22. Research in Higher Education
Paper
A Single Case Study on Research Assistant Socialization in an Academic Capitalist Context
Anıl Ersöz
Middle East Technical University, Turkiye
Presenting Author: Ersöz, Anıl
The academic capitalism research focuses on the relationships between macrostructural (e.g., state, higher education system, market), organizational (e.g., departments, science parks, academic spin-offs), and individual-level (e.g., administrators, researchers, students) higher education actors and argues that these actors are linked together through new funding streams as the public funding for higher education institutions has steadily decreased. These funding mechanisms resulted in the proliferation of academic capitalism approaches in the academy, such as seeking external funding sources and the commercialization of the research outputs (Slaughter and Leslie, 1997). In other words, market and marketlike behaviors become increasingly interwoven with academic work.
The theory of academic capitalism proposes three main categories of academic capitalism activities in higher education. The first one focuses on globalization, internationalization, and their effects on academic culture. The second category deals with how the proliferation of productivism in higher education has changed academic work and culture. Finally, the third strand of research has looked at the university-industry relationship, technology transfer, and science commercialization, and the present study was built upon this research strand. These studies have shown that universities have moved away from Mertonian norms associated with the public good knowledge regime and embraced a more market-oriented academic capitalist knowledge regime (Slaughter & Leslie, 1997). Despite its negative connotation, this regime shift due to academic capitalism was regarded as beneficial in many aspects. For example, it was concluded that practices associated with academic capitalism, such as receiving funding from private companies for their academic studies does not have a negative impact on graduate students (Mendoza, 2007), that university administrators interpreted these market-oriented practices as a way to contribute to the public interest (Glenna et al., 2007), and that academic capitalism practices could create networking opportunities for graduate students (Gluck, 1987).
In addition, previous research has established that socialization involves three core elements, namely knowledge acquisition (i.e., acclimating to the culture, standards, and expectations), investment (i.e., putting forth energy and time to meet requirements), and involvement (i.e., deeper engagement through interpersonal relationships) (Weildman et al., 2001). Unlike most socialization models assuming that socialization is a unidirectional process in which knowledge is transmitted to new members, this model postulates a nonlinear, dynamic, and bidirectional socialization process in that organizations are also shaped by the new members. According to this framework, socialization in an academic field includes interaction with faculty and peers, learning, and integration within an institutional culture and may be affected by peoples’ backgrounds, predispositions, and personal communities.
Considering that the research assistants are central to the research workforce and are considered future academics, gaining knowledge, skills, and values associated with academic capitalism through socialization processes is vital for them and higher education institutions. Therefore, in an effort to reveal how research assistants socialize in the academic capitalist higher education context, this single case study conducted in a research university in Türkiye investigates their experiences and perceptions of academic capitalism and how socialization processes transfer this knowledge, skills, and values to them. Thus, this study aimed to address the following research questions:
a) What activities associated with academic capitalism do research assistants experience?
b) How do research assistants perceive academic capitalism practices?
c) How do research assistants learn knowledge, skills, and values associated with academic capitalism through socialization processes?
Methodology, Methods, Research Instruments or Sources UsedA single case study is employed as the research design in this study. The reason for using the case study approach was to be able to make detailed investigations and observationstions from various perspectives in order to reveal how research assistants' socialization into academic capitalism occurs in a research university context. The research site is a university where academic capitalism has penetrated the research activities through various existing structures (e.g., a technology transfer office, technopolis, an Office of Sponsored Projects). Although the selected university has various graduate schools, the science and engineering departments affiliated with the Graduate School of Natural and Applied Science were purposefully selected as the bounded case of the study due to their high level of involvement in academic capitalism compared to the other departments. Moreover, research assistants who have participated in at least one research conducted in their department and have worked in their department for at least one year were considered information-rich participants and included in the study.
To obtain rich and context-specific data on research assistants’ socialization, field visits to the working spaces (e.g., laboratory, office, research center) and semi-structured focus interviews will be conducted using an interview protocol. The interview questions were developed based on the literature reviewed for the study and in consultation with a group of graduate students and a scholar to improve the credibility of the study. In addition, documentary information will be collected in this study to understand the academic capitalist context of the university and how the values related to academic capitalism are transferred through internal communication channels (e.g., in-house e-mail lists, university and department websites). This triangulation of data sources will contribute to establishing trustworthiness.
As in the data collection, multiple data analysis methods will be used in this study to investigate research assistants’ experiences, perceptions, and socialization processes. It is supposed that using multiple methods will simultaneously contribute to understanding distinct aspects of the case of the study. The analysis of descriptive field notes is planned to be an ongoing inductive process to immerse the researcher in the data (Hesse-Biber & Leavy, 2011). Furthermore, interview data will be inductively coded and subjected to a thematic analysis procedure.
Approval from University’s Ethics Committee was obtained for all data collection instruments to ensure that there is no harmful effect of the data collection instruments or study topic on study participants.
Conclusions, Expected Outcomes or FindingsThe preliminary results obtained from two field trips and two interviews conducted following the field trips with two research assistants from civil and aerospace engineering departments have revealed three themes: research assistants’ experiences of academic capitalism, research assistants’ perceptions of academic capitalism, and socialization ways to the academic capitalist university context.
The findings indicate that research assistants experience academic capitalism practices either directly or indirectly. For example, some of the codes associated with their direct experiences were “preparing reports,” “academic capitalist role models,” and “effect of academic capitalism on graduate studies,” while some of the codes corresponded to their indirect experiences related to their colleagues’ activities, such as “consultancy duty,” “patenting activities,” and “increased competition for grants.”
The findings showed that they have both positive and negative perceptions of academic capitalism. The codes revealed that they perceive it positively considering that it results in “individual benefits,” creates “funding opportunities,” and increases “researchers’ motivation.” In contrast, they perceive academic capitalism negatively, as they think that it can be
a source of antagonism among researchers” and “negatively affect scientific activities.”
The last theme from the study informs us that research assistants socialize in their academic roles through “observation,” “communication channels,” and “verbal communication with others.”
The preliminary findings were congruent with academic capitalism and socialization theories in higher education. Research assistants seem aware of macrostructural, organizational, and individual-level actors’ academic capitalism practices. For example, data showed that they have direct and indirect relationships with organizational-level actors like funding agencies, intermediating organizations (e.g., technology transfer office), and governmental agencies. In addition, they are familiar with activities that scholars frequently practice due to the increasing importance of receiving external funding and commercialization of research output. These activities, to name a few, are patenting, consulting, preparing reports for grants, and establishing academic spin-off companies.
ReferencesGlenna, L. L., Lacy, W. B., Welsh, R., & Biscotti, D. (2007). University administrators, agricultural biotechnology, and academic capitalism: Defining the public good to promote university–industry relationships. Sociological Quarterly, 48(1), 141–163. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1533-8525.2007.00074.x
Hesse-Biber, S. N., & Leavy, P. (2011). The practice of qualitative research. Sage.
Mendoza, P. (2007). Academic capitalism and doctoral student socialization: A case study. The Journal of Higher Education, 78(1), 71-96. https://doi.org/10.1080/00221546.2007.11778964
Slaughter, S., & Leslie, L. L. (1997). Academic capitalism: Politics, policies, and the entrepreneurial university. The Johns Hopkins University Press.
Sigahi, T. F. A. C., & Saltorato, P. (2020). Academic capitalism: distinguishing without disjoining through classification schemes. Higher Education, 80(1), 95-117. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10734-019-00467-4
Weidman, J. C., Twale, D. J., & Stein, E. L. (2001). Socialization of Graduate and Professional Students in Higher Education: A Perilous Passage? ASHE-ERIC Higher Education Report, 28(3). Jossey-Bass.
22. Research in Higher Education
Paper
What is the Nature of PhD Students’ Wellbeing? Analysing Stories of Wellbeing in Higher Education Institutions in England.
Sally Sharp
University of Northampton, United Kingdom
Presenting Author: Sharp, Sally
As a lecturer in higher education with a professional background in primary education and special educational needs and disabilities, the area of difference, diversity and wellbeing has always been a personal interest and it is a fast-developing area of international research. A literature review established a longstanding and sustained interest in student wellbeing, particularly PhD students (Byrom et al., 2020) with a shared concern surrounding the experiences of post graduate researchers and a consensus on the corelation PhD students’ experiences and depleted feelings of wellbeing (Mackie and Bates, 2018). Predominantly in the literature a medical model is employed, and the language of deficit dominates the debate focused on a lack of wellbeing which is mirrored in the broader western societal discussions framing a wellbeing crisis (Beasy et al., 2019). Whilst there is no doubt a need for specialist support and expert interventions for some, there is a recognised risk that problematising experiences leads to an overreliance on overburdened specialist services (Priestly et al., 2021). However, there is a lack of consensus around the definitions of wellbeing as a result the overall picture is fragmented (Dodge et al., 2012). Generally, research focuses either measuring (Dodd et al., 2021), identifying stress and mitigating risk (Sverdlik, and Hall, 2020), or designing interventions for those deemed to be in most need of support (Barry et al., 2019). This research proposes to bring previously unheard voices to the discussions about PhD student wellbeing. The research objectives are:
a) to support PhD students in the future,
b) to relate the stories to the higher education context,
c) to relate the stories to discourses of wellbeing.
The higher education (HE) landscape, having undergone significant shifts to a marketized approach is now dominated with the language of achievement, performativity, and value for money. Widening participation in England is at the core of the transformations and part of an international picture with the rationale for the growth attributed to the desire to provide an economic workforce with higher-level skills. As a result, the student population has become more diverse despite fierce competition for post graduate employment. Demands on PhD students are complex and diverse, as is the structure and organisation of the PhD. Standards based on measurable outcomes, including student feedback, are publicly available, emphasising PhD students as consumers with power. Yet the lack of clarity around the PhD role and blurring of identities as researcher, student and employee can be disempowering. Emerging research considers the impact of the current landscape on the wellbeing of HE staff as well as PhD students (Brewster et al., 2021). In recognition of the diverse nature of post graduate research, an attempt to make sense of the experiences of PhD students, specific groups have been the focus of research, for example, underrepresented groups; gender (Haynes et al., 2014) and international students (Laufer and Gorup, 2019). In many cases the emphasis is on the lack of wellbeing and the contributory factors to the current state such as, the stage of the PhD (Sverdlik and Hall, 2020) and relationships with supervisory teams (Blanchard and Haccoun, 2020). While it is accepted that understanding the complex nature of wellbeing is necessary and providing specialist support, including interventions, to support those who need it is welcomed, this does not provide the whole picture (Scott and Takarangi, 2019). This research is focused on an underrepresented group in this specific context, through individual interviews the views of PhD students who have a sense of wellbeing is brought to debate.
Methodology, Methods, Research Instruments or Sources UsedThis research draws on Antonovsky’s (1996) salutogenic approach. He saw medical research focused on disease and suggested that to develop healthy societies, research needed to consider factors that impact on health. This research elicited the views of PhD students who have a sense of wellbeing. This paper emphasises diversity by bringing to the fore previously unheard voices, the lived experiences of PhD students who have a sense of wellbeing.
Due to its recognition of the tension between agency and structure, a critical realist approach was used. In this qualitative research PhD students’ agency is explored within the neo-liberal HE context in England. Thirteen participants, including international students and students studying in England but living abroad, took part in virtual interviews using narrative inquiry (NI). NI provided an invitation for participants to tell stories about their experiences of wellbeing (Clandinin, 2006). The data was analysed in two ways; reflexive thematic analysis (RTA) to identify the nature of wellbeing and through this analysis common themes were explored. RTA contributed to the research by addressing the objective to support PhD students in the future. However, it was felt that this drew the findings away from the stories that were shared and therefore the same data was analysed using dialogical narrative analysis (DNA). DNA maintains focus on the stories told; and contributed to the objectives to relate the stories to the higher education context and to discourses of wellbeing. Humans tell stories to make sense of their experiences (Frank, 2010). Participant reflections gave light to an unexpected outcome that telling stories about wellbeing actually contributed to their feelings of wellbeing by firstly providing a context for reflection and secondly by serving as empowerment though the affirmation of their thoughts, ideas and actions; the process of talking about wellbeing enhanced feelings of wellbeing.
These two approaches to data analysis supplemented each other to provide a more diverse insight into the nature PhD students’ wellbeing. The RTA identified how the participants made sense of their wellbeing using thirteen commonalities. The DNA explored three common stories related to the HE context and the participants expectations and attitudes towards their wellbeing including their own definitions of wellbeing, thus providing insight into the nature of PhD student wellbeing. DNA created space to explore story structure, the use of metaphor and the role of time, place and society.
Conclusions, Expected Outcomes or FindingsThe PhD community is diverse, PhD students are individual, their contexts are specific and dynamic. They respond throughout their PhD experiences. They adapt to changes in their personal lives, and many adapt to the changes in their employment. COVID-19 affected everyone without exception, but it affected their wellbeing in different ways - positively and negatively. The participants’ stories resist the concept of crisis. They told stories of success with problems presented as catalysts for change rather than barriers. Being a PhD student involved constant negotiation within the neo-liberal landscape, with an understanding and a shared view that they have choice and capacity to adapt and respond to the demands made on them by the PhD. Challenge was not a problematic concept; participants welcomed academic challenge and pursued it in other ways, such as physical challenges in their leisure time. Participants spoke holistically about themselves and told stories that emphasised balance as key.
Methodologically, the recommendation is to analyse data using more than one approach. There is potential to delve deeper into data by analysing from different perspectives. The findings are practical and may be relevant to not just PhD students, but to the wider student population. In addition, the research suggests that telling stories can be a positive experience in itself. Sharing stories about wellbeing serves as a reminder for the teller whilst having potential for the listener. The research recommends empowering PhD students by opening dialogue and creating opportunities for sharing wellbeing experiences, framing wellbeing openly rather than positioning it as deficit. The process of talking about wellbeing was seen to be positive and being listened to has potential to empower. For HEIs an important message for PhD wellbeing is to shift the emphasis towards processes of communication and away from the search for the solution.
ReferencesAntonovsky, A. (1996) The salutogenic model as a theory to guide health promotion. Health Promotion International, 11(1), pp.11–18.
Barry, K. M., Woods, M., Warnecke, E., Stirling, C. and Martin, A. (2018) Psychological health of doctoral candidates, study-related challenges and perceived performance. Higher Education Research and Development, 37(3), pp.468–483.
Beasy, K., Emery, S. and Crawford, J. (2019) Drowning in the shallows: an Australian study of the PhD experience of wellbeing. Teaching in Higher Education. 26(4), pp.602-618.
Brewster, L., Jones, E., Priestley, M., Wilbraham, S. J., Spanner, L. and Hughes, G. (2021) ‘Look after the staff and they would look after the students’ cultures of wellbeing and mental health in the university setting. Journal of Further and Higher Education. 46(40), pp.548-560.
Blanchard, C., & Haccoun, R. R. (2020). Investigating the impact of advisor support on the perceptions of graduate students. Teaching in Higher Education, 25(8).
Byrom, N., Dinu, L., Kirkman, A. and Hughes, G. (2020) Predicting stress and mental wellbeing among doctoral researchers. Journal of Mental Health, pp.1-9.
Clandinin, D. J. (2006) Narrative Inquiry: A Methodology for Studying Lived Experience. Research Studies in Music Education, 27(1), pp.44-54.
Dodd, A.L., Priestley, M., Tyrrell, K., Cygan, S., Newell, C. and Brom, N. (2021) University student well-being in the United Kingdom: a scoping review of its conceptualisation and measurement. Journal of Mental Health, 30(3), pp. 375–387.
Dodge, R., Daly, A., Huyton, J. and Sanders, L. (2012) The challenge of defining wellbeing. International Journal of Wellbeing, 2(3), pp.222–235.
Haynes, C., Bulosan, M., Citty, J., Grant-Harris, M., Hudson, J. C. and Koro-Ljungberg, M. (2012) My world is not my doctoral program. Or is it?: female students’ perceptions of well-being. International Journal of Doctoral Studies, 7, pp.1–17.
Mackie, S. A. and Bates, G. W. (2019) Contribution of the doctoral education environment to PhD candidates’ mental health problems: a scoping review. Higher Education Research and Development, 38(3), pp.565–578
Priestley, M., Broglia, E., Hughes, G. And Spanner, L. (2022) Student perspectives on improving mental health support services at university. Counselling and Psychotherapy Research, 22(1
Scott, H. and Takarangi, M. K. T. (2019) Measuring PhD students’ well-being: are we seeing the whole picture? Student Success, 10(3), pp.14–24.
Sverdlik, A. and Hall, N. C. (2020) Not just a phase: exploring the role of program stage on well-being and motivation in doctoral students. Journal of Adult and Continuing Education, 26(1), pp.97–124.
22. Research in Higher Education
Paper
Professional Development in Higher Education for Early-Career Staff: Lessons Learned
Lucía Sánchez-Tarazaga, Sara Buils, Virginia Viñoles-Cosentino, Mª Ángeles Llopis-Nebot, Francesc M. Esteve-Mon
Universitat Jaume I, Spain
Presenting Author: Buils, Sara;
Esteve-Mon, Francesc M.
At the European level, substantial changes have been promoted in university educational policy since the establishment of the European Higher Education Area (Chuo-Chun and Huisman, 2017). Thriving on teaching preparation and training is one of the most important concerns in Europe (European Council, 2021). We are in a globalized, open, and digital-enhanced society that brings about an increasing scenario of competitiveness and sudden changes.
This context account for two current challenges that universities have to face (with the key missions of teaching, researching and knowledge transferring): (1) getting qualified personnel who innovate, undertake, and globalize their work; (2) and drawing teachers along with researchers’ talent in order to expand the opportunities to be part of international programmes, projects, and networks (Rappoport et al., 2020). Because of that, Higher Education institutions (HEIs) should offer environments that allow academics to develop their work and training in the best way. When it comes down to supplying university teachers’ necessities to achieve professional enhancement, many universities have been promoting professional development (PD) centres of teaching and learning (Zimmerman, 2021).
In order to achieve high-quality Higher Education, it is essential to boost the PD of university faculty (Darling-Hammond and Richardson, 2009; Inamorato et al., 2019). We can understand the PD as a systematic process of critical review that aims to enrich the practice, look over teaching performance, realize the barriers that teachers face, find solutions, and foster knowledge about this learning process (Dută and Rafaila, 2014).
Consequently, PD institutional strategies should be focused on providing support to university faculty, particularly those who are just starting out in their careers (Johannes et al., 2013). It is essential to involve early-career faculty staff in the educational community to reduce the apprehensions they commonly experience when starting their academic careers and, at the same time, increase the benefits of the university community as a whole (Iglesias-Martínez et al. 2014).
International literature spotlights that there is a variety of PD programmes, but most of them are isolated activities of individual HEIs and are not implemented on a large scale (country-wide) (European Commission, 2017). Universities need to provide relevant and innovative PD programmes to update the pedagogical performance of academic staff thus contributing to the maintenance of quality and innovative educational standards (Bhutto et al., 2017). Moreover, there is a demand for studies that include rigorous studies on PD addressed to junior faculty.The questions that arise are: How are programmes for newly academics designed? Are there any recommendations on programme design and implementation?
Thus, the main objective of this work is to gather good practices in the field of PD for novice faculty, based on the in-depth analysis of the actions and programmes carried out in HEIs.
Methodology, Methods, Research Instruments or Sources UsedTo achieve de above-mentioned objective, a systematic review of the relevant literature was carried out, based on the PRISMA statement (Moher et al., 2009). Systematic reviews have been utilized in the social sciences as a tool by which large bodies of information can be condensed while simultaneously identifying areas that require further study or in which uncertainty has arisen (Petticrew and Roberts, 2006). In the field of education, this methodology has gained popularity and has been utilized to inform policymaking, practice, and future research.
To begin the process of selecting the literature to be included in the review, a search was performed using the search string (‘teacher induction’ or ‘teacher mentoring’) AND (‘higher education’ OR ‘university’), limited to the period 2011–2020. The online databases consulted for this review were the three most important in terms of scientific publications: Web of Science, SCOPUS, and ERIC. Four inclusion criteria were used: from Higher Education educational level; focus on novice teachers; propositive contribution (contain a proposal or programme); and written in English, Portuguese, Italian, Spanish or Catalan.
Likewise, a five-stage selection process was carried out: (1) initial search and identification (n = 262, of which 40 were eliminated due to duplication); (2) screening phase of titles and abstracts (185 records excluded); (3) full-text review to assess eligibility (18 records excluded); and (4) in-depth analysis (n = 18). Four researchers were involved in all four phases of the review. Different iterations were done to avoid risks of bias and inconsistency, as well as disagreements were resolved via discussions among the researchers.
The geographical distribution of the articles analysed was as follows: 3 papers Africa, 6 from Europe Africa, 4 from North America, 3 from Oceania, and 2 from Asia. 50% of the articles were published between 2011 and 2014, and the other 50% were published between 2015 and 2020. Of the 18 articles, 2 had a quantitative, 11 a qualitative, and 5 a mixed methodological approach.
Conclusions, Expected Outcomes or FindingsUniversity PD programmes for early-career academics are varied and encompass some lessons learned, related to design, content, and assessment. Regarding programme design, it is important to clarify the objectives, its voluntary nature, and being conceived as a process, not an isolated event. One of the most frequently mentioned aspects is the importance of careful mentor selection and training. In terms of content, the studies pinpoint the importance of focusing on discipline-specific aspects, which requires balancing general and specific teaching and for teachers to be guided in devising strategies appropriate to their specific working environments. Moreover, teaching theory and practice must be aligned, as there could be a risk of no real change in educational practice. Also, programme content should focus on teaching and not just on research. Issues such as the evaluation system, time dedicated to teaching, classroom allocation, or preparation of teaching guides should be included in the programme. Other PD programme contents need to incorporate socio-emotional activities. Finally, in terms of assessment, it is recommended to incorporate some model as a reference, in that it allows measuring the impact of the programme at different levels (such as participants’ reaction, learning, application/transfer to practice, and results).
We also strongly believe that these programmes should be designed within the contextual framework of each university and country. In this study, the universities where induction programmes have been devised differ in their approach, depending on whether they are more focused on research or teaching, or whether they adopt a mixed model. At universities where research predominates, it will be more challenging, and additional efforts may have to be made to ensure attendance on induction programmes, as teaching may not be a priority.
ReferencesBhutto, G.M., Khoso, I., and Jhatial, A.A. (2017). Assessing the impact of higher education commission’s training on university teachers’ performance: Case study of University of Sindh. The Shield-Research Journal of Physical Education & Sports Science, 11, 27-45.
Chuo-Chun H., and Huisman J. (2017). Higher education policy change in the European higher education area: Divergence of quality assurance systems in England and the Netherlands. Research Papers in Education, 32, 71-83. https://doi.org/10.10802/02671522.2015.1129645
Duta, N., and Rafaila, E. (2014). Importance of the lifelong learning for professional development of university teachers–needs and practical implications. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 127, 801-806. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2014.03.358
European Commission (2017). Modernisation of Higher Education in Europe: academic staff. Eurydice Report. Publications Office of the European Union. https://doi.org/10.2797/9642
Iglesias-Martínez, M. J., Lozano-Cabezas, I., and Martinez-Ruiz, M. A. (2014). Listening to the Voices of Novice Lecturers in Higher Education: A Qualitative Study. International Journal of Teaching and Learning in Higher Education, 26(2), 170-181. http://hdl.handle.net/10045/45822
Inamorato dos Santos, A., Gaušas, S., Mackevičiūtė, R., Jotautytė, A., and Martinaitis, Ž. (2019). Innovating professional development in higher education: An analysis of practices innovating professional development in higher education. Publications Office of the European Union. https://doi.org/10.2760/26224
Johannes, C., Fendler, J., and Seidel, T. (2013). Teachers’ Perceptions of the Learning Environment and Their Knowledge Base in a Training Program for Novice University Teachers. International Journal for Academic Development, 18(2), 152–165. https://doi.org/10.1080/1360144X.2012.681785
Moher, D., Liberati, A., Tetzlaff, J., and Altman, D. G. (2009). Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement. PLOS Medicine, 6
(7). https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pmed.1000097
Petticrew, M., and Roberts, H. (2006). Systematic reviews in the social sciences: a practical guide. Black -well Publishing.
Rappoport, S., Thoilliez, B., and Alonso-Sainz, T. (2020). International organizations as trend marking systems in the global University. Revista Española de Educación Comparada, 37, 26. https://doi.org/10.5944/reec.37.2021.27721
Zimmerman, A.S. (2021). Three Challenges of Early-Career Faculty and the Importance of Self-Care. In N.L. Moffett (ed.), Navigating Post-Doctoral Career Placement, Research, and Professionalism (pp. 227-250). IGI Global.
Acknowledgments: This work was supported by the Jaume I University (Spain) under Grant Ref. UJI-A2020-18 Universitat Jaume I. PI1: Francesc M. Esteve-Mon and PI2: Lucía Sánchez-Tarazaga. More info at https://unidpd.uji.es/english/; and by the Spanish Ministry of Education under Grant FPU21/00298.
|
