Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30725394›Full record

ArticleScience and engineering ethics2019

Purple Dragons and Yellow Toadstools a Versatile Exercise for Introducing Students to Negotiated Consensus.

Brian P Coppola, India C Plough, Huai Sun

Abstract readEditorial
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Science and engineering ethics, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors.

Brian P CoppolaDepartment of Chemistry, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI, 48109, USA. bcoppola@umich.edu.ORCID 0000-0001-7226-0942
India C PloughResidential College in the Arts and Humanities, Michigan State University, East Lansing, MI, 48825, USA.
Huai SunDepartment of Chemistry, Shanghai Jiao Tong University, Minhang District, Shanghai, 200240, China.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

An activity called Purple Dragons and Yellow Toadstools, originally reported in 1987 as a training activity for jurors, was adapted as a priming exercise for a unit on teaching research ethics with undergraduate students. In this activity, learners develop skills for building negotiated consensus. The procedure involves individuals' ranking 10-15 moral transgressions and/or legal violations followed by a small group discussion in order to arrive at an agreed-upon ranking by the team. The framework has proved to be quite flexible, adaptable to different subject areas and with different populations of students.

Indexed as

ConsensusNegotiatingStudentsEthics, ResearchHumansMichiganUniversitiesCurriculum designEducationEthics trainingResearch ethicsTeaching

Identifiers

PMID30725394

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.