Search results

In this chapter, we consider collaborative models of engaged research in comparison to models of team science that include persons with lived experience of the topic area as team members. ‘Co-led’, ‘co-design’ and ‘co-research’ are all terms used in the literature with distinct, but not precise, definitions and approaches. These collaborative models tend to describe methods that allow those with lived experience to be treated differently than other academic members of the research team. Power imbalances between those with lived experiences and researchers persist in such models, in spite of researcher efforts. For example, persons with lived experience are often described as being compensated with gift cards which may be welcomed but can be perceived as diminishing their role and contribution. In contrast, participatory team science involves persons with lived experience as full members of the research team. In the model that we propose, power is balanced through mutual planning and consensus-based decision-making. We contend that using participatory team science advances research through egalitarian consideration of team members' perspectives of the research problem and the designs necessary to knowledge development.

The purpose of this study is to build on previous literature in this area thus, the views of professionals working with those who report institutional abuse was sought using a Delphi method.

Professionals working with those who report institutional abuse, such as psychologists, social workers and personal injury lawyers, were invited to engage in the Delphi study. Sixteen professionals completed the final round (with four rounds in total). This method was used to gain professional consensus on the considered impacts of institutional child abuse and what factors influence impacts.

Eight superordinate themes were developed, as follows: institutional abuse has lasting negative effects on well-being, functioning and behaviour; loss of trust in others and the system is a potential outcome of institutional abuse; negative impacts on future life chances; negative impacts of institutional abuse are exacerbated by numerous factors; protective factors reduced negative impacts; psychological intervention is useful for survivors; positive and negative impacts of disclosure – the response of others as important; and keep impacts individualised.

The need for an individualised approach when working with those reporting institutional abuse was a salient finding.

Institutional abuse is known to result in several negative impacts, although research into this area is limited with a need to better understand what may protect or exacerbate impacts.

Over the years, at the international level, the social construction assumption according to which women would be less innovative than men and, consequently, also less prone to be involved in innovative fields, since their educational path decisions to career path decisions, has long prevailed. This has resulted in a widespread lack of representation of women in more innovative sectors, in comparison to their male counterparts. In recent years then, if the pandemic has had an impact, at least for some specific socio-economic contexts, especially on those that can be typically considered as ‘necessity entrepreneurs’, it has to be said that it has been able also to generate some virtuous dynamics crosswise related to innovative issues. In particular, this chapter aims to go in depth into these issues from the perspective of innovative women entrepreneurs in the attempt to answer to the following questions: how does the socio-economic environment affect innovative women entrepreneurs? And, what are the unique experiences, achievements and contributions of innovative women entrepreneurs in Italy? In order to answer to these specific research questions, an analysis based on direct interviews with a sample of Italian innovative women entrepreneurs has been conducted.

This research examines the evolution of automated fact-checking at Africa Check, a prominent fact-checking organisation based in South Africa, Kenya, Nigeria and Senegal, through the integration of artificial intelligence (AI) tools into its fact-checking process. The progress focuses on three phases, which include claim detection to identify check-worthy claims, claim matching to retrieve already verified information and robot-checking to validate claims. The methodology used in this study involved analysing the experiences of reporters and editors from Africa Check. In-depth interviews were conducted to reveal the advances in time and effort required to verify information, providing key insights into the relationship between technology and journalism. The findings also shed light on how AI can be used to combat misinformation and promote media literacy in Africa, demonstrating how the adoption of AI has helped Africa Check to expand its reach and increase its impact. As a result, these improvements have profound implications for political accountability, trust in the media, and the fight against misinformation. This research offers valuable contributions to the ongoing debates about the adoption of technology in journalism and the importance of leveraging technology to strengthen the relationship between journalists and their audiences.

The aim of this policy brief is to summarize the key priorities and recommendations made by ARC delegates and thought leaders who came together virtually between March 2020 and November 2021 to find ways to support students, parents, teachers, and school leaders in their respective educational communities during the COVID-19 pandemic.