Search results

Adding researchers' behaviour to the research agenda (abstract refereed)

Artifcial Intelligence in Education: Implicationsfor Policymakers, Researchers, and Practitioners

De technologie achter kunstmatige intelligentie (AI) ontwikkelt zich razendsnel, ook binnen het onderwijs. Er vindt veel onderzoek plaats naar de gevolgen ervan voor leren en lesgeven. AI biedt kansen voor het onderwijs, maar het is duidelijk dat het zondermeer vervangen van menselijke betrokkenheid door AI, niet verstandig is. In plaats daarvan is het verstandig om de sterke punten van zowel mensen als AI te combineren om tot effectievere oplossingen te komen. Het belang van “humans in the loop” is daarbij een centraal uitgangspunt van AI in het onderwijs. Dit artikel levert een bijdrage aan het onderzoek naar de impact van AI op het onderwijs vanuit het perspectief van onderzoekers en praktijkmensen. De auteurs hebben een Delphi-studie uitgevoerd onder internationale professionals, gevolgd door een panelduscussie van internationale onderzoekers. De drie belangrijkste trends en uitdagingen die daarbij naar voren kwamen zijn (1) privacy en ethisch gebruik van AI; (2) het belang van betrouwbare algoritmen; en (3) gelijkheid en eerlijkheid. Op basis van deze bevindingen schetst het paper beleidsaanbevelingen voor AI in het onderwijs en stelt het een onderzoeksagenda voor het beantwoorden van de geïdentificeerde onderzoeksvragen.

Digital health interventions to improve eating behaviour of people with a lower socioeconomic position: a scoping review of behaviour change techniques

Specific approaches are needed to reach and support people with a lower socioeconomic position (SEP) to achieve healthier eating behaviours. There is a growing body of evidence suggesting that digital health tools exhibit potential to address these needs because of its specific features that enable application of various behaviour change techniques (BCTs). The aim of this scoping review is to identify the BCTs that are used in diet-related digital interventions targeted at people with a low SEP, and which of these BCTs coincide with improved eating behaviour. The systematic search was performed in 3 databases, using terms related to e/m-health, diet quality and socioeconomic position. A total of 17 full text papers were included. The average number of BCTs per intervention was 6.9 (ranged 3–15). BCTs from the cluster ‘Goals and planning’ were applied most often (25x), followed by the clusters ‘Shaping knowledge’ (18x) and ‘Natural consequences’ (18x). Other frequently applied BCT clusters were ‘Feedback and monitoring’ (15x) and ‘Comparison of behaviour’ (13x). Whereas some BCTs were frequently applied, such as goal setting, others were rarely used, such as social support. Most studies (n = 13) observed a positive effect of the intervention on eating behaviour (e.g. having breakfast) in the low SEP group, but this was not clearly associated with the number or type of applied BCTs. In conclusion, more intervention studies focused on people with a low SEP are needed to draw firm conclusions as to which BCTs are effective in improving their diet quality. Also, further research should investigate combinations of BCTs, the intervention design and context, and the use of multicomponent approaches. We encourage intervention developers and researchers to describe interventions more thoroughly, following the systematics of a behaviour change taxonomy, and to select BCTs knowingly.

Co-designing behaviour change prototypes with paediatric physical therapists

(‘Co’-)Designing for healthy behaviour greatly benefits from integrating insights about individual behaviour and systemic influences. This study reports our experiences in using insights about individual and systemic determinants of behaviour to inform a large co-design project. To do so, we used two design tools that encourage focusing on individual determinants (Behavioural Lenses Approach) and social / systemic aspects of behaviour (Socionas). We performed a qualitative analysis to identify 1) when and how the team applied the design tools, and 2) how the tools supported or obstructed the design process. The results show that both tools had their distinctive uses during the process. Both tools improved the co-design process by deepening the conversations and underpinnings of the prototypes. Using the Behavioural Lenses under the guidance of a behavioural expert proved most beneficial. Furthermore, the Socionas showed the most potential when interacting with stakeholders, i.c. parents and PPTs.

Changing hearts and minds in the equestrian world one behaviour at a time

Equestrianism is currently facing a range of pressing challenges. These challenges, which are largely based on evolving attitudes to ethics and equine wellbeing, have consequences for the sport’s social licence to operate. The factors that may have contributed to the current situation include overarching societal trends, specific aspects of the equestrian sector, and factors rooted in human nature. If equestrianism is to flourish, it is evident that much needs to change, not the least,human behaviour. To this end, using established behaviour change frameworks that have been scientifically validated and are rooted in practice — most notably, Michie et al.’s COM-B model and Behaviour Change Wheel — could be of practical value for developing and implementing equine welfare strategies. This review summarises the theoretical underpinnings of some behaviour change frameworks and provides a practical, step-by-step approach to designing an effective behaviour change intervention. A real-world example is provided through the retrospective analysis of an intervention strategy that aimed to increase the use of learning theory in (educational) veterinary practice. We contend that the incorporation of effective behaviour change interventions into any equine welfare improvement strategy may help to safeguard the future of equestrianism.

Adding researchers’ behaviour to the research agenda: bridging the science-policy gap in sustainable tourism mobility

This opinion piece addresses issues surrounding the role of researchers’ behaviour in bridging the science–policy gap in sustainable tourism mobility. Currently, the research agenda on bridging this gap encompasses the development of fuller understanding of the determinants of tourist behaviours, and only a partial understanding of the behaviour of policy-makers and industry. That latter area needs research to identify how those key actors can be encouraged towards developing sustainable tourism mobility. This paper argues that key determinants of researchers' behaviour need to be added to that research agenda. It discusses seven tensions and structures hindering researchers exploring how to mobilise and engage with other industry and policy-makers, including dangers related to the politicisation of science, balancing objectivity and engagement, and the consequences of the current publication culture that characterises the academic community. The discussion concludes with a call for action to researchers to address these tensions and structures. It suggests four ways forward, including informed and skilled engagement with the quality mass media, using proven methods of academic–industry cooperation, workshops to help editors and reviewers to better understand practice-linked, values-driven research issues and the creation of a policy-makers' industry and researchers' action group to encourage joint projects.