Structures For Digital Collaboration and Interaction

Using the creative multi-modal PhD model of practice and theory (from my own 2010 website only PhD submission Zeppelinbend: Multiplicity, encyclopaedic strategies and nonlinear methodologies for a visual practice ) B.A Contemporary Arts undergraduate students at The University of Huddersfield have utilised blogs as a reflective space for critically analysing their practice and that of their peers. The blog format enables students to establish peer networks of thought that traverse the visual and textual. These online spaces are both collaborative and singular and act to enable peer-comment and multi-modal cross-referencing of contextual frameworks/precedents in the field. This paper will discuss how the practice of blogging has formed a vital part of the modules within the B.A Contemporary Arts degree programme at The University of Huddersfield and enabled students to develop differentiated approaches to writing. It will also pose interesting case studies of potential digital tools such as the Lines software. Lines has the potential to assist students in interpreting text and encourages collaborative responses to reading and writing in a non-linear way, enabling the text to be commented upon and expanded from a collective audience/readership. This process is suited to the reading and writing habits that students in the 21st century encounter and enables students to capture thoughts and knowledge as they traverse the landscape of the Internet. (http://lines.thecafesociety.org/#intro) Keywords: Multimodal, blogs, digital collaboration, networks, digital theses, reflective writing, non-linea

Machine drawing,

"The material in this volume is the first half of the instruction papers in machine drawing, as developed and used by the Extension division of the University of Wisconsin. Part of the material has been taken from Woolley and Meredith's 'Shop sketching' of the University extension division series."--Pref.Mode of access: Internet

Access to Justice for Children With Autism Spectrum Disorders, 2013-2016

Data collection included two distinct groups of participants. (1) Data collected from 202 typically developing children and 72 autistic children, all in the age range 6-11 years when first seen. (Note that one child on the autism spectrum and one child with typical development had IQ scores below 70.) Data collected from the children included standardised and non-standardised tests for a range of cognitive skills (IQ, language, memory, attention, suggestibility, anxiety) as well as data from the four experimental phases of the research: brief initial interviews; full investigative interviews; identification line-ups; and cross-examinations (note that not all children participated in this final phase). (2) Data collected from three samples of jury eligible adults (ages 18-69, n=260 in total) concerning their credibility ratings of interviews (and some cross-examinations) of selected children with and without autism.Children with a diagnosis of Autism Spectrum Disorder (ASD) display some memory and social communication difficulties that may call into question their abilities as witnesses. The current research examined how children with and without a diagnosis of ASD fared during all the different stages of a criminal investigation, and considered the best ways of eliciting reliable evidence. There were four research questions: 1. How do children with a diagnosis of ASD fare during the different stages of a criminal investigation (initial questioning, an investigative interview, when identifying perpetrators, and during cross-examination) relative to typical children? 2. What can be done to improve the amount of information that children recall, without making them more prone to errors; for example, is the assistance of a Registered Intermediary - a professional communications specialist who assists vulnerable individuals within the criminal justice system - useful? 3. How do the general public – who may be evaluating evidence within a jury - perceive child witnesses with and without a diagnosis of ASD? 4. Can we predict how well children will perform as witnesses? For example, is it the case that children with good language, attention or memory skills, are more likely to provide full and accurate statements.</p

Developing a Taxonomy of Dark Triad Triggers at Work – A Grounded Theory Study Protocol

In past years, research and corporate scandals have evidenced the destructive effects of the dark triad at work, consisting of narcissism (extreme self-centeredness), psychopathy (lack of empathy and remorse) and Machiavellianism (a sense of duplicity and manipulativeness). The dark triad dimensions have typically been conceptualized as stable personality traits, ignoring the accumulating evidence that momentary personality expressions – personality states – may change due to the characteristics of the situation. The present research protocol describes a qualitative study that aims to identify triggers of dark triad states at work by following a grounded theory approach using semi-structured interviews. By building a comprehensive categorization of dark triad triggers at work scholars may study these triggers in a parsimonious and structured way and organizations may derive more effective interventions to buffer or prevent the detrimental effects of dark personality at work.© 2017 Nübold, Bader, Bozin, Depala, Eidast, Johannessen and Prin

Can We Create a Creative Community?

Can We Create a Creative Community? University of Southampton Supervised by Professor Jonathan Harris, Birmingham City University, and Lindsey Fryer, Head of Learning, Tate Liverpool October 2014 – This is the third project in a series of four AHRC-funded Collaborative Doctoral Award partnerships between Winchester Centre for Global Futures in Art and Design, University of Southampton and Tate Liverpool. The practice-based research explores the potential for artist, organisation and audience to have interchangeable roles, and poses the question, ‘What happens when the band members swap instruments?’. This investigation seeks to understand and recognise the value non-experts offer in the creation of content and learning, and examines how the enhanced role of the audience impacts on the function of artists and galleries. Structured through a sequence of case studies, beginning with Tate Liverpool’s newly formed Community Collective, the work will identify how this active audience aims to engage with the gallery in meaningful ways. The research draws on improvisation as a technique to develop imagination and creativity and suggests ‘doing’ activates stimulus and direction. The Community Collective setting employs discussion and debate to advance ideas, pinpoint goals, solve problems and create meaning. It also establishes a social environment where co-operation, skill sharing and respect combine to construct a productive and inclusive setting

Many Labs 2: Investigating Variation in Replicability Across Samples and Settings

We conducted preregistered replications of 28 classic and contemporary published findings, with protocols that were peer reviewed in advance, to examine variation in effect magnitudes across samples and settings. Each protocol was administered to approximately half of 125 samples that comprised 15,305 participants from 36 countries and territories. Using the conventional criterion of statistical significance (p &lt; .05), we found that 15 (54%) of the replications provided evidence of a statistically significant effect in the same direction as the original finding. With a strict significance criterion (p &lt; .0001), 14 (50%) of the replications still provided such evidence, a reflection of the extremely high-powered design. Seven (25%) of the replications yielded effect sizes larger than the original ones, and 21 (75%) yielded effect sizes smaller than the original ones. The median comparable Cohen’s ds were 0.60 for the original findings and 0.15 for the replications. The effect sizes were small (&lt; 0.20) in 16 of the replications (57%), and 9 effects (32%) were in the direction opposite the direction of the original effect. Across settings, the Q statistic indicated significant heterogeneity in 11 (39%) of the replication effects, and most of those were among the findings with the largest overall effect sizes; only 1 effect that was near zero in the aggregate showed significant heterogeneity according to this measure. Only 1 effect had a tau value greater than .20, an indication of moderate heterogeneity. Eight others had tau values near or slightly above .10, an indication of slight heterogeneity. Moderation tests indicated that very little heterogeneity was attributable to the order in which the tasks were performed or whether the tasks were administered in lab versus online. Exploratory comparisons revealed little heterogeneity between Western, educated, industrialized, rich, and democratic (WEIRD) cultures and less WEIRD cultures (i.e., cultures with relatively high and low WEIRDness scores, respectively). Cumulatively, variability in the observed effect sizes was attributable more to the effect being studied than to the sample or setting in which it was studied

Many Labs 2: Investigating Variation in Replicability Across Samples and Settings

We conducted preregistered replications of 28 classic and contemporary published findings, with protocols that were peer reviewed in advance, to examine variation in effect magnitudes across samples and settings. Each protocol was administered to approximately half of 125 samples that comprised 15,305 participants from 36 countries and territories. Using the conventional criterion of statistical significance (p &lt; .05), we found that 15 (54%) of the replications provided evidence of a statistically significant effect in the same direction as the original finding. With a strict significance criterion (p &lt; .0001), 14 (50%) of the replications still provided such evidence, a reflection of the extremely high-powered design. Seven (25%) of the replications yielded effect sizes larger than the original ones, and 21 (75%) yielded effect sizes smaller than the original ones. The median comparable Cohen’s ds were 0.60 for the original findings and 0.15 for the replications. The effect sizes were small (&lt; 0.20) in 16 of the replications (57%), and 9 effects (32%) were in the direction opposite the direction of the original effect. Across settings, the Q statistic indicated significant heterogeneity in 11 (39%) of the replication effects, and most of those were among the findings with the largest overall effect sizes; only 1 effect that was near zero in the aggregate showed significant heterogeneity according to this measure. Only 1 effect had a tau value greater than .20, an indication of moderate heterogeneity. Eight others had tau values near or slightly above .10, an indication of slight heterogeneity. Moderation tests indicated that very little heterogeneity was attributable to the order in which the tasks were performed or whether the tasks were administered in lab versus online. Exploratory comparisons revealed little heterogeneity between Western, educated, industrialized, rich, and democratic (WEIRD) cultures and less WEIRD cultures (i.e., cultures with relatively high and low WEIRDness scores, respectively). Cumulatively, variability in the observed effect sizes was attributable more to the effect being studied than to the sample or setting in which it was studied

Many Labs 5: Testing Pre-Data-Collection Peer Review as an Intervention to Increase Replicability

Replication studies in psychological science sometimes fail to reproduce prior findings. If these studies use methods that are unfaithful to the original study or ineffective in eliciting the phenomenon of interest, then a failure to replicate may be a failure of the protocol rather than a challenge to the original finding. Formal pre-data-collection peer review by experts may address shortcomings and increase replicability rates. We selected 10 replication studies from the Reproducibility Project: Psychology (RP:P; Open Science Collaboration, 2015) for which the original authors had expressed concerns about the replication designs before data collection; only one of these studies had yielded a statistically significant effect (p &lt; .05). Commenters suggested that lack of adherence to expert review and low-powered tests were the reasons that most of these RP:P studies failed to replicate the original effects. We revised the replication protocols and received formal peer review prior to conducting new replication studies. We administered the RP:P and revised protocols in multiple laboratories (median number of laboratories per original study = 6.5, range = 3–9; median total sample = 1,279.5, range = 276–3,512) for high-powered tests of each original finding with both protocols. Overall, following the preregistered analysis plan, we found that the revised protocols produced effect sizes similar to those of the RP:P protocols (Δr = .002 or .014, depending on analytic approach). The median effect size for the revised protocols (r = .05) was similar to that of the RP:P protocols (r = .04) and the original RP:P replications (r = .11), and smaller than that of the original studies (r = .37). Analysis of the cumulative evidence across the original studies and the corresponding three replication attempts provided very precise estimates of the 10 tested effects and indicated that their effect sizes (median r = .07, range = .00–.15) were 78% smaller, on average, than the original effect sizes (median r = .37, range = .19–.50)