored and debated and that all researchers have a responsibility to move the discussion forward”.

RCR training methods therefore consist to: http://rcrec.org/resources.htm

• cultivate thinking processes that lead to developing moral behavior that leads to professionally ethical behavior
• influence students’ thinking processes that relate to behavior; that is to change their minds about what they ought to do and how they wish to conduct their personal and professional lives through RCR instruction (Bebeau et al, 1995).

Attitudes that promote RCR can be defined by an acceptance and an understanding of the value of acting in ways which foster responsible conduct. Attitudes are closely related to opinions and beliefs, and are based upon personal experiences. Attitudes can be influenced by interactions with others.

Thus promoting active learning is widely recognized as the most effective way to engage trainees, convey knowledge, develop skills, and change attitudes. See also:

http://ori.dhhs.gov/education/products/columbia_wbt/rcr_mentoring/winResources.html

To prepare young researchers to confront the changes and take ownership of their careers, Réflexives ® offer training in communication and responsible conduct of research; the aim is also to provide them with the skills and reflection to develop into effective supervisors and mentors. The originality of our programme lies in the fact that we work on the two “poles” of scientific activity, project building and communication.

DESIGNING A RESEARCH PROJECT AND DEVELOPING RESEARCH COMMUNICATION

PhD students and young researchers in the first years of their careers share a common challenge, that of building their scientific identity. We defend the idea that the research project plays a fundamental role in structuring thinking, knowledge acquisition and elaboration, and that it strongly contributes to developing autonomy, critical analysis and the capacity to synthesise ideas and experience. The methodological approach to structuring a research project is also key to a successful relationship between supervisors and students (Mace & Petry, 2000). Working actively and methodically on the construction of a research object and of a research project increases the chances for the young researcher to develop more quickly into a reliable and confident scientist. It also prepares her/him to effectively communicate with society. In the same way, reporting about one’s research results must be mastered at an early stage: mastering communication is indeed key to the elaboration of knowledge. Research activity is organized around a number of communication situations which produce a variety of “intermediary objects”- scientific papers, posters, abstracts, projects, etc. ( Vinck, 2003).We support the idea that the production of these objects form an integral part of the research and of the conceptualization processes, and that the research object is built while speech is produced.

OPENING SPACES OF DIALOGUE AND REFLECTIVE PRACTICE

In the training, courses give way to epistemology-in-practice and reflexivity: spaces are opened for debate where Responsible Conduct of Research (RCR), ethics, research quality, supervision, duties and rights of both mentors and students etc. are discussed. The spaces of dialogue are provided for participants to collectively discuss their research projects and research practices with the help of facilitators – researchers specially trained in scientific communication and facilitating techniques- using a proven methodology. Epistemology and ethics are addressed in an active, collaborative environment, and not through courses as is often the case. It is firmly believed that young researchers will, in turn, thanks to a “quality feedback loop ”, become better researchers and better supervisors and mentors; they will also realize that achieving and maintaining excellence as a researcher requires a life-long commitment to continuous professional growth.

1. Com (2003) 436 , Researchers in the European Research Area: one profession, multiple careers, July 2003, pp. 14-15

2. LARSEN, P.O, Quality in research training, Nordic cooperation on quality assessment of research training, NorFa report, 2004, pp. 10-11

3. European Science Foundation briefing , Good scientific practice in research and scholarship, December 2000.

4. MACE, G. & PETRY, F., Guide d’élaboration d’un projet de recherche, 2è édition, Presses de l’Université de Laval (Québec), 2000.

5. VINCK, D., Everyday Engineering: An Ethnography of Design and Innovation (Inside Technology), The MIT Press 2003

6. On Being a Scientist: Responsible Conduct in Research, Second Edition (1995) http://www.nap.edu/openbook/030905 1967/html/R1.html, copyright 1995, 2000 The National Academy of Sciences