Dutch universities of applied sciences (UASs) had been teaching-only institutes since their legal origin in 1960. The development of higher education (HE) in Europe in the past twenty years requires UASs to embody and become hybrid organ-isations where education and research are integrated. Ever-changing, complex society needs professionals with overarching skills, such as critical, analytical and reflective ones. The Dutch government has framed this as a generic need for research abilities in all higher education students, in addition to framing research as a pedagogy for the development of skills. The new millennium brought Dutch UASs national funding for research and the appointment of lectoren (research professors). In 2015, the Amsterdam University of Applied Sciences (AUAS) board substantiated this national incentive in a renewed university-wide strategy to integrate research in all educational programmes. The AUAS strategic programme ‘Research into Education’ (Dutch: Onderzoek in Onderwijs; OiO) was designed to assist in the implementation of this aim. Educational managers and lecturers were positioned as the central actors in manifesting the intended changes. Five projects were framed, spanning from hands-on, tailor-made assistance of teaching staff to the creation of national and international networks. The aims and mechanisms for change of these projects as well as their results are presented in this chapter.Although AUAS was successful in realizing a broad desire to integrate education and research, monitoring and evaluation of the process shows how little we collectively know about functional connections between research and education, especially in applied higher education. A future strategic programme needs to bring about profes-sional enhancement at all levels to maintain the already-realised awareness and desire and take the process further to effect ability, knowledge, and reinforcement (Hiatt, 2018). It is a work in progress, yet hands-on university development can become empirically founded practice by smart and precise choices and design.
Explainable Artificial Intelligence (XAI) aims to provide insights into the inner workings and the outputs of AI systems. Recently, there’s been growing recognition that explainability is inherently human-centric, tied to how people perceive explanations. Despite this, there is no consensus in the research community on whether user evaluation is crucial in XAI, and if so, what exactly needs to be evaluated and how. This systematic literature review addresses this gap by providing a detailed overview of the current state of affairs in human-centered XAI evaluation. We reviewed 73 papers across various domains where XAI was evaluated with users. These studies assessed what makes an explanation “good” from a user’s perspective, i.e., what makes an explanation meaningful to a user of an AI system. We identified 30 components of meaningful explanations that were evaluated in the reviewed papers and categorized them into a taxonomy of human-centered XAI evaluation, based on: (a) the contextualized quality of the explanation, (b) the contribution of the explanation to human-AI interaction, and (c) the contribution of the explanation to human- AI performance. Our analysis also revealed a lack of standardization in the methodologies applied in XAI user studies, with only 19 of the 73 papers applying an evaluation framework used by at least one other study in the sample. These inconsistencies hinder cross-study comparisons and broader insights. Our findings contribute to understanding what makes explanations meaningful to users and how to measure this, guiding the XAI community toward a more unified approach in human-centered explainability.
MULTIFILE
Abstract Background: The generalist-plus-specialist palliative care model is endorsed worldwide. In the Netherlands, the competencies and profile of the generalist provider of palliative care has been described on all professional levels in nursing and medicine. However, there is no clear description of what specialized expertise in palliative care entails, whereas this is important in order for generalists to know who they can consult in complex palliative care situations and for timely referral of patients to palliative care specialists. Objective: To gain insight in the roles and competencies attributed to palliative care specialists as opposed to generalists. Methods: A scoping review was completed based on PRISMA-ScR guidelines to explore the international literature on the role and competence description of specialist and expert care professionals in palliative care. Databases Embase.com, Medline (Ovid), CINAHL (Ebsco) and Web of Science Core Collection were consulted. The thirty-nine included articles were independently screened, reviewed and charted. Thematic codes were attached based on two main outcomes roles and competencies. Results: Five roles were identified for the palliative care specialist: care provider, care consultant, educator, researcher and advocate. Leadership qualities are found to be pivotal for every role. The roles were further specified with competencies that emerged from the analysis. The title, roles and competencies attributed to the palliative care specialist can mostly be applied to both medical and nursing professionals. Discussion: The roles and competencies derived from this scoping review correspond well with the seven fields of competence for medical/nursing professionals in health care of the CanMEDS guide. A specialist is not only distinguished from a generalist on patient-related care activities but also on an encompassing level. Clarity on what it entails to be a specialist is important for improving education and training for specialists. Conclusion: This scoping review adds to our understanding of what roles and competencies define the palliative care specialist. This is important to strengthen the position of the specialist and their added value to generalists in a generalist-plus-specialist model
