Lesson Plan for Intro to Hathi Trust

The teaching data management discussion focused on creating lesson plans for different data management instruction sessions. Participants picked audience, form and length of the session, and topic and then crafted a lesson plan to fit the session. This lesson plan was produced by symposium participants and covers an introduction to Hathi Trust

Taking the Lead: Initiating Change as a New Chairperson

Academic department chairpersons are often asked to lead without management training, prior experience, or formal mentorship. These same chairpersons are frequently faced with initiating change in departments that have operated similarly for years – perhaps decades. What is the first step? What should a new chair do to begin the discussion about change without alienating the faculty? This session will provide participants with practical, research-based strategies for defining the roles of the chair position, building trust within the faculty, and beginning a dialogue focused on meaningful change. Opportunities for small-group discussion as well as scenario-based discourse will be included

Culture and disaster risk management - synthesis of stakeholder attitudes during 3 Stakeholder Assemblies in Romania, Italy and Portugal

This report provides a synthesis of the results of three CARISMAND Stakeholder Assemblies held in A) Bucharest,Romania on April 14-15, 2016; B) Rome,Italy on February 27-28, 2017; and C) Lisbon,Portugal on February 27-28, 2018. These Stakeholder Assemblies, together with six Citizen Summits (see Deliverables D5.3 – D5.9) were part of the CARISMAND cycle of events (see Figure 1 below). This cycle of events was the key concept at the core of the CARISMAND project which aimed to ensure a comprehensive feedback loop betweendisaster practitioners and citizens. It also allowed for the progression of ideas co-created by disaster practitioners and citizens. The locations of the three Stakeholder Assemblies were chosen due to their rather different “backgrounds”. The three countries had been struck at the time of the respective event by different types of disasters. In addition, the three countries have very different “cultures”, or cultural impacts, at a societal level. Romania has a comparatively strong authoritative systems due to its political history; Italy has experienced a strong direct in-flow of migrants in the last years due to its geological location; and Portugal has long been a traditional “melting pot” where, over more than a millennium, people from different cultural backgrounds and ethnic origins (in particular North Africa, South America, and Europe) have lived together. Accordingly, these differences were expected to allow a wide range of practitioners’ attitudes and perceptions related to cultural factors in disaster management to emerge. In order to not only gather a variety of attitudes and perceptions but also promote cross-sectional knowledge transfer, the audience in all three events consisted of a wide range of practitioners who are typically involved in disaster management, e.g., civil protection agencies , the emergency services, paramedics, nurses, environmental protection agencies, the Red Cross, firefighters, the military, and the police. Further, these practitioners were from several regions in the respective country; in Portugal, the Stakeholder Assembly also included practitioners from the island of Madeira. The 40-60 participants per event were recruited via invitations sent to various organisations and institutions that play a role in disaster management, and via direct contacts of local partners in the CARISMAND consortium. Each assembly consisted of a mix of presentations and discussion groups to combine dissemination with information gathering (for detailed schedules see Appendices A1-A3). In an initial general assembly, the event started with presentations of the CARISMAND project and its main goals and concepts. Then, participants were split into small working groups in separate breakout rooms, where they discussed and provided feedback on a specific topic. After each working group session, panel discussions allowed the participants to present the results of their working group to the rest of the audience. After each panel discussion, keynote speakers gave presentations related to the topic that had been discussed during the working groups. This schedule was designed to ensure that participants are provided with detailed information about recent developments in disaster management, but without influencing the attitudes and perceptions expressed in the working groups. In the third Stakeholder Assembly, different sets of recommendations for practitioners (related to the use of cultural factors in disaster management) were presented to the general audience, followed by small discussion group sessions as described above.The project was co-funded by the European Commission within the Horizon2020 Programme (2014–2020).peer-reviewe

Culture and disaster risk management - citizens’ reactions and opinions during Citizen Summit in Frankfurt, Germany

The analyses and results in this document are based on the data collected during the fourth Citizen Summit held in Frankfurt/Germany on June 14th 2017. As the previous three Citizen Summits held in Romania, Malta and Italy, this Citizen Summit was designed as a one-day event combining public information with feedback gathering through different methods of data collection. In the morning session, 42 questions with pre-defined answer options were posed to the audience and collected via an audience response system. In the afternoon session, small moderated group discussions of approximately 1.5 hours duration were held, which followed a detailed set of questions and discussion guidelines, including a short association exercise. All questions and discussions aimed to explore cultural factors in citizens’ attitudes, feelings, and perceptions towards disaster risks, as well as their identification in relation to disaster preparation, response and recovery. In coordination with the Work Package 11 briefs, the definition and design of the questions was based on: 1) Results from Citizen Summits 1 and 2, complementing in particular the data related to risk perception with the aim to build up a comprehensive base for cultural comparison across all six summits; 2) Results from Stakeholder Assemblies 1 and 2, in particular regarding the identification of non-professional (“cultural”) leaders in disaster situations, motivators for improving disaster preparedness, and the role of trust/distrust; 3) Results from Work Package 3, aiming to complement and increase knowledge about citizens’ uptake of mobile phone apps and interest in usage of different features, also in contrast to social media use; 4) Results from Work Package 4, in particular regarding recent research findings in the relationships between perceived disaster preparedness and actual disaster preparedness, and in the ambivalent relationships between trust in authorities and citizens’ personal preparedness; 5) Results from Work Package 7, aiming to complement the research regarding citizen empowerment by exploring trust as a bi-directional relationship between citizens and disaster managers; and 6) Results from Work Package 8, taking into account the role of media in all phases of disaster management. For a detailed overview of all questions asked and topics discussed please see Appendix A. Overall, 105 citizens participated in this Germany event. The total sample shows a relatively even gender and age distribution, which is unsurprising given the target quotas that were requested from the recruiting local market research agency. The comparatively low number of senior citizens aged 65 and above was expected and reflects mobility issues. Participants were asked about three key aspects of experience of disasters and disaster risk perception that could potentially have an impact on how other questions were answered. Two out of three respondents indicated that they themselves, or a close friend or family member, have experienced a disaster, more than half (54%) felt that they were living in an area that is specifically prone to disasters, and 62% answered that they know other people in the area where they live who they think are particularly vulnerable or exposed to disasters. Slight gender differences (as well as age-related differences) were found to be not statistically significant (p>=.05). This report is structured in five main sections: After this introduction, the second section will provide an overview of the different methods applied. The third section, based on the quantitative data collected via the audience response system, presents the results from questions on general disaster risk perceptions, disaster preparedness, behaviours in disaster situations with a particular focus on the use of mobile phone apps and social media, and trust between citizens and different authorities including trust in different social media sources. In the fourth section, based on the qualitative data collected in the ten discussion groups, the analyses will take up the topics introduced in the previous section, focusing first on the role of citizens’ trust in different entities, in particular towards different authorities, “non-professional” leaders, and the media. Furthermore, this section will report on the participating citizens’ attitudes towards improving their disaster preparedness through different measures. In all topics, the analyses seek to identify different cultural aspects which may play a role in an improved disaster preparedness and response. The final section compares and contrasts the results from Sections 3 and 4, draws some tentative conclusions, and identifies topics and issues that should feed into the last round of events in 2018, i.e. the 3rd Stakeholder Assembly, as well as the 5th and 6th Citizen Summits.The project was co-funded by the European Commission within the Horizon2020 Programme (2014-2020).peer-reviewe

Culture and disaster risk management - citizens’ reactions and opinions during Citizen Summit in Rome, Italy

The analyses and results in this document are based on the data collected during the third Citizen Summit held in Rome/Italy on June 7th 2017. As the previous two Citizen Summits held in Romania and Malta, this Citizen Summit was designed as a one-day event combining public information with feedback gathering through different methods of data collection. In the morning session, 42 questions with pre-defined answer options were posed to the audience and collected via an audience response system. In the afternoon session, small moderated group discussions of approximately 1.5 hours duration were held, which followed a detailed set of questions and discussion guidelines, including a short association exercise. All questions and discussions aimed to explore cultural factors in citizens’ attitudes, feelings, and perceptions towards disaster risks, as well as their identification in relation to disaster preparation, response, and recovery. In coordination with the Work Package 11 briefs, the definition and design of the questions was based on: 1) Results from Citizen Summits 1 and 2, complementing in particular the data related to risk perception with the aim to build up a comprehensive base for cultural comparison across all six summits; 2) Results from Stakeholder Assemblies 1 and 2, in particular regarding the identification of non-professional (“cultural”) leaders in disaster situations, motivators for improving disaster preparedness, and the role of trust/distrust; 3) Results from Work Package 3, aiming to complement and increase knowledge about citizens’ uptake of mobile phone apps and interest in usage of different features, also in contrast to social media use; 4) Results from Work Package 4, in particular regarding recent research findings in the relationships between perceived disaster preparedness and actual disaster preparedness, and in the ambivalent relationships between trust in authorities and citizens’ personal preparedness; 5) Results from Work Package 7, aiming to complement the research regarding citizen empowerment by exploring trust as a bi-directional relationship between citizens and disaster managers; and 6) Results from Work Package 8, taking into account the role of media in all phases of disaster management. For a detailed overview of all questions asked and topics discussed please see Appendix A. Overall, 105 citizens participated in the Italy event. The total sample shows a relatively even gender and age distribution, which is unsurprising given the target quotas that were requested from the recruiting local market research agency. The slightly lower number of senior citizens aged 65 and above was expected and reflects mobility issues. Participants were asked about three key aspects of experience of disasters and disaster risk perception that could potentially have an impact on how other questions were answered. Almost three out of four respondents (72.1%) indicated that they, or a close friend or family member, have experienced a disaster, but only one out of eight (12.6%) felt that they are currently living in an area that is specifically prone to disasters, and 26.7% answered that they know other people in the area where they live who they think are particularly vulnerable or exposed to disasters. Female respondents felt more often than male respondents that they live in a disaster area; other slight gender differences (as well as age-related differences) were found to be not statistically significant (p>=.05). This report presents the results of the third CARISMAND Citizen Summit and is structured in five main sections: After this introduction, the second section will provide an overview of the different methods applied. The third section, based on the quantitative data collected via the audience response system, presents the results from questions on general disaster risk perceptions, disaster preparedness, behaviours in disaster situations with a particular focus on the use of mobile phone apps and social media, and trust between citizens and different authorities including trust in different social media sources. In the fourth section, based on the qualitative data collected in the ten discussion groups, the analyses will take up the topics introduced in the previous section, focussing first on the role of citizens’ trust in different entities, in particular towards different authorities, “non-professional” leaders, and the media. Furthermore, this section will report on the participating citizens’ attitudes towards improving their disaster preparedness through different measures. In all topics, the analyses seek to identify different cultural aspects which may play a role in an improved disaster preparedness and response. The final section compares and contrasts the results from sections 3 and 4, draws some tentative conclusions, and identifies topics and issues that should feed into the last round of events in 2018, i.e. the 3rd Stakeholder Assembly, as well as the 5th and 6th Citizen Summits.The project was co-funded by the European Commission within the Horizon2020 Programme (2014-2020).peer-reviewe

Identity in research infrastructure and scientific communication: Report from the 1st IRISC workshop, Helsinki Sep 12-13, 2011

Motivation for the IRISC workshop came from the observation that identity and digital identification are increasingly important factors in modern scientific research, especially with the now near-ubiquitous use of the Internet as a global medium for dissemination and debate of scientific knowledge and data, and as a platform for scientific collaborations and large-scale e-science activities.

The 1 1/2 day IRISC2011 workshop sought to explore a series of interrelated topics under two main themes: i) unambiguously identifying authors/creators & attributing their scholarly works, and ii) individual identification and access management in the context of identity federations. Specific aims of the workshop included:

• Raising overall awareness of key technical and non-technical challenges, opportunities and developments.
• Facilitating a dialogue, cross-pollination of ideas, collaboration and coordination between diverse – and largely unconnected – communities.
• Identifying & discussing existing/emerging technologies, best practices and requirements for researcher identification.

This report provides background information on key identification-related concepts & projects, describes workshop proceedings and summarizes key workshop findings

Culture and disaster risk management - stakeholder attitudes during Stakeholder Assembly in Lisbon, Portugal

This report provides a summary of the topics discussed and the results of the third CARISMAND Stakeholder Assembly conducted in Lisbon, Portugal on 27-28 February 2018. In order to promote cross-sectional knowledge transfer and gather a variety of attitudes and perceptions, as in the first and second CARISMAND Stakeholder Assemblies held in Romania and Italy in the previous years, the audience consisted of a wide range of practitioners who are typically involved in disaster management, e.g., civil protection, the emergency services, paramedics, nurses, environmental protection, Red Cross, firefighters, military, and the police. Further, these practitioners were from several regions in Portugal, including the island of Madeira. The 40 participants were recruited via invitations sent to various Portuguese organisations and institutions, and via direct contacts of the Civil Protection Department in Lisbon which is one of the partners in the CARISMAND consortium. The event consisted of a mix of presentations and discussion groups to combine dissemination with information gathering (for the detailed schedule/programme see Appendix 1). Furthermore, this third Stakeholder Assembly was organised and specifically designed to discuss and collect feedback on a comprehensive set of recommendations for disaster practitioners, which will form one of the core elements of the CARISMAND Work Package 9 ‘Toolkit’. These recommendations, which have all been formulated on the basis of Work Packages 2-10 results, were structured in four, main “sets”: 1. Approaches to ethnicity in disaster management; 2. Culturally aware disaster-related training activities; 3. Cultural factors in disaster communication, with the sub-sets: a. Cultural values and emotions; (cross-)cultural symbols; “physical” aides and methods; b. Involvement of cultural leaders; involvement of specific groups; usage of social media and mobile phone apps; and 4. Improving trust, improving disaster management. In an initial general assembly, the event started with presentations of the CARISMAND project and its main goals and concepts, including the concept of culture adopted by CARISMAND, and the planned CARISMAND Toolkit architecture and functionalities. These were followed by a detailed presentation of the first of the above mentioned sets of recommendations for practitioners. Then, participants of the Stakeholder Assembly were split into small groups in separate breakout rooms, where they discussed and provided feedback to the presented recommendations. Over the course of the 2-day event, this procedure was followed for all four sets of recommendations. To follow the cyclical design of CARISMAND events, and wherever meaningful and possible, the respective Toolkit recommendations for practitioners provided also the basis for a respective “shadow” recommendation for citizens which will be discussed accordingly in the last round of CARISMAND Citizen Summits (Citizen Summit 5 in Lisbon, and Citizen Summit 6 in Utrecht) in 2018. The location of the Third Stakeholder Assembly was selected to make use of the extensive local professional network of the Civil Protection Department in Lisbon, but also due to Portugal being a traditional “melting pot” where, over more than a millennium, people from different cultural backgrounds and local/ethnical origins (in particular Africa, South America, and Europe) have lived both alongside and together. All documents related to the Working Groups, i.e. discussion guidelines and consent forms, were translated into Portuguese. Accordingly, all presentations, as well as the group discussions were held in Portuguese, aiming to avoid any language/education-related access restrictions, and allowing participating practitioners to respond intuitively and discuss freely in their native language. For this purpose, simultaneous interpreters and professional local moderators were contracted via a local market research agency (EquaçãoLógica), which also provided the basic data analysis of all Working Group discussions and an independent qualitative evaluation of all recommendations presented in the event. The results of this analysis and evaluation will demonstrate that most recommendations were seen by the participating practitioners to be relevant and useful. In particular, those recommendations related to the use of cultural symbols and the potential of mobile phone apps and/or social media were perceived as stimulating and thought-provoking. Some recommendations were felt to be less relevant in the specific Portuguese context, but accepted as useful in other locations; a very small number was perceived to be better addressed to policy makers rather than practitioners. These and all other suggestions for improvement of the presented CARISMAND Toolkit recommendations for practitioners have been taken up and will be outlined in the final chapter of this report.The project was co-funded by the European Commission within the Horizon2020 Programme (2014-2020).peer-reviewe

Learning Leaders: a multi-method evaluation, final report

This report investigates findings arising from a variety of forms of feedback on Cumbria Partnership Foundation Trust’s “Learning Leaders” Programme (henceforth LLP) running from 2012-2013

FIELD - GUIDE : 3 STEPS FOR WORKING IN FRAGILE AND CONFLICT-AFFECTED SITUATIONS (WFCS)

This Manual was developed by HELVETAS Swiss Intercooperation together with the Centre for Peacebuilding (KOFF) at swisspeace. It aims at providing hands on guidance to field-based staff of development organisations that are working in fragile and conlict affected situations

Team players against headache: multidisciplinary treatment of primary headaches and medication overuse headache

Multidisciplinary approaches are gaining acceptance in headache treatment. However, there is a lack of scientific data about the efficacy of various strategies and their combinations offered by physiotherapists, physicians, psychologists and headache nurses. Therefore, an international platform for more intense collaboration between these professions and between headache centers is needed. Our aims were to establish closer collaboration and an interchange of knowledge between headache care providers and different disciplines. A scientific session focusing on multidisciplinary headache management was organised at The European Headache and Migraine Trust International Congress (EHMTIC) 2010 in Nice. A summary of the contributions and the discussion is presented. It was concluded that effective multidisciplinary headache treatment can reduce headache frequency and burden of disease, as well as the risk for medication overuse headache. The significant value of physiotherapy, education in headache schools, and implementation of strategies of cognitive behavioural therapy was highlighted and the way paved for future studies and international collaboration