Zoekresultaten

Shifting Patterns in Co-regulation, Feedback Perception, and Motivation During Research Supervision Meetings

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.

Validity of the Self-Expression and Emotion Regulation in Art Therapy Scale (SERATS)

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.

The European AI Tango

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.

Involving citizens in regulation: A comparative qualitative study of four experimentalist cases of participatory regulation in Dutch health care

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.

The application of arbitration in transnational private regulation

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"

Responsive regulation bij de Voedsel en Waren Autoriteit