Present: Vanessa Jones (UW), Alma Papic (COC), Gill Renfree (UW), Sara Rozman (EUSA), Rikard Hoog (SSC), Inge Derom (VUB), Andrej Pisl (EUSA)
Apologies: Helmein Rambaldo (AUAS)
VJ welcomed everyone and encouraged introductions from all meeting attendees, run through the agenda and minutes and action points from last meeting, pick out arising matters.
Agenda Item 1 – Minutes of previous meeting
Updated version of action list on one drive. Checks access of all partners on one drive, Hebe struggling with access, suggested solutions. Minutes and tasks approved.
Go through previous monitoring summary table:
3.2 VJ circulate boiler plate and guide for handbook to partners on OneDrive – discuss with Rikard (WP) partly incomplete – now got but didn’t have logo/branding
3.3-3.4 logo and templates designed and created by professionals – in process of being on OneDrive – completed by January
Creation of logo/website – website nearly complete, information still to go up, in progress/completed
Action 2: finance for Zagreb meeting – completed
2.1 discuss on second point of agenda – partially completed, minor amendments to explain
4.1 Renegotiated and agreed to changes made – completed
Publication protocol – expanding. Discussed at previous meeting and draft on OneDrive – ongoing. Lucy SSC involvement in research. First research paper elaborated on perceptions of gender equality but not on how to communicate with Gen Z, SSC also responsible for communication. Brainstorm about what we should know about Gen Z – ACTION.
Research should align with WP. Collaboration not directly linked to project, also acceptable.
Pre-development phase covering focus groups as well as questionnaire – impossible to get ethical approval. Focus groups only for perceptions. Survey in pre-MOOC phase (pilot) impact of MOOC, before and after MOOC. (March 2019) All partners to be involved in pilot – ACTION.
MOOC ready to pilot by end of February. Molde wants to run pilot next semester (beginning of 2019). Confirmation of MOOC going live September 2019.
Each partner identifies groups to work with, require 200 students (guidance) – easier for universities to build it into modules, also flexible to be used by other organisations.
Discussion on WP2 to be picked up on agenda item 5.
All partners to provide resources to populate Units – folders have been put on one drive.
Introduction of new staff member (technician) at UW (Beth).
Discussion of the conference (tomorrow) and the recording of the guest speakers and possible use within the MOOC. Dissemination tool.
Discussion of website design and content. Graphics and designs uploaded to one drive – ACTION.
Brexit – ERASMUS funded confirmed until end of 2020. Opportunities for student placements from July (2019-2020).
RH requests list of channels (including social media) to have an understanding of the network/reach – mould for newsletters for our channels etc. News page as part of GETZ website – Link Blog posts on website to then be posted on social media. – Link with WISE project, distribute via email. Each partner identifies clearly their channels for communication and informs RH – ACTION. Those who host conference write up blog post for GETZ website.
September 2019 – RH suggests meeting can be hosted in Stockholm or can join with conference in Umea 13th – 15th September and have seminar imbedded. Budget dependant. To establish cost of travel to Umea (all partners) – ACTION.
Student conference dates to be changed – confirmed at time by SS.
Online gender equality resources found by AP to be uploaded to one drive – ACTION.
VJ discusses ongoing investigation of cost of using Canvas and reward system for those not associated with universities, marking system etc.
AP provide update on Youth pass – intended with Erasmus projects, try to enable, meant for MOOC participants – ongoing.
Zagreb meeting – main topic being Governance. Workshops in afternoon, groups of around 8, English speaking participants to discuss together. Resources, recommendations, ideas, extra information for Toolkit. Translation of Croatian speakers into English for GETZ partners via headphones.
Agenda Item 2 – Project Management and Work Packages
WP1, 2 and 5 (UW) – One Drive to share and access information. Discussion of Steering meetings and multipler events – linked to budget. Amendment to partnership agreement in relation to budgets.
Steering group meetings are aligned to multipler events – identify free venues to host meetings. Transnational budget are for hosting meetings and travel expenses across the project. Discussion of the September 2019 meeting/conference location and budget.
Exceptional costs budget left for MOOC translation, MOOC, website and student expenses for Molde conference. Discussion of exceptional cost being less than set amount, the money remaining cannot be spent on another exceptional cost. Clarification? – ACTION. Project management budget if flexible.
Intellectual outputs – claiming back the 20% of other sources of income, other sources of income reduced. Timesheet will include the calculations for the rate and automatically deduct the 18%. Final excel sheet to be put on One Drive – ACTION.
AP suggested Norway conference to be in Oslo to reduce costs – discuss with SS.
VJ states that for multipler events there is a budget aligned to each event. AP highlights the lower budget for the Zagreb meeting:
Zagreb = 2,200
Slovenia = 6,000
Sweden = 6,200
Molde = 7,400
Worcester = 8,000
Group discussion on redistributing budget across events to cover lack of budget for Zagreb. Confirmation of redistribution of money – approximately 6000 per event.
Project management –
Travel for meetings – inform project manager and justify why another staff member attending meeting – money from transnational meetings. If you miss meetings then the money cannot be claimed. 1 person required from each partner at each meeting. Fixed allowance for travelling – invoice for expenditures. Register for proof of attendance. AP questions 575 euro travel allowed per meeting? VJ to clarify with EU and finance department of travel fees and budget – ACTION. VJ suggests alternatives to help seek funding. Clarify further on document how to make claims – ACTION.
WP2 – GR informs that MOOC creation yet to be started (end of February up and online to be piloted) and first research paper in progress. VJ to highlight findings from focus groups in the conference in Zagreb. Research will inform and underpin MOOC content.
WP3 – (SS not in attendance) Norway to run MOOC pilot (April/May/June?). AP mentioning outreach of 200 students. RH confirms students can pilot. Identify when other partners could also pilot the MOOC – ACTION.
Monitoring system to be embedded in toolkit – GR discusses what data could be collected from participants (age, country, club etc.) and suggests options on how.
WP4 – ID opens discussion on pre and post toolkit questionnaire – changes of perceptions – quantitative study? Or monitor individuals throughout MOOC? – different levels of ethical approval. GR suggests survey after each module as ‘completion’. VJ discusses learning evaluation/assessment within MOOC. GR discusses how it is easier to keep track of the progress of students within university settings in comparison to individuals accessing the MOOC, no control over how individuals utilise the MOOC – 2 types of survey? ID mentions evaluation of learning and change of perceptions. GR plans to embed MOOC within course but not attach assessments to it – making it optional. GR and ID discuss informed consent included as part of the MOOC to state that responses can be used within publications.
ID: WP4 divided into two parts – first part being focus groups and second being the online survey being part of the MOOC evaluation. Draft of survey questions required for ethics – highlighting the importance of MOOC progression by February. Data collected through focus groups at Molde, VUB, Amsterdam and Worcester and data analysis December/January – summary/key findings to inform MOOC and academic analysis using transcripts for publication. Each partner will summarise findings from focus group – ACTION.
GR mentions that UW (Beth) has written a 3000-word literature review in preparation for the first paper. ID suggests using Qualtrics as survey software. GR suggests updated publication plan – ACTION.
WP5 – monitoring plan – VJ discusses activities and how they’ve informed the project. GR states ethical approval in process for research on this WP. Evaluation will take place every 6 months to ensure progress and evidence for evaluation reports.
WP6 – SSC – VJ asks if partners have seen the information one One Drive – communication plan and guidebook. RH requests feedback from partners – ACTION. RH has outlined the main target groups of the project as a whole. RH states partners have to be active within forwarding to target groups within country, target groups are specified to know which activities are for which target groups. Online media highly relevant in all countries. Branding: Survey after seminars to identify presence of GETZ and visual materials depending on budget. Dissemination: social media, website etc. Timeline for branding, dissemination and communication – excel sheet. Target of 24,000 outreach, can be shared by partners. 5000 visitors on website. GR asks if you can link Instagram and Facebook? Discussion if there is a GETZ Instagram page. AP states you can link social media but believes it would not be a good idea. Discussion on different countries usage of different social media. AP identifies different social media platforms used by Gen Z. RH recaps social media stats – GR reiterates the different uses of different platforms. VJ suggests potential research on communication/dissemination with Gen Z – GR adds to this, stating the success of the project is pivotal on outreach/social media platforms and states effectiveness of email. Instagram influencers mentioned by GR. AP emphasises the project is reliant on platforms, being active on GETZ Facebook and Twitter and sharing via own platforms.
Sustainability plan – website active for 5 years (December 2025), presumably Canvas will be the same. GR discusses gender identity changes and relevance of MOOC content within the future. Final conference as reflection and future impact (SR). Minimum 4 posts on social media per year and minimum 2 shares on own social media – ACTION. GR advises that all information regarding meetings is waiting to go live on GETZ website.
EUSA conference – VJ reminds that multiplier events should be in partner country. AP discusses changing of venue and date for EUSA conference, 26-27th September. AP also suggests event in Slovenia in April (2019) but number of attendees is lower. SR states that the event will be similar to a seminar, very different to the one proposed in September – no workshops etc. VJ to pose question about location of conference – ACTION.
RH questions if EUSA conference is allowed, what happens to the conference in Sweden? VJ states that meetings can be moved and flexible for hosting partners.
Partners discuss upcoming meetings and impact of Brexit.
GR states that final meeting might be moved from September 2020 to a later month to link with Women in Sport conference.
VJ states that if EUSA conference is accepted (Portugal) then Sweden conference to take place between April and June.
VJ discusses and provides an example of structure of modules within MOOC. Mentions partners proof reading one module within MOOC to provide feedback and input. GR mentions populating the template to provide examples from each country and UW will collate information. Each partner has to provide at least 1 case study, discussion activity, video, reading etc. – ACTION.
Discussion regarding the short video being created from conference content and being utilised on website etc.
Meeting drawn to a close and decided any further discussions can take place at the conference/workshops occurring tomorrow.
Vanessa Jones (UW),Gill Renfree (UW), Alma Papic (COC), Solveig Straume (Molde), Marianna Pikul (EUSA), Adina (minutes) Inge Derom, Hebe Schaillee, Helmein Rambaldo have joined us on Skype at 9.30
Lucy Rist (SSC) joined at 13.00
Charlotte Wasilewski (UW Research Funding Officer) 12.30
Apologies: Simon Toots, Sara Rozman, Rikard Hoog
VJ welcomed everyone to meeting and introductions were made to representative from EUSA( MP) and the minute taker from UW A. VJ outlined the focus for the meeting and identified the key aim: which was to establish a plan to Implement the research programme; and the structure and timeline for the educational resource Waiting for sign-off from Brussels for the money; An update on the state of the transfer of contract (Project Coordinator) from AUAS to UW was given – awaiting Final Grant Agreement and for funds to be transferred.
Agenda Item 1 Minutes from previous meeting
Agreed – no amendments
Agenda Item 3 :
Matters Arising and Actions from previous meeting. All actions which had been completed were identified
1-1.3 – were identified to be addressed later in the Agenda in relation to structure of MOOC
2 Boiler plate and guide for Handbook have been sent to VJ by Rikard Hoog(RH)
Action: VJ to circulate to all partners
3-3.4 Creation of logo and Website – discussion about timescale and expertise
Action: Investigate use of professionals to develop and design the website.
Action:UW Media Lab for digital creation; try and get a quote from them for the branding (Logo and website) webpage etc.
Action 2: Discuss with the Finance Team whether the whole budget allowance for Zagreb will be transferred to them or whether they will claim receipts.
1 VJ identified that the Partnership Agreement still had to be finalised but as soon as Grant Agreement had been finalised then all agreements would need to be signed in advance of next meeting
Action: Grant Agreement and Partnership Agreement to be circulated (One Drive) and Partnership Agreements signed and returned by each partner within the time scale set by Project Coordinator
2 Timesheet timescales – expected completion dates to be were identified as quarterly returns from each partner to UW.
3 Electronic timesheets now available on the GETZ OneDrive
1 The Project Management funding of £9,000 euros would be given to partners(see Project Description) to manage as soon as finds were available
2- Adjusted budget; AUSA still have budget and work allocation to be resolved UW are working on this currently and will contact AUAS to make necessary changes so they reflect HR workload.
Action CW (UW) to contact and liaise directly with HR (AUSA)
2- AP (COC) the majority have agreed on 20th of November. AP has sent a proposal of the concept of the seminar; it would be good to finalise that by the end of June, so they can send invitations to official speaker; they need to agree on who we are going to invite. Potential guests suggested: a Government representative, the President from the Commission for Women from the European Committee;
Budget needs to be established it will come out to at least £1000 per person. It was decide to discuss further under agenda item 7
11GR still waiting – Waiting for contact list to be completed
14- Not confirmed yet
1 final Grant Agreement has still not be sent by EACEA for sign off, but it is imminent. Action: Grant Agreement will be put on the OneDrive once received
Agenda item 4:
Research Proposal, Ethics and Study/Publication Plan
Ethics – HS informed meeting that she had further developed a plan from last meeting and discussed all the possibilities. Second Paper is mandatory the other ones are optional. HS advised there were some general principles to establish in relation to publications. It was decided that each university has to have at least one publication. There are four major papers; presented on Publication Paper. It was decided after much discussion that VUB would lead papers 1 and 2, UW paper 3, Molde Paper 4. AUAS would be involved in identified papers but would not lead at this stage. VUB would lead Paper 1 due to necessary speed in which Ethical Approval could be granted.
VJ reiterated what ID and HS had proposed namely that a Principles of Authorship was established and a document/record of this was produced which was based on:
The lead on project would be named as first author the last author would be the other most significant contributor to the study. First project VUB as leaders and AUS, UW and Molde will be authors as they will conduct focus groups.
Action Point- Draw up a Publication protocol which identifies a basic principle of authorship; first and last author have the greatest input; but we have a rotation.
Action Point- Include AUS.
CW confirmed that each country would need to produce the Ethical Consent documents for the study they lead. Each country participating in data gathering would need to gain Informed Consent form participants
HS agreed that the 1st Project will be a collaborative project with UW; VUB to complete Ethics proposal and the UW to lead literature review
AP suggested involving students from Croatia or Sweden? It might be a case of involving these students informally; might be able to present these findings in Zagreb.
After discussion it was decided on the following:
A general survey and then a focus group with the universities involved (each university does a survey and the other 4 universities conduct a focus group). A qualitative methodology, semi-structured questions to be embedded a topic guide. A thematic analysis will be conducted, each university will be responsible of the transcription. The preliminary results could perhaps be ready for the conference in November. The literature review needs to be conducted over the next 2/3 months and identify the themes that we aim to explore in the data collection phase. All can contribute to the literature review (UW). Time pressure has been identified.
Aim for data collection at the beginning of October; pilot at the end of September. VJ could take charge of the pilot at UW.
VJ: UW to conduct a literature review by second week of September and then formulate the survey. Discuss around the literature review papers; all papers to be uploaded to One Drive PDF.
HS and ID identified that that the survey is a priority; it needs to be analysed by November for the conference.
There was discussion around the literature review papers that all countries in the partnership needed to be reflected in the literature review therefore that all partners should do a literature search and upload papers to One Drive PDF with a summary sheet that contextualises the main themes and findings
Action: All partners to do a national search and upload papers to OneDrive complete with summary sheet which will formulated and made available by VJ
ID requested UK, Norway and Amsterdam share the informed consent with Inge and Hebe so they can produce a document that is consistent for all partners (VUB).
Action: all partners to send their institution/organisations Informed Consent documents to VUB
Action: Produce document which outlines AP reminded that we needed to include papers from EIGE in the literature review.
Participants and Data collection – GR stated that in relation to compensation to be none would be offered. It was discuss whether the student committee should be a pilot but dismissed as by time they had been established the initial data would have been collected.
Participant criteria: Decide on the profile of the participants e.g. Sports student, first year; first year students (18/19 year olds) at UG level involved in sport or studying sport .
AP believed that she would have access to students in local universities to involve them in this project and it was suggested that this needed to be explored with EUSA and SSC as well
Sampling Process – students in first year classes to be invited to participate – Gatekeeper would be lecturer or Course Leader. VJ: suggested that they we could invite them to be part of the student committee.
Action: Ask each of the university partners to target first year students; send the survey to the other partners who can identify participants themselves. Every university should have between 3-5 students to form a student committee. Pilot the questionnaire with other student groups (second or third year). Explore the expectations from the students committee. Action point -8.5 from meeting 1
Agenda Item 5 and 6 –
Structure of GETZ Toolkit units – identification of partner’s contribution to content with a timescale
Action 1.1. 1.2 1.3 8.1 and 8.6
VJ explained that the idea is that all partners will be involved in creating content for 6 modules/units but the WP will be led by UW. Therefore it is important to decide on decide on the structure for the units- the guidelines from the examples in Project Description were decided as a good model to follow. VJ stated that what we can do pre initial study is to establish a common framework for the MOOC and individual modules so we can decide on the context/draft content. AP suggested that depending on the progress, we can use the conference to get content for the MOOC. Perhaps a focus group to look at the draft of the online platform. Perhaps utilise influential people for interviews.
An example of what we could start to work on would be creating country specific case studies which align to the content of each module e.g. case studies from each university. Each module should have different case studies- Each unit will have one case study. It will be good for students to see what happens in countries that they do not generally look at. Case study: e.g. an example of something that’s happened in a different country. There was a discussion about whether we can change the units around and reframe them. Leadership and Management will need to be brought in into the units; bring into specific terms such as Participation, Culture and Society. Each participant in the MOOC will have to complete 6 modules to gain a certificate; A discussion around whether the last 2 units will have separate assessment for those students who wish to get ECTS credits and therefore they will get assessed by the university resulted in a no – all should be available to whoever would like to take them – if universities want to give ECTS credits they can as part of their courses. VJ suggested in line with the previous agenda item that the Timeline for the MOOC draft to be created should aim to be the beginning of November. LR (SSC) suggested preparing material now particularly using work from some ongoing relevant projects (she referred to the one she was working on) GR stated that that was a good idea but we need to make sure that the research we are conducting pre MOOC will inform the content so anything we prepare now may or may not be used depending on outcome of the research
VJ: Implementation and Monitoring.
It has to be presented in 2020 September therefore it has to be written up before that so an aim for the beginning of February 2019 for Implementation of MOOC was decided. This will coincide with all universities Semester 2 and allow for a follow up and refinements to be made for the next cohort in September. The Intention is for the universities is to take the flexible units and drop them into appropriate modules (for first year students). For sports organisations the idea is that the platform is accessible to coaches etc. Therefore, we need to ensure that we have clarity and explicit information available to those outside university settings about how they may use it. Leave marketing for each individual country.
Monitoring: Monitoring in Canvas it’s easy to collate data from; it will be easy to recognise their origins as the system is not anonymous.
VJ stated that UW will be setting the platform (MOOC) up and we will be drawing on to Rikard’s ideas. Participants from universities college’s sports clubs can sign up, but only certain individuals will be able to monitor the platform and the progress (appointed individuals from each Institution). How you use the modules s as a lecturer is up to you; how COC and the SSC are up to them. It was decided that on completion of all 6 units they get a certificate. Evaluation and self-assessment/electronic assessment for successful completion of each topic and unit will need to be embedded in the content. SS made the point that ‘Is it a good learning if we ask them to deliver something and not provide them with any feedback? ‘Therefore building assessment and feedback into the MOOC is essential. AP explained that COC has developed gender equality online education resources. VJ made the point that the idea is to make it self-sufficient. Each institution will choose their own mechanism of how they deliver it. Monitoring will be easy in terms of timescale.
Action AP to ask COC to provide her with some information.
AP asked if there is a budget allocation for Canvas. The creation of the website- exceptional causes will have to cover external people, staff will not be allowed.
Action: to clarify any financial element of using canvas
Action: Investigate the awarding system for people who are not in the university. -4 universities, 3 sports associations, how we can make it a joint platform- using Canvas.
Action Discuss how we can join certificates at the end and how to build a marking system (see Nicky Smithson UW)
In response to the following actions from meeting 1 the following was decided:
Practical and academic. Either/ or task. Try and build competence to be able to see what the problem is. Get the activity into the content (reflections). Evaluation form after each unit/module. One after each unit and one at the end.
Additional resources- Within the universities or a resource pack for coaches. Or it could be an outcome of the project. Develop it at the second half of the project; ask the specific sports federations about advice and for feedback on MOOC
8.1 Youth Pass from Erasmus. The badge is a certificate that we decided to award. We must encourage people to complete all the modules. Engage the participants on a bigger scale.
Action: establish exactly how the Youth Pass could be utilised.
AP suggested that we would definitely add another case study to governance. Maybe also use resources from different projects and put some context to it.
Action: Each partner will have to upload resources onto the One drive to create the units. Populate the folders with ideas and resources. Contextualisation of the resources in order to shape the units.
A template will be created to put the resources into the context and put on One Drive.
Zagreb Conference 10th of November 2018:
Title of the event “GETZ Gender and Sport Governance Seminar”
Venue: Hotel Zagreb
Participants: Sports Organizations, Key Stakeholders, NOC members
Drafts of the timetable: A lot of panel discussions (event description in the word document- draft programme).
Alma will invite as many people and representatives as possible.
Erasmus+ Steering Group Meeting 1
Date & Time
14/05/2018 9:00 am - 14/05/2018 5:00 pm
Vrije Universiteit Brussel
Boulevard de la Plaine 2,
Meeting Minutes: Erasmus+ Steering Group Meeting 1
Minutes from Meeting 1
Welcome from VJ (UW) to all those present and introductions were made around the room. Thanks go to HR for the “GETZ to know each other” quote!
VJ (UW) outlined the agenda for day 1 meeting with agreement from the room to focus on agreed planned outcomes focusing on the operational outcomes. It was agreed that the main outcomes that everyone wanted to achieve were based on:
Financial detail needing to be understood
Expectations and perceptions of each work package should be considered and agreed
Timeline and responsibilities should be discussed and actions decided
VJ (UW) highlighted and discussed the clear vision of the GETZ project to ensure that everyone present at the meeting was in agreement of the vision of the GETZ project.
In summary we are aiming to produce a on line (MOOC) resource which can be used by sports clubs, coach educators , universities and colleges to educate, raise awareness Generation Z in relation to gender equity in sports and sports leadership – in essence to ‘develop, deliver and evaluate an innovative educational resource specifically designed to educate Generation Z on the issues relating to gender equality and equal opportunities in sport’ . The aim is to produce 6 units/module of work which total 28 hours of taught and28 hours of directed study which will lead to 1 ECTS credit if all 6 are completed. The 1-4 modules have the same ’levelness, can be taken in any order and have evaluation built in. If successfully completed they lead to a ..badge? The Units 5 and 6 would be delivered at university level and would involve some level of assessment. The units needed to be devised in such a way that they become accessible and engaging to a variety of cohorts – learning activities can be differentiated to accomplish this. They will also need to reflect the different cultures and countries engaged in this project.
A discussion was made around canvas.net and the requirements of the entire project which is currently 6 units. There were points made by ST regarding timelines for the MOOC being available to participants and it was agreed as an action that a proposed timeline should be suggested by VJ (UW) (WP1) at the next meeting. (ACTION)
There was a longer discussion around the certification after completing the course and the awarding of 1 ECTS point. Questions asked were around – what happens when it finishes? Do we actually want to award the point? Can it be given to all participants? Do we award these differently and separately? It was agreed that there would be a certificate and badge available to those participants who are not attached to a University and that Universities could choose to either award the ECTS point or provide a certificate and badge.
The conversation continued as to what order the units would be delivered and also whether all participants need to complete all the units. It was decided that once the pre-tool kit research has been completed the unit titles would be agreed. It was also agreed from all partners that it is likely that only 4 units would be available to the non-university participants in the first instance as part of the proposal was to ensure that 2 units had a greater academic emphasis than the other 4. It was agreed that if there were participants from non-university setting wished to complete the entire GETZ course then they could sign up for the additional units.
It was also agreed that the content of the entire MOOC would be 28 hours directed study and 28 hours of content on the MOOC itself. This therefore is approximately 9 hours per unit. It was also agreed that there would be flexibility in the delivery between practical and theoretical. (ACTION)
VJ (UW) highlighted that she would be the main contact with the project officer and therefore if any areas need clarification all questions should be directed to VJ in the first instance. There is also a porthole which all information related to GETZ must be made available so that the project can be read after the project is completed in December 2020. VJ (UW) confirmed that tis forms part of WP1 within her role as project manager.
Branding of GETZ project
We confirmed that the twitter handle will be set up @getzproject to update on developments within the project using the #getzproject. (ACTION)
RH (SSC) and ST (SSC) confirmed that a guidebook will be proposed as part of WP6 and that he would send a ‘boiler plate’ for the guidebook and pull-up banner to VJ by email. (ACTION)
Various other platforms will also be set-up to ensure clear communication for highlighting the EUSport/EUCommission/Erasmus+ brand but also the Getz project itself.
It was agreed that UW as part of WP1 should create a logo for the Getz project as soon as possible (ACTION) – proposals will be available by the next meeting.
It was also agreed that a website needs to be set up as soon as possible. (ACTION) This is to be hosted by UW as part of WP1/WP2 as the UW are responsible for the hosting of the toolkit for the life of the project and for a further 5 years after completion.
Partner Agreement and timesheets
V (UW)J handed out the partner agreement (1 copy per partner) in hard copy for reading and comment. All partners were requested to feedback on various elements of the agreement as soon as possible to ensure that there is full agreements and completed signature by the next meeting. (ACTION)
VJ (UW) also handed out a copy of a proposed timesheet for all those involved in the project to complete as part of the intellectual outputs. Currently this is a yearly timesheet – VJ (UW) to update on the timescales (ACTION). GR suggested that electronic versions of these are made available on a One Drive so they are always available to VJ (UW). AP (COC) to provide VJ (UW) with the link to an electronic version (ACTION)
The discussions at this point were broad and it was agreed that greater focus will be given to finance within day 2 of meeting as clear links to work packages. However it was agreed that VJ was to update on how each of the partners were to be paid and VJ is to send this out for agreement as soon as possible. (ACTION)
HR requested that the latest agreement with regards to the adjusted budget for AUSA be sent through as soon as possible (ACTION)
It was confirmed that the date for our next meeting would be on Monday 18th June to be held at UW. It was decided that the best option would be to travel on Sunday 17th for early start and finish earlier to ensure safe and convenient travel on the evening of the 18th June 2018. VJ to confirm by email to everyone hotel details and location and time of meeting. (ACTION)
It was also discussed that the following meeting in Croatia should be moved to an earlier time (possibly Oct/Nov 2018) to ensure that we get back on schedule. It was confirmed that we would discuss further on day 2 of the meeting. (ACTION)
Photos were taken – all photos to be uploaded to one drive account so everyone has access. (ACTION)
Representation from all partners except AUAS (apologies sent). Vanessa welcomed everyone to day 2 of GETZ meeting and started with focusing on what the main focus of the meeting would be:
Research and toolkit
VJ (UW) suggested that we review Section F.8 Overview of all activities to ensure that we agree on expectations and perceptions of the work packages. It was agreed that the units are to be available to participants so they can gain a ‘badge’ – to be discussed further at the next meeting. (ACTION)
As part of the construction of WP2 – VJ/GR (UW) & ID/HS (VUB) agree that as part of WP4 there will be a questionnaire to be delivered via an online platform to collect data on areas for inclusion within the toolkit. GR (UW) also suggested that as part of that questionnaire there should be also an enquiry into areas of communication which could support the communication plan within WP6 of which RH/ST (SSC) agreed would be helpful. (ACTION)
AP (COC) and RH (SSC) suggested that they would be happy to send out the questionnaire to partner universities for students to complete as part of the initial research. (ACTION)
It was highlighted about how key the use of video would be in this project and that across all communication platforms including unit content and events video would be key. Therefore VJ to investigate how UW can support the editing and adding of subtitles for each of those videos. (ACTION)
GR (UW) highlighted the use of student committees from each of the partners throughout each of the work packages but specifically in the pilot work in WP2 and WP6. GR (UW) suggested to all partners that it may be of use of have the same student committee for all elements throughout the project therefore providing a constant measure and consistency across the life of the project. It would also be students from this group that would attend the various conferences/events throughout the life of the project. A proposal of how those students are to be recruited has yet to be decided and will be discussed at the next meeting. (ACTION)
WP3 – SS (Molde) is happy with the content and management of the WP and a template for the operational measurement of monitoring and reporting from the toolkit will be constructed (Action) VJ (UW) highlighted at this point that where possible the monitoring system will be created as part of the MOOC (ACTION)
WP4 – ID & HS (VUB) are happy with WP4 – highlighted the need for clarification on WP4.2 – VJ confirmed that they (VUB) would be doing the data analysis as part of WP4 not UW as part of WP2.
WP5 – VJ (UW) confirmed all is fine and agreed.
WP6 – A draft of the communication plan will be made available before the next meeting (ACTION). RH (SSC) also will create a facebook account to be led by SSC as the communication lead. (ACTION)
WP6 – confirmation that a sustainability plan would need to include considerations for the 5 years after completion of the project in Dec 2020. (ACTION)
Discussion took place over the European Voluntary Scheme and the creation of an intern between SSC and AUSA. This is ongoing and communication will continue between ST (SSC) & HR (AUSA). GR (UW) highlighted that UW has a work year abroad scheme details are to be sent once Erasmus funding arrangement are confirmed for after 2018/2019. (ACTION)
RH (SSC) requested that a list be made available of media and twitter handles to increase the coverage of GETZ once it is up and running. (ACTION)
GR (UW) is to create a One Drive account to be shared so everyone can share information and therefore (hopefully) less email attachments. (ACTION)
3 – this meeting as discussed at the end of day 1 will move to an earlier time due to the projects unavoidable delay in starting. Therefore instead of Feb 2019 in Croatia – it is hopeful that the event and meeting can be rearranged for October/November 2018.
4 – EUSA conference – VJ to be invited to speak about the GETZ project at this event in Serbia (Action) As well as an SSC project member Lucy Rist . (ACTION)
5 – It was highlighted by ST (SSC) that this steering committee may move location to Stockholm but this is to be confirmed but wanted to raise it for the minutes and for the project member’s attention. (ACTION)
6 – It was highlighted that the date of the student conference and meeting for the steering committee is to change to 5th and 6th March 2020. (ACTION)
7 – It is likely that the GETZ Inaugural conference will be moved to UW as the project lead has moved from AUSA.
Finance and Budget
ST (SSC) as he was involved in the creation of the budget explained and clarified the confirmed budget.
Each partner has to update the ‘intellectual outputs’ section of the budget with the correct names of those involved in the project prior to the next meeting. (Action) The budget sheet is to be made available on One Drive (ACTION) and ST (SSC) will create a summary table once this has been completed and make it available to everyone on One Drive (ACTION).
There was a lengthy discussion around the various elements of the budget and it was decided that the following would need to be actioned:
The grant agreement needs to be finalised as soon as possible with the Project Officer through VJ as project lead. (ACTION)
Exceptional Costs budget would be held with UW(ACTION)
Clarification on whether partners can find external funding to support the project (ACTION)
VJ (UW) to meet with finance team to create final options for funding arrangements (ACTION)
All these point are to be actioned prior to the next meeting
Research and toolkit
It was discussed that one of the main areas to meet and discuss at the next proposed meeting would be on research and the design of the toolkit. HS (VUB) and ID (VUB) are to provide an ethics draft for the next meeting. (ACTION 8.2)
GR (UW) highlighted a number of areas that could be possible research and publications throughout the life of the project and following the performance and impact of the platform between Jan 2021 and Dec 2025. HS (VUB) requested that the list be emailed so that a publication plan can be proposed at the next meeting (ACTION)
It was highlighted that the next meeting will also provide a timelines for the MOOC to run ‘live’, pilot timings, a start and finish date to ensure rigorous evaluation and reporting. (ACTION 1.1)
It was confirmed that the next meeting will take place on Monday 18th June at the University of Worcester. VJ (UW) to send details to ensure that travel and accommodation arrangements can be made as soon as possible. (ACTION)
Any other business
Contact numbers were collected and will be made available on the One Drive (ACTION)
All action points confirmed and agreed on timelines