Search

This paper presents and critically interrogates a comprehensive 7Ps framework for analysing and addressing gender-based violence. It takes the UN and the Council of Europe’s models as points of departure and develops the framework beyond the current state of the art, explains its different components, and offers reflections on its use in the practice of gender-based violence research. The UN 3P model, encompassing prevention, protection, and prosecution, later developed by the Council of Europe’s Istanbul Convention into a 4P model, comprising prevention, protection, prosecution, and integrated policies, has since been revisited, elaborated upon, and expanded in work focusing on gender-based violence in particular domains, such as female genital mutilation or gender-based violence in sport. To study gender-based violence in academia, the comprehensive 7Ps analytical framework has been deployed to interrogate the policies in place at national and institutional levels, including sexual harassment. Based on empirical data and conceptual analysis in the EU project UniSAFE: Gender-based violence and institutional responses: Building a knowledge base and operational tools to make universities and research organisations safe (2021–2024), the paper argues that the refined 7Ps model, comprising Prevalence, Prevention, Protection, Prosecution of offenders (and disciplinary measures), Provision of services, Partnerships between actors, and Policies specifically addressing the issue, allows for a more encompassing approach, in turn allowing a more fine-grained understanding of variations and explanations for success (or lack thereof) in terms of outcomes.

Abstract: Type 2 diabetes is a progressive disease and its consequence is the gradual decrease of endogenous insulin secretion to a very low level. Beyond this point, without insulin it is not possible to achieve proper metabolic compensation. The authors are trying to explain why the insulin therapy is often delayed in type 2 diabetic patients despite existing guidelines about its initiation and continuation. The causes of delay can be divided into two groups. One is the fear and disagreement of the patients (psychological insulin resistance – PIR) arising from different cognitive, emotional and other reasons. The second is the “clinical inertia”, when the physicians are not able to explain in an effective and persuasive way the rationale and necessity of insulin treatment to their patients. The common background of both causes is the lack of sufficient knowledge about the pathogenesis of type 2 diabetes and the rationale of insulin treatment together with an insufficient level of communication between doctor and patient. The authors see the solution in the improvement of pre- and postgradual education of doctors and other health care providers (nurses, educators, psychologists), in their mutual cooperation and the translation of their knowledge towards a system of successful patient education. Orv Hetil. 2019; 160(3): 93–97.

With choice conceptualised as performative, this chapter examines neoliberal discourses of individualised responsibility in research and higher education, and the ways in which choice is used to mask the existence of structural gender inequalities; as such it is a form of resistance to gender equality. The chapter examines three countries that underwent regime change at the end of the twentieth century (the Czech Republic, South Africa and Turkey) and looks at two inter-related issues: The first is the way women academics internalise choice which results in acceptance of their alleged responsibility for career progression. The second is the use of “individual choice” as a way to explain away the dearth of women in leadership positions and to deflect responsibility for creating non-discriminatory working conditions. The chapter argues that the academic systems and their proponents in the three countries are similar in their reluctance to recognise structural gender inequality that exists in higher education and research, and in deflecting their responsibility for creating a non-discriminatory institutional culture.

Type 2 diabetes is a progressive disease and its consequence is the gradual decrease of endogenous insulin secretion to a very low level. Beyond this point, without insulin it is not possible to achieve proper metabolic compensation. The authors are trying to explain why the insulin therapy is often delayed in type 2 diabetic patients despite existing guidelines about its initiation and continuation. The causes of delay can be divided into two groups. One is the fear and disagreement of the patients (psychological insulin resistance - PIR) arising from different cognitive, emotional and other reasons. The second is the "clinical inertia", when the physicians are not able to explain in an effective and persuasive way the rationale and necessity of insulin treatment to their patients. The common background of both causes is the lack of sufficient knowledge about the pathogenesis of type 2 diabetes and the rationale of insulin treatment together with an insufficient level of communication between doctor and patient. The authors see the solution in the improvement of pre- and postgradual education of doctors and other health care providers (nurses, educators, psychologists), in their mutual cooperation and the translation of their knowledge towards a system of successful patient education. Orv Hetil. 2019; 160(3): 93-97.Absztrakt: A 2-es típusú diabetes mellitus progresszív betegség, amelynek következtében az endogén inzulin szekréciója fokozatosan nagyon alacsony szintre csökken. Amennyiben ez bekövetkezik, akkor inzulin nélkül a kezelés nem képes biztosítani a megfelelő anyagcserekontrollt. A szerzők annak a problémának keresik az okát, hogy miért késik gyakran az inzulinkezelés bevezetése a 2-es típusú cukorbetegekben annak ellenére, hogy ennek alapelvei részletesen ki vannak dolgozva. A késés okait két csoportra lehet osztani: az egyik a betegek félelme és ellenkezése (pszichológiai inzulinrezisztencia – PIR) különböző kognitív, emocionális és más okokból. A másik a „klinikai inercia”, amikor az orvos nem képes érthetően és meggyőzően elmagyarázni betegének, hogy miért szükséges az inzulinkezelés. A két oknak közös háttere van, és ez a 2-es típusú diabetes patogenezisének és az inzulinkezelés szükségessének elégtelen ismerete, illetve az orvos–beteg kommunikáció hiányossága. A szerzők a megoldást az orvosok és segítőtársaik (nővérek, edukátorok, pszichológusok) hatékonyabb graduális és posztgraduális oktatásában, a szakemberek együttműködésében és az ehhez kapcsolódó hatásos betegoktatásban látják. Orv Hetil. 2019; 160(3): 93–97.

Instituted in 2004, the Czech Republic research assessment has since changed on an annual basis. In this paper I examine how researchers in the Czech Republic negotiate research assessment. Using the concept of epistemic living spaces (Felt & Fochler, 2010; Felt, 2009), I first set in context the Czech research assessment system and second explore the micro-politics of resistance in which researchers engage in their daily conduct. Empirically, I draw on individual and group interviews carried out with Czech researchers in the humanities, social sciences and natural sciences, analyses of science policy documents including the Methodology for Evaluating Research, Development and Innovation Results, as well as public debates relating to research assessment, such as blogs and newspaper articles. The interviews were carried out between 2007 and 2010. Additional sources of data include participant observation at public events and seminars on the research and development system reform, research assessment and audit of the Czech system of research, development and innovation gathered between 2009 and 2011.

In recent decades, research has undergone major changes, resulting in radical shifts in patterns of governance. In this process, external forms of research assessment have developed as a proxy for researchers' and research institutions' accountability to society. In this paper we focus on the developments of research assessment in the Czech Republic. First, we trace the trajectory of accountability measures in the socio-historical contexts of post-socialist science as a tool of not only evaluating but also de-politicizing and re-politicizing research. Second, we focus on the active participation of scientists in the introduction of research assessment into national research policy. Closely related is our third concern, namely the emergence of and clashes between two different accountability frameworks in/of science: (internal) professional accountability and (external) managerial accountability. Our findings underscore the ambiguous, messy and fluid nature of research assessment and the inability to totalize its effects. Copyright The Author 2012. Published by Oxford University Press. All rights reserved. For Permissions, please email: journals.permissions@oup.com, Oxford University Press.

This text is about women and science although it does not specifically or directly examine the position and experience of practising scientists who carry out experiments, publish and are otherwise engaged in academic traffic. Building on John Law’s modes of mattering (2004), the authors explore the enactments of ‘women and science’ in various locations where gender and feminist approaches, science policies and support activities for women in science meet in the European context. By exploring some of these ‘trading zones’ (Galison, 1999), the authors offer some suggestions on power and marginalization in the flagship of European research, the European Research Area. By introducing the notion of a mode of ‘retrenchment’, they argue that while gender equality has been co-opted into European science policy, an enactment with a feminist potential that emerged at the beginning of the new millennium has been gradually displaced by one building on an economic perspective of utility, resources and waste.