The article engages with the recent studies on multilevel regulation. The starting point for the argument is that contemporary multilevel regulation—as most other studies of (postnational) rulemaking—is limited in its analysis. The limitation concerns its monocentric approach that, in turn, deepens the social illegitimacy of contemporary multilevel regulation. The monocentric approach means that the study of multilevel regulation originates in the discussions on the foundation of modern States instead of returning to the origins of rules before the nation State was even created, which is where the actual social capital underlying (contemporary) rules can be found, or so I wish to argue. My aim in this article is to reframe the debate. I argue that we have an enormous reservoir of history, practices, and ideas ready to help us think through contemporary (social) legitimacy problems in multilevel regulation: namely all those practices which preceded the capture of law by the modern State system, such as historical alternative dispute resolution (ADR) practices.
DOCUMENT
The Technical Manual for the digital evaluation tool QualiTePE supports users of the QualiTePE tool in creating, conducting and analysing evaluations to record the quality of teaching in physical education. The information on the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) instructs users on how to anonymise the data collection of evaluations and which legal bases apply with regard to the collection of personal data. The technical manual for the digital evaluation tool QualiTePE and the information on the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) are available in English, German, French, Italian, Spanish, Dutch, Swedish, Slovenian, Czech and Greek.
DOCUMENT
Background The Self-Expression Emotion Regulation in Art Therapy Scale (SERATS) was developed as art therapy lacked outcome measures that could be used to monitor the specific effects of art therapy. Although the SERATS showed good psychometric properties in earlier studies, it lacked convergent validity and thus construct validity. Method To test the convergent validity of the SERATS correlation was examined with the EES (Emotional Expressivity Scale), Emotion Regulation Strategies for Artistic Creative Activities Scale (ERS-ACA) and Healthy-Unhealthy Music Scale (HUMS). Patients diagnosed with a Personality Disorder, and thus having self-regulation and emotion regulation problems (n = 179) and a healthy student population (n = 53) completed the questionnaires (N = 232). Results The SERATS showed a high reliability and convergent validity in relation to the ERS-ACA approach strategies and self-development strategies in both patients and students and the HUMS healthy scale, in patients. Hence, what the SERATS measures is highly associated with emotion regulation strategies like acceptance, reappraisal, discharge and problem solving and with improving a sense of self including self-identity, increased self-esteem and improved agency as well as the healthy side of art making. Respondents rated the SERATS as relatively easy to complete compared to the other questionnaires. Conclusion The SERATS is a valid, useful and user-friendly tool for monitoring the effect of art therapy that is indicative of making art in a healthy way that serves positive emotion regulation and self-development.
DOCUMENT
The literature on responsive regulation argues that citizens should be involved in regulatory practices to avoid capture between regulator and regulatee. It also argues that including citizens can add an important perspective to regulatory practices. However, we know little about how citizens' perspectives are brought into regulatory practices. This paper draws on existing qualitative research to compare and analyze four cases of experimental participatory regulation in Dutch health care, focusing on the theoretical assumptions that citizen involvement (a) prevents capture, and (b) stimulates the inclusion of new perspectives. Our results show that involving citizens in regulation can increase transparency and trust in regulatory practices and familiarizes regulators with other perspectives. It is, however, up to the regulator to work on deriving benefits from that involvement—not only the practical work of organizing participatory regulation, but also the conceptual work of reflecting on their own assumptions and standards. We do find evidence for weak forms of capture and argue for the need to extend capture to involve multiple actors. We reflect on these results for theory development and regulatory practice.
MULTIFILE
This article examines to what extent and how cannabis users in different countries, with different cannabis legislation and policies practice normalization and self-regulation of cannabis use in everyday life. Data were collected in a survey among a convenience sample of 1,225 last-year cannabis users aged 18–40 from seven European countries, with cannabis policies ranging from relatively liberal to more punitive. Participants were recruited in or in the vicinity of Dutch coffeeshops. We assessed whether cannabis users experience and interpret formal control and informal social norms differently across countries with different cannabis policies. The findings suggest that many cannabis users set boundaries to control their use. Irrespective of national cannabis policy, using cannabis in private settings and setting risk avoidance rules were equally predominant in all countries. This illustrates that many cannabis users are concerned with responsible use, demonstrating the importance that they attach to discretion. Overall, self-regulation was highest in the most liberal country (the Netherlands). This indicates that liberalization does not automatically lead to chaotic or otherwise problematic use as critics of the policy have predicted, as the diminishing of formal control (law enforcement) is accompanied by increased importance of informal norms and stronger self-regulation. In understanding risk-management, societal tolerance of cannabis use seems more important than cross-national differences in cannabis policy. The setting of cannabis use and self-regulation rules were strongly associated with frequency of use. Daily users were less selective in choosing settings of use and less strict in self-regulation rules. Further differences in age, gender, and household status underline the relevance of a differentiated, more nuanced understanding of cannabis normalization.
DOCUMENT
Supervision meetings give teachers and students opportunities to interact with each other and to co-regulate students’ learning processes. Co-regulation refers to the transitional process of a student who is becoming a self-regulated learner by interacting with a more capable other such as a teacher. During a task, teachers are expected to pull back their support and give opportunities to students to take responsibility. This study aims to explore the shifting patterns of co-regulation, feedback perception, and motivation during a 5-month research project. Participants were 20 students conducting research in pairs and six teachers who supervised these students. Two videotaped supervision meetings at the beginning and end of the research process and questionnaires on feedback perception and motivation were analysed. Results on co-regulation showed a constant and comparable level of regulation at the start and at the end of students’ research projects. Feedback perception did not change, but motivation decreased significantly.
DOCUMENT
Learning by creating qualitative representations is a valuable approach to learning. However, modelling is challenging for students, especially in secondary education. Support is needed to make this approach effective. To address this issue, we explore automated support provided to students while they create their qualitative representation. This support is generated form a reference model that functions as a norm. However, the construction of a reference models is still a challenge. In this paper, we present the reference model that we have created to support students in learning about the melatonin regulation in the context of the biological clock.
DOCUMENT
Although self-regulation is an important feature related to students’ study success as reflected in higher grades and less academic course delay, little is known about the role of self- regulation in blended learning environments in higher education. For this review, we analysed 21 studies in which self-regulation strategies were taught in the context of blended learning. Based on an analysis of literature, we identified four types of strategies: cognitive, metacognitive, motivational and management. Results show that most studies focused on metacognitive strategies, followed by cognitive strategies, whereas little to no attention is paid to motivation and management strategies. To facilitate self-regulation strategies non-human student tool interactional methods were most commonly used, followed by a mix of human student-teacher and non-human student content and student environment methods. Results further show that the extent to which students actively apply self-regulation strategies also depends heavily on teacher's actions within the blended learning environment. Measurement of self-regulation strategies is mainly done with questionnaires such as the Motivation and Self-regulation of Learning Questionnaire.Implications for practice and policy:•More attention to self-regulation in online and blended learning is essential.•Lecturers and course designers of blended learning environments should be aware that four types of self-regulation strategies are important: cognitive, metacognitive, motivational and management.•Within blended learning environments, more attention should be paid to cognitive, motivation and management strategies to promote self-regulation.
DOCUMENT
This paper investigates the prospective application of arbitration by Transnational Private Regulation (TPR). It builds on the study of TPR developed by Fabrizio Cafaggi et al. TPR addresses the ever-increasing transfer of regulatory power from national to global levels, and from public to private regulators. TPR entails private regulatory co-operation be-yond the jurisdictional boundaries of States through voluntary standards. The regimes of TPR are built by a variety of actors, such as companies, NGOs, independent experts, and epistemic communities. Examples of TPR can be found in food safety, forestry management, trade, and derivatives, among other fields. More specifically, they concern private actors engaging in transnational coordination of standard setting such as the Forest Stewardship Council (FSC) that was developed to foster responsible management of the world’s forests. There are four main characteristics of TPR: legitimacy, quality, effectiveness, and enforcement. I will describe those four characteristics in brief here. First, the legitimacy of TPR is built around consent through voluntary entry, participation, and exit of regulated entities. Important to this contribution is that the legitimacy of TPR goes beyond its legal dimension, measured by purely legal standards. Hence, the legitimacy of TPR is largely determined by standards developed by social and economic institutions relevant to specific TPR regimes. The role of those institutions in standard settings is higher in private TPR regimes than private-public TPR regimes, where some forms of compliance are mandatory. Second, the quality of TPR corresponds to the ex ante and ex post evaluation cycle of regulatory processes. It is also linked with the transparency of TPR. Third, the effectiveness of TPR is measured according to the extent to which the objectives of TPR (or selected TPR regimes) are met. And finally, enforcement of TPRis understood as ‘ensuring compliance with commitments’. Enforcement of TPR can take place through courts, administrative agencies, and private dispute resolution—including the arbitration at the core of this contribution. Cafaggi’s study identified rather selective use of arbitration in TPR, but also recommended changes to make arbitration law more adaptable to TPR. Furthermore, the study recommended that more specialized dispute resolution institutions are created to exclusively serve TPR. Against this background, I shift the main focus of analysis from TPR to arbitration. Whereas Cafaggi argued that arbitration may be suitable for TPR as a means of private enforcement, in this paper I go even further, arguing that arbitration as a means of informal, out-of-court dispute resolution is well suited to strengthen the normativity of TPR. This is so because private arbitration actors (including, inter alia, arbitrators and arbitral institutions) are already equipped with the tools necessary to facilitate cross-border TPR, which is done through informal standards and procedures with origins in the communitarian values and reputational mechanisms used by different communities before the development of modern States. The roots of most private justice regimes—including arbitration—are informed by communitarian values such as collaboration, participation, and personal trust. Those values, together with other core characteristics of arbitration correspond to all core characteristics of TPR, making both systems comparable and complementary. The analytical framework incorporated in this paper follows the four core characteristics of TPR. Hence, the paper is organized into five sections. The first section contains the introduction. In the second section, I analyze the legitimacy of arbitration vis-à-vis the legitimacy of TPR. In the third section, I investigate the accountability of arbitration as a means of quality signaling vis-à-vis TPR. In the fourth section, I focus on the remedies available to arbitrators in a view of TPR’s effectiveness. Finally, in the fifth section, I analyze enforcement through arbitration and its impact on the exclusiveness versus complementarity of TPR regimes. Conclusions follow, including recommendations for future research. Part of topic "The blurring distinction between public and private in international dispute resolution"
MULTIFILE
In the past few years, the EU has shown a growing commitment to address the rapid transformations brought about by the latest Artificial Intelligence (AI) developments by increasing efforts in AI regulation. Nevertheless, despite the growing body of technical knowledge and progress, the governance of AI-intensive technologies remains dynamic and challenging. A mounting chorus of experts expresses reservations about an overemphasis on regulation in Europe. Among their core arguments is the concern that such an approach might hinder innovation within the AI arena. This concern resonates particularly strongly compared to the United States and Asia, where AI-driven innovation appears to be surging ahead, potentially leaving Europe behind. This paper emphasizes the need to balance certification and governance in AI to foster ethical innovation and enhance the reliability and competitiveness of European technology. It explores recent AI regulations and upcoming European laws, underscoring Europe’s role in the global AI landscape. The authors analyze European governance approaches and their impact on SMEs and startups, offering a comparative view of global regulatory efforts. The paper highlights significant global AI developments from the past year, focusing on Europe’s contributions. We address the complexities of creating a comprehensive, human-centred AI master’s programme for higher education. Finally, we discuss how Europe can seize opportunities to promote ethical and reliable AI progress through education, fostering a balanced approach to regulation and enhancing young professionals’ understanding of ethical and legal aspects.
LINK
