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 Study Objective To provide an overview of patients' needs concerning goal‐setting, and indications of how those needs can be met by nurses. Methods A narrative review. Pubmed and Cinahl were searched through March 1, 2020 for: patients' experiences concerning goal‐setting and the role of nursing in rehabilitation. Additional articles were found through snowballing. A total of 22 articles were reviewed on patients' experiences, and 12 on the nursing role. Results Patients need to be prepared for collaborating in goal‐setting and to receive an explanation about their part in that process. The multiplicity of disciplines may cloud patients' understanding of the process. The nurse's planning of the rehabilitation process should be aimed at resolving this issue. Goals need to be meaningful, and patients need support in attaining them. The interpretive, integrative, and consoling functions of Kirkevold's nursing role are suitable to meet these needs. Conclusions Both the literature about patients' needs regarding goal‐setting and the nursing role make clear that the way nurses work in rehabilitation can gain in clarity. Strengthening the role of nurses will improve the goal‐setting process for patients. Interprofessional collaboration, clear work procedures, continuity of care, time and trust, and the physical environment all are important to reinforce this role.
MULTIFILE
