Could the coronavirus crisis lead to increased citizen empowerment?

By SalM on September 6, 2020 in COVID-19

The key to halting the spread of the virus is responsible behavior and citizen empowerment. But to achieve this, people must trust science, the government, and media. Could the crisis be an opportunity to rebuild this trust?

“As systems collapse, people rise” says the author of Theory U, Otto Scharmer, in his recent article, where he reflects on the changes brought about by the COVID 19 crisis. At the same time, the historian Yuval Noah Harari writes in his article about the world after coronavirus, “A self-motivated and well-informed population is usually far more powerful and effective than a policed, ignorant population”. These two articles complement each other: the first one talks about communities that have organized themselves from the bottom up, and the second one discusses how governments should encourage and guide the empowerment of citizens rather than using totalitarian surveillance methods.

As Yuval Noah Harari points out, the latter brings the risk of a dangerous shift from “over the skin” to “under the skin” surveillance. In the first case, government surveillance traces people’s movements and activities, but in the second case, this surveillance goes much deeper, tracing parameters of the state of the body (temperature, blood pressure and heart-rate), which can then provide a snapshot of people’s emotional reactions. Introduced to protect people from the spread of the pandemic, there is a risk that these methods will continue to be used after the crisis is over, to control citizens and for other nefarious purposes.

Harsh measures with punishments are less effective in fighting the spread of the virus than empowering citizens. This can be done by increasing their awareness and scientific understanding, and asking them to take care of themselves and others, particularly more vulnerable groups, such as the elderly. To achieve this, citizens need to trust science, public authorities and the media. Since this trust has been significantly damaged in recent years, governments should devote all their efforts to rebuilding it. As Yuval Noah Harari has noted, normally this process would take years, but we are not living in ordinary times.

The key is to build civic responsibility along with true citizen empowerment. Otto Scharmer underlines that collective action is a superpower that has the capacity to flatten the curve of COVID-19. While a response by public authorities is necessary, it is collective action that really changes the situation, supported by “a timely and proactive government response”. People have the power to flatten the curve by realizing that their behavior, such as social distancing or wearing a mask, “contributes to the flattening of the curve”. This is responsible behavior – when wearing the mask is not just about you, but about protecting the elderly lady that lives nearby.

Responsible behavior and empowered citizens could also lead to a more sustainable society. Top-down approaches are not enough to make this transition; what we need is collective action, with citizens demanding sustainable and responsible behavior from the companies they buy from, leading to qualitative changes in the way these companies design and produce new products. We can encourage the development of sustainable, socially just, people-centered solutions by listening to citizens’ needs and re-establishing trust between citizens and the governments and companies that work for them.


This article was taken from the Living Innovation website, written by Svetlana Ivanova

Additional sources:

https://www.ft.com/content/19d90308-6858-11ea-a3c9-1fe6fedcca75

https://medium.com/presencing-institute-blog/eight-emerging-lessons-from-coronavirus-to-climate-action-683c39c10e8b

How to make research and innovation more responsible

By SalM on September 3, 2020 in News

Interview with Caitriona Mordan, RRI Project officer for Dublin City University

You work in the area of RRI, or responsible research and innovation. What does that mean?

RRI is about developing research in a reflective way. Universities and other research institutions don’t exist in isolation, and it is important to engage with the people you are developing research for. That involves communication, ethics, trust, values and engaging with journalists, policy makers, industry and citizens. Science is making rapid advances and it is important that researchers can work with society to better address the issues we face.

How are you helping to make that happen?
At the moment I am involved in co-ordinating several RRI projects, and the biggest one of them is Nucleus, which includes 27 partner institutions across Europe and also in GeorgiaSouth Africa and China. The first phase of that project looked at attitudes and barriers to RRI and now we are in the second phase, where we are looking to build structures and frameworks to support the changes in culture that’s needed to encourage RRI.

What kinds of issues are you looking to address?
One is time frames. Research takes time, and sometimes industry and the media expect answers quickly. So, it’s important to have conversations and build trust and awareness around the processes and time-scales of research. We also see that in many cases researchers consider outreach as something they do after their research project has generated results, rather than using outreach as a way to inform how they design and carry out research projects.

So, what kinds of steps can you take to enable RRI?
We want research institutions to be able to change their cultures so that RRI is built into the culture. We are looking at steps such as setting up a steering committee, and ways to ensure that researchers get recognition and reward for practising RRI, so they can see the benefits and the impacts. Rome wasn’t built in a day, but by setting up these frameworks and evaluating them we can see what works well

What does your day-to-day work involve?
A lot of meetings, many of them online because the partners are international. We have to provide the milestones and papers to the European Commission, so my life is driven by deliverables but I really enjoy it. This is a new area, you have to think on your feet quite a lot, and I love the brainstorming involved in coming up with new strategies.

How did you get into this line of work?
I studied business and human resources initially, then I managed outreach programmes with Engineers Ireland and Science Foundation Ireland. I was always interested in the policy and education side of science and engineering, and I did a masters in science communication in Dublin City University. My thesis was on what motivates industry to engage in STEM (science, technology, engineering, and maths) education. From there I moved into working on RRI.

What do you do when you are not paving the way for more responsible research and innovation?
I have two kids and they keep me busy, but I like to go to the gym. Doing CrossFit feels great after sitting at the desk and commuting, and I enjoy running too. This year I want to get back into squash, it’s a great form of stress relief.


This article has been taken from the IrishTimes website. Follow the link to the source of the article

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/science/how-to-make-research-and-innovation-more-responsible-1.3380765

International Public Participation Models 1969-2020

By SalM on September 3, 2020 in News

Summary

Sally Hussey provides an essential public engagement resource compiling 60 international public participation models dating back fifty years to Arnstein’s influential ‘Ladder of Citizen Participation’.

Last year, Sherry R. Arnstein’s  “A Ladder of Citizen Participation” celebrated its 50th anniversary. Originally published in the Journal of American Planning Association (JAPA) and one of its most cited articles to date, the longevity and impact of Arnstein’s Ladder can be recognised in the emergence of 60 public participation models since its inception.

Yet, Arnstein’s vision from 50 years ago bridges decades in more ways than one. Not only through its dynamic iteration in the history of public engagement frameworks and practices. Indeed, it provides a foundation for many of the central concepts that shape public engagement research and practice today. For just as current public participation spectrums continue to engender the work of shifting power in public decision-making – central to Arnstein’s vision – they also open out onto theories, methods and ideas that exist between the spectra.

But the inception of Arnstein’s Ladder in 1969 coincided with a shift in focus of the role of ‘citizens’, or public, and the conception of ‘participation’. Published at a “major inflection point” in the United States, with the Civil Rights Revolution, Vietnam war protests, the devastation of urban renewal, urban riots (Watts Riots and Newark Riots, for instance) and the increasing awareness of global environmental and ecological disasters, it demarcates the shift in the activation of citizens. Outgoing JAPA editor, Professor of Community and Regional Planning, University of Texas, Austin, Sandra Rosenbloom recently notes: “One result of the tumultuous events and major societal changes challenging the country at that time was a greater focus on the role of citizens in determining their own destiny and that of the neighborhoods and communities in which they lived. Citizen participation became both a duty and a rallying cry, but one that Arnstein viewed with great scepticism.”

While, in some countries, terminology has evolved to address exclusivity and divisive categorisation in the shift to from ‘citizen participation’ to ‘public engagement’, the link to contemporaneous challenges is evident in the need for people to determine their own destiny – to have their say – cutting across major changes posed by Black Lives Matter, climate chaos and increasing inequity resulting from population densification and urbanisation – not to mention the coronavirus pandemic that, in forcing a reset, prioritises equity considerations for marginalised and other equity-seeking groups and renewed efforts at fortifying community resilience. With democracy in crisis, public participation, it can be argued, has again become a “rallying cry” as governments scramble to connect to a disconnected public and, in a wake-up call to correct the balance of widespread mistrust, strive towards transparency, increased trust and legitimisation of public decisions.

As democratic societies across the globe increasingly commit to collaborative governance, public participation has thereby emerged as a rich arena. This includes the “deliberative wave” that has gained ground since 2010 that seeks ongoing, continuous and open dialogue and engagement between the public and public decision-makers. The recent focus on democratic innovations as a result of increased digitisation, too, emphasises a concern for the deepening of public participation in decision-making, where inclusive online engagement is one of the ways in which governments can engage communities. For benefits of online public engagement include improved governance, greater social cohesion, informed decision-making, community ownership, better responsiveness and transparency as well as increasing legitimacy of public decision-making.

Grounded in the democratic notion that public decisions should be shaped by people and communities affected by those decisions, public participation models have emerged not only to better map engagement in practice and theory but to ensure that people can shape decisions that affect their everyday lives.

The full list of 60 public participation models compiled (1969-2020)

** If you follow the link to the original post by Sally Hussey you will find a short description of each of the participation models and a link to the original source**

PUBLIC PARTICIPATION MODELS 2010-2020

  • 1. The Patient Leadership Triangle, David Gilbert, 2020
  • 2. Balanced E-Participation Index, 2019
  • 3. The Community Engagement Components Practical Model, 2017
  • 4. Canadian Union of Skilled Workers (CUSW) Participation Model, CUDW, 2016
  • 5. Les Robinson’s Curiosity-Ometer, Les Robinson, 2016
  • 6. The Engagement Triangle, Capire Consulting Group, 2015
  • 7. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s Spectrum of Public Involvement, 2015
  • 8. Parliament’s Public Participation Model, Parliament of the Republic of South Africa, 2015
  • 9. The International Association for Public Participation (IAP2) Australasia “Community Engagement Model”, 2014
  • 10. Scotland’s Digital Participation Pathway, The Scottish Government, 2014
  • 11. Bryer’s Model of Social Media Participation in Urban Infrastructure Projects, Thomas A Bryer, 2012
  • 12. Kaizen’s Archetypes of Community Participation, Kaizen Partnership, 2012
  • 13. The Yinyang Model, Shier et al, 2012
  • 14. Typology of Youth Participation, Wong et al, 2011
  • 15. Six Principles of Online Participation, Tim Davies, 2011
  • 16. Changing Views on Participation, Pedro Martín, 2010
  • 17. Ladder of Online Participation, Bernoof & Li, 2010
  • 18. Three-lens Approach to Participation, DFID-CSO, 2010
  • 19. Behaviour Grid, BJ Fogg, 2010
  • 20. The Participation Tree, Harry Shier, 2010
  • 21. Consumer Framework for Digital Participation, Communications Consumer Panel UK, 2010

PUBLIC PARTICIPATION MODELS 2000-2009

  • 22. Key Dimensions of Participation, Driskell & Neema, 2009
  • 23. Matrix of Participation, Tim Davies, 2009
  • 24. Pathways through Participation, NCVO & IVR, 2009
  • 25. Participation 2.0 Model, State Services Commission, New Zealand, 2007
  • 26. Engagement in the Policy Cycle, Diane Warburton, 2007
  • 27. Online Participation Behaviour Chain, Fogg & Eckles, 2007
  • 28. Lundy’s Model of Child Participation, Laura Lundy, 2007
  • 29. Four C’s of Online Participation, Derek Wenmoth, 2006
  • 30. Levels, Spaces and Forms of Power, John Gaventa, 2006
  • 31. The Clear Participation Model, Lawndes & Pratchett, 2006
  • 32. Four L Engagement Model, Tony Karrer, 2006
  • 33. Varieties of Participation, Archon Fung, 2006
  • 34. The Engagement Streams Framework, National Coalition for Dialogue & Deliberation, 2005
  • 35. Silverman’s Citizen Participation Continuum, Robert Silverman, 2005
  • 36. Five Components of Participation, Robin S Smith, 2005
  • 37. The United Nations E-Participation Index, 2003
  • 38. Ladder of Volunteer Participation, Adam Fletcher, 2003
  • 39. Youth Engagement Continuum, FCYO, 2003
  • 40. Triangle of Youth Participation, Jans & de Backer, 2002
  • 41. Youth Participation in Society, Jans & de Backer, 2002
  • 42. Dimensions of Youth Participation, David Driskell, 2002
  • 43. Seven Realms of Participation, Francis & Lorenzo, 2002
  • 44. Active Participation Framework, OECD, 2001
  • 45. Pathways to Participation, Harry Shier, 2001
  • 46. Clarity Model of Participation, Clare Lardner, 2001
  • 47. Strategic Approach to Participation, UNICEF, 2001
  • 48. The International Association for Public Participation, Public Participation Spectrum, IAP2, 2000, 2005, 2007

PUBLIC PARTICIPATION MODELS 1990-1999

  • 49. Wheel of Participation, Scott Davidson, 1998
  • 50. Degrees of Participation, Phil Treseder, 1997
  • 51. Rocha’s Ladder of Empowerment, Elizabeth M Rocha, 1997
  • 52. Typology of Participation, Sarah C. White, 1996
  • 53. Typology of Participation in Development Programs and Projects, Jules Pretty, 1995
  • 54. Typology of Participation in Policy Processes and Planning, 1995
  • 55. Framework for Participation, David Wilcox, 1994
  • 56. Ladder of Participation for Waste Management, Peter M Wiedemann & Susanne Femer, 1993
  • 57. Ladder of Children’s Participation/Ladder of Youth Participation, Roger Hart, 1992

PUBLIC PARTICIPATION MODELS 1980-1989

  • 58. Connor’s Ladder of Participation, Desmond M Connor, 1988

PUBLIC PARTICIPATION MODELS 1970-1979

  • 59. Socio-economic Participation Model, Norman H. Nie et al, 1972, 1978

PUBLIC PARTICIPATION MODELS 1960-1969

  • 60. Ladder of Citizen Participation, Sherry Arnstein, 1969

This article has been taken from the RRI Tools webpage.

https://www.rri-tools.eu/en/-/international-public-participation-models-1969-2020-

C4S | Communities for Sciences – Towards promoting an inclusive approach in Science Education

By SalM on September 2, 2020 in News

About the project

In the twenty-first century, having a scientific understanding of the world, and post-industrial knowledge and competences, have become necessary tools for future employability opportunities and for making informed decisions that might have an impact on a global, local and individual level. Scientific and technological understanding, knowledge, competences and critical thinking have also become an important means to develop personal careers and to build fairer and better-informed societies.

This is especially important when faced with the fourth industrial revolution and in the context of a globalised digital world with an overabundance of information and fake news. The C4S point of departure is that the current context stresses the point in which providing equal opportunities and fostering quality formal and non-formal education, regardless of social, cultural, religious, sexual or geographical backgrounds, has become essential.

Nevertheless, existing social realities in the European context such as social segregation, poverty, racism, sexist practices, visible or invisible barriers for disabled citizens or other forms of discrimination, restrict the access in equal terms to scientific careers. Additionally, this context creates subtle barriers to children from a diversity of backgrounds when engaging in science education activities.

Children, as citizens, need to be well informed and be able to fully participate in current and future social and political issues, because asymmetries still exist in the ability of individuals to interact with and access science, creating inequalities in scientific and innovation outcomes and an ever more pressing need to promote responsible research and innovation.To do so, especially if they are members of vulnerable groups, it is essential that, as present and future citizens, they have full-fledged access in equal terms to science education.

The C4S project objectives are based upon three main pillars or goals:

  • Work with vulnerable communities by fostering science education in children and youths aged from 0-16 years old, and their families, through formal and non-formal pedagogical institutions.
  • Raise awareness at an institutional level (policy-makers, museum representatives, schools, associations, etc.), of some value-laden practices in science education activities and provide tools to redress such practices.
  • Promote engagement in inclusive science education – through the creation of working groups with scientists or science-related members of those vulnerable communities co-participating in different programmes to foster inclusive science education.

Hubs

C4S is developed in 9 European cities (Milan -Italy-, Brussels -Belgium-, Manresa -Spain-, Vic – Spain-, Vienna -Austria-, Budapest -Hungary-, Sofia -Bulgaria-, Lund -Sweden- and Berlin -Germany) and their areas of influence.  The activities are coordinated by a local Hub in 6 cities with the leadership of one of these local partners of the Consortium.

Each Hub focus on a specific vulnerable community (immigrants, Roma community and disabled citizens) working with and for children and youth aged from 0-16 years old and their families.

C4S studies the relationships between science and society by focusing upon vulnerable communities due to the fact that they are often not visible as active social agents. The project not only creates activities for them, but also includes them as co-participants of these activities in order to ensure a more coherent approach towards inclusive education and to promote anticipatory policy-making.

It is done through science education activities, through formal and non-formal educational institutions, from an inclusive standpoint, to provide them with better science awareness and capacities and to make them progressively aware of exclusionary practices that at times may occur in science.

Special emphasis is put on engaging them in an intersectional approach to fight against the gender discrimination suffered by women and girls on multiple levels.

Each HUB engages with policy-makers, educators and institutional representatives to promote their role in supporting and promoting an inclusive science education approach and to consolidate such inclusive practices on more solid grounds.

These science education activities and the inclusive-awareness campaigns addressed to policy-makers (policy awareness issues) foster co-working and co-designing actions with science experts from those vulnerable communities so that, additionally, they can act as alternative role models in science.

Therefore, the aim with this RRI approach is to promote Public Engagement (PE) by empowering vulnerable communities and by raising awareness of the less visible, and yet, real practices within the science world in which certain discriminatory values or practices are conveyed.


This article was taken from the RRI Tools website.

About the project

In the twenty-first century, having a scientific understanding of the world, and post-industrial knowledge and competences, have become necessary tools for future employability opportunities and for making informed decisions that might have an impact on a global, local and individual level. Scientific and technological understanding, knowledge, competences and critical thinking have also become an important means to develop personal careers and to build fairer and better-informed societies.

This is especially important when faced with the fourth industrial revolution and in the context of a globalised digital world with an overabundance of information and fake news. The C4S point of departure is that the current context stresses the point in which providing equal opportunities and fostering quality formal and non-formal education, regardless of social, cultural, religious, sexual or geographical backgrounds, has become essential.

Nevertheless, existing social realities in the European context such as social segregation, poverty, racism, sexist practices, visible or invisible barriers for disabled citizens or other forms of discrimination, restrict the access in equal terms to scientific careers. Additionally, this context creates subtle barriers to children from a diversity of backgrounds when engaging in science education activities.

Children, as citizens, need to be well informed and be able to fully participate in current and future social and political issues, because asymmetries still exist in the ability of individuals to interact with and access science, creating inequalities in scientific and innovation outcomes and an ever more pressing need to promote responsible research and innovation.To do so, especially if they are members of vulnerable groups, it is essential that, as present and future citizens, they have full-fledged access in equal terms to science education.

The C4S project objectives are based upon three main pillars or goals:

  • Work with vulnerable communities by fostering science education in children and youths aged from 0-16 years old, and their families, through formal and non-formal pedagogical institutions.
  • Raise awareness at an institutional level (policy-makers, museum representatives, schools, associations, etc.), of some value-laden practices in science education activities and provide tools to redress such practices.
  • Promote engagement in inclusive science education – through the creation of working groups with scientists or science-related members of those vulnerable communities co-participating in different programmes to foster inclusive science education.

Hubs

C4S is developed in 9 European cities (Milan -Italy-, Brussels -Belgium-, Manresa -Spain-, Vic – Spain-, Vienna -Austria-, Budapest -Hungary-, Sofia -Bulgaria-, Lund -Sweden- and Berlin -Germany) and their areas of influence.  The activities are coordinated by a local Hub in 6 cities with the leadership of one of these local partners of the Consortium.

Each Hub focus on a specific vulnerable community (immigrants, Roma community and disabled citizens) working with and for children and youth aged from 0-16 years old and their families.

C4S studies the relationships between science and society by focusing upon vulnerable communities due to the fact that they are often not visible as active social agents. The project not only creates activities for them, but also includes them as co-participants of these activities in order to ensure a more coherent approach towards inclusive education and to promote anticipatory policy-making.

It is done through science education activities, through formal and non-formal educational institutions, from an inclusive standpoint, to provide them with better science awareness and capacities and to make them progressively aware of exclusionary practices that at times may occur in science.

Special emphasis is put on engaging them in an intersectional approach to fight against the gender discrimination suffered by women and girls on multiple levels.

Each HUB engages with policy-makers, educators and institutional representatives to promote their role in supporting and promoting an inclusive science education approach and to consolidate such inclusive practices on more solid grounds.

These science education activities and the inclusive-awareness campaigns addressed to policy-makers (policy awareness issues) foster co-working and co-designing actions with science experts from those vulnerable communities so that, additionally, they can act as alternative role models in science.

Therefore, the aim with this RRI approach is to promote Public Engagement (PE) by empowering vulnerable communities and by raising awareness of the less visible, and yet, real practices within the science world in which certain discriminatory values or practices are conveyed.

Sensor-based proximity metrics for team research. A validation study across three organizational contexts

By SalM on September 1, 2020 in News

Abstract

Wearable sensors are becoming increasingly popular in organizational research. Although validation studies that examine sensor data in conjunction with established social and psychological constructs are becoming more frequent, they are usually limited for two reasons: first, most validation studies are carried out under laboratory settings. Only a handful of studies have been carried out in real-world organizational environments. Second, for those studies carried out in field settings, reported findings are derived from a single case only, thus seriously limiting the possibility of studying the influence of contextual factors on sensor-based measurements. This article presents a validation study of expressive and instrumental ties across nine relatively small R&D teams. The convergent validity of Bluetooth (BT) detections is reported for friendship and advice-seeking ties under three organizational contexts: research labs, private companies, and university-based teams. Results show that, in general, BT detections correlated strongly with self-reported measurements. However, the organizational context affects both the strength of the observed correlation and its direction. Whereas advice-seeking ties generally occur in close spatial proximity and are best identified in university environments, friendship relationships occur at a greater spatial distance, especially in research labs. We conclude with recommendations for fine-tuning the validity of sensor measurements by carefully examining the opportunities for organizational embedding in relation to the research question and collecting complementary data through mixed-method research designs.

Introduction

Wearable sensors are providing exciting new research opportunities for the social sciences. Following up on initial technical developments to miniaturize and combine several sensor technologies into wearable devices in the first decade of the 21st century, interested scholars have invested considerable effort in assessing the validity and reliability of the resulting data (Chaffin et al., 2017; Chen & Miller, 2017; Elmer et al., 2019; Kayhan et al., 2018). These initial studies relied mainly on laboratory experiments to assess the validity of sensors as indicators of physical constructs such as ‘proximity’ based on Bluetooth (BT) signals or ‘face-to-face’ detections based on infrared sensors. However, an increasing number of studies that deploy wearable sensors in real-world organizational settings have become available. This allows the variability of the sensor measurements to be assessed under realistic settings beyond controlled laboratory environments, while also putting the focus on the suitability of sensor data as indicators of higher-level social and psychological constructs. Several available studies have explored sensor data as indicators of “creativity” (Parker et al., 2018), “friendship” and “advice-seeking” (Matusik et al., 2018), or “subjective wellbeing” (Alshamsi et al., 2016) and “happiness” (Yano et al., 2015).

While studies based on real-world field settings make important contributions to assess the variability of sensor data and higher-level constructs, the existing variety of empirical field settings has been rather meager to date. Usually, wearable sensors are deployed in a single, relatively large group of people working together. The resulting findings are thus limited to one specific group and field situation without any means of extrapolating to other groups and/or conditions. This article addresses this problem by analyzing and comparing wearable sensor data among nine relatively small research and development (R&D) teams.

As a result, we therefore firstly offer important insights into the inter-group variability of SociometricFootnote1 measurements for relatively similar R&D teams. By examining in more detail how important metrics vary between the nine comparable R&D groups, a more finely tuned picture of the context-sensitive nature of supposedly ‘objective’ sensor measurements begins to emerge. Secondly, our research also contributes to the important task of validating Sociometric, sensor-based measurements for higher-level constructs. BT signals are usually taken as a measurement of physical proximity between devices (or the people wearing them), which in turn should ideally provide a valid indicator of social ties such as friendship. Whereas others have shown that there is a moderate relationship between BT signals and these social ties, this article provides further insights into the strength of the relationship between Sociometric proximity and friendship on the one hand, and proximity and advice-seeking on the other, taking into account the different organizational embedding of groups. With regard to BT values, we can ask how reliably certain radio signal strength indicator thresholds discriminate between friendship or advice networks, not only within the same group but across several groups. By inserting important organizational and team-based control variables, we show how these thresholds might vary according to the wider context.

The article is structured as follows: in the first section we will briefly summarize the main findings of existing research using wearable sensors. This includes both laboratory validation studies as well as field research focusing on higher-level constructs. To the best of our knowledge, there has thus far been no study that analyzes sensor data across several comparable groups. Next, in the Methods section, the details of the field research are described in conjunction with the important data pre-processing steps carried out. In addition, there are also some initial sketches of the socio-demographic and sociometric profiles of the participating teams and an introduction to the overall analytical approach. The third section then describes the overall results, followed by a general discussion of their implications before we conclude the article with some final remarks and recommendations.


To read the full article prepared by Jörg Müller, Julio MenesesAnne Laure Humbert & Elisabeth Anna Guenther follow this link below to the Springer website

https://link.springer.com/article/10.3758/s13428-020-01444-x