Search results
Filter
8 results
Sort by:
Gender Dynamics in Academic Networks - a Narrative Review
In: Women, gender & research, Issue 1-2, p. 86-98
Progress towards gender balance among senior faculty in Danish academia remains slow. Although networks are widely recognized as key to career success, studies on the influence of gender on network dynamics and career advancement in academia are scarce. Until now, scholarship has engaged with the topic of gender and networks in organizations through two co-existing, while unrelated, streams of research, namely the social networks literature and the gendering networks literature. In this narrative review, we ask the following question: What characterizes the social networks literature and the gendering networks literature, and how can they inform each other and advance our understanding of gender dynamics in academic networks? We outline the main findings from the two literatures and discuss the potentials of combining different theoretical perspectives for understanding gender and networks in Danish academia. More specifically, we argue that the social networks literature maps the network structures of men and women, while the gendering networks literature takes us on a journey through these structures. This paper constitutes the first step of a research project entitled Gender and Networks in EarlyCareer Academic Advancement.
Who are engaging in the nano-specific partner expert groups? An analysis of partner expert groups vs. expert groups
In: Environmental sciences Europe: ESEU, Volume 33, Issue 1
ISSN: 2190-4715
Abstract
Background
Consultation with partner expert groups (PEGs) is an important step in updating guidance under European chemical legislation concerning nanomaterials. Here, we briefly review the differences between PEGs and the broader use of expert groups in general, and scrutinise the five closed - and one ongoing-nano-specific PEGs to investigate stakeholder composition, level of engagement and the extent to which stakeholder comments resulted in revisions being implemented in ECHA's draft guidance.
Results
Thirty-six different stakeholders were identified as having been involved in the closed PEG consultations, and an additional nine are currently involved in an ongoing PEG. For the closed PEG consultations, industry and trade associations (I&Ts) and member or associated member states (MSCAs) were the most represented groups, accounting for 15 and 13 members, respectively, whereas non-governmental organisations (NGOs) and European Union bodies (EUB) accounted for four members each. Interestingly, Academia was not represented. A total of 2700 comments were provided to ECHA's draft guidance updates. Of these, MSCAs, I&Ts, EUB and NGOs accounted for 924, 876, 771 and 126 comments, of which 678, 494, 547 and 70 were adopted by ECHA, respectively. Eight stakeholders did not provide a comment.
Conclusions
Even though EGs and PEGs are not fully comparable, we find that they hold many similarities. The nano-specific PEGs are influenced by a few very active stakeholders that have the time, resources and motivation to engage extensively while some stakeholder groups are partly or completely missing. We recommend that ECHA provides funding opportunities for less resourceful stakeholders, in order to minimise the effects of scarce funding on engagement. Furthermore, we recommend broadening the list of accredited stakeholder organisations, thereby allowing for more diversity among stakeholders involved, e.g. Academia, and that ECHA provides a justification for inclusion of the PEG members.
Who are engaging in the nano-specific partner expert groups? An analysis of partner expert groups vs. expert groups
In: Clausen , L P W , Nielsen , M B & Hansen , S F 2021 , ' Who are engaging in the nano-specific partner expert groups? An analysis of partner expert groups vs. expert groups ' , Environmental Sciences Europe , vol. 33 , 100 . https://doi.org/10.1186/s12302-021-00541-8
Consultation with partner expert groups (PEGs) is an important step in updating guidance under European chemical legislation concerning nanomaterials. Here, we briefly review the differences between PEGs and the broader use of expert groups in general, and scrutinise the five closed - and one ongoing-nano-specific PEGs to investigate stakeholder composition, level of engagement and the extent to which stakeholder comments resulted in revisions being implemented in ECHA's draft guidance. Thirty-six different stakeholders were identified as having been involved in the closed PEG consultations, and an additional nine are currently involved in an ongoing PEG. For the closed PEG consultations, industry and trade associations (I&Ts) and member or associated member states (MSCAs) were the most represented groups, accounting for 15 and 13 members, respectively, whereas non-governmental organisations (NGOs) and European Union bodies (EUB) accounted for four members each. Interestingly, Academia was not represented. A total of 2700 comments were provided to ECHA's draft guidance updates. Of these, MSCAs, I&Ts, EUB and NGOs accounted for 924, 876, 771 and 126 comments, of which 678, 494, 547 and 70 were adopted by ECHA, respectively. Eight stakeholders did not provide a comment. Even though EGs and PEGs are not fully comparable, we find that they hold many similarities. The nano-specific PEGs are influenced by a few very active stakeholders that have the time, resources and motivation to engage extensively while some stakeholder groups are partly or completely missing. We recommend that ECHA provides funding opportunities for less resourceful stakeholders, in order to minimise the effects of scarce funding on engagement. Furthermore, we recommend broadening the list of accredited stakeholder organisations, thereby allowing for more diversity among stakeholders involved, e.g. Academia, and that ECHA provides a justification for inclusion of the PEG members.
BASE
Experiences of barriers to trans-sectoral treatment of patients with severe mental illness:A qualitative study
In: Davidsen , A S , Davidsen , J , Jønsson , A B R , Nielsen , M H , Kjellberg , P K & Reventlow , S 2020 , ' Experiences of barriers to trans-sectoral treatment of patients with severe mental illness : A qualitative study ' , International Journal of Mental Health Systems , vol. 14 , no. 1 , 87 . https://doi.org/10.1186/s13033-020-00419-x
Background: Patients with severe mental illness (SMI) have shorter life expectancy than people without SMI, mainly due to overmortality from physical diseases. They are treated by professionals in three different health and social care sectors with sparse collaboration between them, hampering coherent treatment. Previous studies have shown difficulties involved in establishing such collaboration. As the preparatory phase of an intervention to improve physical health of people with SMI and increase collaboration across sector borders, we explored different actors' experiences of barriers for collaboration. Method: We collected qualitative data from patients, professionals in general practice, psychiatry and social psychiatry involved in the treatment of these patients. Data consisted of notes from meetings and observations, interviews, focus groups and workshops. Analysis was by Interpretative Phenomenological Analysis. Results: The study revealed many obstacles to collaboration and coherent treatment, including the consultation structures in general practice, sectors being subject to different legislation, and incompatible IT systems. Professionals in general practice and social psychiatry felt that they were left with the responsibility for actions taken by hospital psychiatry without opportunity to discuss their concerns with psychiatrists. There were also cultural differences between health care and social psychiatry, expressed in ideology and language. Social psychiatry had an existential approach to recovery, whereas the views of health professionals were linked to symptom control and based on outcomes. Meanwhile, patients were left in limbo between these separate ideologies with no leadership in place to promote dialogue and integrate treatments between the sectors. Conclusion: Many obstacles to integrated trans-sectoral treatment of patients with SMI seem related to a lack of an overriding leadership and organizational support to establish collaboration and remove barriers related to legislation and IT. However, professional and ideological barriers also contribute. Psychiatry does not consider general practice to be part of the treatment team although general practitioners are left with responsibility for decisions taken in psychiatry; and different ideologies and treatment principles in psychiatry and municipal social psychiatry hamper the dialogue between them. There is a need to rethink the organization to avoid that the three sectors live autonomous lives with different cultures and lack of collaboration.
BASE
Experiences of barriers to trans-sectoral treatment of patients with severe mental illness. A qualitative study
BACKGROUND: Patients with severe mental illness (SMI) have shorter life expectancy than people without SMI, mainly due to overmortality from physical diseases. They are treated by professionals in three different health and social care sectors with sparse collaboration between them, hampering coherent treatment. Previous studies have shown difficulties involved in establishing such collaboration. As the preparatory phase of an intervention to improve physical health of people with SMI and increase collaboration across sector borders, we explored different actors' experiences of barriers for collaboration. METHOD: We collected qualitative data from patients, professionals in general practice, psychiatry and social psychiatry involved in the treatment of these patients. Data consisted of notes from meetings and observations, interviews, focus groups and workshops. Analysis was by Interpretative Phenomenological Analysis. RESULTS: The study revealed many obstacles to collaboration and coherent treatment, including the consultation structures in general practice, sectors being subject to different legislation, and incompatible IT systems. Professionals in general practice and social psychiatry felt that they were left with the responsibility for actions taken by hospital psychiatry without opportunity to discuss their concerns with psychiatrists. There were also cultural differences between health care and social psychiatry, expressed in ideology and language. Social psychiatry had an existential approach to recovery, whereas the views of health professionals were linked to symptom control and based on outcomes. Meanwhile, patients were left in limbo between these separate ideologies with no leadership in place to promote dialogue and integrate treatments between the sectors. CONCLUSION: Many obstacles to integrated trans-sectoral treatment of patients with SMI seem related to a lack of an overriding leadership and organizational support to establish collaboration and remove barriers related to legislation and IT. ...
BASE
Nanomaterials in the European chemicals legislation – methodological challenges for registration and environmental safety assessment
In: Nielsen , M B , Baun , A , Mackevica , A , Thit , A , Odnevall Wallinder , I , Gallego , J A , Clausen , L P W , Rissler , J , Skjolding , L M , Castro Nilsson , A , Cedervall , T & Hansen , S F 2021 , ' Nanomaterials in the European chemicals legislation – methodological challenges for registration and environmental safety assessment ' , Environmental Science: Nano , vol. 8 , pp. 731-747 . https://doi.org/10.1039/D0EN01123A
In the European Union the Annexes of its chemical legislation (REACH) were revised and now clarify the technical data requirements for nanomaterials (NMs). These new provisions, effective from January 1, 2020, introduce requirements for manufacturers, importers and downstream users regarding registration and safety assessment of NMs. This study aims to assess the availability and suitability of methods needed to comply with the new regulatory provisions on NMs for physico-chemical characterisation and environmental fate and effects. The scientific literature and relevant test guideline frameworks were reviewed to identify applicable methods. These were subsequently evaluated and categorised as either: 'internationally accepted test guideline or standard (TGS)', 'internationally accepted test guideline or standard under development (TGSUD)', 'established as standard methods in scientific literature (SCI)', 'other methods and/or more research needed (O)' or 'no method (N)'. We find that 80% of the information requirements and a bit more than 40% of the waiving criteria in the new REACH Annexes are supported by methods that are available as TGS, TGSUD or SCI. Most of the relevant methods in the scientific literature are included in recent OECD guidance documents or ECHA guidance. We recommend that a targeted effort is made to develop protocols and guidelines for methods to determine NM adsorption/desorption, degradation, exposure scenarios and ability to cross biological membranes. Here methods to fulfil the information requirements and waiving criteria are currently lacking. Furthermore, we recommend that increasing attention is directed towards regulatory reliability and relevance of the information that is submitted by the registrants.
BASE